Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    alt.conspiracy.jfk    |    Discussing the assassination of JFK    |    99,700 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 98,237 of 99,700    |
|    Gil Jesus to NoTrueFlags Here    |
|    Re: Is Hank Sienzant Historically Stupid    |
|    22 Nov 23 04:13:07    |
      From: gjjmail1202@gmail.com              On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:55:57 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:       > Well, of course! But if we are to be kind to the Retards, we can agree with       them that historical consensus does develop around such issues, as around       Oswald's guilt. But how does one define that consensus? Are the people, the       citizens, involved at all        in such a consensus? Or is it just professional money-making historians, the       ones who are handsomely paid by the ruling class? Since the Retards have put       forth the argument, the burden is upon them to provide the definition. The       poor dears seem to be in        over their heads here.              I agree.        The credibility of a criminal case is directly connected to the credibility of       the authorities making that case.              Forget that we're talking about Oswald for a minute.               Take a criminal case where:              The police were corrupt       Police continued to question the suspect after he had "lawyered up".       The police lied during their testimony under oath ( perjury )       There were no chain of custody forms made out for the evidence at the time of       discovery       There was no documentation proving the suspect was advised of his rights and       waived those rights.       Several items currently in evidence were not photographed as found        The suspect was not allowed a phone call until 1:40 pm the following day       The suspect's family was denied access to him until the next day       Legal assistance ( ACLU ) was dissuaded by police from talking to the suspect       The police lineups were unfair       The DA was corrupt and only cared about convicting the person arrested        The handling of the evidence by police allowed for the opportunity for       tampering        The witnesses could not identify the items in evidence as the evidence they       found       The witnesses were threatened and harassed        Key witnesses were ignored        FBI reports lied about what the witnesses said              Who TF in their right mind could accept THAT case as an air-tight case of a       suspect's guilt ?       REALLY              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca