(45) Oswald lied about owning a rifle, and about owning the Mannlicher-Carcano specifically.
You *first* must show that he actually owned a rifle before claiming
that he lied about owning one. The evidence for his ownership has been
shown by researchers to be far less impressive than the Warren
Commission made it out to be.
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 9:38:36?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
(45) Oswald lied about owning a rifle, and about owning the
Mannlicher-Carcano specifically.
You *first* must show that he actually owned a rifle before claiming
that he lied about owning one. The evidence for his ownership has been
shown by researchers to be far less impressive than the Warren
Commission made it out to be.
What evidence would you accept that he owned the rifle?
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 11:15:26?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 08:21:38 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 9:38:36?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
(45) Oswald lied about owning a rifle, and about owning the
Mannlicher-Carcano specifically.
You *first* must show that he actually owned a rifle before claiming
that he lied about owning one. The evidence for his ownership has been >>>> shown by researchers to be far less impressive than the Warren
Commission made it out to be.
What evidence would you accept that he owned the rifle?
The same thing a jury would.
How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted...
But not your speculation. CITE the
evidence, let's look at it.
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 08:21:38 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 9:38:36?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
(45) Oswald lied about owning a rifle, and about owning the
Mannlicher-Carcano specifically.
You *first* must show that he actually owned a rifle before claiming
that he lied about owning one. The evidence for his ownership has been
shown by researchers to be far less impressive than the Warren
Commission made it out to be.
What evidence would you accept that he owned the rifle?
The same thing a jury would.
evidence, let's look at it.
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 08:21:38 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 9:38:36?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
(45) Oswald lied about owning a rifle, and about owning the
Mannlicher-Carcano specifically.
You *first* must show that he actually owned a rifle before claiming
that he lied about owning one. The evidence for his ownership has been
shown by researchers to be far less impressive than the Warren
Commission made it out to be.
What evidence would you accept that he owned the rifle?The same thing a jury would.
But not your speculation. CITE the
evidence, let's look at it.
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:27:30 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 11:15:26?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 08:21:38 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 9:38:36?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
(45) Oswald lied about owning a rifle, and about owning the
Mannlicher-Carcano specifically.
You *first* must show that he actually owned a rifle before claiming >>>> that he lied about owning one. The evidence for his ownership has been >>>> shown by researchers to be far less impressive than the Warren
Commission made it out to be.
What evidence would you accept that he owned the rifle?
The same thing a jury would.
How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted...
Where did I say this?
And Chuckles simply ran away...But not your speculation. CITE the
evidence, let's look at it.
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 11:29:09 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:27:30 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 11:15:26?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 08:21:38 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 9:38:36?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
(45) Oswald lied about owning a rifle, and about owning the
Mannlicher-Carcano specifically.
You *first* must show that he actually owned a rifle before claiming >>>> that he lied about owning one. The evidence for his ownership has been
shown by researchers to be far less impressive than the Warren
Commission made it out to be.
What evidence would you accept that he owned the rifle?
The same thing a jury would.
How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted...
Where did I say this?You didn't, stupid. Try and follow. I asked you a question regarding how you know a jury wouldn't have accepted the evidence developed by the DPD, FBI, etc.?
Are you just molesting your own father again?
And Chuckles simply ran away...But not your speculation. CITE the
evidence, let's look at it.
How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted the evidence developed by the DPD, FBI, etc.?
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 11:29:09?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:27:30 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 11:15:26?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 08:21:38 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 9:38:36?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
(45) Oswald lied about owning a rifle, and about owning the
Mannlicher-Carcano specifically.
You *first* must show that he actually owned a rifle before claiming >>>>>> that he lied about owning one. The evidence for his ownership has been >>>>>> shown by researchers to be far less impressive than the Warren
Commission made it out to be.
What evidence would you accept that he owned the rifle?
The same thing a jury would.
How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted...
Where did I say this?
You didn't, stupid.
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:27:32 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted the evidence developed by the DPD, FBI, etc.?Another stupid question from another one of our resident MENSA members.
