Von Penis made this claim:

As I've pointed out to this aggregation in the past, the Tippit case
provides us with the best possible COMBINATION of evidence that you
could ever hope to have in which to prove the guilt of the real killer
(which was Lee Harvey Oswald, of course)

But, as Greg Doudna pointed out:

"In not a single instance in the published record—whether in the
Warren Commission report or exhibits or in any other venue—are any of
the four evidence shells Q74, Q75, Q76, and Q77 (supposedly the four
shells ejected from the Tippit killer's revolver found at the scene of
the crime) identified under oath by an officer who originally marked
them, on the basis of identification of his mark, as the shell he
marked."

It seems quite clear that Von Penis doesn't know what evidence one
would hope for in a murder case.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:22:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Von Penis made this claim:

As I've pointed out to this aggregation in the past, the Tippit case provides us with the best possible COMBINATION of evidence that you
could ever hope to have in which to prove the guilt of the real killer (which was Lee Harvey Oswald, of course)

But, as Greg Doudna pointed out:

"In not a single instance in the published record—whether in the
Warren Commission report or exhibits or in any other venue—are any of
the four evidence shells Q74, Q75, Q76, and Q77 (supposedly the four
shells ejected from the Tippit killer's revolver found at the scene of
the crime) identified under oath by an officer who originally marked
them, on the basis of identification of his mark, as the shell he
marked."

BELIN. Sergeant, I will ask you to examine Commission Exhibits Nos. Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, and ask you to state whether or not there appears to be any identification marks on any of these exhibits that appear to show that they were examined or
identified by you?
Mr. BARNES. I placed "B", the best that I could, inside of the hull of Exhibit 74---I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75, as you have them identified.
Mr. BELIN. Now all four of these exhibits appear to be cartridge case hulls, is that correct?
Mr. BARNES. .38 caliber.
Mr. BELIN. .38 caliber pistol?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. They are kind of silver or chrome or grey in color? You can identify it that way?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. How many of these hulls, to the best of your recollection, did you identify out there?
Mr. BARNES. I believe that the patrolman gave me two, and Captain Doughty received the third.
Mr. BELIN. The two that the patrolman gave you were the ones that you put this identification mark on the inside of?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What instrument did you use to place this mark?
Mr. BARNES. I used a diamond point pen.
Mr. BELIN. You put it on Q-74 and Q-75?
Mr. BARNES. It looks like there are others that put their markings in there too.

It seems quite clear that Von Penis doesn't know what evidence one
would hope for in a murder case.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 13:29:52 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:29:54 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:22:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Von Penis made this claim:

As I've pointed out to this aggregation in the past, the Tippit case provides us with the best possible COMBINATION of evidence that you could ever hope to have in which to prove the guilt of the real killer (which was Lee Harvey Oswald, of course)

But, as Greg Doudna pointed out:

"In not a single instance in the published record—whether in the
Warren Commission report or exhibits or in any other venue—are any of the four evidence shells Q74, Q75, Q76, and Q77 (supposedly the four shells ejected from the Tippit killer's revolver found at the scene of
the crime) identified under oath by an officer who originally marked
them, on the basis of identification of his mark, as the shell he
marked."

BELIN. Sergeant, I will ask you to examine Commission Exhibits Nos. Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, and ask you to state whether or not there appears to be any identification marks on any of these exhibits that appear to show that they were examined or

identified by you?

Mr. BARNES. I placed "B", the best that I could, inside of the hull of Exhibit 74---I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75, as you have them identified.
Mr. BELIN. Now all four of these exhibits appear to be cartridge case hulls, is that correct?
Mr. BARNES. .38 caliber.
Mr. BELIN. .38 caliber pistol?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. They are kind of silver or chrome or grey in color? You can identify it that way?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. How many of these hulls, to the best of your recollection, did you identify out there?
Mr. BARNES. I believe that the patrolman gave me two, and Captain Doughty received the third.
Mr. BELIN. The two that the patrolman gave you were the ones that you put this identification mark on the inside of?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What instrument did you use to place this mark?
Mr. BARNES. I used a diamond point pen.
Mr. BELIN. You put it on Q-74 and Q-75?
Mr. BARNES. It looks like there are others that put their markings in there too.

Ever hear of Commission Exhibit 2011 ?
Of course not because you've never read the 26 volumes.
It says none of the three witnesses who found shells at the murder scene could identify the shells currently in evidence as the shells they found.
If you can't establish a chain of custody with the first contact, it doens't matter who says what further on down the line.

