In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the followingI'm supposed to read all that shit? Why can't these Loon Nutters keep it concise?
question to Gil:
"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."
The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case. The Manson Family murders at the home of Sharon Tate. Maybe you've heard
of it. The murderers tossed a gun from the car as they fled the scene of the crime along with some bloody clothing. It was found by 10 year old Steve Weiss who turned it over to his father. His father turned it over to the Van Nuys police who had no idea it had been used in the murders. It was stored away in an evidence room for months before somebody figured out it had
been used in the murders. The gun was a crucial piece of evidence. It belonged to Charles Manson. Since he hadn't directly participated in the murders, the gun was needed to show he had been the mastermind behind
the crimes. It's rather silly to think there was a tight chain-of-custody maintained for that gun but Vincent Bugliosi got it introduced as evidence and was able to convict Manson and his followers for the crimes.
I didn't mention any of this when I posed the question to Gil. So what was Gil's response to the question? He deleted it and responded "ROFLMAO".
Now who can argue with that?
In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following >question to Gil:
"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."
The question wasn't one I just dreamed up.
It is based on a real life case. The Manson Family murders at the
home of Sharon Tate. Maybe you've heard
of it. The murderers tossed a gun from the car as they fled the scene of the >crime along with some bloody clothing. It was found by 10 year old Steve >Weiss who turned it over to his father. His father turned it over to the Van >Nuys police who had no idea it had been used in the murders. It was stored >away in an evidence room for months before somebody figured out it had
been used in the murders. The gun was a crucial piece of evidence. It >belonged to Charles Manson. Since he hadn't directly participated in the >murders, the gun was needed to show he had been the mastermind behind
the crimes. It's rather silly to think there was a tight chain-of-custody >maintained for that gun....
but Vincent Bugliosi got it introduced as evidence
and was able to convict Manson and his followers for the crimes.
I didn't mention any of this when I posed the question to Gil. So what was >Gil's response to the question? He deleted it and responded "ROFLMAO".
Now who can argue with that?
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 13:44:08 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the followingEvery question you ask is answered.
question to Gil:
Sadly, the same can't be said for *YOU* answering every question asked
of you.
Why is that, coward?
"Hypothetical. A private citizen finds a discarded gun and turns it over to police. Police are ableNo one has said this.
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."
That you have to lie to try to make your case shows that YOU know
you've lost.
The question wasn't one I just dreamed up.And claimed was "hypothetical"... you prove yourself a liar!!!
ROTLMAO!
It is based on a real life case. The Manson Family murders at the
home of Sharon Tate. Maybe you've heard
of it. The murderers tossed a gun from the car as they fled the scene of the
crime along with some bloody clothing. It was found by 10 year old Steve >Weiss who turned it over to his father. His father turned it over to the Van
Nuys police who had no idea it had been used in the murders. It was stored >away in an evidence room for months before somebody figured out it had >been used in the murders. The gun was a crucial piece of evidence. It >belonged to Charles Manson. Since he hadn't directly participated in the >murders, the gun was needed to show he had been the mastermind behind
the crimes. It's rather silly to think there was a tight chain-of-custody >maintained for that gun....
There you go again...
Using YOUR speculation and ideas as "evidence" to support your wacky
ideas.
It's rather silly of you ... so all we can do is laugh!
Why don't you explain to us why a 10 year old was called to testify in
a murder case in court... did he witness the murders? Was he pals
with Manson? WHY WAS HE CALLED TO TESTIFY?
And on what?
Tell us about your apparent belief that Scott Weiss was called to
testify, EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T BELIEVE HE COULD IDENTIFY THAT GUN!
You apparently think he was called by the defense to show that the
pistol shouldn't be admitted into evidence.
But you can't cite for that wacky thought of yours.
YOU CAN'T CITE THE SUPPORTNG EVIDENCE FOR YOUR WACKY SPECULATIONS!
You lose!
ROTFLMAO!!!
but Vincent Bugliosi got it introduced as evidenceYou mean that Bugliosi was able to do something DESPITE your
and was able to convict Manson and his followers for the crimes.
speculations!!!
Where's the cite to Steve Weiss's testimony denying that *that* was
the pistol he found?
OR COULD IT BE THAT YOU'RE SIMPLY LYING AGAIN?
Of course, you don't believe Bugliosi...
I didn't mention any of this when I posed the question to Gil. So what was >Gil's response to the question? He deleted it and responded "ROFLMAO".Arguing with your PROVEN speculation is a meaningless exercise of free
Now who can argue with that?
time that can be better spent...
Why can't you CITE court records stating that there was no chain of
custody?
WHY CAN'T YOU???
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 9:16:57 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 13:44:08 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the followingEvery question you ask is answered.
question to Gil:
Sadly, the same can't be said for *YOU* answering every question asked
of you.
Why is that, coward?
"Hypothetical. A private citizen finds a discarded gun and turns it over to police. Police are ableNo one has said this.
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."
That you have to lie to try to make your case shows that YOU know
you've lost.
The question wasn't one I just dreamed up.And claimed was "hypothetical"... you prove yourself a liar!!!
ROTLMAO!
It is based on a real life case. The Manson Family murders at the
home of Sharon Tate. Maybe you've heard
of it. The murderers tossed a gun from the car as they fled the scene of the
crime along with some bloody clothing. It was found by 10 year old Steve >Weiss who turned it over to his father. His father turned it over to the Van
Nuys police who had no idea it had been used in the murders. It was stored
away in an evidence room for months before somebody figured out it had >been used in the murders. The gun was a crucial piece of evidence. It >belonged to Charles Manson. Since he hadn't directly participated in the >murders, the gun was needed to show he had been the mastermind behind >the crimes. It's rather silly to think there was a tight chain-of-custody >maintained for that gun....
There you go again...
Using YOUR speculation and ideas as "evidence" to support your wacky ideas.
It's rather silly of you ... so all we can do is laugh!
Why don't you explain to us why a 10 year old was called to testify in
a murder case in court... did he witness the murders? Was he pals
with Manson? WHY WAS HE CALLED TO TESTIFY?
And on what?
Tell us about your apparent belief that Scott Weiss was called toHe wasn’t called to identify the gun. He didn’t mark it in any fashion, nor could he say that was weapon he found to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
testify, EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T BELIEVE HE COULD IDENTIFY THAT GUN!
He was called to establish the way the gun came to be in the Van Nuys police department’s custody for months before being connected to the Manson family murders.
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/05/archives/manson-jury-told-of-gun-by-boy-11-witness-says-he-reminded-police.html
You apparently think he was called by the defense to show that theNo, strawman argument.
pistol shouldn't be admitted into evidence.
But you can't cite for that wacky thought of yours.You brought it up. It’s your strawman argument.
YOU CAN'T CITE THE SUPPORTNG EVIDENCE FOR YOUR WACKY SPECULATIONS!You’re doing it against, you make a false claim that someone said something they didn’t, then shift the burden and ask them to defend the false attribution you made.
You lose!
ROTFLMAO!!!No, Bugliosi got the gun introduced into evidence despite Steve Weiss not marking the gun into evidence even though he was the first person to discover it.
but Vincent Bugliosi got it introduced as evidenceYou mean that Bugliosi was able to do something DESPITE your speculations!!!
and was able to convict Manson and his followers for the crimes.
Where's the cite to Steve Weiss's testimony denying that *that* wasShifting the burden of proof. You’re asking him to support your strawman argument.
the pistol he found?
Where’s your cite for him *positively identifying the gun as the one he found*?
Gil is insisting that’s necessary to get evidence admitted. Gil never supported that claim, and you are not supporting that Weiss was called to identify the weapon.
