https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:46:37?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 5:46:37?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:46:37 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Notice that the conspiracists never question the "chain of custody" for the evidence that supports their conspiracy? None of this legal/court standard when it comes to their claims? They use double and triple hearsay accouts, raw FBI files based on
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
Still preparing for your make believe trial, Johnny Cochrane?
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
So Chuckles *knows* that Corbutt lied, but simply sticks his head in the sand and pretends he never saw Corbutt's lie.
I pointed out there is no conflict between the passage you highlighted and the SBT. Based on the highlighted conclusion, JFK and JBC could have beenhttps://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/uIMCuM4QmvA/m/RrdYkevlAgAJ
hit by the same or separate bullets. Either possibility is compatible with it.
Notice that the conspiracists never question the "chain of custody" for the evidence that supports their conspiracy?
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:46:37 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:I've read/visited numerous sites where controversial events are discussed. The Lindbergh baby kidnapping, Sacco and Vanzetti, others. None of the participants in the discussion use "chain of custody" questions when discussing what happened, when trying
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
Still preparing for your make believe trial, Johnny Cochrane?
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:09:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
So Chuckles *knows* that Corbutt lied, but simply sticks his head in the sand and pretends he never saw Corbutt's lie.You sure his head is in the sand ?
I thought it was up his ass.
Here ya go Chuckles:
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:30:06 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
I pointed out there is no conflict between the passage you highlighted and the SBT. Based on the highlighted conclusion, JFK and JBC could have beenhttps://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/uIMCuM4QmvA/m/RrdYkevlAgAJ
hit by the same or separate bullets. Either possibility is compatible with it.
The document in question, Page 1 of the FBI Summary Report: https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png
Hoover's phone call to LBJ proves I was right about the FBI Summary Report saying three shots were fired and all three hit the victims.
He told Johnson the same thing. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/hoover-to-lbj-3-shots-3-hits.mp4
So yes, there WAS a conflict between the Summary Report and the SBT.
And as usual, Corbett made a statement that he never backed up with evidence and which was not true.
He was relying on the same "reasoning" as his retarded compa ( the stump who posts here under the name ) Bud.
Now the world knows who has the "poor analytical skills" and who posts evidence to back up his claims.
This is what happens when trolls are willing to argue about topics they have no knowledge of.
They always look stupid in the end.
You'd think that they'd learn their lesson for the next time, but they don't.
They'll make the same mistakes over and over again.
They really ARE that stupid.
And once again: this is the same conspiracist who said "the Russians got it right" in their conclusion about who killed JFK. Did he look into how they came to this conclusion? Did they follow legal procedures? He doesn't know and doesn't care.
The FBI report DOES INDEED say that JFK and Connally were hit by
separate shots, as Von Penis admitted.
Gil has been stating the truth all along, and out of all the
believers, only Von Penis agreed (but couldn't bear to tell Corbutt he
got caught lying.)
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:09:59?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
So Chuckles *knows* that Corbutt lied, but simply sticks his head in the sand and pretends he never saw Corbutt's lie.
You sure his head is in the sand ?
I thought it was up his ass.
Here ya go Chuckles:
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:30:06?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
I pointed out there is no conflict between the passage you highlighted and the SBT. Based on the highlighted conclusion, JFK and JBC could have beenhttps://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/uIMCuM4QmvA/m/RrdYkevlAgAJ
hit by the same or separate bullets. Either possibility is compatible with it.
The document in question, Page 1 of the FBI Summary Report: >https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png
Hoover's phone call to LBJ proves I was right about the FBI Summary Report saying three shots were fired and all three hit the victims.
He told Johnson the same thing. >https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/hoover-to-lbj-3-shots-3-hits.mp4
So yes, there WAS a conflict between the Summary Report and the SBT.
And as usual, Corbett made a statement that he never backed up with evidence and which was not true.
He was relying on the same "reasoning" as his retarded compa ( the stump who posts here under the name ) Bud.
Now the world knows who has the "poor analytical skills" and who posts evidence to back up his claims.
This is what happens when trolls are willing to argue about topics they have no knowledge of.
They always look stupid in the end.
You'd think that they'd learn their lesson for the next time, but they don't. >They'll make the same mistakes over and over again.
They really ARE that stupid.
Corroborated by the FBI https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:54:51 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
And once again: this is the same conspiracist who said "the Russians got it right" in their conclusion about who killed JFK. Did he look into how they came to this conclusion? Did they follow legal procedures? He doesn't know and doesn't care.Stop it Professor Numbnut.
You're hurting my feelings.
I wonder why there's no Professor Steven Galbraith listed on line in any college History Department ANYWHERE.
You must be one of those "absent-minded professors" teaching a course on the JFK assassination at the School of Hard Knocks.
ROFLMAO
Since when does someone have to follow legal procedures to have an opinion ? The Russians ( and much of the foreign press ) were expressing an opinion at that time.
Much like you and your Nutter pals do every day.