Here it is Einstein: https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/discovery.png

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:59:04 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:29:54 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:22:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Von Penis made this claim:

As I've pointed out to this aggregation in the past, the Tippit case provides us with the best possible COMBINATION of evidence that you could ever hope to have in which to prove the guilt of the real killer (which was Lee Harvey Oswald, of course)

But, as Greg Doudna pointed out:

"In not a single instance in the published record—whether in the Warren Commission report or exhibits or in any other venue—are any of the four evidence shells Q74, Q75, Q76, and Q77 (supposedly the four shells ejected from the Tippit killer's revolver found at the scene of the crime) identified under oath by an officer who originally marked them, on the basis of identification of his mark, as the shell he marked."

BELIN. Sergeant, I will ask you to examine Commission Exhibits Nos. Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, and ask you to state whether or not there appears to be any identification marks on any of these exhibits that appear to show that they were examined or

identified by you?

Mr. BARNES. I placed "B", the best that I could, inside of the hull of Exhibit 74---I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75, as you have them identified.
Mr. BELIN. Now all four of these exhibits appear to be cartridge case hulls, is that correct?
Mr. BARNES. .38 caliber.
Mr. BELIN. .38 caliber pistol?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. They are kind of silver or chrome or grey in color? You can identify it that way?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. How many of these hulls, to the best of your recollection, did you identify out there?
Mr. BARNES. I believe that the patrolman gave me two, and Captain Doughty received the third.
Mr. BELIN. The two that the patrolman gave you were the ones that you put this identification mark on the inside of?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What instrument did you use to place this mark?
Mr. BARNES. I used a diamond point pen.
Mr. BELIN. You put it on Q-74 and Q-75?
Mr. BARNES. It looks like there are others that put their markings in there too.

Ever hear of Commission Exhibit 2011 ?
Of course not because you've never read the 26 volumes.
It says none of the three witnesses who found shells at the murder scene could identify the shells currently in evidence as the shells they found.
If you can't establish a chain of custody with the first contact, it doens't matter who says what further on down the line.

How many times does this need to be shown to be untrue before you stop telling this lie?

Here it is Einstein: https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/discovery.png

BELIN. Sergeant, I will ask you to examine Commission Exhibits Nos. Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, and ask you to state whether or not there appears to be any identification marks on any of these exhibits that appear to show that they were examined or
identified by you?
Mr. BARNES. I placed "B", the best that I could, inside of the hull of Exhibit 74---I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75, as you have them identified.
Mr. BELIN. Now all four of these exhibits appear to be cartridge case hulls, is that correct?
Mr. BARNES. .38 caliber.
Mr. BELIN. .38 caliber pistol?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. They are kind of silver or chrome or grey in color? You can identify it that way?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. How many of these hulls, to the best of your recollection, did you identify out there?
Mr. BARNES. I believe that the patrolman gave me two, and Captain Doughty received the third.
Mr. BELIN. The two that the patrolman gave you were the ones that you put this identification mark on the inside of?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What instrument did you use to place this mark?
Mr. BARNES. I used a diamond point pen.
Mr. BELIN. You put it on Q-74 and Q-75?
Mr. BARNES. It looks like there are others that put their markings in there too.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 14:14:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 13:59:02 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:29:54?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:22:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Von Penis made this claim:

As I've pointed out to this aggregation in the past, the Tippit case
provides us with the best possible COMBINATION of evidence that you
could ever hope to have in which to prove the guilt of the real killer >>>> (which was Lee Harvey Oswald, of course)

But, as Greg Doudna pointed out:

"In not a single instance in the published record—whether in the
Warren Commission report or exhibits or in any other venue—are any of
the four evidence shells Q74, Q75, Q76, and Q77 (supposedly the four
shells ejected from the Tippit killer's revolver found at the scene of
the crime) identified under oath by an officer who originally marked
them, on the basis of identification of his mark, as the shell he
marked."

BELIN. Sergeant, I will ask you to examine Commission Exhibits Nos. Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, and ask you to state whether or not there appears to be any identification marks on any of these exhibits that appear to show that they were examined or

identified by you?

