For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:42 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:the beginning as if none of this has been discussed. Why? Do you think you're going to get fresh, new answers? This is nearly sixty years old and has been all talked out, but NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION.
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.No one cares what you think, tiny little old man collecting your disability check.
You've received explanations; some thoughtful and detailed, some snarky and sarcastic. None of the answers have satisfied you, and YOU KEEP BRINGING THIS UP. This is what is known as a fringe reset. You attempt to reset the entire evidence debate at
You know what would be fresh and new and liven up the board?your ideas, invite your critics to challenge your assumptions, provide tests (or link to the tests from other people) which you feel supports your theories about what occurred, and on and on.
YOUR version of what YOU think happened that day. You are constantly asking others to stand in as proxy Warren Commission members or staff attorneys to answer your hobby point nit picks. LAY OUT WHAT YOU THINK HAPPENED. Be open to fair criticism of
This is a board to discuss the assassination of JFK and the so-called conspiracy that took his life, but oddly, Team Oswald has no interest in discussing the conspiracy. Why?credentials. Oswald as the murderer of JFK and JDT will not change unless Team Oswald can come up with a counternarrative that has less holes in it than the case you criticize.
Why do you fantasize about a trial that will never happen where you are acting as his Johnny Cochrane? Oswald is HISTORICALLY guilty, regardless of your obsession over what would or wouldn't be allowed in court with your crackerjack box attorney
Get busy, old-timer, and stop the odd obsession with what would or wouldn't be allowed in court for a trial that was never going to happen after 11/24/63 and Ruby's lucky shot.
As Trump would say, "Sad!"
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 9:39:10 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:the beginning as if none of this has been discussed. Why? Do you think you're going to get fresh, new answers? This is nearly sixty years old and has been all talked out, but NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:42 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.No one cares what you think, tiny little old man collecting your disability check.
You've received explanations; some thoughtful and detailed, some snarky and sarcastic. None of the answers have satisfied you, and YOU KEEP BRINGING THIS UP. This is what is known as a fringe reset. You attempt to reset the entire evidence debate at
your ideas, invite your critics to challenge your assumptions, provide tests (or link to the tests from other people) which you feel supports your theories about what occurred, and on and on.You know what would be fresh and new and liven up the board?
YOUR version of what YOU think happened that day. You are constantly asking others to stand in as proxy Warren Commission members or staff attorneys to answer your hobby point nit picks. LAY OUT WHAT YOU THINK HAPPENED. Be open to fair criticism of
credentials. Oswald as the murderer of JFK and JDT will not change unless Team Oswald can come up with a counternarrative that has less holes in it than the case you criticize.This is a board to discuss the assassination of JFK and the so-called conspiracy that took his life, but oddly, Team Oswald has no interest in discussing the conspiracy. Why?
Why do you fantasize about a trial that will never happen where you are acting as his Johnny Cochrane? Oswald is HISTORICALLY guilty, regardless of your obsession over what would or wouldn't be allowed in court with your crackerjack box attorney
Get busy, old-timer, and stop the odd obsession with what would or wouldn't be allowed in court for a trial that was never going to happen after 11/24/63 and Ruby's lucky shot.
As Trump would say, "Sad!"Gilly, wants to replace the historical narrative that Oswald was the assassin. What he hasn't
figured out is you can't replace something with nothing. I have no idea what his end game is,
if he has even figured that out himself. Does he expect people to accept that Oswald didn't do
it and that we will never know who did? Not going to happen. Even among those who believe
there was a conspiracy, most of those folks accept that Oswald was an active member of it.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 9:39:10?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 9:44:08?AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 9:39:10?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
If you are going to claim there was a problem with the chain of custody documentation, it is
your burden to prove that claim.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 9:44:08 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:at the beginning as if none of this has been discussed. Why? Do you think you're going to get fresh, new answers? This is nearly sixty years old and has been all talked out, but NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 9:39:10 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:42 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.No one cares what you think, tiny little old man collecting your disability check.
