Gil cited the following article from a medical journal for information about chain-of-custody:investigation. Under the law, an item will not be accepted as evidence during the trial—will not be seen by the jury—unless the chain of custody is an unbroken and fully documented trail without gaps or discrepancies. In order to convict a defendant
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551677/#:~:text=The%20continuity%20of%20possession%20of,known%20as%20the%20chain%20of
Anyone who reads the article can see the main thrust of this article is about
drug testing of athletes suspected of using performance enhancing drugs.
The governing bodies of various sports have established their own rules of evidence handling which do not apply to criminal prosecutions. Here is a more pertinent article that discusses chain of custody as it pertains to criminal prosecutions:
https://www.thoughtco.com/chain-of-custody-4589132
They provide the following definition for chain-of-custody:
[quote on]
Chain of Custody Definition
In practice, a chain of custody is a chronological paper trail documenting when, how, and by whom individual items of physical or electronic evidence—such as cell phone logs—were collected, handled, analyzed, or otherwise controlled during an
[quote off]Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at things backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some conspiracists. Imagine that a diary belonging to J. Edgar Hoover is discovered. In it Hoover writes that Oswald was an informant, that
Notice the requirement is DOCUMENTATION. It is not necessary for the
first person in the chain or anyone in the chain to have to positively identify
the item as the one they saw or handled. As long as the prosecution can document who found an item, whom they gave it to, and every person along
the chain, the evidence is acceptable. Since Oswald never went to trial, there
was never a need for the prosecutors to ever provide such documentation.
Gil takes the silly position that because the DPD and the prosecutors never made public the documentation for a trial that never took place, they would have been unable to do so.
The silliest thing of all is that even if Gil were right that the prosecutors would have been unable to establish chain-of-custody, a claim he can't prove,
it would not require us to disregard any evidence that helps us determine the
truth of the JFK assassination. We are not bound by the same rules that apply in criminal trials because we are not in position to deprive Oswald or anybody else of their legal rights. Our sole concern should be whether any piece of evidence is genuine. Gil can provide no evidence that the various pieces of forensic evidence such as bullets, shells, fibers, Oswald's jacket,
etc. were planted or tampered with. In absence of such evidence, there is no reason for us to believe such evidence isn't authentic, especially since it all
points to the same conclusion as all the other available evidence. There is nothing in the body of evidence that doesn't fit. For Gil to argue for Oswald's
innocence, he is forced to argue that we should disregard all of the evidence.
What a silly exercise by a very silly man.
Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at things
backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some
conspiracists.
Imagine that a diary belonging to J. Edgar Hoover is discovered. In
it Hoover writes that Oswald was an informant, that he was manipulated
by Ruth Paine into getting the job at the TSBD. It suggests that the
FBI was behind the assassination.
Now, no one - certainly not the conspiracists
- would say, "What about chain of possession? Is it clean? If it was
broken then it's illegitimate and we can't use it since a court
wouldn't allow it." No one.
Yes, we would all ask for *verification* about the diary. Is it
Hoover's handwriting? Is it legitimate? But we wouldn't say, "But the
chain of custody is broken, we don't know how it got to us. Therefore
we throw it out."
Anyone suggesting that would be laughed out of the room. Which is
what we need to do with this chain of possession/custody issue
involving Oswald. It's risible.
Gil cited the following article from a medical journal for information about >chain-of-custody:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551677/#:~:text=The%20continuity%20of%20possession%20of,known%20as%20the%20chain%20of
Anyone who reads the article...
And anyone SUGGESTING such a thing deserves to be laughed at!!!
ROTFMAO!!!
YOU - STEVEN - ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY TO DENIGRATE LEGITIMATE CHAIN
OF CUSTODY ISSUES by means of making up examples that have nothing to
do with chain of custody.
You're a moron.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at thingsWho are you trying to fool? You REFUSE to "reason" with critics.
backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some
conspiracists.
You're simply a coward.
Imagine that a diary belonging to J. Edgar Hoover is discovered. InClearly, you're too stupid to understand that handwritten documents
it Hoover writes that Oswald was an informant, that he was manipulated
by Ruth Paine into getting the job at the TSBD. It suggests that the
FBI was behind the assassination.
carry with them another form of authentication.
Now, no one - certainly not the conspiracistsNor anyone else intelligent enough to understand that handwritten
documents can self-authenticate.
- would say, "What about chain of possession? Is it clean? If it was broken then it's illegitimate and we can't use it since a courtTrue. But you haven't made any point when you agree that neither
wouldn't allow it." No one.
critics nor believers would demand a chain of custody in such a case.
Yes, we would all ask for *verification* about the diary. Is itNeither would critics.
Hoover's handwriting? Is it legitimate? But we wouldn't say, "But the chain of custody is broken, we don't know how it got to us. Therefore
we throw it out."
Anyone suggesting that would be laughed out of the room. Which isAnd anyone SUGGESTING such a thing deserves to be laughed at!!!
what we need to do with this chain of possession/custody issue
involving Oswald. It's risible.
ROTFMAO!!!
YOU - STEVEN - ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY TO DENIGRATE LEGITIMATE CHAIN
OF CUSTODY ISSUES by means of making up examples that have nothing to
do with chain of custody.
You're a moron.
Because they are unreasonable people who don't know how to reason.
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Impossible to reason with conspiracy hobbyists.Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at thingsWho are you trying to fool? You REFUSE to "reason" with critics.
backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some conspiracists.
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 2:30:18 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Because they are unreasonable people who don't know how to reason.Impossible to reason with conspiracy hobbyists.Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at thingsWho are you trying to fool? You REFUSE to "reason" with critics.
backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some conspiracists.
You`ll notice...
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
And anyone SUGGESTING such a thing deserves to be laughed at!!!
ROTFMAO!!!
YOU - STEVEN - ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY TO DENIGRATE LEGITIMATE CHAIN
OF CUSTODY ISSUES by means of making up examples that have nothing to
do with chain of custody.
You're a moron.He is a moron because his example ( Hoover's diary ) is not evidence in a murder case.
He's comparing apples and oranges.
And even if such a thing occurred, he wouldn't believe it anyways. LOL
BTW, can any of these assholes produce the chain of custody forms from the Dallas Police ?
I can't find them.