OR COULD IT BE THAT YOU'RE SIMPLY LYING AGAIN?
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 ITEMSOf course, you don't believe Bugliosi...
I didn't mention any of this when I posed the question to Gil. So what wasArguing with your PROVEN speculation is a meaningless exercise of free time that can be better spent...
Gil's response to the question? He deleted it and responded "ROFLMAO". >Now who can argue with that?
Why can't you CITE court records stating that there was no chain of custody?
WHY CAN'T YOU???Steve Weiss didn’t mark the weapon. So that destroys Gil’s argument that “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
So, was Steve Weiss show the weapon and did he positively identify it as the one he found based on the marking(s) he put on the weapon?
Gil? Ben? Sky?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 9:16:57 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 13:44:08 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the followingEvery question you ask is answered.
question to Gil:
Sadly, the same can't be said for *YOU* answering every question asked
of you.
Why is that, coward?
"Hypothetical. A private citizen finds a discarded gun and turns it over to police. Police are ableNo one has said this.
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."
That you have to lie to try to make your case shows that YOU know
you've lost.
The question wasn't one I just dreamed up.And claimed was "hypothetical"... you prove yourself a liar!!!
ROTLMAO!
It is based on a real life case. The Manson Family murders at the
home of Sharon Tate. Maybe you've heard
of it. The murderers tossed a gun from the car as they fled the scene of the
crime along with some bloody clothing. It was found by 10 year old Steve >Weiss who turned it over to his father. His father turned it over to the Van
Nuys police who had no idea it had been used in the murders. It was stored
away in an evidence room for months before somebody figured out it had >been used in the murders. The gun was a crucial piece of evidence. It >belonged to Charles Manson. Since he hadn't directly participated in the >murders, the gun was needed to show he had been the mastermind behind >the crimes. It's rather silly to think there was a tight chain-of-custody >maintained for that gun....
There you go again...
Using YOUR speculation and ideas as "evidence" to support your wacky ideas.
It's rather silly of you ... so all we can do is laugh!
Why don't you explain to us why a 10 year old was called to testify in
a murder case in court... did he witness the murders? Was he pals
with Manson? WHY WAS HE CALLED TO TESTIFY?
And on what?
Tell us about your apparent belief that Scott Weiss was called toHe wasn’t called to identify the gun. He didn’t mark it in any fashion, nor could he say that was weapon he found to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
testify, EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T BELIEVE HE COULD IDENTIFY THAT GUN!
He was called to establish the way the gun came to be in the Van Nuys police department’s custody for months before being connected to the Manson family murders.
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/05/archives/manson-jury-told-of-gun-by-boy-11-witness-says-he-reminded-police.html
You apparently think he was called by the defense to show that theNo, strawman argument.
pistol shouldn't be admitted into evidence.
But you can't cite for that wacky thought of yours.You brought it up. It’s your strawman argument.
YOU CAN'T CITE THE SUPPORTNG EVIDENCE FOR YOUR WACKY SPECULATIONS!You’re doing it against, you make a false claim that someone said something they didn’t, then shift the burden and ask them to defend the false attribution you made.
You lose!
ROTFLMAO!!!No, Bugliosi got the gun introduced into evidence despite Steve Weiss not marking the gun into evidence even though he was the first person to discover it.
but Vincent Bugliosi got it introduced as evidenceYou mean that Bugliosi was able to do something DESPITE your speculations!!!
and was able to convict Manson and his followers for the crimes.
Where's the cite to Steve Weiss's testimony denying that *that* wasShifting the burden of proof. You’re asking him to support your strawman argument.
the pistol he found?
Where’s your cite for him *positively identifying the gun as the one he found*?
Gil is insisting that’s necessary to get evidence admitted. Gil never supported that claim, and you are not supporting that Weiss was called to identify the weapon.
OR COULD IT BE THAT YOU'RE SIMPLY LYING AGAIN?
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 ITEMSOf course, you don't believe Bugliosi...
I didn't mention any of this when I posed the question to Gil. So what wasArguing with your PROVEN speculation is a meaningless exercise of free time that can be better spent...
Gil's response to the question? He deleted it and responded "ROFLMAO". >Now who can argue with that?
Why can't you CITE court records stating that there was no chain of custody?
WHY CAN'T YOU???Steve Weiss didn’t mark the weapon. So that destroys Gil’s argument that “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
So, was Steve Weiss show the weapon and did he positively identify it as the one he found based on the marking(s) he put on the weapon?Steve Weiss and Ed Coyle ran down to the TSBD and gave James Powell a camera. According to my information, he did not find a gun.
Gil? Ben? Sky?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 9:16:57 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 13:44:08 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the followingEvery question you ask is answered.
question to Gil:
Sadly, the same can't be said for *YOU* answering every question asked
of you.
Why is that, coward?
"Hypothetical. A private citizen finds a discarded gun and turns it over to police. Police are ableNo one has said this.
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."
That you have to lie to try to make your case shows that YOU know
you've lost.
The question wasn't one I just dreamed up.And claimed was "hypothetical"... you prove yourself a liar!!!
ROTLMAO!
It is based on a real life case. The Manson Family murders at the
home of Sharon Tate. Maybe you've heard
of it. The murderers tossed a gun from the car as they fled the scene of the
crime along with some bloody clothing. It was found by 10 year old Steve >Weiss who turned it over to his father. His father turned it over to the Van
Nuys police who had no idea it had been used in the murders. It was stored
away in an evidence room for months before somebody figured out it had >been used in the murders. The gun was a crucial piece of evidence. It >belonged to Charles Manson. Since he hadn't directly participated in the >murders, the gun was needed to show he had been the mastermind behind >the crimes. It's rather silly to think there was a tight chain-of-custody >maintained for that gun....
There you go again...
Using YOUR speculation and ideas as "evidence" to support your wacky ideas.
It's rather silly of you ... so all we can do is laugh!
Why don't you explain to us why a 10 year old was called to testify in
a murder case in court... did he witness the murders? Was he pals
with Manson? WHY WAS HE CALLED TO TESTIFY?
And on what?
Tell us about your apparent belief that Scott Weiss was called toHe wasn’t called to identify the gun. He didn’t mark it in any fashion, nor could he say that was weapon he found to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
testify, EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T BELIEVE HE COULD IDENTIFY THAT GUN!
He was called to establish the way the gun came to be in the Van Nuys police department’s custody for months before being connected to the Manson family murders.
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/05/archives/manson-jury-told-of-gun-by-boy-11-witness-says-he-reminded-police.html
That quote comes from this post: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/GjBt9B8o690/m/KLKrMOuvAgAJ
So, was Steve Weiss show the weapon and did he positively identify it as the one he found based on the marking(s) he put on the weapon?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:45:55 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 9:16:57 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 13:44:08 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the followingEvery question you ask is answered.
question to Gil:
Sadly, the same can't be said for *YOU* answering every question asked of you.
Why is that, coward?
"Hypothetical. A private citizen finds a discarded gun and turns it over to police. Police are ableNo one has said this.
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."
That you have to lie to try to make your case shows that YOU know
you've lost.
The question wasn't one I just dreamed up.And claimed was "hypothetical"... you prove yourself a liar!!!
ROTLMAO!
It is based on a real life case. The Manson Family murders at the
home of Sharon Tate. Maybe you've heard
of it. The murderers tossed a gun from the car as they fled the scene of the
crime along with some bloody clothing. It was found by 10 year old Steve
Weiss who turned it over to his father. His father turned it over to the Van
Nuys police who had no idea it had been used in the murders. It was stored
away in an evidence room for months before somebody figured out it had >been used in the murders. The gun was a crucial piece of evidence. It >belonged to Charles Manson. Since he hadn't directly participated in the
murders, the gun was needed to show he had been the mastermind behind >the crimes. It's rather silly to think there was a tight chain-of-custody
maintained for that gun....
