From: sirslick@fast.net   
      
   On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 2:31:16 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:   
   > On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 1:26:09 PM UTC-6, BT George wrote:    
   > > On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 12:22:27 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:    
   > > > On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 11:48:39 AM UTC-5, BT George wrote:    
   > > > > On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 9:21:53 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:    
   > > > > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 16:18:48 -0800 (PST), Bud     
   > > > > > wrote:    
   > > > > >    
   > > > > > >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,    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)