Post by Gil JesusPost by Ben HolmesWell, that's a given.
No fun in that...
A month ago, after he claimed that the Chain of Custody form was not necessary because the case never went to trial, I asked him to take us through the procedure for implementing it.
Who initiates it and when and where is it initiated ?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/xuu8wrVmbXI/m/0fTS6m41BAAJ
He ran.
I pointed out - as did several others - that you are assuming what you need to prove. You have not established the standards used in 1963 required any such forms, you haven't established the Dallas Police used such forms in 1963, you have not even established any police department used such forms in 1963. Until you do all that, you are asking for proof of something we don't know even existed.
You ran.
Post by Gil JesusAfter he said Jack Ruby accessed the police basement via the ramp, I asked him to name someone who saw Ruby come down the ramp.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/67nmAZta-YE/m/HDxCPyojAAAJ
He ran.
If there is snow on the ground when you awaken in the morning, but you didn't see it snowing, does that mean it didn't snow? Ruby was at the Western Union office a block away sending an advance on a paycheck to an employee a few minutes before he shot Oswald. He was only at the Western Union office because he was awakened when he received a phone call from that employee reminding him he had agreed to do that. Produce testimony that establishes Ruby entered some other way, and establish how it matters.
You will run.
Post by Gil JesusAfter he said that Oswald pulled a gun in the Texas Theater, I asked him who, besides the police, saw Oswald pull that gun ?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/67nmAZta-YE/m/YyR3qPMGAAAJ
He ran.
I pointed out that Johnny Brewer testified to seeing Oswald holding a gun immediately after punching a cop. You want to quibble over what it means to see someone “pull” a weapon. You also want to artificially exclude the testimony of the police in the theatre. You have no reason to do so. Their statements would be admissible in court, something you insist upon elsewhere.
You ran.
Post by Gil JesusAfter he claimed that the police had enough evidence on Oswald to charge him later that evening, I asked him to list the evidence the Dallas Police had on Oswald at 1:35am Saturday, when they arraigned him.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/67nmAZta-YE/m/oUjJvWsbAAAJ
He ran.
There was sufficient evidence to indict him. For starters, he was arrested as a suspect in the Tippit murder, and several witnesses had already picked him out of the lineups as the shooter. They knew he had assaulted Officer McDonald, and had drawn a weapon after punching him. He had to be subdued by numerous police. When the police learned he was employed at the TSBD, he became a suspect in the assassination of the President. The police had learned from Oswald’s wife on the afternoon of those two murders that Oswald owned a rifle, and she had pointed out that it was in the garage inside a blanket. But when the police lifted that blanket, they found the blanket was empty. Separate from that, a rifle had been discovered in the TSBD, where Oswald was employed. The police also determined that Oswald was lying in custody. They had statements from Wes Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle that Oswald had a long package that morning, but Oswald was denying possession any such long package in custody. They had the admission from Marina that Oswald owned a rifle, another thing Oswald was denying in custody.
Oswald’s lying in custody is a sign of guilt, if he was innocent he had no reason to lie. The Dallas authorities had sufficient reason to indict Oswald.
You will run.
Post by Gil JesusThat asshole talks a lot of shit, but he can't prove a fucking thing he says.
And he lies about everything. I'll bet his name isn't really John Corbett.
I'll bet he took that name from the actor of the same name.
https://www.google.com/search?q=john+corbett&oq=john+corbett&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTQyMTdqMGoxNagCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
A real piece of work.
Have you learned that dead people don't have rights yet, or are you going to insist Oswald is innocent of the two murders in Dallas on 11/22/63 because he was never convicted?