There you go again...
Using YOUR speculation and ideas as "evidence" to support your wacky ideas.
It's rather silly of you ... so all we can do is laugh!
Why don't you explain to us why a 10 year old was called to testify in
a murder case in court... did he witness the murders? Was he pals
with Manson? WHY WAS HE CALLED TO TESTIFY?
And on what?
Tell us about your apparent belief that Scott Weiss was called to testify, EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T BELIEVE HE COULD IDENTIFY THAT GUN!He wasn’t called to identify the gun. He didn’t mark it in any fashion, nor could he say that was weapon he found to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
He was called to establish the way the gun came to be in the Van Nuys police department’s custody for months before being connected to the Manson family murders.
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/05/archives/manson-jury-told-of-gun-by-boy-11-witness-says-he-reminded-police.html
Yesterday I found the transcript of Steve Weiss's entire testimony but for some reason I can't
find my way to it today. I thought I had bookmarked it, but apparently not. Young Steve Weiss
seemed to show remarkable poise on the stand for an 11 year old. I'm sure he was a compelling
witness for the prosecution. His testimony was a vital link connecting Manson to the murders.
Not only did he find the gun, but he and his father were persistent in letting the prosecutors
know about the gun they had found and which was carelessly relegated to the Van Nuys property
room. When one considers how many people would have had access to that room over the
course of many months, it kind of shoots a hole in Gil' insistence that a very tight chain of
custody must be maintained for a piece of evidence to be admitted in court.
The NYT article describes how the chain of custody was established through courtroom
testimony. There would have been no trouble producing similar testimony for the various
pieces of evidence had Oswald gone to trial. The jury would have heard from the person who
found the evidence and from the people who handled it.
PS. I found it a bit unsettling to think that "young" Steve Weiss is now 64 year old.
Every question you ask is answered.
Sadly, the same can't be said for *YOU* answering every question asked
of you.
Why is that, coward?
In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
question to Gil:
"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."
The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 9:16:57 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Every question you ask is answered.
Sadly, the same can't be said for *YOU* answering every question asked
of you.
Why is that, coward?It's always difficult to debate an issue when one side has the experience and knowledge of the topic
and the other side has no fucking clue.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:44:10 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
question to Gil:
"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."
The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case.So it wasn't "hypothetical" at all, it was a real life case.
Once again, as you always do, you've lied.
And this time, you've even admitted it.
SMH
And once again, like your lying ass buddy Bud, you've tried to use an example that has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
A witness finds an item ( in this case a handgun ) and identifies it as the item he found.
In the Oswald case, however, not one person who found an item identified it as the item he found.
Not one.
That's a big difference.
11 year old boys are not usually knowledgeable about guns.
How did the boy identify the weapon ? Did it have peculiar markings that he recognized ? Scratches ? Nicks ?
Did he pick it out from an assortment of handguns he was shown ?
Did police have him mark it ? Did he memorize the serial number ?
How does an average 11 year old boy know that the handgun he was shown at the trial was the handgun he found
to the exclusion of all other handguns in the world ?
To find the answer to that, one would need to read the official transcript of the trial, something I don't currently have at my disposal.
I assume you do, otherwise, you wouldn't be using this case as a comparison.
But, as your track record shows, I'm confident that you won't answer any of the questions I've asked.
You never do. And that's why I don't answer your questions.
When you answer mine, I'll answer yours.
That's the way I work.
And once again, like all Lone Nutters, your hypocrisy shows through.
You idiots trash the conspiracy theorists for "what about this" and "what about that". Then you use the same tactics.
"What about this case" and "what about that case".
The Manson case has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
And unless you can prove that the kid was able to identify the gun, without marking it before it was turned over to police,
you've failed to make your point.
Support your opinion that a hypothetical can`t be based in a real life case.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I don`t.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:31:54 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I don`t.That's because your a stupid, lying little girl who won't stand up for yourself when a fellow employee
says the CIA killed Kennedy.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/jYTjItta_PQ/m/7Zn8BZoHBgAJ
You've admitted your cowardice.
Live with it.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:31:54 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Support your opinion that a hypothetical can`t be based in a real life case.You really have a problem with word definitions, don't you ?
2 : not real : imagined as an example
"She described a hypothetical case to clarify her point."
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/hypothetical
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:39:14 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:doesn`t exist? Why would I care to?
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:31:54 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:What are you talking about, idiot, "stand up for myself"? He didn`t do anything against me.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I don`t.That's because your a stupid, lying little girl who won't stand up for yourself when a fellow employee
says the CIA killed Kennedy.
Look, I`m an atheist, if I`m walking down the street downtown and one of those Bible thumping, "the end is near" lunatics are spouting nonsense on a corner, I`ll cross and avoid them, I certainly won`t engage them. Am I going to convince his that God
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:44:10 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
question to Gil:
"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."
The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case.So it wasn't "hypothetical" at all, it was a real life case.
Once again, as you always do, you've lied.
And this time, you've even admitted it.
SMH
And once again, like your lying ass buddy Bud, you've tried to use an example that has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
A witness finds an item ( in this case a handgun ) and identifies it as the item he found.
In the Oswald case, however, not one person who found an item identified it as the item he found.
Not one.
That's a big difference.
11 year old boys are not usually knowledgeable about guns.
How did the boy identify the weapon ? Did it have peculiar markings that he recognized ? Scratches ? Nicks ?
Did he pick it out from an assortment of handguns he was shown ?
Did police have him mark it ? Did he memorize the serial number ?
How does an average 11 year old boy know that the handgun he was shown at the trial was the handgun he found
to the exclusion of all other handguns in the world ?
To find the answer to that, one would need to read the official transcript of the trial, something I don't currently have at my disposal.
I assume you do, otherwise, you wouldn't be using this case as a comparison.
But, as your track record shows, I'm confident that you won't answer any of the questions I've asked.
You never do. And that's why I don't answer your questions.
When you answer mine, I'll answer yours.
That's the way I work.
And once again, like all Lone Nutters, your hypocrisy shows through.
You idiots trash the conspiracy theorists for "what about this" and "what about that". Then you use the same tactics.
"What about this case" and "what about that case".
The Manson case has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
And unless you can prove that the kid was able to identify the gun, without marking it before it was turned over to police,
you've failed to make your point.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:49:52 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:doesn`t exist? Why would I care to?
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:39:14 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:31:54 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:What are you talking about, idiot, "stand up for myself"? He didn`t do anything against me.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I don`t.That's because your a stupid, lying little girl who won't stand up for yourself when a fellow employee
says the CIA killed Kennedy.
Look, I`m an atheist, if I`m walking down the street downtown and one of those Bible thumping, "the end is near" lunatics are spouting nonsense on a corner, I`ll cross and avoid them, I certainly won`t engage them. Am I going to convince his that God
I used to work in downtown Columbus, OH and it was not unusual to see one of those BibleYou're a sick bastard. And very stupid.
thumpers ranting on the sidewalk during lunch hour. Most of the time I passed them by with
an amused look without saying anything. One time one of them blurted out to no one in
particular, "The wages of sin is death", to which I replied, "Like you ain't going to fucking die.".
I couldn't resist.
