Post by Rob Caprio on Aug 10, 2019 13:51:52 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
***Note -- Capitalization was used for emphasis and not meant to be screaming. The board this was originally posted on had no bolding or underlining. I could edit it, but I feel it is better to leave it as it is.***
Notice To Lurkers:
Ben will deny these very obvious lies by claiming he has given evidence already (a favorite trick of the LNer clan) or that he has quoted me saying something, but do NOT fall for it. Demand him to provide this evidence to you. Demand that he provides my quote IN context as he has a habit of EDITING other people’s words and ignoring clarifications even when they are made BEFORE he responded.
Ben will resort to insults and false accusations like all LNers do so take note of how often he does this.
************************************************************************
Lieutenant Carl Day arrived at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) shortly after the rifle was found allegedly around 1:22 PM (I say allegedly as there is just as good, if not better, evidence that it was found at 1:06 PM). He claimed to process it for fingerprints, but forgot to photograph it BEFORE HE processed it as crime scene procedures call for.
Long story short, he would later claim he lifted a palm print from the underside of the metal gun barrel and send this on to the FBI on the night of the assassination. Walt Cakebread, who is on this board, tells a different lie. He claims Lt. Day lied about the print being on the gun barrel as it was instead on the wooden fore grip!
They are both lying based on the evidence we have as the FBI's Sebastian Latona was the expert who took possession of the rifle in question just hours after Lt. Day finished his claimed processing and ran tests on it. He found the following during his examination and tests:
1) The ONLY area that had anything in the way of prints was near the trigger guard and these were simply ridge formations that were worthless in terms of identification.
2) That he saw NO indication of a lift ever being done on the rifle in question, thus Lt. Day's claim of doing one was shown to be a lie.
3) It was Latona's expert opinion that NO processing (i.e. search for prints with powder) had been done to the rifle in question, thus Lt. Day's claims of processing it was another lie.
I went over this with Walt many times and all he gave me was more speculation about the "smudged print" on the wooden fore grip, but NO evidence. Ben comes in because I asked him why he did NOT enforce his OWN WORDS!
“When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point it out.” (Ben Holmes – 7/9/09)
Walt clearly failed to support his own assertion with evidence, and yet Ben was more concerned with playing the inconclusive game with me. So I asked him why he lied over and over as he has still FAILED to point out to Walt his inability to support his assertion to this day. He said this in response.
“A conflict in evidence merely means you have to select that which is most persuasive. Walt can EQUALLY claim you're lying because Lt. Day testified to the lift.” (Ben Holmes – 7/15/09)
Thus, Ben is stating that Lt. Day's claims (which are NOT supported by the evidence -- the same thing Ben accused me of doing -- i.e. ignoring the evidence) are just as PERSUASIVE AND EQUAL TO Latona's tests and examinations! When asked for evidence of this claim Ben has put on his running shoes and has not stopped. He may run as far and for as long as Forrest Gump did in the movie, who knows? This is just another claim Ben has made that he CANNOT support, thus he lied.
Will he retract it?
***Note -- Capitalization was used for emphasis and not meant to be screaming. The board this was originally posted on had no bolding or underlining. I could edit it, but I feel it is better to leave it as it is.***
Notice To Lurkers:
Ben will deny these very obvious lies by claiming he has given evidence already (a favorite trick of the LNer clan) or that he has quoted me saying something, but do NOT fall for it. Demand him to provide this evidence to you. Demand that he provides my quote IN context as he has a habit of EDITING other people’s words and ignoring clarifications even when they are made BEFORE he responded.
Ben will resort to insults and false accusations like all LNers do so take note of how often he does this.
************************************************************************
Lieutenant Carl Day arrived at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) shortly after the rifle was found allegedly around 1:22 PM (I say allegedly as there is just as good, if not better, evidence that it was found at 1:06 PM). He claimed to process it for fingerprints, but forgot to photograph it BEFORE HE processed it as crime scene procedures call for.
Long story short, he would later claim he lifted a palm print from the underside of the metal gun barrel and send this on to the FBI on the night of the assassination. Walt Cakebread, who is on this board, tells a different lie. He claims Lt. Day lied about the print being on the gun barrel as it was instead on the wooden fore grip!
They are both lying based on the evidence we have as the FBI's Sebastian Latona was the expert who took possession of the rifle in question just hours after Lt. Day finished his claimed processing and ran tests on it. He found the following during his examination and tests:
1) The ONLY area that had anything in the way of prints was near the trigger guard and these were simply ridge formations that were worthless in terms of identification.
2) That he saw NO indication of a lift ever being done on the rifle in question, thus Lt. Day's claim of doing one was shown to be a lie.
3) It was Latona's expert opinion that NO processing (i.e. search for prints with powder) had been done to the rifle in question, thus Lt. Day's claims of processing it was another lie.
I went over this with Walt many times and all he gave me was more speculation about the "smudged print" on the wooden fore grip, but NO evidence. Ben comes in because I asked him why he did NOT enforce his OWN WORDS!
“When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point it out.” (Ben Holmes – 7/9/09)
Walt clearly failed to support his own assertion with evidence, and yet Ben was more concerned with playing the inconclusive game with me. So I asked him why he lied over and over as he has still FAILED to point out to Walt his inability to support his assertion to this day. He said this in response.
“A conflict in evidence merely means you have to select that which is most persuasive. Walt can EQUALLY claim you're lying because Lt. Day testified to the lift.” (Ben Holmes – 7/15/09)
Thus, Ben is stating that Lt. Day's claims (which are NOT supported by the evidence -- the same thing Ben accused me of doing -- i.e. ignoring the evidence) are just as PERSUASIVE AND EQUAL TO Latona's tests and examinations! When asked for evidence of this claim Ben has put on his running shoes and has not stopped. He may run as far and for as long as Forrest Gump did in the movie, who knows? This is just another claim Ben has made that he CANNOT support, thus he lied.
Will he retract it?