Mr. BARNES. I placed "B", the best that I could, inside of the hull of Exhibit 74---I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75, as you have them identified.
Mr. BELIN. Now all four of these exhibits appear to be cartridge case hulls, is that correct?
Mr. BARNES. .38 caliber.
Mr. BELIN. .38 caliber pistol?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. They are kind of silver or chrome or grey in color? You can identify it that way?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. How many of these hulls, to the best of your recollection, did you identify out there?
Mr. BARNES. I believe that the patrolman gave me two, and Captain Doughty received the third.
Mr. BELIN. The two that the patrolman gave you were the ones that you put this identification mark on the inside of?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What instrument did you use to place this mark?
Mr. BARNES. I used a diamond point pen.
Mr. BELIN. You put it on Q-74 and Q-75?
Mr. BARNES. It looks like there are others that put their markings in there too.

Ever hear of Commission Exhibit 2011 ?
Of course not because you've never read the 26 volumes.
It says none of the three witnesses who found shells at the murder scene could identify the shells currently in evidence as the shells they found.
If you can't establish a chain of custody with the first contact, it doens't matter who says what further on down the line.

Chickenshit simply lied... he pretended that his quote refuted the
statement made. It didn't.

Here it is Einstein: >https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/discovery.png

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:59:04 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:29:54 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:22:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Von Penis made this claim:

As I've pointed out to this aggregation in the past, the Tippit case provides us with the best possible COMBINATION of evidence that you could ever hope to have in which to prove the guilt of the real killer (which was Lee Harvey Oswald, of course)

But, as Greg Doudna pointed out:

"In not a single instance in the published record—whether in the Warren Commission report or exhibits or in any other venue—are any of the four evidence shells Q74, Q75, Q76, and Q77 (supposedly the four shells ejected from the Tippit killer's revolver found at the scene of the crime) identified under oath by an officer who originally marked them, on the basis of identification of his mark, as the shell he marked."

BELIN. Sergeant, I will ask you to examine Commission Exhibits Nos. Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, and ask you to state whether or not there appears to be any identification marks on any of these exhibits that appear to show that they were examined or

identified by you?

Mr. BARNES. I placed "B", the best that I could, inside of the hull of Exhibit 74---I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75, as you have them identified.
Mr. BELIN. Now all four of these exhibits appear to be cartridge case hulls, is that correct?
Mr. BARNES. .38 caliber.
Mr. BELIN. .38 caliber pistol?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. They are kind of silver or chrome or grey in color? You can identify it that way?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. How many of these hulls, to the best of your recollection, did you identify out there?
Mr. BARNES. I believe that the patrolman gave me two, and Captain Doughty received the third.
Mr. BELIN. The two that the patrolman gave you were the ones that you put this identification mark on the inside of?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What instrument did you use to place this mark?
Mr. BARNES. I used a diamond point pen.
Mr. BELIN. You put it on Q-74 and Q-75?
Mr. BARNES. It looks like there are others that put their markings in there too.

Ever hear of Commission Exhibit 2011 ?
Of course not because you've never read the 26 volumes.
It says none of the three witnesses who found shells at the murder scene could identify the shells currently in evidence as the shells they found.
If you can't establish a chain of custody with the first contact, it doens't matter who says what further on down the line.

Here it is Einstein: https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/discovery.png

Here is Gil arbitrarily dismissing a piece of evidence that doesn't fit his narrative. Gil has
appointed himself both defense attorney and judge in his imaginary trial. In another
thread, he has called himself as a witness. I'm wondering if he is going to take the part of
all 12 jurors a well.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 14:25:01 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:59:04?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:29:54?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:22:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Von Penis made this claim:

As I've pointed out to this aggregation in the past, the Tippit case >>>>> provides us with the best possible COMBINATION of evidence that you
could ever hope to have in which to prove the guilt of the real killer >>>>> (which was Lee Harvey Oswald, of course)

But, as Greg Doudna pointed out:

"In not a single instance in the published record—whether in the
Warren Commission report or exhibits or in any other venue—are any of
the four evidence shells Q74, Q75, Q76, and Q77 (supposedly the four
shells ejected from the Tippit killer's revolver found at the scene of >>>> the crime) identified under oath by an officer who originally marked
them, on the basis of identification of his mark, as the shell he
marked."

BELIN. Sergeant, I will ask you to examine Commission Exhibits Nos. Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, and ask you to state whether or not there appears to be any identification marks on any of these exhibits that appear to show that they were examined or

identified by you?