We had a similar libtard nutcase who used to blurt his far left dogma on the street using a
bullhorn. His name was Bob Fitrakis and one year the Democrats picked him to be the sacrificial
lamb to run against John Kasich. He go 21% of the vote. I couldn't resist yanking his chain
whenever I got a chance.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:49:52 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:doesn`t exist? Why would I care to?
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:39:14 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:31:54 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:What are you talking about, idiot, "stand up for myself"? He didn`t do anything against me.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I don`t.That's because your a stupid, lying little girl who won't stand up for yourself when a fellow employee
says the CIA killed Kennedy.
Look, I`m an atheist, if I`m walking down the street downtown and one of those Bible thumping, "the end is near" lunatics are spouting nonsense on a corner, I`ll cross and avoid them, I certainly won`t engage them. Am I going to convince his that God
I used to work in downtown Columbus, OH and it was not unusual to see one of those Bible
thumpers ranting on the sidewalk during lunch hour. Most of the time I passed them by with
an amused look without saying anything. One time one of them blurted out to no one in
particular, "The wages of sin is death", to which I replied, "Like you ain't going to fucking die.".
I couldn't resist.
We had a similar libtard nutcase who used to blurt his far left dogma on the street using a
bullhorn. His name was Bob Fitrakis and one year the Democrats picked him to be the sacrificial
lamb to run against John Kasich. He go 21% of the vote. I couldn't resist yanking his chain
whenever I got a chance.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:01:46 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:God doesn`t exist? Why would I care to?
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:49:52 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:39:14 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:31:54 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:What are you talking about, idiot, "stand up for myself"? He didn`t do anything against me.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I don`t.That's because your a stupid, lying little girl who won't stand up for yourself when a fellow employee
says the CIA killed Kennedy.
Look, I`m an atheist, if I`m walking down the street downtown and one of those Bible thumping, "the end is near" lunatics are spouting nonsense on a corner, I`ll cross and avoid them, I certainly won`t engage them. Am I going to convince his that
That's a good reason for you to use the name "Bud." That way, the psychotic kooks won't know how to find you and whip your ass.I used to work in downtown Columbus, OH and it was not unusual to see one of those BibleThere is an element of danger engaging lunatics in the real world. Last week there was a nutjob having a psychotic episode, acting out kicking over mopeds, and someone waiting for a bus said something and the nutjob stabbed and killed him.
thumpers ranting on the sidewalk during lunch hour. Most of the time I passed them by with
an amused look without saying anything. One time one of them blurted out to no one in
particular, "The wages of sin is death", to which I replied, "Like you ain't going to fucking die.".
I couldn't resist.
It is a wonder that some conspiracy whackjob didn`t show up and Marquette and attack McAdams, a guy like this...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/man-commits-suicide-where-kennedy-was-shot-1.514464
...could easily convince himself that by attacking McAdams they would be striking a blow against the conspiracy.
He did say that people were always contacting Marquette, trying to get him in trouble. He said over time Marquette learned to ignore these people, but just putting himself out there carried an element of danger from lunatics.
We had a similar libtard nutcase who used to blurt his far left dogma on the street using a
bullhorn. His name was Bob Fitrakis and one year the Democrats picked him to be the sacrificial
lamb to run against John Kasich. He go 21% of the vote. I couldn't resist yanking his chain
whenever I got a chance.
It is a wonder that some conspiracy whackjob didn`t show up and Marquette and attack McAdams, a guy like this...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/man-commits-suicide-where-kennedy-was-shot-1.514464
...could easily convince himself that by attacking McAdams they would be striking a blow against the conspiracy.
He did say that people were always contacting Marquette, trying to get him in trouble. He said over time Marquette learned to ignore these people, but just putting himself out there carried an element of danger from lunatics.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 9:37:25 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
It is a wonder that some conspiracy whackjob didn`t show up and Marquette and attack McAdams, a guy like this...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/man-commits-suicide-where-kennedy-was-shot-1.514464
...could easily convince himself that by attacking McAdams they would be striking a blow against the conspiracy.
He did say that people were always contacting Marquette, trying to get him in trouble. He said over time Marquette learned to ignore these people, but just putting himself out there carried an element of danger from lunatics.# 1 Your hatred for "conspiracy kooks" is the motivating force behind why you are here
and has been well documented over the years.
Once again, you've shown how cowards like you are afraid of "engaging lunatics in the real world"
but have no problem coming on line,
hiding behing a fake screenname and bullying people you don't agree with.
I can only hope that cowards like you don't get drafted into the next war or we're all fucked.
You'll be sucking terrorist dick to stay alive.
# 2 We know all about your patron saint McAdams. His legacy can be seen here:
www.prouty.org/mcadams
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 9:16:57 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Every question you ask is answered.
Sadly, the same can't be said for *YOU* answering every question asked
of you.
Why is that, coward?It's always difficult to debate an issue when one side has the experience and knowledge of the topic
and the other side has no fucking clue.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:44:10 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
question to Gil:
"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."
The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case.So it wasn't "hypothetical" at all, it was a real life case.
Once again, as you always do, you've lied.
And this time, you've even admitted it.
SMH
And once again, like your lying ass buddy Bud, you've tried to use an example that has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
A witness finds an item ( in this case a handgun ) and identifies it as the item he found.
In the Oswald case, however, not one person who found an item identified it as the item he found.
Not one.
That's a big difference.
11 year old boys are not usually knowledgeable about guns.
How did the boy identify the weapon ? Did it have peculiar markings that he recognized ? Scratches ? Nicks ?
Did he pick it out from an assortment of handguns he was shown ?
Did police have him mark it ? Did he memorize the serial number ?
How does an average 11 year old boy know that the handgun he was shown at the trial was the handgun he found
to the exclusion of all other handguns in the world ?
To find the answer to that, one would need to read the official transcript of the trial, something I don't currently have at my disposal.
I assume you do, otherwise, you wouldn't be using this case as a comparison.
But, as your track record shows, I'm confident that you won't answer any of the questions I've asked.
You never do. And that's why I don't answer your questions.
When you answer mine, I'll answer yours.
That's the way I work.
And once again, like all Lone Nutters, your hypocrisy shows through.
You idiots trash the conspiracy theorists for "what about this" and "what about that". Then you use the same tactics.
"What about this case" and "what about that case".
The Manson case has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
And unless you can prove that the kid was able to identify the gun, without marking it before it was turned over to police,
you've failed to make your point.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:34:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:44:10 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
question to Gil:
"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."
The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case.So it wasn't "hypothetical" at all, it was a real life case.
Once again, as you always do, you've lied.
And this time, you've even admitted it.
SMH
And once again, like your lying ass buddy Bud, you've tried to use an example that has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
It was a hypothetical based on a real case.
A witness finds an item ( in this case a handgun ) and identifies it as the item he found.The witness identified the gun from memory, many months after finding it and turning it over to
the Van Nuys police. In another thread, you scoffed at the idea that chain of custody could be
established based on the memory of the cops. You wrote:
"I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers.
NOT"
Yet here we have a court validating one of the most critical pieces of evidence based on the
memory of an 11 year old boy, many months after he found the gun. Once again you put your
double standards on full display.
In the Oswald case, however, not one person who found an item identified it as the item he found.Do you think the Van Nuys police department maintained a tight chain of custody on the gun in
question? How many people do you think had access to the property room in the many months
the gun was stored there and forgotten?
Not one.
That's a big difference.
11 year old boys are not usually knowledgeable about guns.
How did the boy identify the weapon ? Did it have peculiar markings that he recognized ? Scratches ? Nicks ?
Did he pick it out from an assortment of handguns he was shown ?
Did police have him mark it ? Did he memorize the serial number ?
