There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering ALL of the questions in this series:
1. It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
The receipt signed by FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11/28/63 when he received the four shells from the Tippit murder from the Dallas Police
lists the two Remington-Peters shells as containing the intials "RD" and one Western shell containing the intials either "DC" or "DO".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
None of these are the initials of anyone known to have handled the shells.
Question # 2: Whose initials are these ? Where do they fit in in the chain of custody ? Why aren't they mentioned in that chain ?
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:56:57 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:This is what a moron looks like when he's trying to be clever.
There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering ALL of the questions in this series:
1. It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
The receipt signed by FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11/28/63 when he received the four shells from the Tippit murder from the Dallas Police
lists the two Remington-Peters shells as containing the intials "RD" and one Western shell containing the intials either "DC" or "DO".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
None of these are the initials of anyone known to have handled the shells.
Question # 2: Whose initials are these ? Where do they fit in in the chain of custody ? Why aren't they mentioned in that chain ?Keep focusing on all the wrong things, Gil, while ignoring the evidence that proves conclusively
Oswald was the assassin. That way you can remain clueless for another 60 years. Of course,
you'll be dead long before that but it won't have any effect on your ability to process information.
Keep focusing on all the wrong things, Gil, while ignoring the evidence that proves conclusively
Oswald was the assassin. That way you can remain clueless for another 60 years. Of course,
you'll be dead long before that but it won't have any effect on your ability to process information.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:56:57?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering ALL of the questions in this series:
1. It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ >>
The receipt signed by FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11/28/63 when he received the four shells from the Tippit murder from the Dallas Police
lists the two Remington-Peters shells as containing the intials "RD" and one Western shell containing the intials either "DC" or "DO".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
None of these are the initials of anyone known to have handled the shells. >>
Question # 2: Whose initials are these ? Where do they fit in in the chain of custody ? Why aren't they mentioned in that chain ?
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:59:19?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Keep focusing on all the wrong things, Gil, while ignoring the evidence that proves conclusively
Oswald was the assassin. That way you can remain clueless for another 60 years. Of course,
you'll be dead long before that but it won't have any effect on your ability to process information.
The wrong things ?
Initials on the evidence from persons not known to have handled it and that's not a problem with the
chain of custody ?
ROFLMAO
This series isn't geared to you, but since you can't resist sticking your silly comments in, answer the questions John:
If these shells are legitimate, whose initials are these ?
Where do they fit in in the chain of custody ?
Why aren't they mentioned in that chain ?
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 8:58:18?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:59:19?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Keep focusing on all the wrong things, Gil, while ignoring the evidence that proves conclusively
Oswald was the assassin. That way you can remain clueless for another 60 years. Of course,
you'll be dead long before that but it won't have any effect on your ability to process information.
The wrong things ?
Initials on the evidence from persons not known to have handled it and that's not a problem with the
chain of custody ?
Chain of custody is only needed to be established at trial.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:59:19 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Keep focusing on all the wrong things, Gil, while ignoring the evidence that proves conclusivelyThe wrong things ?
Oswald was the assassin. That way you can remain clueless for another 60 years. Of course,
you'll be dead long before that but it won't have any effect on your ability to process information.
Initials on the evidence from persons not known to have handled it and that's not a problem with the
chain of custody ?
ROFLMAO
This series isn't geared to you, but since you can't resist sticking your silly comments in, answer the questions John:
If these shells are legitimate, whose initials are these ?
Where do they fit in in the chain of custody ?
Why aren't they mentioned in that chain ?
Chain of custody is only needed to be established at trial.
There was no trial, dumbass. Ergo no chain of custody issue.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:22:06?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
You asserted that the documentation ALREADY EXISTED to prove chain of
custody.
Yet you continue to refuse to admit you claimed that - or to support that claim.
Why is that, liar?
First he said the documentation existed, now he's making excuses for why it doesn't.
He's in "damage control" mode and he's not doing too well in that.
ROFLMAO
You asserted that the documentation ALREADY EXISTED to prove chain of custody.
Yet you continue to refuse to admit you claimed that - or to support that claim.
Why is that, liar?
He isn't honest enough to admit a mistake.
That makes it a lie.