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 6:20:04?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:14:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
You`ll notice...
Cowardice?
That too...
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:14:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
You`ll notice...
Cowardice?
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.
Can you show...
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
Can you show...
Can you answer?
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 Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:25:54 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 6:20:04?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:14:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
You`ll notice...
Cowardice?
That too...
As demonstrated right here:
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.
What is the legal criteria for "discovery"?
When does the chain of custody begin?
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:52:55 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The governing bodies of various sports have established their own rules of evidence handling which do not apply to criminal prosecutions.There you go lying again.
You claim that chain of custody beginning at the time of discovery is peculiar to the recovery of drug evidence by sports organizations.
That's a lie.
ANY sports organization that uses mandatory drug testing for its athletes may use proven and legal methods to obtain and handle blood and urine samples,
but they don't "establish their own rules for evidence handling".
That's a lie.
They're required to follow legal protocol in handling the evidence just like everyone else, otherwise, they'd be sued up the ass.
My link to the NIH was an example.
Chain of custody begins at the at the time of discovery for ALL evidence collected, regardless of what they're collecting and who collects it.
Including electronic evidence recovered from a computer https://trustifi.com/blog/what-is-the-chain-of-custody-for-email-discovery/
In criminal justice courses, they teach that the Chain of Custody begins at discovery for ALL forensic evidence:
"The chain of custody begins when the evidence is discovered." https://quizlet.com/158209007/forensic-science-the-basics-chapter-2-flash-cards/
But then again, I guess you know better than they do.
The governing bodies of various sports have established their own rules of evidence handling which do not apply to criminal prosecutions.
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:52:55 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The governing bodies of various sports have established their own rules of evidence handling which do not apply to criminal prosecutions.There you go lying again.
You claim that chain of custody beginning at the time of discovery is peculiar to the recovery of drug evidence by sports organizations.
That's a lie.
ANY sports organization that uses mandatory drug testing for its athletes may use proven and legal methods to obtain and handle blood and urine samples,
but they don't "establish their own rules for evidence handling".
That's a lie.
They're required to follow legal protocol in handling the evidence just like everyone else, otherwise, they'd be sued up the ass.
My link to the NIH was an example.
Chain of custody begins at the at the time of discovery for ALL evidence collected, regardless of what they're collecting and who collects it.
Including electronic evidence recovered from a computer https://trustifi.com/blog/what-is-the-chain-of-custody-for-email-discovery/
In criminal justice courses, they teach that the Chain of Custody begins at discovery for ALL forensic evidence:
"The chain of custody begins when the evidence is discovered." https://quizlet.com/158209007/forensic-science-the-basics-chapter-2-flash-cards/
But then again, I guess you know better than they do.
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:52:55?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The governing bodies of various sports have established their own rules of evidence handling which do not apply to criminal prosecutions.
There you go lying again.
You claim that chain of custody beginning at the time of discovery is peculiar to the recovery of drug evidence by sports organizations.
That's a lie.
ANY sports organization that uses mandatory drug testing for its athletes may use proven and legal methods to obtain and handle blood and urine samples,
but they don't "establish their own rules for evidence handling".
That's a lie.
They're required to follow legal protocol in handling the evidence just like everyone else, otherwise, they'd be sued up the ass.
My link to the NIH was an example.
Chain of custody begins at the at the time of discovery for ALL evidence collected, regardless of what they're collecting and who collects it.
Including electronic evidence recovered from a computer >https://trustifi.com/blog/what-is-the-chain-of-custody-for-email-discovery/
In criminal justice courses, they teach that the Chain of Custody begins at discovery for ALL forensic evidence:
"The chain of custody begins when the evidence is discovered." >https://quizlet.com/158209007/forensic-science-the-basics-chapter-2-flash-cards/
But then again, I guess you know better than they do.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 5:54:01?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:52:55?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
There you go lying again.
The governing bodies of various sports have established their own rules of evidence handling which do not apply to criminal prosecutions.
You claim that chain of custody beginning at the time of discovery is peculiar to the recovery of drug evidence by sports organizations.
That's a lie.
I made no such claim.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:05:25 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
What is the legal criteria for "discovery"?When you see it.
When does the chain of custody begin?When you see it.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at thingsWho are you trying to fool? You REFUSE to "reason" with critics.
backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some
conspiracists.
You're simply a coward.
Imagine that a diary belonging to J. Edgar Hoover is discovered. InClearly, you're too stupid to understand that handwritten documents
it Hoover writes that Oswald was an informant, that he was manipulated
by Ruth Paine into getting the job at the TSBD. It suggests that the
FBI was behind the assassination.
carry with them another form of authentication.
Now, no one - certainly not the conspiracistsNor anyone else intelligent enough to understand that handwritten
documents can self-authenticate.
- would say, "What about chain of possession? Is it clean? If it was broken then it's illegitimate and we can't use it since a courtTrue. But you haven't made any point when you agree that neither
wouldn't allow it." No one.
critics nor believers would demand a chain of custody in such a case.
Yes, we would all ask for *verification* about the diary. Is itNeither would critics.
Hoover's handwriting? Is it legitimate? But we wouldn't say, "But the chain of custody is broken, we don't know how it got to us. Therefore
we throw it out."
Anyone suggesting that would be laughed out of the room. Which isAnd anyone SUGGESTING such a thing deserves to be laughed at!!!
what we need to do with this chain of possession/custody issue
involving Oswald. It's risible.
ROTFMAO!!!
YOU - STEVEN - ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY TO DENIGRATE LEGITIMATE CHAIN
OF CUSTODY ISSUES by means of making up examples that have nothing to
do with chain of custody.
You're a moron.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Imagine that a diary belonging to J. Edgar Hoover is discovered. InClearly, you're too stupid to understand that handwritten documents
it Hoover writes that Oswald was an informant, that he was manipulated
by Ruth Paine into getting the job at the TSBD. It suggests that the
FBI was behind the assassination.
carry with them another form of authentication.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 5:54:01 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:52:55 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The governing bodies of various sports have established their own rules of evidence handling which do not apply to criminal prosecutions.There you go lying again.
You claim that chain of custody beginning at the time of discovery is peculiar to the recovery of drug evidence by sports organizations.I made no such claim. You made that up. IOW, you lied. I claimed they adopted their own rules.