How does an average 11 year old boy know that the handgun he was shown at the trial was the handgun he found
to the exclusion of all other handguns in the world ?
To find the answer to that, one would need to read the official transcript of the trial, something I don't currently have at my disposal.Yes I do. The following is a PDF of the trial transcript for testimony on September 4, 1970,
I assume you do, otherwise, you wouldn't be using this case as a comparison.
14 months after the crime.
http://www.cielodrive.com/people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel/04-trial/Vol83.pdf
Steven Weiss's testimony begins on page 17. The page numbers are on the top and most of them
are prefixed by 99 but page 17 for some reason is not. The PDF does not allow copy and paste
operation so you will have to read through it yourself.
But, as your track record shows, I'm confident that you won't answer any of the questions I've asked.I just did. Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I haven't answered you.
You never do. And that's why I don't answer your questions.If that's your excuse for dodging.
When you answer mine, I'll answer yours.
That's the way I work.
And once again, like all Lone Nutters, your hypocrisy shows through.I brought up a hypothetical and the real life case it was based on. It was a hypothetical because
You idiots trash the conspiracy theorists for "what about this" and "what about that". Then you use the same tactics.
it was generic in nature and was brought up to illustrate that the chain of custody rules aren't
nearly as restrictive as what you claim.
"What about this case" and "what about that case".
I brought up the particulars of this case to rebut your claim that chain of custody can't be
established by the memories of the people who handle the evidence, whether those people are
cops or a 10 year old boy.
The Manson case has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.The rules of evidence apply to both. California and Texas might have their own specifics, but for
the most part, they have to follow the same requirements as established through many years of
jurisprudence. Supreme Court rulings on evidence apply to all states.
And unless you can prove that the kid was able to identify the gun, without marking it before it was turned over to police,He asked by Bugliosi if the gun he was shown at trial was the one he found. The court allowed
you've failed to make your point.
the question and the boys answer. The defense did not object. One of the defense lawyers
asked him on cross examination how the Van Nuys cop handle the gun and he replied the cop
grabbed it with both hands after the boy had carefully picked up the gun by the barrel. None of
the defense attorneys asked him how he was sure it was the same gun he found. Steven Weiss's
testimony about the gun begins at the bottom of page 18. Under direct testimony, he testified that the gun he found was missing the right hand grip. The gun he was shown at trial was
missing the right hand grip. A piece of that missing grip was found at the murder scene which
is how the prosecution was able to tie the gun to the murders. One of the bullets recovered
could also be positively matched to the gun. Four others could not be positively matched.
Now if Steven Weiss had given similar testimony against Oswald instead of Manson and his
co-defendants, you would be making the argument that there could be more than one gun with
a missing right hand grip. How do we know that. Because you will always look for an out to
explain away each and every piece of evidence against your imaginary client. It's what you do.
It's how you dismiss the fiber evidence from Oswald's shirt on the butt plate of the rifle and the
blanket fibers found in the rifle bag.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:51:14 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:weapon from the Van Nuys PD. That is one way chain of custody is established.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:34:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:44:10 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
question to Gil:
"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."
The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case.So it wasn't "hypothetical" at all, it was a real life case.
Once again, as you always do, you've lied.
And this time, you've even admitted it.
SMH
And once again, like your lying ass buddy Bud, you've tried to use an example that has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
It was a hypothetical based on a real case.
A witness finds an item ( in this case a handgun ) and identifies it as the item he found.The witness identified the gun from memory, many months after finding it and turning it over to
the Van Nuys police. In another thread, you scoffed at the idea that chain of custody could be
established based on the memory of the cops. You wrote:
"I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers.The very next witness after Weiss is the Van Nuys police officer — Michael Watson — who took possession of the weapon in the Weiss home. The next witness after that is the officer from the LAPD — Robert Calkins — who took possession of the
NOT"
Gil doesn’t understand that and that is the source of his problem. Note there is no testimony from anyone at the Van Nuys police department property room testifying that this was the same weapon as received. It is presumed the VNPD did theappropriate job of handling this. And this is covered in the law article I’ve cited in the past — bylaw, people are presumed to have done their routine jobs and these things are not a subject of dispute.
Unless the guy in docket is Lee Oswald.Hank, the true crime hobbyist is now an expert on chain of custody! But he can't explain why Steve Weiss helped to bring James Powell a camera!
According to Gil, however, because no *forms* were submitted, then this weapon, the bullets and the shells are inadmissible, and therefore everyone in the Manson Family was found not guilty.
Yet here we have a court validating one of the most critical pieces of evidence based on the
memory of an 11 year old boy, many months after he found the gun. Once again you put your
double standards on full display.
In the Oswald case, however, not one person who found an item identified it as the item he found.Do you think the Van Nuys police department maintained a tight chain of custody on the gun in
question? How many people do you think had access to the property room in the many months
the gun was stored there and forgotten?
Not one.
That's a big difference.
11 year old boys are not usually knowledgeable about guns.
How did the boy identify the weapon ? Did it have peculiar markings that he recognized ? Scratches ? Nicks ?
Did he pick it out from an assortment of handguns he was shown ?
Did police have him mark it ? Did he memorize the serial number ?
How does an average 11 year old boy know that the handgun he was shown at the trial was the handgun he found
to the exclusion of all other handguns in the world ?
To find the answer to that, one would need to read the official transcript of the trial, something I don't currently have at my disposal.Yes I do. The following is a PDF of the trial transcript for testimony on September 4, 1970,
I assume you do, otherwise, you wouldn't be using this case as a comparison.
14 months after the crime.
http://www.cielodrive.com/people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel/04-trial/Vol83.pdf
Steven Weiss's testimony begins on page 17. The page numbers are on the top and most of them
are prefixed by 99 but page 17 for some reason is not. The PDF does not allow copy and paste
operation so you will have to read through it yourself.
But, as your track record shows, I'm confident that you won't answer any of the questions I've asked.I just did. Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I haven't answered you.
You never do. And that's why I don't answer your questions.If that's your excuse for dodging.
When you answer mine, I'll answer yours.
That's the way I work.
And once again, like all Lone Nutters, your hypocrisy shows through.I brought up a hypothetical and the real life case it was based on. It was a hypothetical because
You idiots trash the conspiracy theorists for "what about this" and "what about that". Then you use the same tactics.
it was generic in nature and was brought up to illustrate that the chain of custody rules aren't
nearly as restrictive as what you claim.
"What about this case" and "what about that case".
I brought up the particulars of this case to rebut your claim that chain of custody can't be
established by the memories of the people who handle the evidence, whether those people are
cops or a 10 year old boy.
The Manson case has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.The rules of evidence apply to both. California and Texas might have their own specifics, but for
the most part, they have to follow the same requirements as established through many years of
jurisprudence. Supreme Court rulings on evidence apply to all states.
And unless you can prove that the kid was able to identify the gun, without marking it before it was turned over to police,He asked by Bugliosi if the gun he was shown at trial was the one he found. The court allowed
you've failed to make your point.
the question and the boys answer. The defense did not object. One of the defense lawyers
asked him on cross examination how the Van Nuys cop handle the gun and he replied the cop
grabbed it with both hands after the boy had carefully picked up the gun by the barrel. None of
the defense attorneys asked him how he was sure it was the same gun he found. Steven Weiss's
testimony about the gun begins at the bottom of page 18. Under direct testimony, he testified that the gun he found was missing the right hand grip. The gun he was shown at trial was
missing the right hand grip. A piece of that missing grip was found at the murder scene which
is how the prosecution was able to tie the gun to the murders. One of the bullets recovered
could also be positively matched to the gun. Four others could not be positively matched.
