Post by Rob Caprio on Dec 15, 2019 10:17:53 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
Ben claims the WC's evidence is "definitive" and to ignore it, despite it NOT proving anything, is the work of a "kook."
“One has DEFINITIVE evidence - an inventory sheet, the other is subjective.” (Ben Holmes)
This comment was in regard to the inventory sheet that contained the alleged possessions of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) found in the Paine garage.
“I *cite* the evidence, Rob. Something you have a poor concept of.” (Ben Holmes)
Ben seems to think by citing Warren Commission (WC) evidence, which NEVER was shown to PROVE a single claim they made in regard to the shootings, is ALL he has to do. Citing evidence is just the first step, then the evidence gets analyzed and cross-examined, and in the case of the WC's evidence it FALLS APART at this point. But to point this out to Ben is akin to NOT accepting the evidence in the first place according to him.
“Your constant implication that it can't really be true, or can't really be evidence if it's contained in the 26 volumes is sheer nonsense.” (Ben Holmes – 8/1/09)
Who ever said this? I know I didn't, I said it is "evidence", but it FAILS to prove a single thing it claims to support in regards to LHO's guilt. Ben USED to agree with this too!
“Yes, you are absolutely right! The testimony, the evidence, and the WC conclusions... **too bad they don't mutually support each other!**” (Ben Holmes – 12/31/1997)
NOW he says evidence is NOT supposed to "prove something" and began the dictionary game.
“Evidence isn't required to "prove" something in order to be evidence.” (Ben Holmes)
Who said it did? He claimed I did, but what I said was your evidence better lead to proof or it is worthless. Why does Ben think they COLLECT evidence? For the heck of it? Or to prove something BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? Obviously he thinks they JUST COLLECT IT LIKE STAMPS!
Evidence is collected to PROVE a claim of guilt and that claim has to BE PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT in a court of law. Ben, like ALL THE LNers on here, do NOT want to look at this case from a court of law point of view, and given the crappy evidence and poor testimony they have to support their claims, who can blame them? He wants to argue they gave us evidence, and to say it does NOT prove anything is a waste of time! OR more to the point -- to say this makes you a KOOK!
"The ONLY thing that will change my thinking is PROOF,” (Incomplete comment by Robert, EDITED by Ben)
“Then you're a kook.” (Ben Holmes)
Asking for proof in a case where a man was accused of two murders, and an attempted homicide to a third person, is akin to being a KOOK to Ben! It is to ALL LNERS!
Here are some comments from Ben about providing proof.
“I already told you, Rob... I have no intention of *EVER* providing "proof"... for obvious reasons.” (Ben Holmes)
What are these "obvious reasons?" My thought is HE CAN'T so he said this instead of admitting it. YET I should believe the evidence he gives me from the WC without question!
“I have no intention of "proving" anything. “ (Ben Holmes)
NO kidding, he can't even support or prove his claims of folks lying. Here comes a real LNER thought process for you folks.
“You don't need to believe *ANYTHING* I say. All I do is cite the evidence. If you don't believe the evidence then you're just a kook.” (Ben Holmes)
This comment is saying IF you don't BELIEVE the WC's evidence you are a kook! I guess I'm a kook then as I don't believe the WC's evidence, sure I ACCEPT IT, but I don't believe it since it does NOT prove a single claim they are making. When did the part about the evidence and claims PROVING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT go away?
Ben knows this part is relevant, but he lies about it and acts like this because LHO was gunned down the court system is NOT relevant anymore, and since NO investigation was done we have to accept and BELIEVE the WC's evidence. I know this because he said so!
Again, I'd like to see this 'proven' first, before trying to 'demolish' it...But this was proven 34 years ago.” (Brandon Alexander)
“This one statement reveals the difference, more than anything else I can think of, between 'Buffs' and 'LNers'. Without trying to get into any wordplay here... 'proven' would normally mean some sort of system of prosecution & defense. We did *not* have any sort of adversarial court judging these issues...in fact, the vast majority of the WC Report was directed/put-together by a surprising few number of lawyers." (Ben Holmes)
Ben lies and forgets to tell everyone there is NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS on murder, so we could still have a court case IF the right people with enough power wanted one. He wants to IGNORE THIS FACT and acts like the INTERNET is the only place this case can be solved.
Remember this comment?
“Evidence isn't required to "prove" something in order to be evidence.” (Ben Holmes)
Well Ben seemed to forget the basics, or lied, when he made it to me, because he said this many years ago.