Nor is any other believer honest enough to call out Corbutt on his
proven lie.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:15:40?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Chain of custody is only needed to be established at trial.
There was no trial, dumbass. Ergo no chain of custody issue.
Who told you that, Einstein ?
No, you're the fucking dumbass.
Chain of custody is established by the first person who handles the evidence. >The chain of custody record is established and the documentation stays with the evidence.
Each person that handles the evidence is required to fill out the record.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/COC-bag.jpg
If 25 people handle the evidence, how are you going to establish that at trial ?
How do you know their names ?
How do you know what dates they handled the evidence ?
How do you know how long the evidence was in their possession ?
How do you know the reason it was in their possession ?
https://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/module03/pro_m03_t17.htm
NO, A RECORD HAS TO BE KEPT, ASSHOLE.
YOU DON'T GUESS AT IT AT TRIAL.
The chain of possession is not established at trial.
It's established by the first person who handled it and AUTHENTICATED at trial by the testimony of those same witnesses who handled it.
Fucking lump.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:28:59?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
He isn't honest enough to admit a mistake.
That makes it a lie.
Nor is any other believer honest enough to call out Corbutt on his
proven lie.
His whole theory of establishing a chain of custody at trial makes no sense. >What if the case doesn't go to trial for a year or 18 months ?
How can any one person know who handled the evidence ?
That's just not the way it's done. It's ridiculous. It's stupid. Just like him.
( and he still hasn't answered the question of whose initials were on those shells, has he ? )
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:28:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
He isn't honest enough to admit a mistake.
That makes it a lie.
Nor is any other believer honest enough to call out Corbutt on hisHis whole theory of establishing a chain of custody at trial makes no sense.
proven lie.
What if the case doesn't go to trial for a year or 18 months ?
How can any one person know who handled the evidence ?
That's just not the way it's done. It's ridiculous. It's stupid. Just like him.
( and he still hasn't answered the question of whose initials were on those shells, has he ? )
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:15:40 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Chain of custody is only needed to be established at trial.Who told you that, Einstein ?
There was no trial, dumbass. Ergo no chain of custody issue.
No, you're the fucking dumbass.
Chain of custody is established by the first person who handles the evidence.
The chain of custody record is established and the documentation stays with the evidence.
Each person that handles the evidence is required to fill out the record.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/COC-bag.jpg
If 25 people handle the evidence, how are you going to establish that at trial ?
How do you know their names ?
How do you know what dates they handled the evidence ?
How do you know how long the evidence was in their possession ?
How do you know the reason it was in their possession ?
https://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/module03/pro_m03_t17.htm
NO, A RECORD HAS TO BE KEPT, ASSHOLE.
YOU DON'T GUESS AT IT AT TRIAL.
The chain of possession is not established at trial.
It's established by the first person who handled it and AUTHENTICATED at trial by the testimony of those same witnesses who handled it.
Fucking lump.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:59:19 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Keep focusing on all the wrong things, Gil, while ignoring the evidence that proves conclusivelyThe wrong things ?
Oswald was the assassin. That way you can remain clueless for another 60 years. Of course,
you'll be dead long before that but it won't have any effect on your ability to process information.
Initials on the evidence from persons not known to have handled it and that's not a problem with the
chain of custody ?
ROFLMAO
This series isn't geared to you, but since you can't resist sticking your silly comments in, answer the questions John:
If these shells are legitimate, whose initials are these ?
Where do they fit in in the chain of custody ?
Why aren't they mentioned in that chain ?
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:15:05?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:15:40?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Chain of custody is only needed to be established at trial.Who told you that, Einstein ?
There was no trial, dumbass. Ergo no chain of custody issue.
No, you're the fucking dumbass.
Chain of custody is established by the first person who handles the evidence.
The chain of custody record is established and the documentation stays with the evidence.
Each person that handles the evidence is required to fill out the record.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/COC-bag.jpg
If 25 people handle the evidence, how are you going to establish that at trial ?
How do you know their names ?
How do you know what dates they handled the evidence ?
How do you know how long the evidence was in their possession ?
How do you know the reason it was in their possession ?
https://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/module03/pro_m03_t17.htm
NO, A RECORD HAS TO BE KEPT, ASSHOLE.