Now if Steven Weiss had given similar testimony against Oswald instead of Manson and his
co-defendants, you would be making the argument that there could be more than one gun with
a missing right hand grip. How do we know that. Because you will always look for an out to
explain away each and every piece of evidence against your imaginary client. It's what you do.
It's how you dismiss the fiber evidence from Oswald's shirt on the butt plate of the rifle and the
blanket fibers found in the rifle bag.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:51:14 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:weapon from the Van Nuys PD. That is one way chain of custody is established.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:34:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:44:10 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
question to Gil:
"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."
The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case.So it wasn't "hypothetical" at all, it was a real life case.
Once again, as you always do, you've lied.
And this time, you've even admitted it.
SMH
And once again, like your lying ass buddy Bud, you've tried to use an example that has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
It was a hypothetical based on a real case.
A witness finds an item ( in this case a handgun ) and identifies it as the item he found.The witness identified the gun from memory, many months after finding it and turning it over to
the Van Nuys police. In another thread, you scoffed at the idea that chain of custody could be
established based on the memory of the cops. You wrote:
"I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers.The very next witness after Weiss is the Van Nuys police officer — Michael Watson — who took possession of the weapon in the Weiss home. The next witness after that is the officer from the LAPD — Robert Calkins — who took possession of the
NOT"
Gil doesn’t understand that and that is the source of his problem. Note there is no testimony from anyone at the Van Nuys police department property room testifying that this was the same weapon as received. It is presumed the VNPD did theappropriate job of handling this. And this is covered in the law article I’ve cited in the past — bylaw, people are presumed to have done their routine jobs and these things are not a subject of dispute.
Unless the guy in docket is Lee Oswald.
According to Gil, however, because no *forms* were submitted, then this weapon, the bullets and the shells are inadmissible, and therefore everyone in the Manson Family was found not guilty.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:28:44 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:weapon from the Van Nuys PD. That is one way chain of custody is established.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:51:14 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:34:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:44:10 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
question to Gil:
"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."
The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case.So it wasn't "hypothetical" at all, it was a real life case.
Once again, as you always do, you've lied.
And this time, you've even admitted it.
SMH
And once again, like your lying ass buddy Bud, you've tried to use an example that has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
It was a hypothetical based on a real case.
A witness finds an item ( in this case a handgun ) and identifies it as the item he found.The witness identified the gun from memory, many months after finding it and turning it over to
the Van Nuys police. In another thread, you scoffed at the idea that chain of custody could be
established based on the memory of the cops. You wrote:
"I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers.The very next witness after Weiss is the Van Nuys police officer — Michael Watson — who took possession of the weapon in the Weiss home. The next witness after that is the officer from the LAPD — Robert Calkins — who took possession of the
NOT"
appropriate job of handling this. And this is covered in the law article I’ve cited in the past — bylaw, people are presumed to have done their routine jobs and these things are not a subject of dispute.Gil doesn’t understand that and that is the source of his problem. Note there is no testimony from anyone at the Van Nuys police department property room testifying that this was the same weapon as received. It is presumed the VNPD did the
Unless the guy in docket is Lee Oswald.
According to Gil, however, because no *forms* were submitted, then this weapon, the bullets and the shells are inadmissible, and therefore everyone in the Manson Family was found not guilty.
Yet here we have a court validating one of the most critical pieces of evidence based on the
memory of an 11 year old boy, many months after he found the gun. Once again you put your
double standards on full display.
In the Oswald case, however, not one person who found an item identified it as the item he found.Do you think the Van Nuys police department maintained a tight chain of custody on the gun in
question? How many people do you think had access to the property room in the many months
the gun was stored there and forgotten?
Not one.
That's a big difference.
11 year old boys are not usually knowledgeable about guns.
How did the boy identify the weapon ? Did it have peculiar markings that he recognized ? Scratches ? Nicks ?
Did he pick it out from an assortment of handguns he was shown ?
Did police have him mark it ? Did he memorize the serial number ?
How does an average 11 year old boy know that the handgun he was shown at the trial was the handgun he found
to the exclusion of all other handguns in the world ?
To find the answer to that, one would need to read the official transcript of the trial, something I don't currently have at my disposal.Yes I do. The following is a PDF of the trial transcript for testimony on September 4, 1970,
I assume you do, otherwise, you wouldn't be using this case as a comparison.
14 months after the crime.
http://www.cielodrive.com/people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel/04-trial/Vol83.pdf
Steven Weiss's testimony begins on page 17. The page numbers are on the top and most of them
are prefixed by 99 but page 17 for some reason is not. The PDF does not allow copy and paste
operation so you will have to read through it yourself.
But, as your track record shows, I'm confident that you won't answer any of the questions I've asked.I just did. Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I haven't answered you.
You never do. And that's why I don't answer your questions.If that's your excuse for dodging.
When you answer mine, I'll answer yours.
That's the way I work.
And once again, like all Lone Nutters, your hypocrisy shows through. You idiots trash the conspiracy theorists for "what about this" and "what about that". Then you use the same tactics.I brought up a hypothetical and the real life case it was based on. It was a hypothetical because
it was generic in nature and was brought up to illustrate that the chain of custody rules aren't
nearly as restrictive as what you claim.
"What about this case" and "what about that case".
I brought up the particulars of this case to rebut your claim that chain of custody can't be
established by the memories of the people who handle the evidence, whether those people are
cops or a 10 year old boy.
The Manson case has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.The rules of evidence apply to both. California and Texas might have their own specifics, but for
the most part, they have to follow the same requirements as established through many years of
jurisprudence. Supreme Court rulings on evidence apply to all states.
And unless you can prove that the kid was able to identify the gun, without marking it before it was turned over to police,He asked by Bugliosi if the gun he was shown at trial was the one he found. The court allowed
you've failed to make your point.
the question and the boys answer. The defense did not object. One of the defense lawyers
asked him on cross examination how the Van Nuys cop handle the gun and he replied the cop
grabbed it with both hands after the boy had carefully picked up the gun by the barrel. None of
the defense attorneys asked him how he was sure it was the same gun he found. Steven Weiss's
testimony about the gun begins at the bottom of page 18. Under direct testimony, he testified that the gun he found was missing the right hand grip. The gun he was shown at trial was
missing the right hand grip. A piece of that missing grip was found at the murder scene which
is how the prosecution was able to tie the gun to the murders. One of the bullets recovered
could also be positively matched to the gun. Four others could not be positively matched.
Hank, the true crime hobbyist is now an expert on chain of custody!Now if Steven Weiss had given similar testimony against Oswald instead of Manson and his
co-defendants, you would be making the argument that there could be more than one gun with
a missing right hand grip. How do we know that. Because you will always look for an out to
explain away each and every piece of evidence against your imaginary client. It's what you do.
It's how you dismiss the fiber evidence from Oswald's shirt on the butt plate of the rifle and the
blanket fibers found in the rifle bag.
But he can't explain why Steve Weiss helped to bring James Powell a camera!
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:44:55 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:weapon from the Van Nuys PD. That is one way chain of custody is established.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:28:44 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:51:14 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:34:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:44:10 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
question to Gil:
"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."
The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case.So it wasn't "hypothetical" at all, it was a real life case.
Once again, as you always do, you've lied.
And this time, you've even admitted it.
SMH
And once again, like your lying ass buddy Bud, you've tried to use an example that has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
It was a hypothetical based on a real case.
A witness finds an item ( in this case a handgun ) and identifies it as the item he found.The witness identified the gun from memory, many months after finding it and turning it over to
the Van Nuys police. In another thread, you scoffed at the idea that chain of custody could be
established based on the memory of the cops. You wrote:
"I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers.The very next witness after Weiss is the Van Nuys police officer — Michael Watson — who took possession of the weapon in the Weiss home. The next witness after that is the officer from the LAPD — Robert Calkins — who took possession of the
NOT"
appropriate job of handling this. And this is covered in the law article I’ve cited in the past — bylaw, people are presumed to have done their routine jobs and these things are not a subject of dispute.Gil doesn’t understand that and that is the source of his problem. Note there is no testimony from anyone at the Van Nuys police department property room testifying that this was the same weapon as received. It is presumed the VNPD did the
Steve Weiss was with the Army 112th intelligence unit in Dallas on the day that JFK was assassinated by conspiracy. You know. The topic of this newsgroup. No argument. But he and Ed Coyle did bring a camera to James Powell at the TSBD after theUnless the guy in docket is Lee Oswald.
According to Gil, however, because no *forms* were submitted, then this weapon, the bullets and the shells are inadmissible, and therefore everyone in the Manson Family was found not guilty.
Yet here we have a court validating one of the most critical pieces of evidence based on the
memory of an 11 year old boy, many months after he found the gun. Once again you put your
double standards on full display.
In the Oswald case, however, not one person who found an item identified it as the item he found.Do you think the Van Nuys police department maintained a tight chain of custody on the gun in
question? How many people do you think had access to the property room in the many months
the gun was stored there and forgotten?
Not one.
That's a big difference.
11 year old boys are not usually knowledgeable about guns.
How did the boy identify the weapon ? Did it have peculiar markings that he recognized ? Scratches ? Nicks ?
Did he pick it out from an assortment of handguns he was shown ?
Did police have him mark it ? Did he memorize the serial number ? How does an average 11 year old boy know that the handgun he was shown at the trial was the handgun he found
to the exclusion of all other handguns in the world ?
To find the answer to that, one would need to read the official transcript of the trial, something I don't currently have at my disposal.Yes I do. The following is a PDF of the trial transcript for testimony on September 4, 1970,
I assume you do, otherwise, you wouldn't be using this case as a comparison.
14 months after the crime.
http://www.cielodrive.com/people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel/04-trial/Vol83.pdf
Steven Weiss's testimony begins on page 17. The page numbers are on the top and most of them
are prefixed by 99 but page 17 for some reason is not. The PDF does not allow copy and paste
operation so you will have to read through it yourself.
But, as your track record shows, I'm confident that you won't answer any of the questions I've asked.I just did. Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I haven't answered you.
You never do. And that's why I don't answer your questions.If that's your excuse for dodging.
When you answer mine, I'll answer yours.
That's the way I work.
And once again, like all Lone Nutters, your hypocrisy shows through. You idiots trash the conspiracy theorists for "what about this" and "what about that". Then you use the same tactics.I brought up a hypothetical and the real life case it was based on. It was a hypothetical because
it was generic in nature and was brought up to illustrate that the chain of custody rules aren't
nearly as restrictive as what you claim.
"What about this case" and "what about that case".
I brought up the particulars of this case to rebut your claim that chain of custody can't be
established by the memories of the people who handle the evidence, whether those people are
cops or a 10 year old boy.
The Manson case has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.The rules of evidence apply to both. California and Texas might have their own specifics, but for
the most part, they have to follow the same requirements as established through many years of
jurisprudence. Supreme Court rulings on evidence apply to all states.
And unless you can prove that the kid was able to identify the gun, without marking it before it was turned over to police,He asked by Bugliosi if the gun he was shown at trial was the one he found. The court allowed
you've failed to make your point.
the question and the boys answer. The defense did not object. One of the defense lawyers
asked him on cross examination how the Van Nuys cop handle the gun and he replied the cop
grabbed it with both hands after the boy had carefully picked up the gun by the barrel. None of
the defense attorneys asked him how he was sure it was the same gun he found. Steven Weiss's
testimony about the gun begins at the bottom of page 18. Under direct testimony, he testified that the gun he found was missing the right hand grip. The gun he was shown at trial was
missing the right hand grip. A piece of that missing grip was found at the murder scene which
is how the prosecution was able to tie the gun to the murders. One of the bullets recovered
could also be positively matched to the gun. Four others could not be positively matched.
No, but certainly more knowledgeable than Gil.Hank, the true crime hobbyist is now an expert on chain of custody!Now if Steven Weiss had given similar testimony against Oswald instead of Manson and his
co-defendants, you would be making the argument that there could be more than one gun with
a missing right hand grip. How do we know that. Because you will always look for an out to
explain away each and every piece of evidence against your imaginary client. It's what you do.
It's how you dismiss the fiber evidence from Oswald's shirt on the butt plate of the rifle and the
blanket fibers found in the rifle bag.
I quoted from an expert on chain of custody in a law journal: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
But he can't explain why Steve Weiss helped to bring James Powell a camera!I didn’t know Steve Weiss had anything to do with the JFK assassination.
I’ll tell you what I tell Ben: Post an argument, support it with evidence, and show how this relates to the Kennedy assassination.
Good luck — Steve Weiss would have been only four years old in 1963, as he was ten in 1969.
No, but certainly more knowledgeable than Gil.I quoted from an expert on chain of custody in a law journal: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:44:55 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:weapon from the Van Nuys PD. That is one way chain of custody is established.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:28:44 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:51:14 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:34:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:44:10 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
question to Gil:
"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."
The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case.So it wasn't "hypothetical" at all, it was a real life case.
Once again, as you always do, you've lied.
And this time, you've even admitted it.
SMH
And once again, like your lying ass buddy Bud, you've tried to use an example that has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
It was a hypothetical based on a real case.
A witness finds an item ( in this case a handgun ) and identifies it as the item he found.The witness identified the gun from memory, many months after finding it and turning it over to
the Van Nuys police. In another thread, you scoffed at the idea that chain of custody could be
established based on the memory of the cops. You wrote:
"I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers.The very next witness after Weiss is the Van Nuys police officer — Michael Watson — who took possession of the weapon in the Weiss home. The next witness after that is the officer from the LAPD — Robert Calkins — who took possession of the
NOT"
appropriate job of handling this. And this is covered in the law article I’ve cited in the past — bylaw, people are presumed to have done their routine jobs and these things are not a subject of dispute.Gil doesn’t understand that and that is the source of his problem. Note there is no testimony from anyone at the Van Nuys police department property room testifying that this was the same weapon as received. It is presumed the VNPD did the
Unless the guy in docket is Lee Oswald.
According to Gil, however, because no *forms* were submitted, then this weapon, the bullets and the shells are inadmissible, and therefore everyone in the Manson Family was found not guilty.
Yet here we have a court validating one of the most critical pieces of evidence based on the
memory of an 11 year old boy, many months after he found the gun. Once again you put your
double standards on full display.
In the Oswald case, however, not one person who found an item identified it as the item he found.Do you think the Van Nuys police department maintained a tight chain of custody on the gun in
question? How many people do you think had access to the property room in the many months
the gun was stored there and forgotten?
Not one.
That's a big difference.
11 year old boys are not usually knowledgeable about guns.
How did the boy identify the weapon ? Did it have peculiar markings that he recognized ? Scratches ? Nicks ?
Did he pick it out from an assortment of handguns he was shown ?
Did police have him mark it ? Did he memorize the serial number ? How does an average 11 year old boy know that the handgun he was shown at the trial was the handgun he found
to the exclusion of all other handguns in the world ?