That's a lie.
While those rules may have been modeled after requirements in a criminal prosecution, those
rules are not binding on the courts. The courts have established their own rules.
ANY sports organization that uses mandatory drug testing for its athletes may use proven and legal methods to obtain and handle blood and urine samples,Cite the requirement.
but they don't "establish their own rules for evidence handling".
That's a lie.
They're required to follow legal protocol in handling the evidence just like everyone else, otherwise, they'd be sued up the ass.
My link to the NIH was an example.An irrelevant one.
Chain of custody begins at the at the time of discovery for ALL evidence collected, regardless of what they're collecting and who collects it.It's a paper trail.
Including electronic evidence recovered from a computer https://trustifi.com/blog/what-is-the-chain-of-custody-for-email-discovery/
Why would you bring up rules of evidence for emails when there was no such thing at the time
of the assassination. It seems you are just throwing shit on the wall and hoping some of it
sticks.
In criminal justice courses, they teach that the Chain of Custody begins at discovery for ALL forensic evidence:Tell us what law school you attended.
"The chain of custody begins when the evidence is discovered." https://quizlet.com/158209007/forensic-science-the-basics-chapter-2-flash-cards/
But then again, I guess you know better than they do.I've never disputed that establishing chain-of-custody is a requirement. I've disputed how you've
claimed it is established. It is established through a PAPER TRAIL.
It is not a requirement that
every person who handled a piece of evidence to be able to positively identify it. I've also pointed
out that the requirement only pertains to court proceedings.
Once Oswald was killed there was
no prosecution and no requirement to produce the paper trail. The WC was not required to have
that paper trail in order to consider the various pieces of evidence against Oswald. The took
testimony that established how the evidence was handled. Those looking at the evidence from a
historical perspective aren't required to see that paper trail either. Just because you choose to
foolishly turn a blind eye to the evidence is no reason everyone else should. But you have never
been interested in the truth of the assassination. All you want to do is convince people they
should disregard the evidence that establishes Oswald's guilt. You are pretending to be his
defense counsel as well as the judge for your make believe trial that is never going to happen.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:58:48 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:evidence presented in court is the evidence he marked.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 5:54:01 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:52:55 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The governing bodies of various sports have established their own rules of evidence handling which do not apply to criminal prosecutions.There you go lying again.
You claim that chain of custody beginning at the time of discovery is peculiar to the recovery of drug evidence by sports organizations.I made no such claim. You made that up. IOW, you lied. I claimed they adopted their own rules.
That's a lie.
While those rules may have been modeled after requirements in a criminal prosecution, those
rules are not binding on the courts. The courts have established their own rules.
ANY sports organization that uses mandatory drug testing for its athletes may use proven and legal methods to obtain and handle blood and urine samples,Cite the requirement.
but they don't "establish their own rules for evidence handling".
That's a lie.
They're required to follow legal protocol in handling the evidence just like everyone else, otherwise, they'd be sued up the ass.
My link to the NIH was an example.An irrelevant one.
Chain of custody begins at the at the time of discovery for ALL evidence collected, regardless of what they're collecting and who collects it.It's a paper trail.
Including electronic evidence recovered from a computer https://trustifi.com/blog/what-is-the-chain-of-custody-for-email-discovery/
Why would you bring up rules of evidence for emails when there was no such thing at the time
of the assassination. It seems you are just throwing shit on the wall and hoping some of it
sticks.
In criminal justice courses, they teach that the Chain of Custody begins at discovery for ALL forensic evidence:Tell us what law school you attended.
"The chain of custody begins when the evidence is discovered." https://quizlet.com/158209007/forensic-science-the-basics-chapter-2-flash-cards/
It can be established through testimony. Person A testifies he found the evidence and gave it to person B. B testifies he received the evidence from A and gave it to C. C testifies he obtained it from B and then marked the evidence. He then affirms theBut then again, I guess you know better than they do.I've never disputed that establishing chain-of-custody is a requirement. I've disputed how you've
claimed it is established. It is established through a PAPER TRAIL.
Critics like to pretend that since person A didn’t mark the evidence (or, in Gil’s case, fill out a form) then the evidence is not admissible. That’s untrue.that paper trail. I guess he expects us to take us assertions on faith.
And in any case, the evidence is admissible even if person A doesn’t know the name of the person he gave the evidence to (like for CE399) and can’t swear it’s the same evidence he handled.
See this quote on the second page here: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
“The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].
The evidence is admissible.
Also, don’t judge this case by today’s standards as you appear to be doing. While a paper trail may be required in court cases today, Gil has not shown it was required in 1963, nor has he established that the evidence would be inadmissible absent
It is not a requirement that*Maybe* it pertains to current court proceedings without exception. I don’t know.
every person who handled a piece of evidence to be able to positively identify it. I've also pointed
out that the requirement only pertains to court proceedings.
I do know I’ve cited a legal publication where it’s stated the evidence is admissible even where there are questions regarding the legitimacy of the evidence.
Once Oswald was killed there was
no prosecution and no requirement to produce the paper trail. The WC was not required to have
that paper trail in order to consider the various pieces of evidence against Oswald. The took
testimony that established how the evidence was handled. Those looking at the evidence from a
historical perspective aren't required to see that paper trail either. Just because you choose to
foolishly turn a blind eye to the evidence is no reason everyone else should. But you have never
been interested in the truth of the assassination. All you want to do is convince people they
should disregard the evidence that establishes Oswald's guilt. You are pretending to be his
defense counsel as well as the judge for your make believe trial that is never going to happen.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:58:48 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:evidence presented in court is the evidence he marked.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 5:54:01 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:52:55 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The governing bodies of various sports have established their own rules of evidence handling which do not apply to criminal prosecutions.There you go lying again.
You claim that chain of custody beginning at the time of discovery is peculiar to the recovery of drug evidence by sports organizations.I made no such claim. You made that up. IOW, you lied. I claimed they adopted their own rules.
That's a lie.
While those rules may have been modeled after requirements in a criminal prosecution, those
rules are not binding on the courts. The courts have established their own rules.
ANY sports organization that uses mandatory drug testing for its athletes may use proven and legal methods to obtain and handle blood and urine samples,Cite the requirement.
but they don't "establish their own rules for evidence handling".
That's a lie.