You've received explanations; some thoughtful and detailed, some snarky and sarcastic. None of the answers have satisfied you, and YOU KEEP BRINGING THIS UP. This is what is known as a fringe reset. You attempt to reset the entire evidence debate
your ideas, invite your critics to challenge your assumptions, provide tests (or link to the tests from other people) which you feel supports your theories about what occurred, and on and on.You know what would be fresh and new and liven up the board?
YOUR version of what YOU think happened that day. You are constantly asking others to stand in as proxy Warren Commission members or staff attorneys to answer your hobby point nit picks. LAY OUT WHAT YOU THINK HAPPENED. Be open to fair criticism of
credentials. Oswald as the murderer of JFK and JDT will not change unless Team Oswald can come up with a counternarrative that has less holes in it than the case you criticize.This is a board to discuss the assassination of JFK and the so-called conspiracy that took his life, but oddly, Team Oswald has no interest in discussing the conspiracy. Why?
Why do you fantasize about a trial that will never happen where you are acting as his Johnny Cochrane? Oswald is HISTORICALLY guilty, regardless of your obsession over what would or wouldn't be allowed in court with your crackerjack box attorney
Delusional.Get busy, old-timer, and stop the odd obsession with what would or wouldn't be allowed in court for a trial that was never going to happen after 11/24/63 and Ruby's lucky shot.
Gil has this fantasy of a trial where he is Oswald's attorney and all of the evidence against him is thrown out. He fantasizes about basking in the glow of his victory, walking arm-and-arm out of court with Lee Oswald producing a smug little grin.As Trump would say, "Sad!"Gilly, wants to replace the historical narrative that Oswald was the assassin. What he hasn't
figured out is you can't replace something with nothing. I have no idea what his end game is,
if he has even figured that out himself. Does he expect people to accept that Oswald didn't do
it and that we will never know who did? Not going to happen. Even among those who believe
there was a conspiracy, most of those folks accept that Oswald was an active member of it.
He asks us where are the chain-of-customer forms.
Where would he expect them to be?
Where and when should they have been filed?
These are forms that would have been presented
to the trial court as a matter of routine.
With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there
have been to file any of these forms?
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 12:31:55?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there have been to file any of these forms? Like all of Gil's silly arguments, this one makes no sense.
Because you HAVE no sense.
Every piece of evidence was discovered BEFORE Oswald was dead.
That means that at the time the evidence was discovered, as far as they knew, Oswald WAS going to trial.
And these forms would have been filled out when the person found the evidence, not after Oswald was dead.
I asked you who found the jacket under the car in the parking lot.
You could not tell me.
I asked you who with the intitals "RD" handled the two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene.
You could not tell me.
I asked you to produce the chain of custody forms for the evidence I listed. >You could not produce them.
Yet you stated AS FACT that there is no problem with the chain of custody of the evidence and that there is documentation for everyone who handled them, including who found them.
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.https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established."
Where TF is that documentation, John ?
You said it existed, so it's your burden to prove it.
So either you're purposely lying or you're talking out of your ass and you're just full of shit.
Either way, your failure to provide the evidence I requested means you lose..........
GAME OVER
With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there have been to file any of these forms? Like all of Gil's silly arguments, this one makes no sense.
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.https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established."
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 06:35:59 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
Who the hell are you?
This is a basic logical fallacy. Can you name it?
Do you have enough courage to admit that there's simply no evidence
for any chain of custody on much of the evidence in this case?
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 12:31:55 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there have been to file any of these forms? Like all of Gil's silly arguments, this one makes no sense.Because you HAVE no sense.
Every piece of evidence was discovered BEFORE Oswald was dead.
That means that at the time the evidence was discovered, as far as they knew, Oswald WAS going to trial.
And these forms would have been filled out when the person found the evidence, not after Oswald was dead.
I asked you who found the jacket under the car in the parking lot.
You could not tell me.
I asked you who with the intitals "RD" handled the two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene.
You could not tell me.
I asked you to produce the chain of custody forms for the evidence I listed.
You could not produce them.
Yet you stated AS FACT that there is no problem with the chain of custody of the evidence and that there is documentation for everyone who handled them, including who found them.
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."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
Where TF is that documentation, John ?
You said it existed, so it's your burden to prove it.
