From: hsienzant@aol.com   
      
   On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 3:10:21 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:   
   > On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 12:17:35 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:    
   > > On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 9:03:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:    
   > > > Watch as Corbutt runs for the hills. He whines about you not offering   
   the answer key to the test - but when you do - he suddenly turns silent.    
   > > >    
   > > > WHAT A COWARD CORBUTT IS!!!    
   > > >    
   > > > (It goes without saying that Huckster simply lied. Good of you to   
   correct him, Gil.)    
   > > These Lone Nutters take a witness' testimony as fact if it serves their   
   purpose. And they do it without trying to corroborate it.   
   > What Part of the Federal Rules of Evidence I quoted to you did you not   
   understand, Gil?    
   >    
   > This part: “The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is   
   corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness”?   
   > >    
   > > If Holmes was telling the truth about the Part 3 being destroyed when the   
   box was closed, how did the FBI see it ?   
   > They didn’t. They reported Oswald didn’t indicate on the document they   
   saw Hidell was allowed to receive mail at the PO box in question.   
   > > That box was closed May 14, 1963. Why would the FBI be looking at whose   
   name was on Oswald's post office box application before May 1963 ?   
   > They weren’t. You are quoting from a FBI document prepared *after the   
   assassination* and after the publication of a book called WHO KILLED KENNEDY   
   by Thomas Buchanan. That book was published in May, 1964, and was the first to   
   allege a conspiracy.   
   > >    
   > > They wouldn't. Which means the Dallas Post Office retained that part 3,   
   per the regulation.   
   > No, it means the document the FBI saw was the same one in evidence today.   
   Nowhere on that document does it indicate Hidell was entitled to receive mail   
   at Oswald’s PO Box.   
   > > It means it was never destroyed when the box was closed.   
   > Part 3 was.   
   > > More importantly, it means that that part 3 wasn't destroyed until AFTER   
   the assassination, during the FBI investigation into the mailing of the   
   weapons.   
   > Your conclusion is based on assumptions by you that have not been   
   established.   
   > >    
   > > Holmes lied to the Commission about what the regulation said.   
   > According to you. But that’s an assumption on your part.   
   > > And this is Hanky's witness.   
   > And a perfectly valid one, per the Federal Rules of Evidence.    
   > Holmes gave “Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine   
   practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or   
   organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice.”   
      
   Gil? Do you care to discuss the topic you brought up, or are you going to   
   avoid this entirely moving forward?    
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)