The only difference is, you people are never right.
The Warren Commission, however, was under a mandate to build a case in which "the evidence was such that Oswald would have been convicted AT TRIAL".
A criminal TRIAL was the standard they were supposed to be presenting the evidence by.
Did they do that ?
Did they follow judicial procedure ?
Did they allow the hearings to be one of an adversarial format ?
Did they disallow the testimony of Marina Oswald ?
Did they show the evidence to the witnesses who found it and have them testify as to it's authenticity ?
Did they reject evidence that was not autheticated by the persons who found it ?
Did they reject evidence that had Chain-of Possession problems ?
Did they allow for a cross-examination of the witnesses ?
All of the above would have been followed in a criminal trial. And since that was the standard, why wasn't it followed ?
Do yourself a favor and get your head out of your ass, "Professor".
Your attacks on me affect me only if I value your opinion, which I don't.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:22:40?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:54:51?AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote: >> > And once again: this is the same conspiracist who said "the Russians got it right" in their conclusion about who killed JFK. Did he look into how they came to this conclusion? Did they follow legal procedures? He doesn't know and doesn't care.
Stop it Professor Numbnut.
You're hurting my feelings.
I wonder why there's no Professor Steven Galbraith listed on line in any college History Department ANYWHERE.
You must be one of those "absent-minded professors" teaching a course on the JFK assassination at the School of Hard Knocks.
ROFLMAO
Since when does someone have to follow legal procedures to have an opinion ? >> The Russians ( and much of the foreign press ) were expressing an opinion at that time.
Much like you and your Nutter pals do every day.
The only difference is, you people are never right.
The Warren Commission, however, was under a mandate to build a case in which "the evidence was such that Oswald would have been convicted AT TRIAL".
You're lying Gil.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:49:53?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:09:59?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
So Chuckles *knows* that Corbutt lied, but simply sticks his head in the sand and pretends he never saw Corbutt's lie.You sure his head is in the sand ?
I thought it was up his ass.
Here ya go Chuckles:
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:30:06?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
I pointed out there is no conflict between the passage you highlighted and the SBT. Based on the highlighted conclusion, JFK and JBC could have beenhttps://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/uIMCuM4QmvA/m/RrdYkevlAgAJ
hit by the same or separate bullets. Either possibility is compatible with it.
Gil has never been able to explain how the passage ...
Corroborated by the FBI https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png
I've read/visited numerous sites where controversial events are discussed.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:32:01?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
The FBI report DOES INDEED say that JFK and Connally were hit by
separate shots, as Von Penis admitted.
Gil has been stating the truth all along, and out of all the
believers, only Von Penis agreed (but couldn't bear to tell Corbutt he
got caught lying.)
Right now they're in damage control mode.
Expect them to start with the personal attacks or trying to change the subject.
Gil does seem to have experience with cranial-rectal inversion syndrome.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:03:06 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Gil does seem to have experience with cranial-rectal inversion syndrome.I may not be a proctologist, but I know an asshole when I see one.
And I'm looking at you.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 2:57:52?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:03:06?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Gil does seem to have experience with cranial-rectal inversion syndrome. >> I may not be a proctologist, but I know an asshole when I see one.And I'm looking at you.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 04:12:16 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:46:37?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence.And you're a liar. But we already knew that...
As just *one* example, give us the chain of custody for the jacket
that was "found."
But you won't. You can't. There is *NO* chain of custody for the
jacket.
Ditto with many other pieces of evidence.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 14:14:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@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.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:unnamed sources and never hesitate in doing so.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:46:37 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
Still preparing for your make believe trial, Johnny Cochrane?
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentationNotice that the conspiracists never question the "chain of custody" for the evidence that supports their conspiracy? None of this legal/court standard when it comes to their claims? They use double and triple hearsay accouts, raw FBI files based on
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
JFK supposedly said he was going to breakup the CIA. And that was their motive.
And once again: this is the same conspiracist who said "the Russians got it right" in their conclusion about who killed JFK. Did he look into how they came to this conclusion? Did they follow legal procedures? He doesn't know and doesn't care.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:54:51 AM UTC+11, Steven Galbraith wrote:unnamed sources and never hesitate in doing so.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:46:37 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
Still preparing for your make believe trial, Johnny Cochrane?
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentationNotice that the conspiracists never question the "chain of custody" for the evidence that supports their conspiracy? None of this legal/court standard when it comes to their claims? They use double and triple hearsay accouts, raw FBI files based on
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
Steven, please clarify for me. Are you saying that statements do/should have a "chain of custody"? How does that work.In the Parker universe, the one and only truth is that Oswald is as innocent as a new born babe. This actually is the flip side of the Nutter coin. To the Nutters, Oswald is the only guilty person. To the Parkers, Oswald is the only innocent person.
Also, have you never read any WC testimony or FBI reports? The volumes are riddled with both lone nut and conspiracy hearsay. The rules of evidence and justice itself went out the window as soon as Oswald was murdered.
JFK supposedly said he was going to breakup the CIA. And that was their motive.Marina supposedly refused to reconcile with him and that was Oswald's motive. When did he say this? To who? What did he do to carry the threat out? Who in the CIA knew this? They can't answer any of this or even care.
It was quoted in an April 25 1966 NYT article citing an anonymous source. He may or may not have said it. What is known is that he was not happy with the CIA, making the quote seem at least possible.
Meanwhile the "Marina" motive for Oswald has no legs at all. The evidence shows they were planning on getting their own apartment again - per Ruth Paine testimony.
And once again: this is the same conspiracist who said "the Russians got it right" in their conclusion about who killed JFK. Did he look into how they came to this conclusion? Did they follow legal procedures? He doesn't know and doesn't care.Both sides do it, whether you admit or not. Parker might be obnoxious sometimes but I tend to agree with him when he rails against the CT/LN coin.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:15:47 PM UTC-4, joe darcy wrote:unnamed sources and never hesitate in doing so.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:54:51 AM UTC+11, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:46:37 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
Still preparing for your make believe trial, Johnny Cochrane?
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentationNotice that the conspiracists never question the "chain of custody" for the evidence that supports their conspiracy? None of this legal/court standard when it comes to their claims? They use double and triple hearsay accouts, raw FBI files based on
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
Steven, please clarify for me. Are you saying that statements do/should have a "chain of custody"? How does that work.
Also, have you never read any WC testimony or FBI reports? The volumes are riddled with both lone nut and conspiracy hearsay. The rules of evidence and justice itself went out the window as soon as Oswald was murdered.
JFK supposedly said he was going to breakup the CIA. And that was their motive.Marina supposedly refused to reconcile with him and that was Oswald's motive.
When did he say this? To who? What did he do to carry the threat out? Who in the CIA knew this? They can't answer any of this or even care.
It was quoted in an April 25 1966 NYT article citing an anonymous source. He may or may not have said it. What is known is that he was not happy with the CIA, making the quote seem at least possible.
Meanwhile the "Marina" motive for Oswald has no legs at all. The evidence shows they were planning on getting their own apartment again - per Ruth Paine testimony.In the Parker universe, the one and only truth is that Oswald is as innocent as a new born babe. This actually is the flip side of the Nutter coin. To the Nutters, Oswald is the only guilty person. To the Parkers, Oswald is the only innocent person.
And once again: this is the same conspiracist who said "the Russians got it right" in their conclusion about who killed JFK. Did he look into how they came to this conclusion? Did they follow legal procedures? He doesn't know and doesn't care.Both sides do it, whether you admit or not. Parker might be obnoxious sometimes but I tend to agree with him when he rails against the CT/LN coin.
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
Yet you can't explain why what I said is a lie. You simply declare it and expect it to be accepted.
Since you have appointed yourself trial judge as well as defense counsel, you always get a
favorable ruling.
Who found Oswald's jacket under the car in the parking lot ?https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.htm#:~:text=Oswald%20was%20last%20seen%20cutting%20through%20a%20parking,was%20wearing%20at%20the%20time%20of%20his%20arrest.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. WHO FOUND IT. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentationYou're lying again.
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
Who found Oswald's jacket under the car in the parking lot ?
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:54:51 AM UTC+11, Steven Galbraith wrote:unnamed sources and never hesitate in doing so.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:46:37 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
Still preparing for your make believe trial, Johnny Cochrane?
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentationNotice that the conspiracists never question the "chain of custody" for the evidence that supports their conspiracy? None of this legal/court standard when it comes to their claims? They use double and triple hearsay accouts, raw FBI files based on
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
Steven, please clarify for me. Are you saying that statements do/should have a "chain of custody"? How does that work.
Also, have you never read any WC testimony or FBI reports? The volumes are riddled with both lone nut and conspiracy hearsay. The rules of evidence and justice itself went out the window as soon as Oswald was murdered.
JFK supposedly said he was going to breakup the CIA. And that was their motive.Marina supposedly refused to reconcile with him and that was Oswald's motive. When did he say this? To who? What did he do to carry the threat out? Who in the CIA knew this? They can't answer any of this or even care.
It was quoted in an April 25 1966 NYT article citing an anonymous source. He may or may not have said it. What is known is that he was not happy with the CIA, making the quote seem at least possible.
Meanwhile the "Marina" motive for Oswald has no legs at all. The evidence shows they were planning on getting their own apartment again - per Ruth Paine testimony.
And once again: this is the same conspiracist who said "the Russians got it right" in their conclusion about who killed JFK. Did he look into how they came to this conclusion? Did they follow legal procedures? He doesn't know and doesn't care.Both sides do it, whether you admit or not. Parker might be obnoxious sometimes but I tend to agree with him when he rails against the CT/LN coin.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:32:53 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Yet you can't explain why what I said is a lie. You simply declare it and expect it to be accepted.Yeah, you lied. You said:
Since you have appointed yourself trial judge as well as defense counsel, you always get a
favorable ruling.
Who found Oswald's jacket under the car in the parking lot ?https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.htm#:~:text=Oswald%20was%20last%20seen%20cutting%20through%20a%20parking,was%20wearing%20at%20the%20time%20of%20his%20arrest.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:I asked you who found Oswald's jacket.
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. WHO FOUND IT. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
You posted a link to Dale Myer's website that only says the jacket was found by police.
Which officer found it and show us the "documentation" you say exists proving, "there is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence."
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
Really ?
Who found Oswald's jacket under the car in the parking lot ?
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:15:47?PM UTC-4, joe darcy wrote:unnamed sources and never hesitate in doing so.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:54:51?AM UTC+11, Steven Galbraith wrote: >>> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:46:37?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Notice that the conspiracists never question the "chain of custody" for the evidence that supports their conspiracy? None of this legal/court standard when it comes to their claims? They use double and triple hearsay accouts, raw FBI files based on
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
Still preparing for your make believe trial, Johnny Cochrane?
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
Steven, please clarify for me. Are you saying that statements do/should have a "chain of custody"? How does that work.
Also, have you never read any WC testimony or FBI reports? The volumes are riddled with both lone nut and conspiracy hearsay. The rules of evidence and justice itself went out the window as soon as Oswald was murdered.
As they should have. Our criminal justice system has a duel role. Determine the truth while
protecting the rights of the accused. Sometimes, those are at cross purposes. The WC was
not a criminal trial. It was a fact finding body. It's sole purpose was to determine the truth.
It had no power to deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property.
Had they discovered evidence that
someone other than Oswald was involved in the crime, that evidence would have been turned
over to the appropriate prosecutors who would have brought charges against those people.
A trial would have been held and the rules of evidence would have applied.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
You're lying again.
Who found Oswald's jacket under the car in the parking lot ?
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:08:49?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:32:53?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Yet you can't explain why what I said is a lie. You simply declare it and expect it to be accepted.Yeah, you lied. You said:
Since you have appointed yourself trial judge as well as defense counsel, you always get a
favorable ruling.
Who found Oswald's jacket under the car in the parking lot ?https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.htm#:~:text=Oswald%20was%20last%20seen%20cutting%20through%20a%20parking,was%20wearing%20at%20the%20time%20of%20his%20arrest.
What did I say that was a lie? When I accuse you of lying, I spell it out.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:I asked you who found Oswald's jacket.
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. WHO FOUND IT. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
You posted a link to Dale Myer's website that only says the jacket was found by police.
Which officer found it and show us the "documentation" you say exists proving, "there is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence."
Had the case gone to trial...
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 5:27:19?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentationYou're lying again.
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
Yet you can't explain why what I said is a lie. You simply declare it and expect it to be accepted.
Since you have appointed yourself trial judge as well as defense counsel, you always get a
favorable ruling.
Who found Oswald's jacket under the car in the parking lot ?
https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.htm#:~:text=Oswald%20was%20last%20seen%20cutting%20through%20a%20parking,was%20wearing%20at%20the%20time%20of%20his%20arrest.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:37:04?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< more bullshit that doesn't answer the question >
So I see you're not going to answer the question.
1. You said, "there is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence."
Your words, not mine.
That's lie # 1.
2. You said, "THERE IS DOCUMENTATION THAT SPELLS OUT EVERY PERSON who handled the evidence. WHO FOUND IT."
Your words, not mine.
That's lie # 2.
I've asked you to provide the name of the officer who found Oswald's jacket and the documentation of it
and you've failed to do so.
3. You claim that, "There is documentation that spells out EVERY PERSON WHO HANDLED THE EVIDENCE."
Again, your words, not mine.
That's lie # 3.
The two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene bore the initials RD.
This is revealed in the CSSS form the Dallas Police used when they released the four spent shells to FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11-28-63.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
The initials RD do not correspond to any police officer known to have been in the chain of custody of the shells.
In addition, no police officer with the intitals RD testified before the Warren Commission.
So who is RD? And where is the documentation identifying him in the chain of custody ?
Will you answer this question or will you run from it like you did with the first one ?
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:37:04?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< more bullshit that doesn't answer the question >
So I see you're not going to answer the question.
1. You said, "there is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence."
Your words, not mine.
That's lie # 1.
2. You said, "THERE IS DOCUMENTATION THAT SPELLS OUT EVERY PERSON who handled the evidence. WHO FOUND IT."
Your words, not mine.
That's lie # 2.
I've asked you to provide the name of the officer who found Oswald's jacket and the documentation of it
and you've failed to do so.
3. You claim that, "There is documentation that spells out EVERY PERSON WHO HANDLED THE EVIDENCE."
Again, your words, not mine.
That's lie # 3.
The two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene bore the initials RD.
This is revealed in the CSSS form the Dallas Police used when they released the four spent shells to FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11-28-63.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
The initials RD do not correspond to any police officer known to have been in the chain of custody of the shells.
In addition, no police officer with the intitals RD testified before the Warren Commission.
So who is RD? And where is the documentation identifying him in the chain of custody ?
Will you answer this question or will you run from it like you did with the first one ?
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:37:04 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< more bullshit that doesn't answer the question >
So I see you're not going to answer the question.
1. You said, "there is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence."
Your words, not mine.
That's lie # 1.
2. You said, "THERE IS DOCUMENTATION THAT SPELLS OUT EVERY PERSON who handled the evidence. WHO FOUND IT."
Your words, not mine.
That's lie # 2.
I've asked you to provide the name of the officer who found Oswald's jacket and the documentation of it
and you've failed to do so.
3. You claim that, "There is documentation that spells out EVERY PERSON WHO HANDLED THE EVIDENCE."
Again, your words, not mine.
That's lie # 3.
The two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene bore the initials “RD”.
This is revealed in the CSSS form the Dallas Police used when they released the four spent shells to FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11-28-63.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
The initials “RD” do not correspond to any police officer known to have been in the chain of custody of the shells.
In addition, no police officer with the intitals “RD” testified before the Warren Commission.
So who is “RD”? And where is the documentation identifying him in the chain of custody ?
Will you answer this question or will you run from it like you did with the first one ?
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 9:00:42?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:37:04?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< more bullshit that doesn't answer the question >
So I see you're not going to answer the question.
1. You said, "there is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence."
Your words, not mine.
That's lie # 1.
There's no chain-of-custody issue because that is something that needs to be established
AT TRIAL.
I'm sure if the case had gone to trial, the DPD and and Wade would have had no trouble producing the
required documentation.
2. You said, "THERE IS DOCUMENTATION THAT SPELLS OUT EVERY PERSON who handled the evidence. WHO FOUND IT."
Your words, not mine.
That's lie # 2.
You assume because the chain-of-custody documentation was not made public, it didn't exist.
What reason would there be for making this information public once Oswald was dead.
I've asked you to provide the name of the officer who found Oswald's jacket and the documentation of itI don't know the name of the officer...
and you've failed to do so.
who found the jacket but Captain Westbrook was the one
that picked it up, not that this is important.
Had his case gone to trial, the chain-of-custody would have been
documented ...
3. You claim that, "There is documentation that spells out EVERY PERSON WHO HANDLED THE EVIDENCE."
Again, your words, not mine.
That's lie # 3.
The two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene bore the initials RD.
This is revealed in the CSSS form the Dallas Police used when they released the four spent shells to FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11-28-63.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
The initials RD do not correspond to any police officer known to have been in the chain of custody of the shells.
In addition, no police officer with the intitals RD testified before the Warren Commission.
You keep demanding that the chain-of-custody documentation be made public for a trial that
was never going to happen. The DPD would have known the rules of evidence at that time and
they would have had no trouble documenting each officer who handled the evidence.
So who is RD? And where is the documentation identifying him in the chain of custody ?
Who knows? Who cares? Chain-of-custody does not need to be documented for a trial that
wasn't going to take place.
Will you answer this question or will you run from it like you did with the first one ?
I answered your questions.
I have no obligation to provide you with an answer...
In a criminal trial...
You have no interest in seeking the truth in this case.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:32:53 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Yet you can't explain why what I said is a lie. You simply declare it and expect it to be accepted.Yeah, you lied. You said:
Since you have appointed yourself trial judge as well as defense counsel, you always get a
favorable ruling.
Who found Oswald's jacket under the car in the parking lot ?https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.htm#:~:text=Oswald%20was%20last%20seen%20cutting%20through%20a%20parking,was%20wearing%20at%20the%20time%20of%20his%20arrest.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:I asked you who found Oswald's jacket.
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. WHO FOUND IT. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
You posted a link to Dale Myer's website that only says the jacket was found by police.
Which officer found it and show us the "documentation" you say exists proving, "there is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence."
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Who knows? Who cares? Chain-of-custody does not need to be documented for a trial that wasn't going to take place.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:37:04 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< more bullshit that doesn't answer the question >
So I see you're not going to answer the question.
1. You said, "there is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence."
Your words, not mine.
That's lie # 1.
2. You said, "THERE IS DOCUMENTATION THAT SPELLS OUT EVERY PERSON who handled the evidence. WHO FOUND IT."
Your words, not mine.
That's lie # 2.
I've asked you to provide the name of the officer who found Oswald's jacket and the documentation of it
and you've failed to do so.
3. You claim that, "There is documentation that spells out EVERY PERSON WHO HANDLED THE EVIDENCE."
Again, your words, not mine.
That's lie # 3.
The two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene bore the initials “RD”.