Mr. BARNES. I placed "B", the best that I could, inside of the hull of Exhibit 74---I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75, as you have them identified.
Mr. BELIN. Now all four of these exhibits appear to be cartridge case hulls, is that correct?
Mr. BARNES. .38 caliber.
Mr. BELIN. .38 caliber pistol?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. They are kind of silver or chrome or grey in color? You can identify it that way?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. How many of these hulls, to the best of your recollection, did you identify out there?
Mr. BARNES. I believe that the patrolman gave me two, and Captain Doughty received the third.
Mr. BELIN. The two that the patrolman gave you were the ones that you put this identification mark on the inside of?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What instrument did you use to place this mark?
Mr. BARNES. I used a diamond point pen.
Mr. BELIN. You put it on Q-74 and Q-75?
Mr. BARNES. It looks like there are others that put their markings in there too.

Ever hear of Commission Exhibit 2011 ?
Of course not because you've never read the 26 volumes.
It says none of the three witnesses who found shells at the murder scene could identify the shells currently in evidence as the shells they found.
If you can't establish a chain of custody with the first contact, it doens't matter who says what further on down the line.

Here it is Einstein:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/discovery.png

Here is Gil arbitrarily dismissing a piece of evidence that doesn't fit his narrative. Gil has
appointed himself both defense attorney and judge in his imaginary trial. In another
thread, he has called himself as a witness. I'm wondering if he is going to take the part of
all 12 jurors a well.

Nobody is "dismissing" anything - we're pointing out that YOU DON'T
HAVE THE EVIDENCE.

And amusingly, aren't honest enough to admit that what I posted was
simple truth.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 5:17:05 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 13:59:02 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:29:54?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:22:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Von Penis made this claim:

As I've pointed out to this aggregation in the past, the Tippit case >>>> provides us with the best possible COMBINATION of evidence that you >>>> could ever hope to have in which to prove the guilt of the real killer >>>> (which was Lee Harvey Oswald, of course)

But, as Greg Doudna pointed out:

"In not a single instance in the published record—whether in the
Warren Commission report or exhibits or in any other venue—are any of >>> the four evidence shells Q74, Q75, Q76, and Q77 (supposedly the four
shells ejected from the Tippit killer's revolver found at the scene of >>> the crime) identified under oath by an officer who originally marked
them, on the basis of identification of his mark, as the shell he
marked."

BELIN. Sergeant, I will ask you to examine Commission Exhibits Nos. Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, and ask you to state whether or not there appears to be any identification marks on any of these exhibits that appear to show that they were examined or

identified by you?

Mr. BARNES. I placed "B", the best that I could, inside of the hull of Exhibit 74---I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75, as you have them identified.
Mr. BELIN. Now all four of these exhibits appear to be cartridge case hulls, is that correct?
Mr. BARNES. .38 caliber.
Mr. BELIN. .38 caliber pistol?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. They are kind of silver or chrome or grey in color? You can identify it that way?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. How many of these hulls, to the best of your recollection, did you identify out there?
Mr. BARNES. I believe that the patrolman gave me two, and Captain Doughty received the third.
Mr. BELIN. The two that the patrolman gave you were the ones that you put this identification mark on the inside of?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What instrument did you use to place this mark?
Mr. BARNES. I used a diamond point pen.
Mr. BELIN. You put it on Q-74 and Q-75?
Mr. BARNES. It looks like there are others that put their markings in there too.

Ever hear of Commission Exhibit 2011 ?
Of course not because you've never read the 26 volumes.
It says none of the three witnesses who found shells at the murder scene could identify the shells currently in evidence as the shells they found.
If you can't establish a chain of custody with the first contact, it doens't matter who says what further on down the line.

Chickenshit simply lied... he pretended that his quote refuted the
statement made. It didn't.

Those that can comprehend the English language can see that it did.

Here it is Einstein: >https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/discovery.png

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 5:45:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 14:25:01 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:59:04?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:29:54?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:22:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>> Von Penis made this claim:

As I've pointed out to this aggregation in the past, the Tippit case >>>>> provides us with the best possible COMBINATION of evidence that you >>>>> could ever hope to have in which to prove the guilt of the real killer >>>>> (which was Lee Harvey Oswald, of course)

But, as Greg Doudna pointed out:

"In not a single instance in the published record—whether in the
Warren Commission report or exhibits or in any other venue—are any of >>>> the four evidence shells Q74, Q75, Q76, and Q77 (supposedly the four >>>> shells ejected from the Tippit killer's revolver found at the scene of >>>> the crime) identified under oath by an officer who originally marked >>>> them, on the basis of identification of his mark, as the shell he
marked."