So either you're purposely lying or you're talking out of your ass and you're just full of shit.
Either way, your failure to provide the evidence I requested means you lose..........
GAME OVER
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 10:28:33 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 12:31:55?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there have been to file any of these forms? Like all of Gil's silly arguments, this one makes no sense.
Because you HAVE no sense.
Every piece of evidence was discovered BEFORE Oswald was dead.
That means that at the time the evidence was discovered, as far as they knew, Oswald WAS going to trial.
And these forms would have been filled out when the person found the evidence, not after Oswald was dead.
I asked you who found the jacket under the car in the parking lot.
You could not tell me.
I asked you who with the intitals "RD" handled the two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene.
You could not tell me.
I asked you to produce the chain of custody forms for the evidence I listed.
You could not produce them.
Yet you stated AS FACT that there is no problem with the chain of custody of the evidence and that there is documentation for everyone who handled them, including who found them.
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.https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established."
Where TF is that documentation, John ?
You said it existed, so it's your burden to prove it.
So either you're purposely lying or you're talking out of your ass and you're just full of shit.
Either way, your failure to provide the evidence I requested means you lose..........
GAME OVERWell stated. Believers often make assertions that they CANNOT cite
for, yet demand citations from critics for even well-known and
previously established facts.
Corbutt has a burden he cannot meet.
Corbutt lost.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 12:31:55 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there have been to file any of these forms? Like all of Gil's silly arguments, this one makes no sense.Because you HAVE no sense.
Every piece of evidence was discovered BEFORE Oswald was dead.
That means that at the time the evidence was discovered, as far as they knew, Oswald WAS going to trial.
And these forms would have been filled out when the person found the evidence, not after Oswald was dead.
I asked you who found the jacket under the car in the parking lot.
You could not tell me.
I asked you who with the intitals "RD" handled the two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene.
You could not tell me.
I asked you to produce the chain of custody forms for the evidence I listed. You could not produce them.
Yet you stated AS FACT that there is no problem with the chain of custody of the evidence and that there is documentation for everyone who handled them, including who found them.
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.https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established."
Where TF is that documentation, John ?
You said it existed, so it's your burden to prove it.
So either you're purposely lying or you're talking out of your ass and you're just full of shit.
Either way, your failure to provide the evidence I requested means you lose..........
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:28:34?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 12:31:55?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there have been to file any of these forms? Like all of Gil's silly arguments, this one makes no sense.Because you HAVE no sense.
Every piece of evidence was discovered BEFORE Oswald was dead.
That means that at the time the evidence was discovered, as far as they knew, Oswald WAS going to trial.
And these forms would have been filled out when the person found the evidence, not after Oswald was dead.
You make two assumptions...
I asked you who found the jacket under the car in the parking lot.
You could not tell me.
I asked you who with the intitals "RD" handled the two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene.
You could not tell me.
I asked you to produce the chain of custody forms for the evidence I listed. >> You could not produce them.
Yet you stated AS FACT that there is no problem with the chain of custody of the evidence and that there is documentation for everyone who handled them, including who found them.
I am saying there would have been no problem with producing the documentation if need be.
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.https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ >>
Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established."
Where TF is that documentation, John ?
I don't know
Can you tell us where the documentation should have been filed? Of
course you don't. Do you know that it was never filed?
You said it existed, so it's your burden to prove it.I have no obligation...
So either you're purposely lying or you're talking out of your ass and you're just full of shit.
Either way, your failure to provide the evidence I requested means you lose..........
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:25 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:in the personally important case of a fellow officer being killed).
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:42 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
Interesting that CTers will point out that Wade and Fritz had extremely high conviction rates, yet to hear them tell it, the DPD had no idea how to process evidence (not in the biggest case they would ever see, the assassination of a President, and notI'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.Did DPD "Chain of custody forms" exist in the first place? If so, to what extent would they have been used?
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:42 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.Did DPD "Chain of custody forms" exist in the first place? If so, to what extent would they have been used?
I started another thread asking Gil a series of critical questions ...
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:jury to determine to their own satisfaction how much weight to put on it.
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.Begged question logical fallacy. You need to first establish a “form” of any sort is necessary.