They're required to follow legal protocol in handling the evidence just like everyone else, otherwise, they'd be sued up the ass.
My link to the NIH was an example.An irrelevant one.
Chain of custody begins at the at the time of discovery for ALL evidence collected, regardless of what they're collecting and who collects it.It's a paper trail.
Including electronic evidence recovered from a computer https://trustifi.com/blog/what-is-the-chain-of-custody-for-email-discovery/
Why would you bring up rules of evidence for emails when there was no such thing at the time
of the assassination. It seems you are just throwing shit on the wall and hoping some of it
sticks.
In criminal justice courses, they teach that the Chain of Custody begins at discovery for ALL forensic evidence:Tell us what law school you attended.
"The chain of custody begins when the evidence is discovered." https://quizlet.com/158209007/forensic-science-the-basics-chapter-2-flash-cards/
It can be established through testimony. Person A testifies he found the evidence and gave it to person B. B testifies he received the evidence from A and gave it to C. C testifies he obtained it from B and then marked the evidence. He then affirms theBut then again, I guess you know better than they do.I've never disputed that establishing chain-of-custody is a requirement. I've disputed how you've
claimed it is established. It is established through a PAPER TRAIL.
Critics like to pretend that since person A didn’t mark the evidence (or, in Gil’s case, fill out a form) then the evidence is not admissible. That’s untrue.
And in any case, the evidence is admissible even if person A doesn’t know the name of the person he gave the evidence to (like for CE399) and can’t swear it’s the same evidence he handled.
See this quote on the second page here: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
“The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].that paper trail. I guess he expects us to take us assertions on faith.
The evidence is admissible.
Also, don’t judge this case by today’s standards as you appear to be doing. While a paper trail may be required in court cases today, Gil has not shown it was required in 1963, nor has he established that the evidence would be inadmissible absent
It is not a requirement that*Maybe* it pertains to current court proceedings without exception. I don’t know.
every person who handled a piece of evidence to be able to positively identify it. I've also pointed
out that the requirement only pertains to court proceedings.
I do know I’ve cited a legal publication where it’s stated the evidence is admissible even where there are questions regarding the legitimacy of the evidence.
That could have and likely would have been done for the grand jury and/or at the criminal trial.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:30:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:58:26 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:30:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
attributing to me.You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?Ben’s arguments are reduced to the importance of a broken record — a record with a skip in it… repeating the same words endlessly.
He’s doing this with both Bud and me.
A decade or so ago, on Amazon, Ben used to at least *try* to have a discussion about the evidence. Now he studiously avoids going near any discussion of the evidence and instead wants to constantly change the subject to the claims he’s falsely
These morons can't quite figure out the PURPOSE of chain of custody... which would, of course, be defeated if it didn't begin at the point of discovery.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 11:35:47 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
These morons can't quite figure out the PURPOSE of chain of custody... which would, of course, be defeated if it didn't begin at the point of discovery.Exactly.
Once evidence is discovered, it's in someone's control.
You can't establish a chain of custody if the person who discovered the evidence can't identify it.
Without their identification, the evidence is not authenticated.
Without authentication, there is no proof that the evidence wasn't tampered with or substituted.
And THAT'S the purpose of a chain of custody: TO PROVE THAT THE ITEMS IN EVIDENCE ARE THE SAME ITEMS DISCOVERED.
And that chain of custody does not start in an FBI lab, or with the second, third or fourth person who handled the evidence.
It begins at the crime scene or ( if it's found outside the crime scene ) the time of discovery.
And the basic rules regarding chain of custody, in the legal arena, are the same whether you're taking samples for drug testing, gathering electronic evidence, or
physical evidence in a criminal case. Those rules require that the identities of everyone who handles the evidence MUST BE DOCUMENTED with the name, date and time the evidence
was in their possession and why they had it.
There appears to be NO DOCUMENTED CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORDS for ANY of the evidence in this case.
And that fact alone should give any reasonable person pause to ask the question:
The evidence was found while the suspect was still alive and it was obvious that he'd be going to trial, so why weren't these documents filled out ?
And if these documents WERE filled out and destroyed after Oswald was dead and there'd be no trial, where's the record that the documents were destroyed ?
It's not rocket science. There's plenty of opportunity to tamper and substitute evidence in this case.
And with that opportunity comes plenty of doubt of Oswald's guilt.
It's hard to believe that there are people out there that are that stupid they can't see that.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:58:26?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:30:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Bens arguments are reduced to the importance of a broken record a record with a skip in it repeating the same words endlessly.
Hes doing this with both Bud and me.
A decade or so ago, on Amazon, Ben used to at least *try* to have a discussion about the evidence.
Now he studiously avoids going near any discussion of the evidence
and instead wants to constantly change the subject to the claims
hes falsely attributing to me.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 6:14:22?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 11:35:47?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
These morons can't quite figure out the PURPOSE of chain of custody... which would, of course, be defeated if it didn't begin at the point of discovery.Exactly.
Once evidence is discovered, it's in someone's control.
You can't establish a chain of custody if the person who discovered the evidence can't identify it.
Bullshit. A claim you've made often and never supported by citing a recognized legal source.
You've cited sources which state chain-of-custody is required, but none that say identification
by the original source is necessary.
Hypothetical. A private citizen finds a discarded gun and turns it over to police. Police are able
to ballistically match the gun to a recent murder. The weapon is traced to its owner who was the
prime suspect in the murder. Police have other evidence linking him to the crime but the gun is
essential to the prosecution's case. Do you honestly think the court is going to let a murderer
walk because the person who found the gun can't be positive it is the same gun he found and
turned over to the police.
Without their identification, the evidence is not authenticated.Chain-of-custody is required to be established at trial.
Without authentication, there is no proof that the evidence wasn't tampered with or substituted.
And THAT'S the purpose of a chain of custody: TO PROVE THAT THE ITEMS IN EVIDENCE ARE THE SAME ITEMS DISCOVERED.
Had Oswad been on trial, there is no reason
to believe the prosecutors could not have documented the chain-of-custody.
The cops and
the prosecutors understood the rules of evidence. Do you really think they wouldn't have been
able to meet the requirements in the most important crime they ever prosecuted?
And that chain of custody does not start in an FBI lab, or with the second, third or fourth person who handled the evidence.