BELIN. Sergeant, I will ask you to examine Commission Exhibits Nos. Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, and ask you to state whether or not there appears to be any identification marks on any of these exhibits that appear to show that they were examined or

identified by you?

Mr. BARNES. I placed "B", the best that I could, inside of the hull of Exhibit 74---I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75, as you have them identified.
Mr. BELIN. Now all four of these exhibits appear to be cartridge case hulls, is that correct?
Mr. BARNES. .38 caliber.
Mr. BELIN. .38 caliber pistol?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. They are kind of silver or chrome or grey in color? You can identify it that way?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. How many of these hulls, to the best of your recollection, did you identify out there?
Mr. BARNES. I believe that the patrolman gave me two, and Captain Doughty received the third.
Mr. BELIN. The two that the patrolman gave you were the ones that you put this identification mark on the inside of?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What instrument did you use to place this mark?
Mr. BARNES. I used a diamond point pen.
Mr. BELIN. You put it on Q-74 and Q-75?
Mr. BARNES. It looks like there are others that put their markings in there too.

Ever hear of Commission Exhibit 2011 ?
Of course not because you've never read the 26 volumes.
It says none of the three witnesses who found shells at the murder scene could identify the shells currently in evidence as the shells they found.
If you can't establish a chain of custody with the first contact, it doens't matter who says what further on down the line.

Here it is Einstein:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/discovery.png

Here is Gil arbitrarily dismissing a piece of evidence that doesn't fit his narrative. Gil has
appointed himself both defense attorney and judge in his imaginary trial. In another
thread, he has called himself as a witness. I'm wondering if he is going to take the part of
all 12 jurors a well.

Nobody is "dismissing" anything -

You are simply lying, it is all Gil ever does is contrive reasons to disregard the information that implicates Oswald.

we're pointing out that YOU DON'T
HAVE THE EVIDENCE.

And amusingly, aren't honest enough to admit that what I posted was
simple truth.

"Mr. BARNES. It looks like there are others that put their markings in there too."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 15:30:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

It's a proven LIE to say that none of the 4 Tippit shells were ever IDed by any of the officers. But I'm sure Ben Holmes is ready to ignore the following proof....

"On June 12, 1964, four .38 Special cartridge cases...were shown to Captain G.M. Doughty of the Dallas Police Department. .... Captain Doughty identified his marking on one of these cases. .... Captain Doughty stated this is the same shell which he
obtained from Barbara Jeanette Davis at Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963." -- CE2011; Page 7

"On June 12, 1964, the same four cartridge cases...were shown by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum to Detective C.N. Dhority, Homicide Division, Dallas Police Department. .... Detective Dhority identified his marking on one of these cartridge cases. .... He
stated this is the same cartridge case which he obtained from Virginia Davis, Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963." -- CE2011; Page 8

-----------
Also See: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2021/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1346.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:01:00 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote: <silly blogspot bullshit deleted >

The thing you people don't seem to understand is that it doesn't matter what the second or third person to handle the evidence says about it.
Their comments don't establish if the shells in evidence are the actual shells that were found.
The only person who can establish that is the person who found them, not the person who handled them later.

And it doesn't prove that the shells were not substituted before those Dallas policemen marked them.
That's the whole point of having witnesses mark the evidence UPON DISCOVERY for later identification at trial.

Now tell us, did any of the witnesses who found the shells identify the shells in evidence as the shells they found ?
Yes or No ?

Let me give you a clue:

Here's the part of CE 2011 that you failed to mention:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/discovery.png

Like I've said with Von Pein, you never get the full story.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:25:19 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
< bullshit comments from an asshole deleted >

"Bud" expects me to prove a negative. ROFLMAO
Instead, "BUD" should be trying to prove me wrong.
But he won't.
Because he's too lazy.

Hey Bud:
Did any of the witnesses who found the shells identify anyh of the shells in evidence as the shells they found ?
Did Off. Poe identify any of the shells in evidence as the shells Benavides gave him ?

Yes or no ?
( If "yes", please give citation )

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 5:27:15 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:01:00 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
<silly blogspot bullshit deleted >

The thing you people don't seem to understand is that it doesn't matter what the second or third person to handle the evidence says about it.

What you don`t understand is that you are making noise, but not showing that this evidence would have been allowed in a court of law in Dallas in the sixties. That if crime lab was on the scene that evidence couldn`t be handed to them and have them
start the process.