This is revealed in the CSSS form the Dallas Police used when they released the four spent shells to FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11-28-63.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
The initials “RD” do not correspond to any police officer known to have been in the chain of custody of the shells.
In addition, no police officer with the intitals “RD” testified before the Warren Commission.
So who is “RD”? And where is the documentation identifying him in the chain of custody ?
Will you answer this question or will you run from it like you did with the first one ?
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 1:52:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Who knows? Who cares? Chain-of-custody does not need to be documented for a trial that wasn't going to take place.
Don't you just love it when they start to squirm ?
The topic has nothing to do with a trial.
It has to do with what the asshole said.
He stated AS FACT that there was no conflict in the chain of custody in ANY of the evidence.
That all of the handling of the evidence, including who found it, was documented.
When he was asked produce the name of the officer who found the jacket, he could not.
When he was challenged to produce that documentation, he could not.
First, he implies that the Dallas Police have the documentation somewhere, someplace and could have produced it at trial.
Then, he claims that it doesn't have to be documented because there was no trial.
Another lie.
Because when they found the evidence, they had no reason to believe it wasn't going to trial.
Normal police procedure, including identifying the officer who found the jacket and those who initialled the shells, should have been documented.
It should all be part of the public record.
The fact that these things are NOT, shows that there WAS a problem with the chain of custody.
That's what the evidence shows, whether he likes it or not.
And if there's a problem with the chain of custody, the evidence is legally inadmissable and as such,
should not be given any considerationin this case.
He does this all the time.
He makes statements that are not true, which makes him a liar.
And even when he's corrected by evidence, he can't admit he was wrong, which makes him a stubborn jackass.
The initials “RD” do not correspond to any police officer known to have been in the chain of custody of the shells.Maybe Drain misread it.
In addition, no police officer with the intitals “RD” testified before the Warren Commission.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:18:36 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Oh good. Another idiot wih an opinion.The initials “RD” do not correspond to any police officer known to have been in the chain of custody of the shells.Maybe Drain misread it.
In addition, no police officer with the intitals “RD” testified before the Warren Commission.
It has nothing to do with Drain.
Maybe you should look at the link for once.
If you looked at the links, you wouldn't be making so many stupid remarks.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 1:52:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:Don't you just love it when they start to squirm ?
Who knows? Who cares? Chain-of-custody does not need to be documented for a trial that wasn't going to take place.
The topic has nothing to do with a trial.
It has to do with what the asshole said.
He stated AS FACT that there was no conflict in the chain of custody in ANY of the evidence.
That all of the handling of the evidence, including who found it, was documented.
When he was asked produce the name of the officer who found the jacket, he could not.
When he was challenged to produce that documentation, he could not.
First, he implies that the Dallas Police have the documentation somewhere, someplace and could have produced it at trial.
Then, he claims that it doesn't have to be documented because there was no trial.
Another lie.
Because when they found the evidence, they had no reason to believe it wasn't going to trial.
Normal police procedure, including identifying the officer who found the jacket and those who initialled the shells, should have been documented.
It should all be part of the public record.
The fact that these things are NOT, shows that there WAS a problem with the chain of custody.
That's what the evidence shows, whether he likes it or not.
And if there's a problem with the chain of custody, the evidence is legally inadmissable and as such,
should not be given any considerationin this case.
He does this all the time.
He makes statements that are not true, which makes him a liar.
And even when he's corrected by evidence, he can't admit he was wrong, which makes him a stubborn jackass.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:18:36?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Maybe Drain misread it.
The initials RD do not correspond to any police officer known to have been in the chain of custody of the shells.
In addition, no police officer with the intitals RD testified before the Warren Commission.
Oh good. Another idiot wih an opinion.
It has nothing to do with Drain.
Maybe you should look at the link for once.
If you looked at the links, you wouldn't be making so many stupid remarks.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 1:52:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:Don't you just love it when they start to squirm ?
Who knows? Who cares? Chain-of-custody does not need to be documented for a trial that wasn't going to take place.
The topic has nothing to do with a trial.
It has to do with what the asshole said.
He stated AS FACT that there was no conflict in the chain of custody in ANY of the evidence.
That all of the handling of the evidence, including who found it, was documented.
When he was asked produce the name of the officer who found the jacket, he could not.
When he was challenged to produce that documentation, he could not.
First, he implies that the Dallas Police have the documentation somewhere, someplace and could have produced it at trial.
Then, he claims that it doesn't have to be documented because there was no trial.
Another lie.
Because when they found the evidence, they had no reason to believe it wasn't going to trial.
Normal police procedure, including identifying the officer who found the jacket and those who initialled the shells, should have been documented.
It should all be part of the public record.
The fact that these things are NOT, shows that there WAS a problem with the chain of custody.
That's what the evidence shows, whether he likes it or not.
And if there's a problem with the chain of custody, the evidence is legally inadmissable and as such,
should not be given any considerationin this case.
He does this all the time.
He makes statements that are not true, which makes him a liar.