It begins at the crime scene or ( if it's found outside the crime scene ) the time of discovery.
And the basic rules regarding chain of custody, in the legal arena, are the same whether you're taking samples for drug testing, gathering electronic evidence, or
physical evidence in a criminal case. Those rules require that the identities of everyone who handles the evidence MUST BE DOCUMENTED with the name, date and time the evidence
was in their possession and why they had it.
And you think the DPD and prosecutors would not have been able to do that. Why?
There appears to be NO DOCUMENTED CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORDS for ANY of the evidence in this case.
You don't know whether that documentation was ever produced and if so, where it was filed.
The simple fact is it wouldn't have been needed until trial so it's very possible they never
produced the documentation since they knew there would have been no trial. That doesn't
mean they couldn't have produced the documentation had it been required. Apparently they
didn't know that in 2023 you would be conducting a virtual trial and you would need that
documentation to authenticate the evidence against your client.
And that fact alone should give any reasonable person pause to ask the question:
The evidence was found while the suspect was still alive and it was obvious that he'd be going to trial, so why weren't these documents filled out ?
Because it wouldn't be needed right away. Had there been a trial, it would have been months
after the crime.
And if these documents WERE filled out and destroyed after Oswald was dead and there'd be no trial, where's the record that the documents were destroyed ?
Let us know when you find out the answers to your inane questions.
It's not rocket science. There's plenty of opportunity to tamper and substitute evidence in this case.
And with that opportunity comes plenty of doubt of Oswald's guilt.
It's hard to believe that there are people out there that are that stupid they can't see that.
But apparently I am.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 7:42:15 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< a lot of bullshit opinion that was deleted >
ROFLMAO
Gil loves to make assertions but when it comes to sticking around to defend them, he makes
a hasty retreat. It frustrates him that we all don't blindly accept the things he claims and instead
ask him to back them up.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
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.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:54:13 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Gil loves to make assertions but when it comes to sticking around to defend them, he makesYou're right, John.
a hasty retreat. It frustrates him that we all don't blindly accept the things he claims and instead
ask him to back them up.
I'm sure the Dallas Police didn't have to document the chain-of-custody of the evidence.
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=574911510&q=chain+of+custody+forms&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibqoiv2oKCAxWpmokEHWafDssQ0pQJegQIDRAB&biw=1920&bih=931&dpr=1
I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers.
NOT
But you, as a Warren Commission supporter, become a proxy for the Commission, and as such, the burden of proof is on YOU.
It's your evidence and you need to provide it.
I've asked you several questions that you and your asshole friends could not answer.
I've proven that the chain of custody was broken for several pieces of evidence.
I've listed how every major piece of evidence currently in the government's possession was never identified by the person who found it as the item they found.
Not one, John. EVERY SINGLE PIECE.
You haven't been able to refute one thing I've said about the chain of custody in this case.
And you still run from the question:
The evidence was found while the suspect was still alive and it was obvious that he'd be going to trial, these documents should have been filled out,
https://www.thoughtco.com/chain-of-custody-4589132
so where are they ?
This isn't about me. This is about YOU proving this statement you made:
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.https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
We're still waiting for YOU to show us that documentation YOU say exists.
Are you going to show us the documentation, or are you going to keep running like the liar you are ?
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:54:13 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Gil loves to make assertions but when it comes to sticking around to defend them, he makesYou're right, John.
a hasty retreat. It frustrates him that we all don't blindly accept the things he claims and instead
ask him to back them up.
I'm sure the Dallas Police didn't have to document the chain-of-custody of the evidence.
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=574911510&q=chain+of+custody+forms&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibqoiv2oKCAxWpmokEHWafDssQ0pQJegQIDRAB&biw=1920&bih=931&dpr=1
I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers.
NOT
But you, as a Warren Commission supporter, become a proxy for the Commission, and as such, the burden of proof is on YOU.
It's your evidence and you need to provide it.
I've asked you several questions that you and your asshole friends could not answer.
I've proven that the chain of custody was broken for several pieces of evidence.
I've listed how every major piece of evidence currently in the government's possession was never identified by the person who found it as the item they found.
Not one, John. EVERY SINGLE PIECE.
You haven't been able to refute one thing I've said about the chain of custody in this case.
And you still run from the question:
The evidence was found while the suspect was still alive and it was obvious that he'd be going to trial, these documents should have been filled out,
https://www.thoughtco.com/chain-of-custody-4589132
so where are they ?
This isn't about me. This is about YOU proving this statement you made:
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.https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
We're still waiting for YOU to show us that documentation YOU say exists.
Are you going to show us the documentation, or are you going to keep running like the liar you are ?
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 2:40:52 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:58:26 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:30:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
attributing to me.You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back, and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?Ben’s arguments are reduced to the importance of a broken record — a record with a skip in it… repeating the same words endlessly.
He’s doing this with both Bud and me.
A decade or so ago, on Amazon, Ben used to at least *try* to have a discussion about the evidence. Now he studiously avoids going near any discussion of the evidence and instead wants to constantly change the subject to the claims he’s falsely
Apparently, Ben realizes that discussion with you is a waste of time.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 2:43:46 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 2:40:52 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:58:26 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:30:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
attributing to me.You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back, and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?Ben’s arguments are reduced to the importance of a broken record — a record with a skip in it… repeating the same words endlessly.
He’s doing this with both Bud and me.
A decade or so ago, on Amazon, Ben used to at least *try* to have a discussion about the evidence. Now he studiously avoids going near any discussion of the evidence and instead wants to constantly change the subject to the claims he’s falsely
More likely because you weasel and lie, and are not interested in discussing anything.Apparently, Ben realizes that discussion with you is a waste of time.Right, because he’s not able to make a reasoned argument and support it with evidence.
So he resorts to falsely attributing something to me and asking me to support it. And is stuck posting the same false claims repeatedly — like a broken record.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 11:58:19 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 2:43:46 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 2:40:52 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:58:26 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:30:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
attributing to me.You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?Ben’s arguments are reduced to the importance of a broken record — a record with a skip in it… repeating the same words endlessly.
He’s doing this with both Bud and me.