A jury could not have accepted evidence that would not be allowed at trial.
For example, a jury would have NEVER heard any evidence from Marina Oswald. That includes anything she would have said about:
The rifle
The handgun
The "grayish-tan" jacket
The "backyard" photographs
The whole Walker shooting would have been inadmissable. The Commission knew that.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/mosk.jpg
Oswald's Constitutional Rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments were violated by police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
That alone would have resulted in anything Oswald said during his interrogation inadmissbile as evidence.
Chief Curry admitted that Oswald had requested a lawyer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCuz2vl0G2Y
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:27:32 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted the evidence developed by the DPD, FBI, etc.?Another stupid question from another one of our resident MENSA members.
A jury could not have accepted evidence that would not be allowed at trial.
For example, a jury would have NEVER heard any evidence from Marina Oswald. That includes anything she would have said about:
The rifle
The handgun
The "grayish-tan" jacket
The "backyard" photographs
The whole Walker shooting would have been inadmissable. The Commission knew that.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/mosk.jpg
Oswald's Constitutional Rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments were violated by police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
That alone would have resulted in anything Oswald said during his interrogation inadmissbile as evidence.
Chief Curry admitted that Oswald had requested a lawyer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCuz2vl0G2Y
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 2:31:23?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:27:32?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted the evidence developed by the DPD, FBI, etc.?Another stupid question from another one of our resident MENSA members.
A jury could not have accepted evidence that would not be allowed at trial. >>
For example, a jury would have NEVER heard any evidence from Marina Oswald. >> That includes anything she would have said about:
The rifle
The handgun
The "grayish-tan" jacket
The "backyard" photographs
The whole Walker shooting would have been inadmissable. The Commission knew that.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/mosk.jpg
Oswald's Constitutional Rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments were violated by police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
That alone would have resulted in anything Oswald said during his interrogation inadmissbile as evidence.
Chief Curry admitted that Oswald had requested a lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCuz2vl0G2Y
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 3:31:23 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:27:32 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted the evidence developed by the DPD, FBI, etc.?Another stupid question from another one of our resident MENSA members.
A jury could not have accepted evidence that would not be allowed at trial.
For example, a jury would have NEVER heard any evidence from Marina Oswald.
That includes anything she would have said about:
The rifle
The handgun
The "grayish-tan" jacket
The "backyard" photographs
The whole Walker shooting would have been inadmissable. The Commission knew that.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/mosk.jpg
Oswald's Constitutional Rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments were violated by police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
That alone would have resulted in anything Oswald said during his interrogation inadmissbile as evidence.Gil continues to make excuses to dismiss all the evidence we have that Oswald killed JFK.
Chief Curry admitted that Oswald had requested a lawyer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCuz2vl0G2Y
What a jury would have heard is irrelevant since Oswald was never put on trial. Someone
interested in knowing whether Oswald did the deed would consider all available information.
History doesn't let people off on technicalities. Gil seems to have no interest in knowing
whether Oswald actually pulled the trigger in the murders of two men. That is the only thing
that matters now. It is impossible to construct a plausible scenario for Oswald's innocence
that takes into account all known facts. That is why Gil has never attempted to do so.
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 07:38:33 -0700, Ben Holmes <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
(45) Oswald lied about owning a rifle, and about owning the >Mannlicher-Carcano specifically.
You *first* must show that he actually owned a rifle before claimingIsn't it amusing that we've thus far seen 6 replies by 3 believers,
that he lied about owning one. The evidence for his ownership has been >shown by researchers to be far less impressive than the Warren
Commission made it out to be.
and not **ONE** of them has simply cited the evidence that Oswald
owned a rifle???
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what this fact means...
(45) Oswald lied about owning a rifle, and about owning the >Mannlicher-Carcano specifically.
You *first* must show that he actually owned a rifle before claiming
that he lied about owning one. The evidence for his ownership has been
shown by researchers to be far less impressive than the Warren
Commission made it out to be.
