On May 18, 11:10=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article
<daeeef70-3925-405e-bc7f-65a289ef7...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 17, 12:32=3DA0am, 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=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> In article
<4b6564d3-8265-486c-96c5-28f89b070...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >ps.=3D3D
> >> >com>,
> >> >> robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
> >> >> >On May 16, 7:03=3D3D3DA0pm, 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. =A0It's not possible to fail to quote the
particular statement of yours when the entire post has been reposted."
You may have, I did not read it all. I'm not sure what lead before me
saying ..."so now he claims...." as this is starting mid-sentence.
> >"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. =A0This is more than
> >you have done.
>
"It's rather difficult to accept an apology when you still refuse to
admit what
> you stated..."
If I said in full context that you claimed the two fragments came from
CE399, then I apologize for that. If I didn't say this then there is
no need to apologize. That is whay I'm saying. I am not trying to
make anyone look bad by claiming things they did not say. You did not
post the entire post or I could have seen what was said leading up to
this statement. As I have said before, I respond to what was just
said, that is why I put your statements (or anyone's) in quotes so I'm
just wondering what was said before.
"But it's no doubt the best I'll get, so I accept it..."
I apologized if I said you claimed that, I don't know what else I can
do. Just remember, you have not apologized for claiming something way
worse.
> >> >> >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? =A0As 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. =A0Normally 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! =A0Where'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. =A0In my mind, that is sup****ting them as
> >this is as key as sup****ting the SBT. =A0I 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. =A0We have been repeating
> >the same things forever now. =A0You 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. =A0I 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. =A0Even 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. =3DA0Would you like to place a bet on it? =3DA0We'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. =A0You 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. =A0All 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? =3DA0What 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. =3D3DA0You claimed
you=
were=3D
>
> >> >> >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. =3D3D3DA0He claims this
> >> >> >> >puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or
bo=
th =3D
> >of
> >> >> >> >the fragments.
>
> >> >> >> You claim that you're a convicted child molester...
>
> >> >> >> When you produce my statement where I even *IMPLIED* that CE399
c=
oul=3D
> >d
> >> >> >> have been the source of CE567 & CE569 - indeed, when you can
prov=
ide=3D
> > th=3D3D
> >> >e
> >> >> >> quote of ANYONE AT ALL who's made this assertion, I'll be happy
t=
o s=3D
> >how=3D3D
>
> >> >> >> everyone where Rob claimed that he'd been convicted of child
mole=
sta=3D
> >tio=3D3D
> >> >n.
>
> >> >> >> For of course, both "statements" have in common the fact that
the=
y w=3D
> >ere=3D3D
>
> >> >> >> never said.
> >> >> >> ______________________________________________
>
> >> >> >> Here's the complete original post:
>
> >> >> >>
*****************************************************************=
***=3D
> >***=3D3D
> >> >***=3D3D3D
>
> >> >> >> In article
<f045d722-5370-49b1-b772-2751bf505...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >rou=3D3D
> >> >ps.=3D3D3D
> >> >> >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=3D
> >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. =3D3D3DA0For
with=
out F=3D
> >razie=3D3D
> >> >r say=3D3D3D
> >> >> >ing
> >> >> >> "bullet", you don't *HAVE* an argument.
>
> >> >> >> You tried to argue that an extra bullet was needed for the
chrome=
de=3D
> >nt,=3D3D
> >> > bu=3D3D3D
> >> >> >t
> >> >> >> Frazier never said that.
>
> >> >> >> >I explained I simply typed the wrong word by mistake. I also
sai=
d t=3D
> >his=3D3D
>
> >> >> >> >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
veloci=
ty"=3D
> > IN=3D3D
> >> > RE=3D3D3D
> >> >> >LATION
> >> >> >> TO THE SPEED OF A NORMAL BULLET. =3D3D3DA0In other words, when
Fr=
azier=3D
> > said=3D3D
> >> > "fai=3D3D3D
> >> >> >rly
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