A decade or so ago, on Amazon, Ben used to at least *try* to have a discussion about the evidence. Now he studiously avoids going near any discussion of the evidence and instead wants to constantly change the subject to the claims he’s falsely
Apparently, Ben realizes that discussion with you is a waste of time.Right, because he’s not able to make a reasoned argument and support it with evidence.
So he resorts to falsely attributing something to me and asking me to support it. And is stuck posting the same false claims repeatedly — like a broken record.More likely because you weasel and lie, and are not interested in discussing anything.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 12:14:40 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 11:58:19 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 2:43:46 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 2:40:52 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:58:26 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:30:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
falsely attributing to me.You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?Ben’s arguments are reduced to the importance of a broken record — a record with a skip in it… repeating the same words endlessly.
He’s doing this with both Bud and me.
A decade or so ago, on Amazon, Ben used to at least *try* to have a discussion about the evidence. Now he studiously avoids going near any discussion of the evidence and instead wants to constantly change the subject to the claims he’s
Everybody knows your shit stinks. They can smell it for themselves and don't need me to prove it.Apparently, Ben realizes that discussion with you is a waste of time.Right, because he’s not able to make a reasoned argument and support it with evidence.
Funny you can’t cite for any weaseling or lying. Your claim, your burden to support.So he resorts to falsely attributing something to me and asking me to support it. And is stuck posting the same false claims repeatedly — like a broken record.More likely because you weasel and lie, and are not interested in discussing anything.
I’ll discuss the Kennedy assassination with anyone. But all Ben is doing for the last month or more is attributing claims to me I never made, and shifting the burden and asking me to support those false claims.
I’ve explained multiple times why that is wrong.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 12:14:40 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 11:58:19 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 2:43:46 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 2:40:52 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:58:26 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:30:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
falsely attributing to me.You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?Ben’s arguments are reduced to the importance of a broken record — a record with a skip in it… repeating the same words endlessly.
He’s doing this with both Bud and me.
A decade or so ago, on Amazon, Ben used to at least *try* to have a discussion about the evidence. Now he studiously avoids going near any discussion of the evidence and instead wants to constantly change the subject to the claims he’s
Apparently, Ben realizes that discussion with you is a waste of time.Right, because he’s not able to make a reasoned argument and support it with evidence.
Funny you can’t cite for any weaseling or lying. Your claim, your burden to support.So he resorts to falsely attributing something to me and asking me to support it. And is stuck posting the same false claims repeatedly — like a broken record.More likely because you weasel and lie, and are not interested in discussing anything.
I’ll discuss the Kennedy assassination with anyone. But all Ben is doing for the last month or more is attributing claims to me I never made, and shifting the burden and asking me to support those false claims.
I’ve explained multiple times why that is wrong.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 23:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:58:26?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:30:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Ben’s arguments are reduced to the importance of a broken record — a record with a skip in it… repeating the same words endlessly.It's time you start answering.
He’s doing this with both Bud and me.Both of you are running from false statements you've made.
A decade or so ago, on Amazon, Ben used to at least *try* to have a discussion about the evidence.It takes two.
Now he studiously avoids going near any discussion of the evidenceYou're CLEARLY a blatant liar... trying to claim that the Autopsy
Report isn't evidence. Or the medical testimony...
You should be ashamed.
and instead wants to constantly change the subject to the claimsAnd yet, I've CITED for your assertions.
he’s falsely attributing to me.
You can't get away from this Huckster - you're going to keep seeing
this same post UNTIL YOU ANSWER IT.
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 12:23:56 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 12:14:40 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 11:58:19 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 2:43:46 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 2:40:52 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:58:26 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:30:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
falsely attributing to me.You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?Ben’s arguments are reduced to the importance of a broken record — a record with a skip in it… repeating the same words endlessly.
He’s doing this with both Bud and me.
A decade or so ago, on Amazon, Ben used to at least *try* to have a discussion about the evidence. Now he studiously avoids going near any discussion of the evidence and instead wants to constantly change the subject to the claims he’s
Apparently, Ben realizes that discussion with you is a waste of time.Right, because he’s not able to make a reasoned argument and support it with evidence.
Funny you can’t cite for any weaseling or lying. Your claim, your burden to support.So he resorts to falsely attributing something to me and asking me to support it. And is stuck posting the same false claims repeatedly — like a broken record.More likely because you weasel and lie, and are not interested in discussing anything.
I’ll discuss the Kennedy assassination with anyone. But all Ben is doing for the last month or more is attributing claims to me I never made, and shifting the burden and asking me to support those false claims.
I’ve explained multiple times why that is wrong.Everybody knows your shit stinks. They can smell it for themselves and don't need me to prove it.
We were discussing what Ben is falsely attributing to me.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
And Ben do likewise, couching his attacks in terms of false attributions to statements I never made.My "false attributions" were instantly cited the moment you finally
asked for a cite - you ran for days & weeks, and finally decided to challenge me to cite - and I did so INSTANTLY.
Own it, or admit you lied.
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:testify in a legal proceeding to its authenticity?
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at thingsWho are you trying to fool? You REFUSE to "reason" with critics.
backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some conspiracists.
You're simply a coward.Really? A handwritten document can self-authenticate? How would it do that? Would the handwritten document fill out a form that Gil insists is necessary (but doesn’t establish that). Would this handwritten document swear to tell the truth, and then
Imagine that a diary belonging to J. Edgar Hoover is discovered. InClearly, you're too stupid to understand that handwritten documents
it Hoover writes that Oswald was an informant, that he was manipulated by Ruth Paine into getting the job at the TSBD. It suggests that the
FBI was behind the assassination.
carry with them another form of authentication.
Now, no one - certainly not the conspiracistsNor anyone else intelligent enough to understand that handwritten documents can self-authenticate.
Wouldn’t you actually need a handwriting expert to examine the original questioned document(s) and other known documents written by the subject person to compare the handwriting and make a determination as to whether the questioned document islegitimate or a forgery?
Your argument that a handwritten document is somehow self-authenticating is nonsense.
And isn’t it true that even where this was done for Oswald’s handwriting and the questioned documents verified as Oswald’s handwriting by experts, critics still question the authenticity of those documents?
For example, the original money order that was used to purchased the rifle that was found on the sixth floor and matched ballistically to three shells found in the building, two large fragments found in the President’s limo, and a nearly-while bulletfound in Parkland Hospital where the two shooting victims where taken.