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:21:57 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 2:31:23?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:Logical fallacies deleted.
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:27:32?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted the evidence developed by the DPD, FBI, etc.?Another stupid question from another one of our resident MENSA members. >>
A jury could not have accepted evidence that would not be allowed at trial.
For example, a jury would have NEVER heard any evidence from Marina Oswald.
That includes anything she would have said about:
The rifle
The handgun
The "grayish-tan" jacket
The "backyard" photographs
The whole Walker shooting would have been inadmissable. The Commission knew that.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/mosk.jpg
Oswald's Constitutional Rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments were violated by police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
That alone would have resulted in anything Oswald said during his interrogation inadmissbile as evidence.
Chief Curry admitted that Oswald had requested a lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCuz2vl0G2Y
If you're terrified of the points Gil raises, just say so.
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 4:24:54?PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 3:31:23?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:27:32?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:Gil continues to make excuses to dismiss all the evidence we have that Oswald killed JFK.
How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted the evidence developed by the DPD, FBI, etc.?Another stupid question from another one of our resident MENSA members.
A jury could not have accepted evidence that would not be allowed at trial. >>>
For example, a jury would have NEVER heard any evidence from Marina Oswald. >>> That includes anything she would have said about:
The rifle
The handgun
The "grayish-tan" jacket
The "backyard" photographs
The whole Walker shooting would have been inadmissable. The Commission knew that.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/mosk.jpg
Oswald's Constitutional Rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments were violated by police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
That alone would have resulted in anything Oswald said during his interrogation inadmissbile as evidence.
Chief Curry admitted that Oswald had requested a lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCuz2vl0G2Y
What a jury would have heard is irrelevant since Oswald was never put on trial. Someone
interested in knowing whether Oswald did the deed would consider all available information.
History doesn't let people off on technicalities. Gil seems to have no interest in knowing
whether Oswald actually pulled the trigger in the murders of two men. That is the only thing
that matters now. It is impossible to construct a plausible scenario for Oswald's innocence
that takes into account all known facts. That is why Gil has never attempted to do so.
They live in some weird fantasy universe where prints, fiber
evidence, receipts, shipping records, ballistic evidence, eyewitness accounts, etc. is all magically disallowed.
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 3:31:23?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:27:32?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted the evidence developed by the DPD, FBI, etc.?Another stupid question from another one of our resident MENSA members.
A jury could not have accepted evidence that would not be allowed at trial. >>
For example, a jury would have NEVER heard any evidence from Marina Oswald. >> That includes anything she would have said about:
The rifle
The handgun
The "grayish-tan" jacket
The "backyard" photographs
The whole Walker shooting would have been inadmissable. The Commission knew that.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/mosk.jpg
Oswald's Constitutional Rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments were violated by police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
That alone would have resulted in anything Oswald said during his interrogation inadmissbile as evidence.
Chief Curry admitted that Oswald had requested a lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCuz2vl0G2Y
Gil continues ...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:39:21 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 4:24:54?PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 3:31:23?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:27:32?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:Gil continues to make excuses to dismiss all the evidence we have that Oswald killed JFK.
How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted the evidence developed by the DPD, FBI, etc.?Another stupid question from another one of our resident MENSA members. >>>
A jury could not have accepted evidence that would not be allowed at trial.
For example, a jury would have NEVER heard any evidence from Marina Oswald.
That includes anything she would have said about:
The rifle
The handgun
The "grayish-tan" jacket
The "backyard" photographs
The whole Walker shooting would have been inadmissable. The Commission knew that.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/mosk.jpg
Oswald's Constitutional Rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments were violated by police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
That alone would have resulted in anything Oswald said during his interrogation inadmissbile as evidence.
Chief Curry admitted that Oswald had requested a lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCuz2vl0G2Y
What a jury would have heard is irrelevant since Oswald was never put on trial. Someone
interested in knowing whether Oswald did the deed would consider all available information.