YOU DON'T GUESS AT IT AT TRIAL.
The chain of possession is not established at trial.
It's established by the first person who handled it and AUTHENTICATED at trial by the testimony of those same witnesses who handled it.
Fucking lump.
This is where your poor reading comprehension and lacking of reasoning skills betray you...
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:33:56?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:28:59?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
He isn't honest enough to admit a mistake.His whole theory of establishing a chain of custody at trial makes no sense.
That makes it a lie.
Nor is any other believer honest enough to call out Corbutt on his
proven lie.
More of your piss poor reading comprehension. I said it would be REQUIRED at trial. Such a
requirement would mean it would have to be produced before the trial.
What if the case doesn't go to trial for a year or 18 months ?
They would have 18 months to complete it.
How can any one person know who handled the evidence ?
That's just not the way it's done. It's ridiculous. It's stupid. Just like him.
So tell us how it's done.
( and he still hasn't answered the question of whose initials were on those shells, has he ? )
And I never will...
There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering ALL of the questions in this series:
1. It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
The receipt signed by FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11/28/63 when he received the four shells from the Tippit murder from the Dallas Police
lists the two Remington-Peters shells as containing the intials "RD" and one Western shell containing the intials either "DC" or "DO".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
None of these are the initials of anyone known to have handled the shells.
Question # 2: Whose initials are these ? Where do they fit in in the chain of custody ? Why aren't they mentioned in that chain ?
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 5:56:57 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering ALL of the questions in this series:
1. It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
The receipt signed by FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11/28/63 when he received the four shells from the Tippit murder from the Dallas Police
lists the two Remington-Peters shells as containing the intials "RD" and one Western shell containing the intials either "DC" or "DO".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
None of these are the initials of anyone known to have handled the shells.
Question # 2: Whose initials are these ? Where do they fit in in the chain of custody ? Why aren't they mentioned in that chain ?The "initials" don't actually have to be someone's actual initials, they just have to be a
distinctive identifier. For instance, the FBI's Courtland Cunningham marked items with,
IIRC, "JH" rather than his own "CC" since it was decided that "CC" could be misinterpreted
as an abbreviation for "carbon copy"
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 5:56:57 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:That's a depraved response. If somebody among the authorities thinks that the bullet hulls might be carbon copies, then the chain of custody has more problems than I had imagined!
There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering ALL of the questions in this series:
1. It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
The receipt signed by FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11/28/63 when he received the four shells from the Tippit murder from the Dallas Police
lists the two Remington-Peters shells as containing the intials "RD" and one Western shell containing the intials either "DC" or "DO".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
None of these are the initials of anyone known to have handled the shells.
Question # 2: Whose initials are these ? Where do they fit in in the chain of custody ? Why aren't they mentioned in that chain ?The "initials" don't actually have to be someone's actual initials, they just have to be a
distinctive identifier. For instance, the FBI's Courtland Cunningham marked items with,
IIRC, "JH" rather than his own "CC" since it was decided that "CC" could be misinterpreted
as an abbreviation for "carbon copy"
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:47:43?PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 5:56:57?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"The "initials" don't actually have to be someone's actual initials, they just have to be a
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering ALL of the questions in this series:
1. It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ >>>
The receipt signed by FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11/28/63 when he received the four shells from the Tippit murder from the Dallas Police
lists the two Remington-Peters shells as containing the intials "RD" and one Western shell containing the intials either "DC" or "DO".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
None of these are the initials of anyone known to have handled the shells. >>>
Question # 2: Whose initials are these ? Where do they fit in in the chain of custody ? Why aren't they mentioned in that chain ?
distinctive identifier. For instance, the FBI's Courtland Cunningham marked items with,
IIRC, "JH" rather than his own "CC" since it was decided that "CC" could be misinterpreted
as an abbreviation for "carbon copy"
This is why I don't fret over things like this. Like most CTs, Gil takes every unknown to be and
indication of something nefarious rather than considering other possibilities, most of which are
rather mundane.
It is not necessary to answer every last question
in order to figure out who killed JFK.
We have
all the evidence we need to conclude without a doubt Oswald was the assassin as well as a cop
killer.
If it was necessary to resolve every last unknown answer,
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 126:23:43 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,955 |