Don’t critics question the legitimacy of that money order?
- would say, "What about chain of possession? Is it clean? If it was broken then it's illegitimate and we can't use it since a courtTrue. But you haven't made any point when you agree that neither
wouldn't allow it." No one.
critics nor believers would demand a chain of custody in such a case.
So, double standard. Gil is asking for something - chain of custody to establish the legitimacy of various pieces of evidence - that you say is unnecessary.Yes, we would all ask for *verification* about the diary. Is itNeither would critics.
Hoover's handwriting? Is it legitimate? But we wouldn't say, "But the chain of custody is broken, we don't know how it got to us. Therefore
we throw it out."
Anyone suggesting that would be laughed out of the room. Which isAnd anyone SUGGESTING such a thing deserves to be laughed at!!!
what we need to do with this chain of possession/custody issue
involving Oswald. It's risible.
ROTFMAO!!!
YOU - STEVEN - ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY TO DENIGRATE LEGITIMATE CHAIN
OF CUSTODY ISSUES by means of making up examples that have nothing to
do with chain of custody.
You're a moron.
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:53:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:27:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Long list of denials deleted.
Of course. Because you have no rebuttal.
I cited your claim that Chickenshit speaks for you. You were either
telling the truth, or you were lying. There's no other possibility.
Hilarious! Quote my claim *in context*.
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:27:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Long list of denials deleted.
I cited your claim that Chickenshit speaks for you. You were either
telling the truth, or you were lying. There's no other possibility.
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 9:57:11 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:testify in a legal proceeding to its authenticity?
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:41:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Let's flip this argument upside down since looking at thingsWho are you trying to fool? You REFUSE to "reason" with critics.
backwards seems to be the only way we can reason with some conspiracists.
You're simply a coward.Really? A handwritten document can self-authenticate? How would it do that? Would the handwritten document fill out a form that Gil insists is necessary (but doesn’t establish that). Would this handwritten document swear to tell the truth, and then
Imagine that a diary belonging to J. Edgar Hoover is discovered. InClearly, you're too stupid to understand that handwritten documents carry with them another form of authentication.
it Hoover writes that Oswald was an informant, that he was manipulated by Ruth Paine into getting the job at the TSBD. It suggests that the FBI was behind the assassination.
Now, no one - certainly not the conspiracistsNor anyone else intelligent enough to understand that handwritten documents can self-authenticate.
legitimate or a forgery?Wouldn’t you actually need a handwriting expert to examine the original questioned document(s) and other known documents written by the subject person to compare the handwriting and make a determination as to whether the questioned document is
Your argument that a handwritten document is somehow self-authenticating is nonsense.
And isn’t it true that even where this was done for Oswald’s handwriting and the questioned documents verified as Oswald’s handwriting by experts, critics still question the authenticity of those documents?
Ben? Time to put up a reasoned argument, citing some examples of a hand-written document being “self-authenticating” as you claimed above.
bullet found in Parkland Hospital where the two shooting victims where taken.For example, the original money order that was used to purchased the rifle that was found on the sixth floor and matched ballistically to three shells found in the building, two large fragments found in the President’s limo, and a nearly-while
Don’t critics question the legitimacy of that money order?
Don’t they, even in the face of expert testimony to the contrary? Was the money order “self-authenticating”?
Awaiting your reasoned response, complete with evidence establishing your unproven assertion.
the unsupported claim he is making.- would say, "What about chain of possession? Is it clean? If it was broken then it's illegitimate and we can't use it since a court wouldn't allow it." No one.True. But you haven't made any point when you agree that neither
critics nor believers would demand a chain of custody in such a case.
Yet a critic posting here (Gil Jesus) is asking for us to provide the chain of custody for 60-year-old evidence that the Commission established through testimony and affidavits 59 years ago. We disagree with his assertion, and ask him him to establish
So, double standard. Gil is asking for something - chain of custody to establish the legitimacy of various pieces of evidence - that you say is unnecessary.Yes, we would all ask for *verification* about the diary. Is it Hoover's handwriting? Is it legitimate? But we wouldn't say, "But the chain of custody is broken, we don't know how it got to us. Therefore we throw it out."Neither would critics.
Isn’t it true that if you wouldn’t ask for a chain of custody for Hoover’s supposed diary, it’s a double standard to ask for a chain of custody at this late date - 60 years after the assassination - for the evidence gathered against Oswald?
Anyone suggesting that would be laughed out of the room. Which isAnd anyone SUGGESTING such a thing deserves to be laughed at!!! ROTFMAO!!!
what we need to do with this chain of possession/custody issue involving Oswald. It's risible.
YOU - STEVEN - ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY TO DENIGRATE LEGITIMATE CHAIN
OF CUSTODY ISSUES by means of making up examples that have nothing to
do with chain of custody.
You're a moron.
So you therefore must accept the Hitler diaries as legit, and don’t need further proof they were actually written by Hitler because they are “self-authenticating”?
Hilarious!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Diaries
“Rigorous forensic analysis, which had not been performed previously, quickly confirmed that the diaries were fakes.”
Please tell us why you claim Hoover’s diary would be “self-authenticating” but the same wasn’t true for Hitler’s diaries. Explain the difference in the diaries that make one “self-authenticating” and the other not.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Or change the subject to made-up claims you’re trying to put in my mouth. You’re a lot better at that.
Ben apparently decided it wasnt time to put up a reasoned argument supporting his claim that hand-written documents are self-authenticating.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 10:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Ben apparently decided it wasn’t time to put up a reasoned argument supporting his claim that hand-written documents are “self-authenticating”.You can cry all you want, Huckster - but you're still running from
this:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Why do you think you deserve answers when *YOU* refuse to offer any?
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 1:52:16 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:years*, hasn’t it?
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 10:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Ben apparently decided it wasn’t time to put up a reasoned argument supporting his claim that hand-written documents are “self-authenticating”.You can cry all you want, Huckster - but you're still running from
this:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?I answered this post in detail. You discounted those answers. Why do you pretend I need to answer each time you raise it anew?
Why do you think you deserve answers when *YOU* refuse to offer any?
And by raising it again, aren’t you conceding my point — that you’d rather talk about me than talk about the Kennedy assassination?
