From: hsienzant@aol.com   
      
   On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 5:17:54 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:20:55 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:    
   > >   
   > > You need to provide the evidence the evidence is not legit, not just   
   assume it and ask us to prove otherwise.   
   > LOL...I'm sorry, I thought in America it was the burden of the prosecution   
   to prove its case and part of that    
   > involved proving the evidence is authentic.    
      
   Wrong on both counts.    
   A. I’m not the prosecution. There is no prosecution. Oswald is dead.   
   B. Evidence can be excepted and it’s up to the jury to determine how much   
   weed to give it even if there is no acceptable evidence trail.   
   >    
   > Let me ask you this, Hank:    
   >    
   > Was any chain-of-custody forms were ever filled out for the shells currently   
   in evidence ?    
      
   You have not shown the DPD used such forms in 1963. You haven’t shown anyone   
   used such forms in 1963.   
      
      
   >    
   > Were the shells photographed as found, being that there were police   
   photographers present at the scene ?    
      
   No, because they were picked up by civilians and turned over to the police.   
   Evidence photos cannot be re-creations. Once the evidence is picked up and   
   removed from the crime scene, it should not be replaced into the crime scene -   
   that is criminology 101.    
   You do not know this? I thought you had claimed experience in law enforcement.   
      
      
   >    
   > Did the persons who found the shells identify the shells currently in   
   evidence as the shells they found ?    
      
   No, because they were picked up by civilians and turned over to the police.   
   The civilians did not mark the shells in any way. Nor is there an obligation   
   for civilians to mark them in any way for identification later. You do not   
   know this either?   
      
      
   >    
   > Did the police officer who marked two shells given to him identify ANY of   
   the shells currently in evidence as the shells he marked ?    
      
   He waffled on whether he identified them with markings or not at the time he   
   was provided them. You are begging the question by presuming he marked them in   
   your begged question.   
      
   Since you appear to not know this, let me quote for you:   
   — quote —   
   Mr. BALL. Domingo told you who was running across the lawn?    
   Mr. POE. A man, white man.    
   Mr. BALL. What was he doing?    
   Mr. POE. He was unloading his pistol as he run.    
   Mr. BALL. And what did he say?    
   Mr. POE. He said he picked the two hulls up.    
   Mr. BALL. Did he hand you the hulls?    
   Mr. POE. Yes, sir.    
   Mr. BALL. Did you put any markings on the hulls?    
   Mr. POE. I couldn't swear to it; no, sir.    
   Mr. BALL. What did you do with the hulls?    
   Mr. POE. I turned the hulls into the crime lab, which was at the scene.    
   — unquote —   
      
   What part of “I couldn’t swear to it; no, sir” did you not understand?   
      
   Like conspiracy theorists everywhere, you pretend the evidence says one thing   
   when it says something else entirely.    
      
      
   >    
   > Whose Initials appear on two of the shells that do not correspond to anyone   
   known to have been in the chain of custody ?    
      
   You tell me. Tell me what you make of this.    
      
      
   >    
   > Do the shells match in number and manufacturer the bullets that were removed   
   from Off. Tippit’s body ?    
      
   Yes, within reason. Some witnesses heard as many as five shots, yet only four   
   shells were recovered. Only four bullets were recovered. The two brands of   
   shells matched the two brands of bullets, but there was not a one to one   
   correspondence. Furthermore    
   additional bullets were recovered from Oswald that matched those two brands.   
   The Warren Commission explained all this.    
      
   You don’t know this either?   
   — quote —   
   The examination and testimony of the experts enabled the Commission to   
   conclude that five shots may have been fired, even though only four bullets   
   were recovered. Three of the bullets recovered from Tippit's body were   
   manufactured by Winchester-Western,    
   and the fourth bullet by Remington-Peters, but only two of the four discarded   
   cartridge cases found on the lawn at 10th Street and Patton Avenue were of   
   Winchester-Western manufacture.581 Therefore, one cartridge case of this type   
   was not recovered. And    
   though only one bullet of Remington-Peters manufacture was recovered, two   
   empty cartridge cases of that make were retrieved. Therefore, either one   
   bullet of Remington-Peters manufacture is missing or one used Remington-Peters   
   cartridge case, which may    
   have been in the revolver before the shooting, was discarded along with the   
   others as Oswald left the scene. If a bullet is missing, five were fired.    
   — unquote —    
      
      
   >    
   > Were the shells originally identified by police as .38 specials ?   
      
   This is your argument. But you presented no evidence here to establish that.   
      
      
   >    
   > Do the shells contain corrosion consistent with having been in a gunbelt or   
   a bullet slide ?    
      
   This is your argument. But you presented no evidence here to establish that.   
      
      
   >    
   > It's all here for you and your asshole pals to cry about:    
   >    
   > https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-shells/   
      
   I do not rebut links. If you don’t care to present the evidence here, I   
   don’t care to rebut the evidence that is not here.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)