"I have very *little* problem with WC's evidence... **it's what they tried to prove *using* it that I have a serious problem with.** WC *started* with a particular goal in mind, a rough draft (the summary FBI report) to follow, and basically tried to avoid any complications. They collected the evidence they *wanted* to collect, avoided evidence they didn't want, and were forced to twist what they had to come up with the conclusions they did.” (Ben Holmes – 12/6/97)
How can the same man say the above and this?
“You don't need to believe *ANYTHING* I say. All I do is cite the evidence. If you don't believe the evidence then you're just a kook.” (Ben Holmes)
You got me there! Ben hates it when I analyze the evidence the WC gave us and point out how worthless it is in terms of proving their claims and assertions against LHO in a court of law, but he USED to think the same thing in regards to the court system!
“I said it was pointless to discuss the evidence with you because you believe most of it is fake. I don't. How can we have a discussion? Actually, quite simple... *prove* the evidence legitimate. And that answers my question...how?” (Blackburst)
“Actually, it did.
If your attitude were common... there would be *NO* legal system. No prosecution, no defense... nothing. For the moment a prosecutor alleged an offence, no "discussion" would be possible on the part of the defense lawyer. Rather silly, don't you think?” (Ben Holmes – 2/1/06)
NOW, Ben is the ONE accusing others of saying all the evidence we don't like is "fake" when that is NOT the case at all! Some is, but I never said it was all fake. This point is in regards to the bullet the WC presented as the one fired at General Edwin A. Walker (EAW) (the real one was "steel-jacketed" according to the police report) it is fake.
“YOU call fake stuff evidence, I don't.” (Robert – referring to CE573)
“You refer to ANYTHING that doesn't fit your preconceived theory as "fake", and worry not at all that you can't provide evidence, citation, or even logical argument to support your silly assertions.” (Ben Holmes – 7/24/09)
Ben is a liar as we have the police report, the police officer who found the bullet and EAW’s OWN testimony ALL saying the bullet the WC put forth IS NOT the same bullet they found or saw. The WC stayed clear of the police officer who found the bullet because they knew he would have to lie when presented with the 6.5mm copper-jacketed bullet they claimed was fired at EAW.
Ben's above claim is ONE THAT ALL LNERS make on here.
I will save the rest for a later post. I think showing this many lies by Ben is enough for one post.
Ben Holmes USED to think like a CTer, but NOW all he does is lie and make the same claims ALL LNers make. When did this transformation occur? And why?
Will he retract his many lies?
Ben claims the WC's evidence is "definitive" and to ignore it, despite it NOT proving anything, is the work of a "kook."
“One has DEFINITIVE evidence - an inventory sheet, the other is subjective.” (Ben Holmes)
This comment was in regard to the inventory sheet that contained the alleged possessions of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) found in the Paine garage.
“I *cite* the evidence, Rob. Something you have a poor concept of.” (Ben Holmes)
Ben seems to think by citing Warren Commission (WC) evidence, which NEVER was shown to PROVE a single claim they made in regard to the shootings, is ALL he has to do. Citing evidence is just the first step, then the evidence gets analyzed and cross-examined, and in the case of the WC's evidence it FALLS APART at this point. But to point this out to Ben is akin to NOT accepting the evidence in the first place according to him.
“Your constant implication that it can't really be true, or can't really be evidence if it's contained in the 26 volumes is sheer nonsense.” (Ben Holmes – 8/1/09)
Who ever said this? I know I didn't, I said it is "evidence", but it FAILS to prove a single thing it claims to support in regards to LHO's guilt. Ben USED to agree with this too!
“Yes, you are absolutely right! The testimony, the evidence, and the WC conclusions... **too bad they don't mutually support each other!**” (Ben Holmes – 12/31/1997)
NOW he says evidence is NOT supposed to "prove something" and began the dictionary game.
“Evidence isn't required to "prove" something in order to be evidence.” (Ben Holmes)
Who said it did? He claimed I did, but what I said was your evidence better lead to proof or it is worthless. Why does Ben think they COLLECT evidence? For the heck of it? Or to prove something BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? Obviously he thinks they JUST COLLECT IT LIKE STAMPS!
Evidence is collected to PROVE a claim of guilt and that claim has to BE PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT in a court of law. Ben, like ALL THE LNers on here, do NOT want to look at this case from a court of law point of view, and given the crappy evidence and poor testimony they have to support their claims, who can blame them? He wants to argue they gave us evidence, and to say it does NOT prove anything is a waste of time! OR more to the point -- to say this makes you a KOOK!
"The ONLY thing that will change my thinking is PROOF,” (Incomplete comment by Robert, EDITED by Ben)
“Then you're a kook.” (Ben Holmes)
Asking for proof in a case where a man was accused of two murders, and an attempted homicide to a third person, is akin to being a KOOK to Ben! It is to ALL LNERS!