The chain of custody can be established by testimony, no “form” need be supplied. And as I’ve established in the past, even where the chain of custody is questionable, the evidence would still be admissible in a trial, and it would be up to the
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/d3gUWFUJCAAJsays forms are needed for the admissibility of evidence or to establish chain of custody.
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].
What you are doing is putting forward your unproven claim as a given (forms are needed), then asking us to supply these forms to satisfy your unproven claim. That’s the logical fallacy of a shifting of the burden of proof. Please cite the law that
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:jury to determine to their own satisfaction how much weight to put on it.
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.Begged question logical fallacy. You need to first establish a “form” of any sort is necessary.
The chain of custody can be established by testimony, no “form” need be supplied. And as I’ve established in the past, even where the chain of custody is questionable, the evidence would still be admissible in a trial, and it would be up to the
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/d3gUWFUJCAAJsays forms are needed for the admissibility of evidence or to establish chain of custody.
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].
What you are doing is putting forward your unproven claim as a given (forms are needed), then asking us to supply these forms to satisfy your unproven claim. That’s the logical fallacy of a shifting of the burden of proof. Please cite the law that
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:42 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.Did DPD "Chain of custody forms" exist in the first place? If so, to what extent would they have been used?
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:18:25 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:42 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
So, Gil is out at the EduForum begging for those, uh, forms....I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.Did DPD "Chain of custody forms" exist in the first place? If so, to what extent would they have been used?
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29748-does-anyone-have-copies-of-the-dpd-chain-of-custody-forms/
Of course, if some sort of chain of custody "forms" were found in a dusty old previously mislabeled box in Dallas police archives, Gil would claim the forms were forged.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
I've been telling Gil these things ...
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:jury to determine to their own satisfaction how much weight to put on it.
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.Begged question logical fallacy. You need to first establish a “form” of any sort is necessary.
The chain of custody can be established by testimony, no “form” need be supplied. And as I’ve established in the past, even where the chain of custody is questionable, the evidence would still be admissible in a trial, and it would be up to the
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/d3gUWFUJCAAJsays forms are needed for the admissibility of evidence or to establish chain of custody.
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].
What you are doing is putting forward your unproven claim as a given (forms are needed), then asking us to supply these forms to satisfy your unproven claim. That’s the logical fallacy of a shifting of the burden of proof. Please cite the law that
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 9:24:08 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:jury to determine to their own satisfaction how much weight to put on it.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.Begged question logical fallacy. You need to first establish a “form” of any sort is necessary.
The chain of custody can be established by testimony, no “form” need be supplied. And as I’ve established in the past, even where the chain of custody is questionable, the evidence would still be admissible in a trial, and it would be up to the
says forms are needed for the admissibility of evidence or to establish chain of custody.https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/d3gUWFUJCAAJ
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].
What you are doing is putting forward your unproven claim as a given (forms are needed), then asking us to supply these forms to satisfy your unproven claim. That’s the logical fallacy of a shifting of the burden of proof. Please cite the law that
Gil, still awaiting the evidence supporting your demand to be supplied “DPD chain of custody forms”.
Please show such forms were in use by the DPD in 1963, for starters.
We’ll await your evidence.
Still waiting for Gil to support his assertion.
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 9:24:08 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:jury to determine to their own satisfaction how much weight to put on it.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.Begged question logical fallacy. You need to first establish a “form” of any sort is necessary.
The chain of custody can be established by testimony, no “form” need be supplied. And as I’ve established in the past, even where the chain of custody is questionable, the evidence would still be admissible in a trial, and it would be up to the
says forms are needed for the admissibility of evidence or to establish chain of custody.https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/d3gUWFUJCAAJ
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].
What you are doing is putting forward your unproven claim as a given (forms are needed), then asking us to supply these forms to satisfy your unproven claim. That’s the logical fallacy of a shifting of the burden of proof. Please cite the law that
Gil, still awaiting the evidence supporting your demand to be supplied “DPD chain of custody forms”.
Please show such forms were in use by the DPD in 1963, for starters.
We’ll await your evidence.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 11:51:56 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:the jury to determine to their own satisfaction how much weight to put on it.
