You completely misunderstand - likely intentionally - the difference between the legal standard that governs a criminal trial and a discussion outside that context to determine what happened. In a criminal trial, the rights even of the guilty are taken into consideration. The prosecution has a high burden to convict someone for a crime. Even if there is evidence that proves beyond any doubt that a person has committed a crime, that evidence might be excluded due to a violation of the defendants rights. Can you understand how that is different than reaching a conclusion as to whether an individual nevertheless committed the act? If, for example, there is a film of an individual committing the crime, the fact that this film might be excluded from consideration in a legal context does not preclude everyone else from reaching the conclusion that the film demonstrates that the individual committed the crime. Here, you suggest that there is a "chain of custody" issue. A legal concept applied only in a criminal context. This is a procedural question applicable only in a trial. Even if you were correct that there is some issue with the chain of custody (and that is highly debatable), that alone does not mean there is doubt about Oswald's possession of this gun. You do not provide a scintilla of evidence that actually demonstrates that the gun in evidence was not the same gun obtained from Oswald. You do not address the totality of evidence and circumstances that link him to that particular gun. Those are not assumptions. There are documents that link him to the gun. The DPD confirm they took that gun from him. You can't even articulate a rational explanation for how or why this occurred. You just shout over and over "chain of custody" as though that itself casts doubt on the matter. It is a lazy defense attorney tactic when the facts, evidence, and common sense lend themselves to a different conclusion.
Can you understand how that is different than reaching a conclusion as to whether an individual nevertheless committed the act? If you want to reach such a conclusion based on questionable evidence that can not be authenticated, then yes, there is a massive difference. But even if you may want to do something so shallow and stupid, that doesn't mean that others have to do the same.
What you seem to struggle with is that a chain of custody issue is not just about "evidence that proves beyond any doubt that a person has committed a crime" might be excluded due to a violation of the defendants rights. It's about validation and authentication of evidence in general. Evidence that can not be authenticated is not valid and can never ever be considered as being proof of anything, including a defendant's guilt.
Let's see if you understand it, when I say it like this; You can not consider any piece of evidence as "proof beyond any doubt" that somebody is guilty, when you don't even know for a fact that the evidence is valid and authentic.
Here, you suggest that there is a "chain of custody" issue. A legal concept applied only in a criminal context. This is a procedural question applicable only in a trial. No it isn't. Authentication is a prerequisite for anybody who wants to reach a honest conclusion based on the evidence. You keep going on about how the evidence shows Oswald's guilt, but you don't seem to care the least that the evidence may not be authentic, which basically makes your conclusion worthless.
Even if you were correct that there is some issue with the chain of custody (and that is highly debatable), that alone does not mean there is doubt about Oswald's possession of this gun.Hilarious. That's exactly what it means, whether you like it or not.
You do not provide a scintilla of evidence that actually demonstrates that the gun in evidence was not the same gun obtained from Oswald. You do not address the totality of evidence and circumstances that link him to that particular gun.Don't have to. It's the classic LN "I'm right until you prove me wrong" BS again. You claim it's Oswald's revolver, so you need to prove that. Not the other way around!
There are documents that link him to the gun. Actually, no there aren't.
The DPD confirm they took that gun from him. No, they didn't. Hill said that he was given that revolver and was told it was Oswald's. No officer has ever stated that he took the revolver now in evidence from Oswald.
You just shout over and over "chain of custody" as though that itself casts doubt on the matter. Because it does. No such doubt would have to exist if there was a solid chain of custody. The fact that there isn't one justifies doubt.
It is a lazy defense attorney tactic when the facts, evidence, and common sense lend themselves to a different conclusion. LOL ... the actual evidence is not authenticated and common sense is not evidence.