When was the last time you actually posted a reasoned argument for a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination? Citing evidence and tying the various points together to show how there must have been a conspiracy to assassinate the President? It’s been *
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 1:52:16?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 10:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Ben apparently decided it wasnt time to put up a reasoned argumentYou can cry all you want, Huckster - but you're still running from
supporting his claim that hand-written documents are self-authenticating.
this:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Why do you think you deserve answers when *YOU* refuse to offer any?
I answered this post in detail.
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 2:44:18 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:been *years*, hasn’t it?
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 1:52:16 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 10:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Ben apparently decided it wasn’t time to put up a reasoned argument supporting his claim that hand-written documents are “self-authenticating”.You can cry all you want, Huckster - but you're still running from
this:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back, and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?I answered this post in detail. You discounted those answers. Why do you pretend I need to answer each time you raise it anew?
Why do you think you deserve answers when *YOU* refuse to offer any?
And by raising it again, aren’t you conceding my point — that you’d rather talk about me than talk about the Kennedy assassination?
When was the last time you actually posted a reasoned argument for a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination? Citing evidence and tying the various points together to show how there must have been a conspiracy to assassinate the President? It’s
He has never done it, as far as I know.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 11:44:17 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 1:52:16?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 10:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Ben apparently decided it wasn’t time to put up a reasoned argument >> > supporting his claim that hand-written documents are “self-authenticating”.You can cry all you want, Huckster - but you're still running from
this:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Why do you think you deserve answers when *YOU* refuse to offer any?
I answered this post in detail.You're lying again, Huckster.
Take, for example, the very first question - can anyone tell FROM WHAT
YOU ANSWERED what the "A.B.C.D." paragraphs describe?
No. They can't.
Thus, you've not answered.
You're a coward.
Provably.
Last time he went toe-to-toe with me ...
On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:30:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Ben is pretending loaded questions ...
Nothing "loaded" about these questions...
I'm asking you to support
your claims...
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:47?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:30:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Ben is pretending loaded questions ...Nothing "loaded" about these questions...
I'm asking you to support
your claims...
You are asking me to support claims I never made.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:54:13 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Gil loves to make assertions but when it comes to sticking around to defend them, he makesYou're right, John.
a hasty retreat. It frustrates him that we all don't blindly accept the things he claims and instead
ask him to back them up.
I'm sure the Dallas Police didn't have to document the chain-of-custody of the evidence.
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=574911510&q=chain+of+custody+forms&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibqoiv2oKCAxWpmokEHWafDssQ0pQJegQIDRAB&biw=1920&bih=931&dpr=1
I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers.
NOT
But you, as a Warren Commission supporter, become a proxy for the Commission, and as such, the burden of proof is on YOU.
It's your evidence and you need to provide it.
I've asked you several questions that you and your asshole friends could not answer.
I've proven that the chain of custody was broken for several pieces of evidence.
I've listed how every major piece of evidence currently in the government's possession was never identified by the person who found it as the item they found.
Not one, John. EVERY SINGLE PIECE.
You haven't been able to refute one thing I've said about the chain of custody in this case.
And you still run from the question:
The evidence was found while the suspect was still alive and it was obvious that he'd be going to trial, these documents should have been filled out,
https://www.thoughtco.com/chain-of-custody-4589132
so where are they ?
This isn't about me. This is about YOU proving this statement you made:
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.https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
We're still waiting for YOU to show us that documentation YOU say exists. Are you going to show us the documentation, or are you going to keep running like the liar you are ?
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 2:33:02 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:it on each occasion, because it conflicts with what you want to believe.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:54:13 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Gil loves to make assertions but when it comes to sticking around to defend them, he makesYou're right, John.
a hasty retreat. It frustrates him that we all don't blindly accept the things he claims and instead
ask him to back them up.
I'm sure the Dallas Police didn't have to document the chain-of-custody of the evidence.
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=574911510&q=chain+of+custody+forms&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibqoiv2oKCAxWpmokEHWafDssQ0pQJegQIDRAB&biw=1920&bih=931&dpr=1
Testimony would suffice, as it did in the Manson trial.
But even that is unnecessary. If the chain of custody is missing, or incomplete, the evidence is still admissible. It would be the jury’s responsibility to decide how much weight to give it. This has been cited to you numerous times. You have ignored
Here it is again:
See this quote on the second page here: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
“The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].
I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers.
NOT
You were right the first time.
But you, as a Warren Commission supporter, become a proxy for the Commission, and as such, the burden of proof is on YOU.
You need to establish your assertion that any such forms were required in 1963.
It's your evidence and you need to provide it.
You are asserting forms were needed that you haven’t established were required. Then asking us to link to those non-existent forms.
I've asked you several questions that you and your asshole friends could not answer.
I've proven that the chain of custody was broken for several pieces of evidence.
Assuming it’s true (it’s not) for the sake of argument, the evidence would still be admissible:
See this quote on the second page here: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
“The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].
I've listed how every major piece of evidence currently in the government's possession was never identified by the person who found it as the item they found.
And this is meaningful why?
Not one, John. EVERY SINGLE PIECE.
You haven't been able to refute one thing I've said about the chain of custody in this case.
I’ve established you don’t know what you’re talking about concerning admissibility of evidence.
And you still run from the question:
The evidence was found while the suspect was still alive and it was obvious that he'd be going to trial, these documents should have been filled out,
What 1963 DPD documents should have been filled out?
Provide a sample form from another 1963 DPD case.
https://www.thoughtco.com/chain-of-custody-4589132
so where are they ?
They don’t exist, because you are asking for something that you have never established were required or even existed.
But witnesses are notoriously unreliable...unless they say what Hobbyist Hank wants to hear.This isn't about me. This is about YOU proving this statement you made:
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.https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
We're still waiting for YOU to show us that documentation YOU say exists. Are you going to show us the documentation, or are you going to keep running like the liar you are ?
Testimony is sufficient to establish chain of custody.
On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 18:44:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
You can run, Huckster - but you can't hide in an open forum - and you
can't stop me proving your cowardice on a daily basis.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 10:04:30 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 18:44:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?Ben has made himself completely irrelevant with responses like this.
You can run, Huckster - but you can't hide in an open forum - and you can't stop me proving your cowardice on a daily basis.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 115:33:58 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,132 |