To find the answer to that, one would need to read the official transcript of the trial, something I don't currently have at my disposal.Yes I do. The following is a PDF of the trial transcript for testimony on September 4, 1970,
I assume you do, otherwise, you wouldn't be using this case as a comparison.
14 months after the crime.
http://www.cielodrive.com/people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel/04-trial/Vol83.pdf
Steven Weiss's testimony begins on page 17. The page numbers are on the top and most of them
are prefixed by 99 but page 17 for some reason is not. The PDF does not allow copy and paste
operation so you will have to read through it yourself.
But, as your track record shows, I'm confident that you won't answer any of the questions I've asked.I just did. Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I haven't answered you.
You never do. And that's why I don't answer your questions.If that's your excuse for dodging.
When you answer mine, I'll answer yours.
That's the way I work.
And once again, like all Lone Nutters, your hypocrisy shows through. You idiots trash the conspiracy theorists for "what about this" and "what about that". Then you use the same tactics.I brought up a hypothetical and the real life case it was based on. It was a hypothetical because
it was generic in nature and was brought up to illustrate that the chain of custody rules aren't
nearly as restrictive as what you claim.
"What about this case" and "what about that case".
I brought up the particulars of this case to rebut your claim that chain of custody can't be
established by the memories of the people who handle the evidence, whether those people are
cops or a 10 year old boy.
The Manson case has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.The rules of evidence apply to both. California and Texas might have their own specifics, but for
the most part, they have to follow the same requirements as established through many years of
jurisprudence. Supreme Court rulings on evidence apply to all states.
And unless you can prove that the kid was able to identify the gun, without marking it before it was turned over to police,He asked by Bugliosi if the gun he was shown at trial was the one he found. The court allowed
you've failed to make your point.
the question and the boys answer. The defense did not object. One of the defense lawyers
asked him on cross examination how the Van Nuys cop handle the gun and he replied the cop
grabbed it with both hands after the boy had carefully picked up the gun by the barrel. None of
the defense attorneys asked him how he was sure it was the same gun he found. Steven Weiss's
testimony about the gun begins at the bottom of page 18. Under direct testimony, he testified that the gun he found was missing the right hand grip. The gun he was shown at trial was
missing the right hand grip. A piece of that missing grip was found at the murder scene which
is how the prosecution was able to tie the gun to the murders. One of the bullets recovered
could also be positively matched to the gun. Four others could not be positively matched.
No, but certainly more knowledgeable than Gil.Hank, the true crime hobbyist is now an expert on chain of custody!Now if Steven Weiss had given similar testimony against Oswald instead of Manson and his
co-defendants, you would be making the argument that there could be more than one gun with
a missing right hand grip. How do we know that. Because you will always look for an out to
explain away each and every piece of evidence against your imaginary client. It's what you do.
It's how you dismiss the fiber evidence from Oswald's shirt on the butt plate of the rifle and the
blanket fibers found in the rifle bag.
I quoted from an expert on chain of custody in a law journal: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
But he can't explain why Steve Weiss helped to bring James Powell a camera!I didn’t know Steve Weiss had anything to do with the JFK assassination.
I’ll tell you what I tell Ben: Post an argument, support it with evidence, and show how this relates to the Kennedy assassination.
Good luck — Steve Weiss would have been only four years old in 1963, as he was ten in 1969.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:43:41 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Experts give opinions.No, but certainly more knowledgeable than Gil.I quoted from an expert on chain of custody in a law journal: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
Let's lookm at definitions:
"Chain of custody (CoC), in legal contexts, is the chronological DOCUMENTATION OR PAPER TRAIL that records the sequence of custody,
control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of materials, including physical or electronic evidence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
Post the paper trail of the evidence, oh More Knowledgeable One.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:43:41 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Experts give opinions.No, but certainly more knowledgeable than Gil.I quoted from an expert on chain of custody in a law journal: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
Let's lookm at definitions:
"Chain of custody (CoC), in legal contexts, is the chronological DOCUMENTATION OR PAPER TRAIL that records the sequence of custody,
control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of materials, including physical or electronic evidence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
Post the paper trail of the evidence, oh More Knowledgeable One.
Experts give expert opinion in fields they have expertise in, stupid.
There is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence. There is DOCUMENTATION that spells out every person who handled the evidence.Who found it. Whom they gave it to. Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
There is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence. There is DOCUMENTATION that spells out every person who handled the evidence.Who found it. Whom they gave it to. Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 11:11:56 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Experts give expert opinion in fields they have expertise in, stupid.That explains why you never give an expert opinion.
You just open your mouth about things you have no knowledge about.
That is, unless it's someone in person. Then you STFU like a horse's ass in fly season.
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
You wanna open your mouth about the chain of custody ?
I'll give you the same challenge I gave Hanky Panky and the liar Corbett:
Post the documentation on the evidence, stupid.
Or go play with your dollies, sweetheart and let real men discuss this case.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 10:56:22 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< lying bullshit deleted >
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
PROVE IT. Post the documentation.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 11:28:01 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 10:56:22 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:You delete everything you have no rebuttal for.
< lying bullshit deleted >
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
PROVE IT. Post the documentation.There is no chain-of-custody issue because the documentation is not required. This has been
explained to you numerous times yet you continue to whine about it like a broken record.
One of the things Gil wrote in the thread you have referenced is this:
"I'm sure that the court would have accepted a chain of custody created from the memory of police officers."
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:44:10?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
In another thread on the issue of chain-of-custody, I presented the following
question to Gil:
"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."
The question wasn't one I just dreamed up. It is based on a real life case.
So it wasn't "hypothetical" at all, it was a real life case.
Once again, as you always do, you've lied.
And this time, you've even admitted it.
SMH
And once again, like your lying ass buddy Bud, you've tried to use an example that has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
A witness finds an item ( in this case a handgun ) and identifies it as the item he found.
In the Oswald case, however, not one person who found an item identified it as the item he found.
Not one.
That's a big difference.
11 year old boys are not usually knowledgeable about guns.
How did the boy identify the weapon ? Did it have peculiar markings that he recognized ? Scratches ? Nicks ?
Did he pick it out from an assortment of handguns he was shown ?
Did police have him mark it ? Did he memorize the serial number ?
How does an average 11 year old boy know that the handgun he was shown at the trial was the handgun he found
to the exclusion of all other handguns in the world ?
To find the answer to that, one would need to read the official transcript of the trial, something I don't currently have at my disposal.
I assume you do, otherwise, you wouldn't be using this case as a comparison.
But, as your track record shows, I'm confident that you won't answer any of the questions I've asked.
You never do. And that's why I don't answer your questions.
When you answer mine, I'll answer yours.
That's the way I work.
And once again, like all Lone Nutters, your hypocrisy shows through.
You idiots trash the conspiracy theorists for "what about this" and "what about that". Then you use the same tactics.
"What about this case" and "what about that case".
The Manson case has nothing in common with the case against Oswald.
And unless you can prove that the kid was able to identify the gun, without marking it before it was turned over to police,
you've failed to make your point.
The citations to a published law journal article have been ignored by you.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:16:10 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:law.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 11:28:01 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 10:56:22 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: < lying bullshit deleted >You delete everything you have no rebuttal for.
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
Gil continues to Dunning-Kruger his way through life. The conspiracy folk are both astounded at the DPD`s conviction rates while simultaneously claiming they had no idea how to process evidence in manner that would allow it to be accepted in a court ofPROVE IT. Post the documentation.There is no chain-of-custody issue because the documentation is not required. This has been
explained to you numerous times yet you continue to whine about it like a broken record.
Comically, I just counted (without reading) 26 replies ...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 111:24:19 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,948 |