In article
<daeeef70-3925-405e-bc7f-65a289ef7f8a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>On May 17, 12:32=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In article
<204a213c-d431-419a-bd79-6e40d6544...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>com>,
>> robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 16, 8:03=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> In article
<4b6564d3-8265-486c-96c5-28f89b070...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>>
>> >> >On May 16, 7:03=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >> >"Samantha - aka Rob - has complained several times that I've not
>> >> >included the complete context of his lie concerning what I'd said.
>> >> >He's implied that he'd be willing to retract his false assertion if
>> >> >he saw the original. I'd like to give him every possible chance to
do
>> >> >the honest and right thing..."
>>
>
>"Strangely, given the complete post, and the entire context, Samantha
>has not *ONCE* addressed the lie he told."
>
>Ben, you NEVER posted the entire quote to show I'm a liar.
I posted the ENTIRE POST. It's not possible to fail to quote the
particular
statement of yours when the entire post has been reposted.
>"Nor offered a retraction."
>
>I did, even though I don't believe I said you claimed the two
>fragments were tied to CE399 I apologized anyway. This is more than
>you have done.
It's rather difficult to accept an apology when you still refuse to admit
what
you stated...
But it's no doubt the best I'll get, so I accept it...
>> >> >Benita - a.k.a. Ben, has become an LNer overnight. He defends the
>> >> >official theory, he quotes Bugliosi and he has posts longer than
>> >> >DVP!!!
>>
>> >"And yet, you can't sup****t these assertions with any cites or
>> >quotes."
>>
>> >You are a liar,
>>
>
>"And yet, you can't sup****t these assertions with any cites or
>quotes..."
>
>These *assertions* are in ALL of your posts, why do I have to cite
>them? As you said, "searching Google is easy", so if anyone wants
>them they know where to find them.
>
>"You've stated that I'm a "LNer"
>
>Cite for it."
>
>You are the one arguing a LNer point (notice DVP went after me, NOT
>you in this post) and quoting Bugliosi, not me. Normally I wouldn't
>care as each person is entitled to their opinion, and like it or not,
>that is what much of what we discuss is - opinion! Where's the cite I
>claimed I was a child molester?
>
>"You've asserted that I defend "official theory".
>
>Cite for it."
>
>You are defending them, you are sup****ting the idea the three shot/2
>hit scenario is very likely. In my mind, that is sup****ting them as
>this is as key as sup****ting the SBT. I know your initial reason was
>to make me look bad, but that is what it has evolved into.
>
>
>
>"You assert that I quote Bugliosi.
>
>Quote it."
>
>In a recent post you had a link to an article or something (I'll
>admit, I never looked at it) that had his name in it, so I assumed it
>was his theory on events.
>
>"You assert that my posts are "longer than DVP"
>
>Produce one."
>
>That is like saying produce a hen that lays eggs, everyone can see for
>themselves how long these posts have gotten. We have been repeating
>the same things forever now. You made your points and I made mine,
>there is no need to go on and on about it.
>
>
>> >I have shown the invalid theory put forth by the WC,
>> >and you, to be full of crap.
>>
>
>"And yet, you only do so by lying about the testimony, and
>misrepresenting the evidence."
>
>This is your *assertion* and you have shown you are incapable of
>proving it. I know what Frazier said, it could have been one bullet
>or two or more that caused the fragments, but the main points are he
>would NOT give his firm expert opinion that they came from just one
>bullet and they could not match the two fragments using their new
>wonder weapon - NAA.
>
>Here is what Fraizier testified to:
>
>Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567
>(nose); and 569 (base) are ****tions of the originally same bullet?
>Mr. FRAZIER - **No, sir.**
>Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
>Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated
>condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit
>together.
>However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such
>as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section
>of 569, **so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of
>course, they could be parts of separate bullets.**
>
>You have said all along this makes it possible to be from one bullet,
>and technically I can't argue with you on that (and have not), but
>what I have arugued for is this is NOT a definitive answer to back
>their theory. He and Nicol would NOT put themselves in a position of
>lying by saying they thought they came from one bullet, and to me this
>raises a ton of doubt. Even the words he uses are vague, "could be"
>does NOT inspire a lot of confidence in me from an expert witness.
>There is NO proof they came from one bullet, two bullets or more than
>two bullets, I agree with you on this, but the issue is they were
>putting forth a theory that REQUIRED they come from just one bullet
>and they COULDN'T PROVE THIS to be a fact.
>
>"That's not needed... the evidence IS IN FAVOR OF CT'ers!"
>
>It is, that is why no matter what you have argued, I realized they had
>NOT met the standard of proof that is required to earn a conviction
>for a capital crime.
>
>
>> >"Pointing out that you've lied about Frazier's testimony is *NOT* the
>> >same as becoming a LNT'er..."
>>
>> >Who lied?
>>
>
>"You did. =A0Would you like to place a bet on it? =A0We'll both send
money
>to a third party who will hold it, and I will copy some of your more
>outrageous lies, along with the actual quotes of Frazier - and we'll
>post it in this forum, and let all CT'ers vote on it."
>
>I did not lie, I made a typo regarding the "high-velocity fragment",
>the rest is the truth. You think I ingore the words they "could be
>from one bullet", but I don't, I have highlighted over and over how
>this is NOT definitive proof an expert witness is usually called to
>deliver. All he left is a ton of doubt, a defense lawyer would have
>had a field day.
>
>> >I love his testimony as it proves the official theory is
>> >full of crap.
>>
>
>"Then you shouldn't need to lie about it."
>
>Cite what I lied about beyond the "high-velocity" fragment I
>accidently typed as a bullet. I have admitted long ago this was an
>error.
>
>
>> >"A real CT'er is interesting only in the truth. Nothing less will do.
>> >Nothing less is *needed*"
>>
>> >This is why you are a LNer!
>>
>
>"LNT'ers care about the truth? =A0What are *YOU* smoking?"
>
>My point exactly.
>
>
>> >You only care about your ego and winning,
>> >not the truth.
>>
>
>"I won't be 'agreeable' if it means lying about the evidence."
>
>Then you won't mind when I point out things you type I don't agree
>with, right?
>
>
>> >> >No one cares what you are saying Benita, you are a uber-liar and
>> >> >dishonest person who edits peoples' replies. =3DA0You claimed you
were=
>
>> >> >platoon leader for "rifle" cleaning right? You kept all the guys'
>> >> >"rifles" clean?
>>
>> >"You've already proven your dishonesty... no need to hammer the point
>> >home..."
>>
>> >You have been proving your dishonesty here for many, many years.
>>
>> >"Lurkers, many of Samantha's lies concerning official testimony are
>> >included in the post below... feel free to browse."
>>
>> >Browse away, I don't sup****t the official theory like you so I have
>> >NOTHING to hide.
>>
>> >> >> The relevant snip is about halfway through the post, copied here:
>> >> >> ______________________________________________
>>
>> >> >> >so let's play the game his way. =3D3DA0He claims this
>> >> >> >puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or
both =
>of
>> >> >> >the fragments.
>>
>> >> >> You claim that you're a convicted child molester...
>>
>> >> >> When you produce my statement where I even *IMPLIED* that CE399
coul=
>d
>> >> >> have been the source of CE567 & CE569 - indeed, when you can
provide=
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> quote of ANYONE AT ALL who's made this assertion, I'll be happy
to s=
>how=3D
>>
>> >> >> everyone where Rob claimed that he'd been convicted of child
molesta=
>tio=3D
>> >n.
>>
>> >> >> For of course, both "statements" have in common the fact that
they w=
>ere=3D
>>
>> >> >> never said.
>> >> >> ______________________________________________
>>
>> >> >> Here's the complete original post:
>>
>> >> >>
********************************************************************=
>***=3D
>> >***=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> In article
<f045d722-5370-49b1-b772-2751bf505...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>rou=3D
>> >ps.=3D3D
>> >> >com>,
>> >> >> robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>>
>> >> >> >Let's wrap why Ben has called me a liar so I can move on to more
>> >> >> >productive things (and the board can too).
>> >> >> >1) He said I "lied" because I typed "bullet" instead of fragment
wh=
>en
>> >> >> >Frazier said the dent in the hardened chrome was from a fragment
>> >> >> >traveling at a "fairly high velocity" hitting it.
>>
>> >> >> And based your entire argument around that lie. =3D3DA0For
without F=
>razie=3D
>> >r say=3D3D
>> >> >ing
>> >> >> "bullet", you don't *HAVE* an argument.
>>
>> >> >> You tried to argue that an extra bullet was needed for the chrome
de=
>nt,=3D
>> > bu=3D3D
>> >> >t
>> >> >> Frazier never said that.
>>
>> >> >> >I explained I simply typed the wrong word by mistake. I also
said t=
>his=3D
>>
>> >> >> >is not possible due to the alleged rifle being a low-to-medium
>> >> >> >velocity rifle.
>>
>> >> >> Of course, you're lying right now.
>>
>> >> >> Frazier was referencing the fragment as being "fairly high
velocity"=
> IN=3D
>> > RE=3D3D
>> >> >LATION
>> >> >> TO THE SPEED OF A NORMAL BULLET. =3D3DA0In other words, when
Frazier=
> said=3D
>> > "fai=3D3D
>> >> >rly high
>> >> >> velocity", he was speaking of a fragment traveling SLOWER than a
nor=
>mal=3D
>> > bu=3D3D
>> >> >llet.
>>
>> >> >> >Thus producing anything (fragment, bullet, etc...)
>> >> >> >that would exit a skull traveling faster than it went in is
highly
>> >> >> >improbable.
>>
>> >> >> No-one but you has asserted such a silly statement.
>>
>> >> >> Nor can you quote anyone saying anything of the sort.
>>
>> >> >> >Meanwhile, the cause of death is listed as "high velocity
>> >> >> >projectiles" by the WCR on page 523. This brings up more
questions,=
>
>> >> >> >but for now I'll skip them.
>>
>> >> >> You should... since you titled this post "Cliff Notes to An
Accusati=
>on"=3D
>> >, a=3D3D
>> >> >nd
>> >> >> this topic has NEVER come up between us.
>>
>> >> >> >Furthermore, the size of the fragments
>> >> >> >indicate it is highly improbable they could cause a major dent
in
>> >> >> >chrome.
>>
>> >> >> With *NO* citation given. =3D3DA0Rob doesn't like to admit that
Fraz=
>ier t=3D
>> >estif=3D3D
>> >> >ied that
>> >> >> either the 44 grain, OR the 21 grain fragment could have done the
da=
>mag=3D
>> >e t=3D3D
>> >> >o the
>> >> >> chrome.
>>
>> >> >> Whether or not this is believable is beside the point - as Rob is
at=
>tem=3D
>> >pti=3D3D
>> >> >ng to
>> >> >> use *ONLY* his reading of the WCR to impugn it. =3D3DA0Yet
consisten=
>tly f=3D
>> >ails =3D3D
>> >> >to do
>> >> >> so.
>>
>> >> >> And if Rob doesn't like the 21 or 44 grain size... I gave him a
perf=
>ect=3D
>> >ly =3D3D
>> >> >good
>> >> >> 96 grain size.
>>
>> >> >> >Ben says I lied.
>>
>> >> >> You provably did. =3D3DA0You implied another lie immediately
above w=
>hen c=3D
>> >ompar=3D3D
>> >> >ing the
>> >> >> MC to Frazier's "fairly high velocity" statement.
>>
>> >> >> You lied when you asserted that it's been said that the fragments
CO=
>ULD=3D
>> > NO=3D3D
>> >> >T HAVE
>> >> >> COME from the same bullet.
>>
>> >> >> You lied when you asserted that ANYONE AT ALL had ever asserted
that=
> th=3D
>> >ose=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> fragments might have come from CE399.
>>
>> >> >> You probably told a few more... I'm starting to lose track of
them.
>>
>> >> >> >He of course offers no proof to back up his
>> >> >> >*assertions* as usual.
>>
>> >> >> Other than quotes from Frazier's testimony, you mean.
>>
>> >> >> >2) He says I "lied" when I said the fragments could not be
linked t=
>o
>> >> >> >the same bullet.
>>
>> >> >> No, I've never stated that.
>>
>> >> >> Nor can you provide any quote of my doing so.
>>
>> >> >> Indeed, it's the simple truth that the fragments could *NOT* be
prov=
>abl=3D
>> >y l=3D3D
>> >> >inked
>> >> >> to each other.
>>
>> >> >> >The FBI
>>
>> >> >> Who, at the FBI.
>>
>> >> >> For some strange reason, Rob keeps running from this question.
>>
>> >> >> >ran test on all of the fragments and the CE399 to determine if
>> >> >> >they matched. =3D3DA0They did not, thus the term of being
"similar"=
> in
>> >> >> >metallic composition (there is only matching or not matching).
>>
>> >> >> No, there is *NOT* only "matching or not matching". =3D3DA0There
are=
> many=3D
>> > time=3D3D
>> >> >s when
>> >> >> it is simply not possible to "prove" something. =3D3DA0I've given
yo=
>u sev=3D
>> >eral
>> >> >> examples...
>>
>> >> >> Tell us where that second pencil came from Rob?
>>
>> >> >> If you can't prove that the sandblasted car was painted yellow,
does=
> th=3D
>> >at =3D3D
>> >> >prove
>> >> >> that it had green racing stripes?
>>
>> >> >> >They
>> >> >> >added a big "But" after this saying they "could not determine
wheth=
>er
>> >> >> >two or more of the fragments came from the same bullet" (WCR
p.77
>> >> >> >first full paragraph). I concluded that based on this they could
no=
>t
>> >> >> >prove their theory.
>>
>> >> >> Very poor logic, of course. =3D3DA0Tell us where the second
pencil c=
>ame f=3D
>> >rom R=3D3D
>> >> >ob?
>>
>> >> >> >Ben said this is a "lie" as saying "not possible" is not proof
that=
>
>> >> >> >they couldn't have come from the same bullet.
>>
>> >> >> No-one other than Rob has stated that it's "not possible" that
the f=
>rag=3D
>> >men=3D3D
>> >> >ts
>> >> >> came from the same bullet.
>>
>> >> >> Despite my quoting of Frazier asserting that this is indeed a
possib=
>ili=3D
>> >ty,=3D3D
>> >> > Rob
>> >> >> keeps lying about it.
>>
>> >> >> >Again, he offers no
>> >> >> >proof for his *assertion*.
>>
>> >> >> Other than Frazier's explicit testimony, you mean.
>>
>> >> >> >To him it is not possible and possible all
>> >> >> >at the same time.
>>
>> >> >> You're a liar, Rob.
>>
>> >> >> It is *NOT POSSIBLE* to prove that the fragments came from the
same =
>bul=3D
>> >let=3D3D
>> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> It is POSSIBLE that they did. =3D3DA0As Frazier testified to.
>>
>> >> >> I've never used the terms "possible" and "not possible" to
simutaneo=
>usl=3D
>> >y r=3D3D
>> >> >efer
>> >> >> to the same event.
>>
>> >> >> >3) He called me a "liar" to the third power when I said based on
th=
>e
>> >> >> >pronouncement that the two fragments did not come from the same
bul=
>let=3D
>>
>> >> >> No Rob - *NO-ONE* other than you is saying that CE567 & CE569
"did n=
>ot =3D
>> >com=3D3D
>> >> >e from
>> >> >> the same bullet".
>>
>> >> >> You're a liar to suggest that anyone other than you has stated
that.=
>
>>
>> >> >> The inability to *PROVE* that they came from the same bullet is
not =
>a
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
|