Here are some comments from Ben about providing proof.
“I already told you, Rob... I have no intention of *EVER* providing "proof"... for obvious reasons.” (Ben Holmes)
What are these "obvious reasons?" My thought is HE CAN'T so he said this instead of admitting it. YET I should believe the evidence he gives me from the WC without question!
“I have no intention of "proving" anything. “ (Ben Holmes)
NO kidding, he can't even support or prove his claims of folks lying. Here comes a real LNER thought process for you folks.
“You don't need to believe *ANYTHING* I say. All I do is cite the evidence. If you don't believe the evidence then you're just a kook.” (Ben Holmes)
This comment is saying IF you don't BELIEVE the WC's evidence you are a kook! I guess I'm a kook then as I don't believe the WC's evidence, sure I ACCEPT IT, but I don't believe it since it does NOT prove a single claim they are making. When did the part about the evidence and claims PROVING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT go away?
Ben knows this part is relevant, but he lies about it and acts like this because LHO was gunned down the court system is NOT relevant anymore, and since NO investigation was done we have to accept and BELIEVE the WC's evidence. I know this because he said so!
Again, I'd like to see this 'proven' first, before trying to 'demolish' it...But this was proven 34 years ago.” (Brandon Alexander)
“This one statement reveals the difference, more than anything else I can think of, between 'Buffs' and 'LNers'. Without trying to get into any wordplay here... 'proven' would normally mean some sort of system of prosecution & defense. We did *not* have any sort of adversarial court judging these issues...in fact, the vast majority of the WC Report was directed/put-together by a surprising few number of lawyers." (Ben Holmes)
Ben lies and forgets to tell everyone there is NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS on murder, so we could still have a court case IF the right people with enough power wanted one. He wants to IGNORE THIS FACT and acts like the INTERNET is the only place this case can be solved.
Remember this comment?
“Evidence isn't required to "prove" something in order to be evidence.” (Ben Holmes)
Well Ben seemed to forget the basics, or lied, when he made it to me, because he said this many years ago.
"I have very *little* problem with WC's evidence... **it's what they tried to prove *using* it that I have a serious problem with.** WC *started* with a particular goal in mind, a rough draft (the summary FBI report) to follow, and basically tried to avoid any complications. They collected the evidence they *wanted* to collect, avoided evidence they didn't want, and were forced to twist what they had to come up with the conclusions they did.” (Ben Holmes – 12/6/97)
How can the same man say the above and this?
“You don't need to believe *ANYTHING* I say. All I do is cite the evidence. If you don't believe the evidence then you're just a kook.” (Ben Holmes)
You got me there! Ben hates it when I analyze the evidence the WC gave us and point out how worthless it is in terms of proving their claims and assertions against LHO in a court of law, but he USED to think the same thing in regards to the court system!
“I said it was pointless to discuss the evidence with you because you believe most of it is fake. I don't. How can we have a discussion? Actually, quite simple... *prove* the evidence legitimate. And that answers my question...how?” (Blackburst)
“Actually, it did.
If your attitude were common... there would be *NO* legal system. No prosecution, no defense... nothing. For the moment a prosecutor alleged an offence, no "discussion" would be possible on the part of the defense lawyer. Rather silly, don't you think?” (Ben Holmes – 2/1/06)
NOW, Ben is the ONE accusing others of saying all the evidence we don't like is "fake" when that is NOT the case at all! Some is, but I never said it was all fake. This point is in regards to the bullet the WC presented as the one fired at General Edwin A. Walker (EAW) (the real one was "steel-jacketed" according to the police report) it is fake.
“YOU call fake stuff evidence, I don't.” (Robert – referring to CE573)
“You refer to ANYTHING that doesn't fit your preconceived theory as "fake", and worry not at all that you can't provide evidence, citation, or even logical argument to support your silly assertions.” (Ben Holmes – 7/24/09)
Ben is a liar as we have the police report, the police officer who found the bullet and EAW’s OWN testimony ALL saying the bullet the WC put forth IS NOT the same bullet they found or saw. The WC stayed clear of the police officer who found the bullet because they knew he would have to lie when presented with the 6.5mm copper-jacketed bullet they claimed was fired at EAW.
Ben's above claim is ONE THAT ALL LNERS make on here.
I will save the rest for a later post. I think showing this many lies by Ben is enough for one post.
Ben Holmes USED to think like a CTer, but NOW all he does is lie and make the same claims ALL LNers make. When did this transformation occur? And why?
Will he retract his many lies?