From: sirslick@fast.net
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 10:22:18 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 03:57:36 -0800 (PST), Bud
> wrote:
>
> >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
non-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.
> Chickenshit proves that he agrees with me.
You`re delusional.
> In his world, everything
> is perfect in this case. He doesn't have enough honesty to admit the
> slightest problem in this case...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