And even when he's corrected by evidence, he can't admit he was wrong, which makes him a stubborn jackass.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:52:11?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 1:52:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT), John CorbettDon't you just love it when they start to squirm ?
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Who knows? Who cares? Chain-of-custody does not need to be documented for a trial that wasn't going to take place.
The topic has nothing to do with a trial.
Is that so, Gil?
It has to do with what the asshole said.
He stated AS FACT that there was no conflict in the chain of custody in ANY of the evidence.
That all of the handling of the evidence, including who found it, was documented.
It would have been documented had the case gone to trial.
When he was asked produce the name of the officer who found the jacket, he could not.
When he was challenged to produce that documentation, he could not.
What reason would there be....
First, he implies that the Dallas Police have the documentation somewhere, someplace and could have produced it at trial.
Since the DPD and the DA's office knew the rules of evidence, it is a safe assumption ...
Then, he claims that it doesn't have to be documented because there was no trial.
Another lie.
What other reason would require such documentation.
Because when they found the evidence, they had no reason to believe it wasn't going to trial.
They had gathered the evidence and knew who had handled it.
Normal police procedure, including identifying the officer who found the jacket and those who initialled the shells, should have been documented.
Do you have reason to believe that it was not...
It should all be part of the public record.If you think there was a problem, why don't you file a FOIA request to have that documentation
The fact that these things are NOT, shows that there WAS a problem with the chain of custody.
made public.
That's what the evidence shows, whether he likes it or not.
Absence of evidence is not evidence.
And if there's a problem with the chain of custody, the evidence is legally inadmissable and as such,
should not be given any considerationin this case.
Oswald...
He does this all the time.
He makes statements that are not true, which makes him a liar.
And even when he's corrected by evidence, he can't admit he was wrong, which makes him a stubborn jackass.
You never present evidence.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:33:10 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:18:36?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Maybe Drain misread it.
The initials “RD” do not correspond to any police officer known to have been in the chain of custody of the shells.
In addition, no police officer with the intitals “RD” testified before the Warren Commission.
Oh good. Another idiot wih an opinion.
It has nothing to do with Drain.
Maybe you should look at the link for once.
If you looked at the links, you wouldn't be making so many stupid remarks.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.pngAll you can do is laugh at these morons... they simply HATE the
evidence, and keep getting spanked.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:54:51 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
And once again: this is the same conspiracist who said "the Russians got it right" in their conclusion about who killed JFK. Did he look into how they came to this conclusion? Did they follow legal procedures? He doesn't know and doesn't care.Stop it Professor Numbnut.
You're hurting my feelings.
I wonder why there's no Professor Steven Galbraith listed on line in any college History Department ANYWHERE.
You must be one of those "absent-minded professors" teaching a course on the JFK assassination at the School of Hard Knocks.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:unnamed sources and never hesitate in doing so. JFK supposedly said he was going to breakup the CIA. And that was their motive. When did he say this? To who? What did he do to carry the threat out? Who in the CIA knew this? They can't answer any of this
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:46:37 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
Still preparing for your make believe trial, Johnny Cochrane?
There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentationNotice that the conspiracists never question the "chain of custody" for the evidence that supports their conspiracy? None of this legal/court standard when it comes to their claims? They use double and triple hearsay accouts, raw FBI files based on
that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
And once again: this is the same conspiracist who said "the Russians got it right" in their conclusion about who killed JFK. Did he look into how they came to this conclusion? Did they follow legal procedures? He doesn't know and doesn't care.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:32:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
The FBI report DOES INDEED say that JFK and Connally were hit by
separate shots, as Von Penis admitted.
Gil has been stating the truth all along, and out of all theRight now they're in damage control mode.
believers, only Von Penis agreed (but couldn't bear to tell Corbutt he
got caught lying.)
Expect them to start with the personal attacks or trying to change the subject.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:57:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
All you can do is laugh at these morons... they simply HATE the evidence, and keep getting spanked.They are a comical bunch. Very entertaining. I don't know how many times they've had me laughing my ass off at their foolishness.
First they argue that there was no problem with the chain of custody, then when it's proven to them that there was a problem,
they argue that the chain of custody doesn't matter because there wasn't going to be a trial.
But they're too stupid to realize that the chain of custody DOES matter when you're autheticating evidence,
whether or not you end up going to trial. Some cases don't go to trial. Some cases get plea bargained. But either way, you still have to maintain a chain of custody of the evidence and that chain begins at the POINT OF DISCOVERY, not in some detective's coat pocket or an FBI lab.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551677/#:~:text=The%20continuity%20of%20possession%20of,known%20as%20the%20chain%20of
Unless the person who discovered the item can identify the item in evidence as the item they found, there is no authentication of the "evidence" and no chain of custody established.
Without the authetication and established chain of custody, the evidence is inadmissable
and should not be considered in any legal arena that introduces evidence.
Including government hearings like the Warren Commission.