History doesn't let people off on technicalities. Gil seems to have no interest in knowing
whether Oswald actually pulled the trigger in the murders of two men. That is the only thing
that matters now. It is impossible to construct a plausible scenario for Oswald's innocence
that takes into account all known facts. That is why Gil has never attempted to do so.
They live in some weird fantasy universe where prints, fiber
evidence, receipts, shipping records, ballistic evidence, eyewitness accounts, etc. is all magically disallowed.
And you live in a land where it's not possble to CITE this alleged
evidence.
You can't prove water wet with the evidence you're citing...
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:36:16 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:21:57 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 2:31:23?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:Logical fallacies deleted.
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:27:32?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: >>> How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted the evidence developed by the DPD, FBI, etc.?
Another stupid question from another one of our resident MENSA members. >>
A jury could not have accepted evidence that would not be allowed at trial.
For example, a jury would have NEVER heard any evidence from Marina Oswald.
That includes anything she would have said about:
The rifle
The handgun
The "grayish-tan" jacket
The "backyard" photographs
The whole Walker shooting would have been inadmissable. The Commission knew that.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/mosk.jpg
Oswald's Constitutional Rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments were violated by police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
That alone would have resulted in anything Oswald said during his interrogation inadmissbile as evidence.
Chief Curry admitted that Oswald had requested a lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCuz2vl0G2Y
If you're terrified of the points Gil raises, just say so."The Dunning-Kruger effect is the phenomenon by which those least competent in a certain subject area overestimate their skills the most."
Can anyone imagine Gil in a court of law against the accomplished, legally trained people who served on the Warren Commission? It would be like a infant versus a silverback gorilla.
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 4:47:16?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:39:21 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 4:24:54?PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 3:31:23?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:27:32?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: >>>>>> How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted the evidence developed by the DPD, FBI, etc.?Gil continues to make excuses to dismiss all the evidence we have that Oswald killed JFK.
Another stupid question from another one of our resident MENSA members. >>>>>
A jury could not have accepted evidence that would not be allowed at trial.
For example, a jury would have NEVER heard any evidence from Marina Oswald.
That includes anything she would have said about:
The rifle
The handgun
The "grayish-tan" jacket
The "backyard" photographs
The whole Walker shooting would have been inadmissable. The Commission knew that.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/mosk.jpg
Oswald's Constitutional Rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments were violated by police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
That alone would have resulted in anything Oswald said during his interrogation inadmissbile as evidence.
Chief Curry admitted that Oswald had requested a lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCuz2vl0G2Y
What a jury would have heard is irrelevant since Oswald was never put on trial. Someone
interested in knowing whether Oswald did the deed would consider all available information.
History doesn't let people off on technicalities. Gil seems to have no interest in knowing
whether Oswald actually pulled the trigger in the murders of two men. That is the only thing
that matters now. It is impossible to construct a plausible scenario for Oswald's innocence
that takes into account all known facts. That is why Gil has never attempted to do so.
They live in some weird fantasy universe where prints, fiber
evidence, receipts, shipping records, ballistic evidence, eyewitness
accounts, etc. is all magically disallowed.
And you live in a land where it's not possble to CITE this alleged
evidence.
Yawn. It's all been cite for, it's all been endlessly argued over, little fella.
You can't prove water wet with the evidence you're citing...
Tell us what happened that day, Ben. Be specific.
...On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:36:16?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:21:57 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 2:31:23?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:Logical fallacies deleted.
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:27:32?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: >>>>>> How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted the evidence developed by the DPD, FBI, etc.?
Another stupid question from another one of our resident MENSA members. >>>>>
A jury could not have accepted evidence that would not be allowed at trial.
For example, a jury would have NEVER heard any evidence from Marina Oswald.
That includes anything she would have said about:
The rifle
The handgun
The "grayish-tan" jacket
The "backyard" photographs
The whole Walker shooting would have been inadmissable. The Commission knew that.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/mosk.jpg
Oswald's Constitutional Rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments were violated by police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
That alone would have resulted in anything Oswald said during his interrogation inadmissbile as evidence.