Their comments don't establish if the shells in evidence are the actual shells that were found.

Your comments show you are more intent at playing silly games than determining the truth.

The only person who can establish that is the person who found them, not the person who handled them later.

What if four cops enter a room and a the same time see a bloody knife on the floor? Who found it?

And it doesn't prove that the shells were not substituted before those Dallas policemen marked them.

*Of course* they have no knowledge of anything before they arrive at the scene. Does that make everything at the scene inadmissible? Perhaps all the witnesses are lying, perhaps Tippit body was dumped there.

That's the whole point of having witnesses mark the evidence UPON DISCOVERY for later identification at trial.

Can you show that witnesses ever mark evidence?

You just like talking out of your ass.

Now tell us, did any of the witnesses who found the shells identify the shells in evidence as the shells they found ?

How would they know?

Yes or No ?

Let me give you a clue:

Here's the part of CE 2011 that you failed to mention:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/discovery.png

Like I've said with Von Pein, you never get the full story.

Give us the full story. Show evidence being disallowed in court in Dallas in the sixties because of it being handled in this manner.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:59:15 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:25:19 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
< bullshit comments from an asshole deleted >

"Bud" expects me to prove a negative. ROFLMAO
Instead, "BUD" should be trying to prove me wrong.
But he won't.
Because he's too lazy.

If you are going to accuse the police of planting evidence, the burden is on you.

Hey Bud:
Did any of the witnesses who found the shells identify anyh of the shells in evidence as the shells they found ?
Did Off. Poe identify any of the shells in evidence as the shells Benavides gave him ?

Yes or no ?
( If "yes", please give citation )

I don't know if Poe did or did not identify the shells but that is not necessary to establish
chain of possession as I have already pointed out in my previous post. It is only necessary
to DOCUMENT who handled the evidence. It would only be necessary to document who
Poe received the shells from and whom he gave them to. Neither Poe nor the witness finding
the shells has to positively identify them for the shells to be admissible at trial.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 5:27:15 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:01:00 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
<silly blogspot bullshit deleted >

The thing you people don't seem to understand is that it doesn't matter what the second or third person to handle the evidence says about it.
Their comments don't establish if the shells in evidence are the actual shells that were found.
The only person who can establish that is the person who found them, not the person who handled them later.

Please present your credentials as a legal expert, an opinion written in a recognized law
journal, or a precedence case that established such a rule. Otherwise we will have to rule
your opinion as inadmissible.

And it doesn't prove that the shells were not substituted before those Dallas policemen marked them.

In court, an attorney cannot just make such wild accusations of malfeasance by the police.
He has to present supporting evidence. Got any?

Since I asked you to provide support for your layman's opinion, I will hold myself to the same
standard. Here is a case of alleged police misconduct in which the defense filed a motion to
have evidence ruled inadmissible because the sheriff's department planted the evidence. In
the filing, the defense attorneys presented their evidence of the malfeasance.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-05-11/an-orange-county-deputy-is-accused-of-moving-evidence

Here is another online article which addresses this issue:

"Yes, a defense attorney can argue at trial that police planted evidence. However, it is important to note that the burden of proof lies with the defense attorney to prove that the evidence was indeed planted. The defense attorney must provide evidence
to support their claim, such as witness testimony or forensic evidence1. If the defense attorney is successful in proving that the evidence was planted, it may result in the exclusion of the evidence from trial."

That's the whole point of having witnesses mark the evidence UPON DISCOVERY for later identification at trial.

Now tell us, did any of the witnesses who found the shells identify the shells in evidence as the shells they found ?
Yes or No ?

Let me give you a clue:

Here's the part of CE 2011 that you failed to mention:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/discovery.png

Like I've said with Von Pein, you never get the full story.

If I were you, I would go to the law school you attended and demand your money back. You,
and many conspiracy hobbyists before you, have a faulty idea on how chain of possession is
established. Below is a lengthy article on the subject:

https://www.lhh.com/us/en/insights/how-to-document-your-chain-of-custody-and-why-its-important/

Note that it is only necessary to DOCUMENT the chain of possession. It is not necessary for
every person in the chain to be able to identify a piece of evidence at trial. It would be an absurd
burden to expect a witness to positively identify a spent shell as the one they found given that
one spent shell is going to look pretty much like another. Investigators will sometimes mark a
piece of evidence to give it added weight, but it is not a legal requirement.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:59:15 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:25:19 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
< bullshit comments from an asshole deleted >

"Bud" expects me to prove a negative. ROFLMAO

You remove what I said and then lie about it.