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 9:24:08 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.Begged question logical fallacy. You need to first establish a “form” of any sort is necessary.
The chain of custody can be established by testimony, no “form” need be supplied. And as I’ve established in the past, even where the chain of custody is questionable, the evidence would still be admissible in a trial, and it would be up to
that says forms are needed for the admissibility of evidence or to establish chain of custody.https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/d3gUWFUJCAAJ
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].
What you are doing is putting forward your unproven claim as a given (forms are needed), then asking us to supply these forms to satisfy your unproven claim. That’s the logical fallacy of a shifting of the burden of proof. Please cite the law
Gil, still awaiting the evidence supporting your demand to be supplied “DPD chain of custody forms”.
Please show such forms were in use by the DPD in 1963, for starters.
We’ll await your evidence.Gil? Any evidence you can cite for the circa-1963 forms you allege should have been filed? In any 1963 DPD case?
Got anything at all to establish what you claim, that these supposed chain of custody forms needed to be filled out?
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:31:07 -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 Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:50:35?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:31:07 -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?
Asked and answered ...
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:09:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:50:35?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:31:07 -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?
Asked and answered ...
Never.
Evasions and denials aren't answers.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Still waiting for Gil to support his assertion.Still waiting for Huckster to support his assertions:
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 27, 2023 at 12:19:08?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Still waiting for Gil to support his assertion.Still waiting for Huckster to support his assertions:
I support my assertions.
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 27, 2023 at 12:31:09 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:the jury to determine to their own satisfaction how much weight to put on it.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 11:51:56 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 9:24:08 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.Begged question logical fallacy. You need to first establish a “form” of any sort is necessary.
The chain of custody can be established by testimony, no “form” need be supplied. And as I’ve established in the past, even where the chain of custody is questionable, the evidence would still be admissible in a trial, and it would be up to
that says forms are needed for the admissibility of evidence or to establish chain of custody.https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/d3gUWFUJCAAJ
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].
What you are doing is putting forward your unproven claim as a given (forms are needed), then asking us to supply these forms to satisfy your unproven claim. That’s the logical fallacy of a shifting of the burden of proof. Please cite the law
Gil, still awaiting the evidence supporting your demand to be supplied “DPD chain of custody forms”.
Please show such forms were in use by the DPD in 1963, for starters.
We’ll await your evidence.Gil? Any evidence you can cite for the circa-1963 forms you allege should have been filed? In any 1963 DPD case?
Got anything at all to establish what you claim, that these supposed chain of custody forms needed to be filled out?Hey Gil, as you can see above, you claimed there are “documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out”.
But you never established that. We are awaiting your documenting that such forms were in existence in 1963, that it was standard practice to complete such forms, and that the DPD did so routinely in other criminal cases at that time.
Otherwise, you are asking us to produce something that didn’t exist 60 years ago. Ball in your court.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:58:03 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:19:08?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Still waiting for Gil to support his assertion.Still waiting for Huckster to support his assertions:
I support my assertions.You claimed Chickenshit spoke for you.
Lied... didn't you?
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 Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:14:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Huckster, let me know if you don’t intend to support your assertions
in this thread so I can laugh at you...
On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Constantly claiming he's already answered, Huckster can't simply quote
any previous answer...
On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Constantly claiming he's already answered, Huckster can't simply quote
any previous answer...
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 30, 2023 at 9:19:46?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Constantly claiming he's already answered, Huckster can't simply quote
any previous answer...
Ive pointed out repeatedly...
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 18:23:53 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:46?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:14:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Huckster, let me know if you don’t intend to support your assertions
in this thread so I can laugh at you...
Still begging the question...
I simply rewrote *YOUR* statement.
Good to see that you admit you
were begging the question.
In the meantime, this still remains:
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 13, 2023 at 6:18:25 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:42 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
So, Gil is out at the EduForum begging for those, uh, forms....I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.Did DPD "Chain of custody forms" exist in the first place? If so, to what extent would they have been used?
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29748-does-anyone-have-copies-of-the-dpd-chain-of-custody-forms/
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 120:44:33 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,426 |