All you can do is laugh at these morons... they simply HATE the evidence, and keep getting spanked.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:57:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:realize that the chain of custody DOES matter when you're autheticating evidence, whether or not you end up going to trial. Some cases don't go to trial. Some cases get plea bargained. But either way, you still have to maintain a chain of custody of the
All you can do is laugh at these morons... they simply HATE the evidence, and keep getting spanked.They are a comical bunch. Very entertaining. I don't know how many times they've had me laughing my ass off at their foolishness.
First they argue that there was no problem with the chain of custody, then when it's proven to them that there was a problem, they argue that the chain of custody doesn't matter because there wasn't going to be a trial. But they're too stupid to
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551677/#:~:text=The%20continuity%20of%20possession%20of,known%20as%20the%20chain%20of
Unless the person who discovered the item can identify the item in evidence as the item they found, there is no authentication of the "evidence" and no chain of custody established.
Without the authetication and established chain of custody, the evidence is inadmissable and should not be considered in any legal arena that introduces evidence.
Including government hearings like the Warren Commission.
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 5:29:01 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:realize that the chain of custody DOES matter when you're autheticating evidence, whether or not you end up going to trial. Some cases don't go to trial. Some cases get plea bargained. But either way, you still have to maintain a chain of custody of the
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:57:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
All you can do is laugh at these morons... they simply HATE the evidence, and keep getting spanked.They are a comical bunch. Very entertaining. I don't know how many times they've had me laughing my ass off at their foolishness.
First they argue that there was no problem with the chain of custody, then when it's proven to them that there was a problem, they argue that the chain of custody doesn't matter because there wasn't going to be a trial. But they're too stupid to
in its report has been debunked.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551677/#:~:text=The%20continuity%20of%20possession%20of,known%20as%20the%20chain%20of
Unless the person who discovered the item can identify the item in evidence as the item they found, there is no authentication of the "evidence" and no chain of custody established.We're not in court, Johnny Cochrane.
Without the authetication and established chain of custody, the evidence is inadmissable and should not be considered in any legal arena that introduces evidence.
Including government hearings like the Warren Commission.
Oswald is historically guilty. JFK's own Presidential library links to the WCR for individuals who want to learn more about that fateful day. It takes pains to remind visitors that the acoustical evidence for a so called fourth shot the HSCA included
You SPECULATE that nearly ALL of the evidence against Oswald would be tossed by a judge. You sit at home and fantasize about being Oswald's attorney. You don't even know if Oswald would've confessed or not to the crimes. No one really knows, as Rubyremoved that possibility. Of course in your world, Ruby was working to kill Oswald on behalf of the conspiracy you refuse to identify.
As Trump would say, "Sad!"
Obviously, the JFK Presidential Library...
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 5:29:01?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:realize that the chain of custody DOES matter when you're autheticating evidence, whether or not you end up going to trial. Some cases don't go to trial. Some cases get plea bargained. But either way, you still have to maintain a chain of custody of the
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:57:42?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
All you can do is laugh at these morons... they simply HATE the evidence, and keep getting spanked.They are a comical bunch. Very entertaining. I don't know how many times they've had me laughing my ass off at their foolishness.
First they argue that there was no problem with the chain of custody, then when it's proven to them that there was a problem, they argue that the chain of custody doesn't matter because there wasn't going to be a trial. But they're too stupid to
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551677/#:~:text=The%20continuity%20of%20possession%20of,known%20as%20the%20chain%20of
Unless the person who discovered the item can identify the item in evidence as the item they found, there is no authentication of the "evidence" and no chain of custody established.
Without the authetication and established chain of custody, the evidence is inadmissable and should not be considered in any legal arena that introduces evidence.
Including government hearings like the Warren Commission.
We're not in court...
Oswald is historically guilty.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:57:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
All you can do is laugh at these morons... they simply HATE the evidence, and keep getting spanked.They are a comical bunch. Very entertaining. I don't know how many times they've had me laughing my ass off at their foolishness.
First they argue that there was no problem with the chain of custody, then when it's proven to them that there was a problem,
they argue that the chain of custody doesn't matter because there wasn't going to be a trial.
But they're too stupid to realize that the chain of custody DOES matter when you're autheticating evidence, whether or not you end up going to trial. Some cases don't go to trial. Some cases get plea bargained. But either way, you still have to maintaina chain of custody of the evidence and that chain begins at the POINT OF DISCOVERY,
not in some detective's coat pocket or an FBI lab.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551677/#:~:text=The%20continuity%20of%20possession%20of,known%20as%20the%20chain%20of
Unless the person who discovered the item
can identify the item in evidence as the item they found, there is no authentication of the "evidence" and no chain of custody established.
Without the authetication and established chain of custody, the evidence is inadmissable and should not be considered in any legal arena that introduces evidence.
Including government hearings like the Warren Commission.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 343 |
Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
Uptime: | 31:13:07 |
Calls: | 7,557 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,733 |
Messages: | 5,655,711 |