Instead, "BUD" should be trying to prove me wrong.

You have to prove yourself right, stop trying to shift the burden.

But he won't.
Because he's too lazy.

I merely observe the shortcomings of the claims you make.

Hey Bud:
Did any of the witnesses who found the shells identify any of the shells in evidence as the shells they found ?

You remove where I addressed this and then bring up the same issue as if it hasn`t already been addressed. You haven`t shown that this is something witness do.

Do witnesses mark evidence?

Did Off. Poe identify any of the shells in evidence as the shells Benavides gave him ?

He gave them to crime lab who was on the scene.

You haven`t shown that in Dallas in the sixties this would have invalidated them as evidence, and you never will.

Yes or no ?
( If "yes", please give citation )

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 9:00:13 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
< more stupid shit >

Hey dumbass:

You have three witnesses who found four shells at the scene. None of those witnesses identified the shells in evidence as the shells they found.
PLUS those shells did not match in number and type the bullets removed from Officer Tippit's body.

But the shells are authentic because that Dallas Police said so.
You choose to believe the police over the witnesses AND physical evidence combined.
That's fucked up.
And so are you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:13:00 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 9:00:13 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
< more stupid shit >

Hey dumbass:

Why does reasoning frighten you so much that you remove what I write?

You have three witnesses who found four shells at the scene. None of those witnesses identified the shells in evidence as the shells they found.

You haven`t explained how this is possible.

PLUS those shells did not match in number and type the bullets removed from Officer Tippit's body.

You assume that all the shells were found. You assume the bullets in Tippit body are all the bullets fired. You assume Oswald had no empty, previously fired shells in his revolver when he killed Tippit.

But the shells are authentic because that Dallas Police said so.

What reason is there to believe otherwise?

You choose to believe the police over the witnesses AND physical evidence combined.

Nonsense. I look at the available information correctly and you play silly games with it.

Explain why the Dallas Police Department would be actively working so the murderer of one of their own got away with his murder.

That's fucked up.
And so are you.

One of us is. One of us believes applying reasoning to information is the work of the Devil.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 03:25:17 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 04:19:51 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 5:27:15?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:01:00?AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote: >> <silly blogspot bullshit deleted >

The thing you people don't seem to understand is that it doesn't matter what the second or third person to handle the evidence says about it.
Their comments don't establish if the shells in evidence are the actual shells that were found.
The only person who can establish that is the person who found them, not the person who handled them later.

Please present your credentials as a legal expert...

None needed when we are posting FACTS that you cannot refute.

Indeed, facts that you're simply outright lying about...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 02:27:13 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:01:00?AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote: ><silly blogspot bullshit deleted >

The thing you people don't seem to understand...

It's even more simple than this...

Von Penis simply put in my mouth the words he **WISHED** I'd said.

He cannot refute what was posted - so he simply deletes it, and lies
about what was posted.

He's a liar... it's just that simple.

is that it doesn't matter what the second or third person to handle the evidence says about it.
Their comments don't establish if the shells in evidence are the actual shells that were found.
The only person who can establish that is the person who found them, not the person who handled them later.

And it doesn't prove that the shells were not substituted before those Dallas policemen marked them.
That's the whole point of having witnesses mark the evidence UPON DISCOVERY for later identification at trial.

Now tell us, did any of the witnesses who found the shells identify the shells in evidence as the shells they found ?
Yes or No ?

I predict that Von Penis will not answer...

Let me give you a clue:

Here's the part of CE 2011 that you failed to mention:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/discovery.png

Like I've said with Von Pein, you never get the full story.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 21:00:59 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davevonpein@aol.com> wrote:

It's a proven LIE to say that none of the 4 Tippit shells were ever IDed by any of the officers.

I see you're back to molesting your own grandmother... how sick!!!

You **NEEDED** to delete the post you were responding to - so lurkers
can't see your obvious lie.

But I predict you'll run for the hills, and not respond to this post -
because I've put back in the words you deleted, and you can't quote
where I said what you just claimed...

Quite the dishonest coward, aren't you?

