From: sirslick@fast.net   
      
   On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 6:10:22 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 5:08:58 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:    
   > >    
   > > Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into   
   shutting up about what they heard and saw.    
   > >   
   > > The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they didn't   
   say what the FBI reported them saying.    
   > >    
   > > The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.    
   > >    
   > > The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the number   
   of irrelevant questions asked.    
   > >    
   > > The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.    
   > >    
   > > The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list   
   immensely.)    
   > >    
   > > Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.    
   > >    
   > > Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in    
   on-conspiratorial terms.    
   > >    
   > > They simply run away.    
   > >    
   > > EVERY    
   > >    
   > > SINGLE    
   > >    
   > > TIME!   
   > And what you've just listed is the "smoking gun" of Oswald's innocence.    
   > In a normal criminal investigation, you don't:    
   >    
   > Continue to question a suspect once he has "lawyered up".    
      
     As long as he is answering questions they will keep asking them.   
      
   > Keep a suspect from making a phone call until the next day.    
      
     So?   
      
   > Refuse his family's request to speak with him.    
      
     They spoke with him.   
      
   > Put him in lineups with police employees dressed differently than the   
   witnesses' descriptions.    
      
     So? You don`t understand lineups, they aren`t an attempt to fool people.   
      
   > Stage those lineups without a defense attorney present.    
      
     So?   
      
   > Tell witnesses before they view the lineup that the suspect is in the   
   lineup.    
      
     Support that.   
      
   > Dissuade criminal attorneys from talking to the suspect.    
      
    How so?   
      
   > Arraign a suspect on murder charges without defense counsel present or   
   appointing counsel if he has none.    
      
     So if a suspect refuses legal representation you can never charge them?   
       
   > Fail to establish a chain of custody for the evidence AT THE POINT OF   
   DISCOVERY by the use of evidence logs.    
      
     You refuse to show that the DPD handled the evidence in this case any   
   different than any other case (cases which resulted in a high conviction rate).   
      
   > Fail to photograph evidence as found.    
      
     You fail to show this is necessary (or even possible in some cases).   
      
   > Fail to secure evidence once it is collected.    
      
     Whatever that means.   
      
   > Fail to secure the Dealey Plaza and Tenth Ave. crime scenes.    
      
     Show they handled these crime scenes any different than others.   
      
   > Fail to correctly identify evidence that is clearly marked.    
      
     Show this.   
      
   > Fail to protect the suspect after receiving death threats against him.    
      
     Did Ruby send death threats?   
       
   > Coerce, threaten and harass witnesses into changing their stories or   
   remaining silent.    
      
     Show this.   
      
   > Altering witness statements on reports.    
      
     Show this.   
      
   > Altering statements and forging signatures on sworn affidavits.    
      
     Show this.   
       
   > And that doesn't even count the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the   
   wounds or the autopsy debacle.    
      
     Like?   
      
   > Or the fact that the shells allegedly found at the Tippit murder scene do   
   not match the bullets removed from his body.    
      
     Did they find all the shells? All the bullets?   
       
   > No, you're right, all of these things would not have occurred in a normal   
   criminal investigation.    
      
    Wasn`t a normal criminal investigation. Police probably don`t interview more   
   than a dozen people in a normal criminal investigation.   
       
   > But they would have occurred in a case where the authorities were trying to   
   frame someone for a crime he did not commit.    
      
      You refuse to walk us through how such a framing is even possible.   
      
   > And since ALL of these were done in this case, it becomes obvious that the   
   authorities arrested the wrong man for the crime.    
      
     You have to be a contortionist to get there.   
      
   > Then covered up that fact.    
   >    
   > "Believers", as you call them, have spent the last 60 years making up   
   excuses for these shortcomings. They think their comments,    
   > speculations and opinions are the equivalent of evidence. They try to fill   
   in the holes with "common sense" and "reason", neither of which    
   > is recognized as evidence in a court of law. Neither should they be accepted   
   in the court of public opinion.    
      
     Information is useless unless you can apply reason to it. That is why you   
   get to the places you do, you can`t reason.   
       
   > They just can't wrap their minds around the fact that they were lied to   
   about this case.    
      
     By everybody, according to you folks.    
      
   > Corroboration means nothing to these people. It doesn't matter if 30, 40, or   
   50 witnesses all saw or heard the same thing.    
      
     You have to look at all information correctly, for what it actually is, and   
   what it isn`t. You frame things incorrectly and remove important context,   
   which leaves you with nothing but hot air empty claims.   
      
   > They either lied or were all mistaken.    
      
     Ironic.   
      
   > In their world, the Dallas doctors, who saw on an average 3 gunshot wounds a   
   day, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.    
      
     Not their job.   
       
   > Welcome to the Twilight Zone.   
      
    If you don`t like the WC`s explanation for this event, put up your own.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)