Chief Curry admitted that Oswald had requested a lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCuz2vl0G2Y
If you're terrified of the points Gil raises, just say so.
It would be rather amusing to see Gil ...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:08:02 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 4:47:16?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:39:21 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 4:24:54?PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 3:31:23?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:27:32?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: >>>>>> How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted the evidence developed by the DPD, FBI, etc.?Gil continues to make excuses to dismiss all the evidence we have that Oswald killed JFK.
Another stupid question from another one of our resident MENSA members.
A jury could not have accepted evidence that would not be allowed at trial.
For example, a jury would have NEVER heard any evidence from Marina Oswald.
That includes anything she would have said about:
The rifle
The handgun
The "grayish-tan" jacket
The "backyard" photographs
The whole Walker shooting would have been inadmissable. The Commission knew that.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/mosk.jpg
Oswald's Constitutional Rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments were violated by police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
That alone would have resulted in anything Oswald said during his interrogation inadmissbile as evidence.
Chief Curry admitted that Oswald had requested a lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCuz2vl0G2Y
What a jury would have heard is irrelevant since Oswald was never put on trial. Someone
interested in knowing whether Oswald did the deed would consider all available information.
History doesn't let people off on technicalities. Gil seems to have no interest in knowing
whether Oswald actually pulled the trigger in the murders of two men. That is the only thing
that matters now. It is impossible to construct a plausible scenario for Oswald's innocence
that takes into account all known facts. That is why Gil has never attempted to do so.
They live in some weird fantasy universe where prints, fiber
evidence, receipts, shipping records, ballistic evidence, eyewitness
accounts, etc. is all magically disallowed.
And you live in a land where it's not possble to CITE this alleged
evidence.
Yawn. It's all been cite for, it's all been endlessly argued over, little fella.An unciited empty claim is a lie, according to Chickenshit.
You can't prove water wet with the evidence you're citing...
Tell us what happened that day, Ben. Be specific.Why should I answer your questions when you ABJECTLY REFUSE to answer
mine?
Watch folks, as Chuckles refuses to answer...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:08:02 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 4:47:16?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:39:21 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 4:24:54?PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 3:31:23?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:27:32?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: >>>>>> How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted the evidence developed by the DPD, FBI, etc.?Gil continues to make excuses to dismiss all the evidence we have that Oswald killed JFK.
Another stupid question from another one of our resident MENSA members.
A jury could not have accepted evidence that would not be allowed at trial.
For example, a jury would have NEVER heard any evidence from Marina Oswald.
That includes anything she would have said about:
The rifle
The handgun
The "grayish-tan" jacket
The "backyard" photographs
The whole Walker shooting would have been inadmissable. The Commission knew that.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/mosk.jpg
Oswald's Constitutional Rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments were violated by police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
That alone would have resulted in anything Oswald said during his interrogation inadmissbile as evidence.
Chief Curry admitted that Oswald had requested a lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCuz2vl0G2Y
What a jury would have heard is irrelevant since Oswald was never put on trial. Someone
interested in knowing whether Oswald did the deed would consider all available information.
History doesn't let people off on technicalities. Gil seems to have no interest in knowing
whether Oswald actually pulled the trigger in the murders of two men. That is the only thing
that matters now. It is impossible to construct a plausible scenario for Oswald's innocence
that takes into account all known facts. That is why Gil has never attempted to do so.
They live in some weird fantasy universe where prints, fiber
evidence, receipts, shipping records, ballistic evidence, eyewitness
accounts, etc. is all magically disallowed.
And you live in a land where it's not possble to CITE this alleged
evidence.
Yawn. It's all been cite for, it's all been endlessly argued over, little fella.
An unciited empty claim is a lie,
You can't prove water wet with the evidence you're citing...
Tell us what happened that day, Ben. Be specific.
Why should I answer your questions
mine?
Watch folks, as Chuckles refuses to answer...
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 6:23:51?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:08:02 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 4:47:16?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:39:21 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 4:24:54?PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 3:31:23?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:27:32?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: >>>>>>>> How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted the evidence developed by the DPD, FBI, etc.?Gil continues to make excuses to dismiss all the evidence we have that Oswald killed JFK.
Another stupid question from another one of our resident MENSA members. >>>>>>>
A jury could not have accepted evidence that would not be allowed at trial.
For example, a jury would have NEVER heard any evidence from Marina Oswald.
That includes anything she would have said about:
The rifle
The handgun
The "grayish-tan" jacket
The "backyard" photographs
The whole Walker shooting would have been inadmissable. The Commission knew that.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/mosk.jpg
Oswald's Constitutional Rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments were violated by police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
That alone would have resulted in anything Oswald said during his interrogation inadmissbile as evidence.
Chief Curry admitted that Oswald had requested a lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCuz2vl0G2Y
What a jury would have heard is irrelevant since Oswald was never put on trial. Someone
interested in knowing whether Oswald did the deed would consider all available information.
History doesn't let people off on technicalities. Gil seems to have no interest in knowing
whether Oswald actually pulled the trigger in the murders of two men. That is the only thing
that matters now. It is impossible to construct a plausible scenario for Oswald's innocence
that takes into account all known facts. That is why Gil has never attempted to do so.
They live in some weird fantasy universe where prints, fiber
evidence, receipts, shipping records, ballistic evidence, eyewitness >>>>> accounts, etc. is all magically disallowed.
And you live in a land where it's not possble to CITE this alleged
evidence.
Yawn. It's all been cite for, it's all been endlessly argued over, little fella.
An unciited empty claim is a lie, according to Chickenshit.
You can't prove water wet with the evidence you're citing...
Tell us what happened that day, Ben. Be specific.
Why should I answer your questions
Because you're claiming a conspiracy killed JFK...
when you ABJECTLY REFUSE to answer mine?
All of your questions have been answered,
Watch folks, as Chuckles refuses to answer...
...to your satisfaction.
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 17:45:41 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 6:23:51?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:08:02 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 4:47:16?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:39:21 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 4:24:54?PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 3:31:23?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:27:32?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: >>>>>>>> How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted the evidence developed by the DPD, FBI, etc.?
Another stupid question from another one of our resident MENSA members.Gil continues to make excuses to dismiss all the evidence we have that Oswald killed JFK.
A jury could not have accepted evidence that would not be allowed at trial.
For example, a jury would have NEVER heard any evidence from Marina Oswald.
That includes anything she would have said about:
The rifle
The handgun
The "grayish-tan" jacket
The "backyard" photographs
The whole Walker shooting would have been inadmissable. The Commission knew that.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/mosk.jpg
Oswald's Constitutional Rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments were violated by police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
That alone would have resulted in anything Oswald said during his interrogation inadmissbile as evidence.
Chief Curry admitted that Oswald had requested a lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCuz2vl0G2Y
What a jury would have heard is irrelevant since Oswald was never put on trial. Someone
interested in knowing whether Oswald did the deed would consider all available information.
History doesn't let people off on technicalities. Gil seems to have no interest in knowing
whether Oswald actually pulled the trigger in the murders of two men. That is the only thing
that matters now. It is impossible to construct a plausible scenario for Oswald's innocence
that takes into account all known facts. That is why Gil has never attempted to do so.
They live in some weird fantasy universe where prints, fiber
evidence, receipts, shipping records, ballistic evidence, eyewitness >>>>> accounts, etc. is all magically disallowed.
And you live in a land where it's not possble to CITE this alleged
evidence.
Yawn. It's all been cite for, it's all been endlessly argued over, little fella.
An unciited empty claim is a lie, according to Chickenshit.
You can't prove water wet with the evidence you're citing...
Tell us what happened that day, Ben. Be specific.
Why should I answer your questions
Because you're claiming a conspiracy killed JFK...
And you're claiming that there was only a sole shooter, and his name
was Oswald.
Why does one claim get to refuse answering any questions about what happened, and the other must answer???