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 14:25:01 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett ><geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:59:04?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:29:54?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:22:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Von Penis made this claim:

As I've pointed out to this aggregation in the past, the Tippit case >>>>>> provides us with the best possible COMBINATION of evidence that you >>>>>> could ever hope to have in which to prove the guilt of the real killer >>>>>> (which was Lee Harvey Oswald, of course)

But, as Greg Doudna pointed out:

"In not a single instance in the published record—whether in the
Warren Commission report or exhibits or in any other venue—are any of >>>>> the four evidence shells Q74, Q75, Q76, and Q77 (supposedly the four >>>>> shells ejected from the Tippit killer's revolver found at the scene of >>>>> the crime) identified under oath by an officer who originally marked >>>>> them, on the basis of identification of his mark, as the shell he
marked."

BELIN. Sergeant, I will ask you to examine Commission Exhibits Nos. Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, and ask you to state whether or not there appears to be any identification marks on any of these exhibits that appear to show that they were examined or

identified by you?

Mr. BARNES. I placed "B", the best that I could, inside of the hull of Exhibit 74---I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75, as you have them identified.
Mr. BELIN. Now all four of these exhibits appear to be cartridge case hulls, is that correct?
Mr. BARNES. .38 caliber.
Mr. BELIN. .38 caliber pistol?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. They are kind of silver or chrome or grey in color? You can identify it that way?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. How many of these hulls, to the best of your recollection, did you identify out there?
Mr. BARNES. I believe that the patrolman gave me two, and Captain Doughty received the third.
Mr. BELIN. The two that the patrolman gave you were the ones that you put this identification mark on the inside of?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What instrument did you use to place this mark?
Mr. BARNES. I used a diamond point pen.
Mr. BELIN. You put it on Q-74 and Q-75?
Mr. BARNES. It looks like there are others that put their markings in there too.

Ever hear of Commission Exhibit 2011 ?
Of course not because you've never read the 26 volumes.
It says none of the three witnesses who found shells at the murder scene could identify the shells currently in evidence as the shells they found.
If you can't establish a chain of custody with the first contact, it doens't matter who says what further on down the line.

Here it is Einstein:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/discovery.png

Here is Gil arbitrarily dismissing a piece of evidence that doesn't fit his narrative. Gil has
appointed himself both defense attorney and judge in his imaginary trial. In another
thread, he has called himself as a witness. I'm wondering if he is going to take the part of
all 12 jurors a well.

Nobody is "dismissing" anything - we're pointing out that YOU DON'T
HAVE THE EVIDENCE.

And amusingly, aren't honest enough to admit that what I posted was
simple truth.

Now, QUOTE the sentence that you claimed I said. I've made it easy
for you, by putting back in what you deleted.

But you'll run.

I predict it.

Cowards run.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 13:22:07 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Admin@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

Von Penis made this claim:

As I've pointed out to this aggregation in the past, the Tippit case
provides us with the best possible COMBINATION of evidence that you
could ever hope to have in which to prove the guilt of the real killer
(which was Lee Harvey Oswald, of course)

But, as Greg Doudna pointed out:

"In not a single instance in the published record—whether in the
Warren Commission report or exhibits or in any other venue—are any of
the four evidence shells Q74, Q75, Q76, and Q77 (supposedly the four
shells ejected from the Tippit killer's revolver found at the scene of
the crime) identified under oath by an officer who originally marked
them, on the basis of identification of his mark, as the shell he
marked."

It seems quite clear that Von Penis doesn't know what evidence one
would hope for in a murder case.

Notice folks, that Von Penis never answered this post - and when he
*DID* reply, he cut everything out, told a BLATANT LIE about what was
said, and argued against *that*.

He's a proven coward & liar.

End of story.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 9:53:06 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 04:25:13 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:59:15?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:25:19?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
< bullshit comments from an asshole deleted >

"Bud" expects me to prove a negative. ROFLMAO
Instead, "BUD" should be trying to prove me wrong.
But he won't.
Because he's too lazy.

Hey Bud:
Did any of the witnesses who found the shells identify anyh of the shells in evidence as the shells they found ?
Did Off. Poe identify any of the shells in evidence as the shells Benavides gave him ?

Yes or no ?
( If "yes", please give citation )

I don't know...

Then you're quite the stupid moron... aren't you?

Intelligent people, when trying to refute what others point out, will acquaint themselves with the evidence, so they don't look stupid.

You insist on looking at the wrong things incorrectly, as all conspiracy hobbyists do. This is what make you look stupid.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 07:01:30 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)