Round and round we go. You acknowledged in this very thread that it would be pointless to plant a gun on Oswald unless that gun had been used in the Tippit murder. The gun in evidence is either the gun taken from Oswald or another gun planted by the DPD to frame him (per your "chain of custody" nonsense). Now you are claiming that you never claimed the gun in evidence was planted on Oswald!!! Huh? What does that even mean if you are claiming there is a "chain of custody" issue with the gun in evidence? If someone didn't falsely place it into evidence as the gun found on him, then this is the gun taken from Oswald. And per your own acknowledgement it is the gun used to kill Tippit. Good grief. The documents from the seller linking Oswald to the gun in evidence is "propaganda"? Hard to understand even what that means. That is how evidence works. The authorities trace ownership of a gun via the documents and serial numbers to figure out who owned it. In this case, they confirm via serial numbers and addresses that it was ordered and sent to person using a known alias associated with Oswald to an address that was his PO Box. That wasn't even necessary in this case because the gun was in Oswald's possession when arrested. That documentation from a third-party source is just a cherry on top of his ice cream sundae of guilt. Just saying "no it isn't" in time honored Monty Python-style does not rebut that evidence.
You acknowledged in this very thread that it would be pointless to plant a gun on Oswald unless that gun had been used in the Tippit murder. No. I never said anything about planting a gun on Oswald. Stop making stuff up.
The gun in evidence is either the gun taken from Oswald or another gun planted by the DPD to frame him True, but who said anything about the DPD (as in the entire police department) planting a gun?
Now you are claiming that you never claimed the gun in evidence was planted on Oswald!!! Huh?Try to think harder. You'll figure it out at the end, I'm sure. Here's a clue; introducing something into evidence is not the same as planting something on a person. Get it now?
What does that even mean if you are claiming there is a "chain of custody" issue with the gun in evidence? After dismissing it as nonsense, you now have to ask what the chain of custody issue is? Really?
If someone didn't falsely place it into evidence as the gun found on him, then this is the gun taken from Oswald. And per your own acknowledgement it is the gun used to kill Tippit. Good grief. Wow, you're actually starting to get it. The chain of custody requirement is in place to ensure that the authenticity of the evidence is protected and safeguarded. So all you have to do now is prove that the revolver Hill walked around with for several hours, showed to people and claimed that it was Oswald's was indeed the revolver taken from Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Now I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit 143. Would you state if you know what this is?
Mr. HILL. This is a .38 caliber revolver, Smith & Wesson, with a 2" barrel that would contain six shells. It is an older gun that has been blue steeled, and has a worn wooden handle.
Mr. BELIN.
Have you ever seen this gun before?Mr. HILL.
I am trying to see my mark on it to make sure, sir. I don't recall specifically where I marked it, but I did mark it, if this is the one. I don't remember where I did mark it, now.
Here it is, Hill right here, right in this crack.
Mr. BELIN. Officer, you have just pointed out a place which I will identify as a metal portion running along the butt of the gun. Can you describe it any more fully?
Mr. HILL. It would be to the inside of the pistol grip holding the gun in the air. It would begin under the trigger guard to where the last name H-i-l-1 is scratched in the metal.
Mr. BELIN. Who put that name in there?
Mr. HILL. I did.
Mr. BELIN.
When did you do that?Mr. HILL.
This was done at approximately 4 p.m., the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963, in the personnel office of the police department.Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BELIN.
Was this gun the gun that Officer Carroll handed to you?Mr. HILL.
And identified to me as the suspect's weapon.<>
Mr. BELIN. Now, you said as the driver of the car,
Bob Carroll, got in the car, he handed this gun to you?
Mr. HILL.
Right, sir.So, can you tell me how Hill knew that the revolver he had been carrying around for hours did indeed belong to Oswald?
And - as if you are going to answer this question [yeah right] - , don't say he just trusted Carroll's word, because Carroll testified that he did not even know from which hand he pulled the revolver.
Just saying "no it isn't" in time honored Monty Python-style does not rebut that evidence.Just saying "no it isn't" is still a hell of a lot better than completely ignoring questions and never provide any answers, as you always do.
But as just about everything you write is Monty Python-esque, my reply is very fitting. And there is nothing to rebut since what you claim to be conclusive evidence just isn't. It always comes down to the same problem with you; you confuse your opinion with the actual evidentiary value of the evidence.