You have the SAME burden I have, Chuckles... your cowardice
nonwithstanding.
when you ABJECTLY REFUSE to answer mine?
All of your questions have been answered,You're lying again, Chuckles.
**CITE** the answer to my question of the WCR lying about Mrs. Tice's testimony.
But you won't... you can't. You're simply lying again. And **YOU**
will be the one who proves it when you refuse to cite.
Watch folks, as Chuckles refuses to answer...
...to your satisfaction.To ***ANY*** honest person's satisfaction.
that.
On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 8:46:54?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 17:45:41 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 6:23:51?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:08:02 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 4:47:16?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:39:21 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 4:24:54?PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote: >>>>>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 3:31:23?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:27:32?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: >>>>>>>>>> How do you know a jury wouldn't have accepted the evidence developed by the DPD, FBI, etc.?
Another stupid question from another one of our resident MENSA members.Gil continues to make excuses to dismiss all the evidence we have that Oswald killed JFK.
A jury could not have accepted evidence that would not be allowed at trial.
For example, a jury would have NEVER heard any evidence from Marina Oswald.
That includes anything she would have said about:
The rifle
The handgun
The "grayish-tan" jacket
The "backyard" photographs
The whole Walker shooting would have been inadmissable. The Commission knew that.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/mosk.jpg
Oswald's Constitutional Rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments were violated by police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSDb1fB7ZI
That alone would have resulted in anything Oswald said during his interrogation inadmissbile as evidence.
Chief Curry admitted that Oswald had requested a lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCuz2vl0G2Y
What a jury would have heard is irrelevant since Oswald was never put on trial. Someone
interested in knowing whether Oswald did the deed would consider all available information.
History doesn't let people off on technicalities. Gil seems to have no interest in knowing
whether Oswald actually pulled the trigger in the murders of two men. That is the only thing
that matters now. It is impossible to construct a plausible scenario for Oswald's innocence
that takes into account all known facts. That is why Gil has never attempted to do so.
They live in some weird fantasy universe where prints, fiber
evidence, receipts, shipping records, ballistic evidence, eyewitness >>>>>>> accounts, etc. is all magically disallowed.
And you live in a land where it's not possble to CITE this alleged >>>>>> evidence.
Yawn. It's all been cite for, it's all been endlessly argued over, little fella.
An unciited empty claim is a lie, according to Chickenshit.
You can't prove water wet with the evidence you're citing...
Tell us what happened that day, Ben. Be specific.
Why should I answer your questions
Because you're claiming a conspiracy killed JFK...
And you're claiming that there was only a sole shooter, and his name
was Oswald.
Not my claim, Ben. It was in all the papers and on television. Did you miss it?
Why does one claim get to refuse answering any questions about what
happened, and the other must answer???
Your questions have been answered, but never to your satisfaction.
You have the SAME burden I have, Chuckles... your cowardice
nonwithstanding.
We do not share a burden. I make no new claims.
The "burden" was carried long, long ago by the DPD, FBI, WC, etc.
You're lying again, Chuckles.when you ABJECTLY REFUSE to answer mine?
All of your questions have been answered,
**CITE** the answer to my question of the WCR lying about Mrs. Tice's
testimony.
My answer is that your hobby point questions are a series of begged questions and other assorted logical fallacies based on subjective inferences.
But you won't... you can't. You're simply lying again. And **YOU**
will be the one who proves it when you refuse to cite.
To ***ANY*** honest person's satisfaction.Watch folks, as Chuckles refuses to answer...
...to your satisfaction.
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:15:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 08:21:38 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 9:38:36?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:The same thing a jury would.
(45) Oswald lied about owning a rifle, and about owning the
Mannlicher-Carcano specifically.
You *first* must show that he actually owned a rifle before claiming
that he lied about owning one. The evidence for his ownership has been >>>> shown by researchers to be far less impressive than the Warren
Commission made it out to be.
What evidence would you accept that he owned the rifle?
That is what there is.
But not your speculation. CITE the
evidence, let's look at it.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 108:51:05 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,607 |
