From: hsienzant@aol.com   
      
   On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:32:45 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:   
   > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant    
   >  wrote:   
   > >On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:    
   > >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant    
   > >>  wrote:    
   > >>>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:    
   > >>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud     
   > >>>> wrote:    
   > >>>>> Ben said this...    
   > >>>>>    
   > >>>>> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness   
   testimony as "credible evidence"...."    
   > >>>    
   > >>>No, it doesn’t.    
   > >>    
   > >> Lies cannot save you, Huckster.    
   > >   
   > >Please, point out the supposed lies...    
   >    
   > No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the    
   > acceptance of eyewitness testimony.    
   >    
   Where judged *credible*.   
      
   Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible, especially when   
   eyewitnesses contradict each other. It’s up to the trier of fact (typically   
   the jury) to make that determination in a criminal or civil trial about what   
   eyewitnesses are credible and    
   which aren’t.   
      
   The Commission found them not credible. They said that.    
      
   That doesn’t make them liars, as you claim.    
      
   You have reached a different conclusion, fine. What makes your opinion more   
   valuable and accurate than the determination by the Commission, most of whom   
   were lawyers with years of trial experience (Earl Warren, for example, was a   
   prosecutor in California    
   before he became a judge).   
      
   By all means, share your experience in American jurisprudence so we can judge   
   who is better qualified to make that determination about which witnesses are   
   credible and which aren’t.   
      
      
      
      
   > Indeed, your original *FIRST* response to my statement was a lie that    
   > you've NEVER supported.    
      
   Supported multiple times, including again immediately above.   
   >    
   > And never will. Such AMAZING cowardice, eh Huckster?    
      
   Calling me a coward is simple ad hominem, and you wouldn’t resort to this if   
   you had anything substantial.   
      
      
   >    
   > Let's not forget:   
      
   Ben changing the subject again.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)