Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?

[John Iacoletti]

...good so far 

Nope.

Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.

[John Mytton]

Nope.

Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.

Yep.

Mr. BALL. What happened when you jerked the pistol free?
Mr. McDONALD. When I jerked it free, I was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don't know why, and when I brought the pistol out, it grazed me across the cheek here, and I put it all the way out to the aisle, holding it by the butt. I gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll...

JohnM

[Bill Chapman]

Nope.

Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.

Correct. And the hand-over to Sgt. Hill happened in the car as Oswald was being driven away from the TT.
Meantime, in other news, McDonald said he took the gun from Oswald and handed, or gave it, to Carroll.

--------
BONUS
--------
If I was a CT, I'd claim that there was no gun in Oswald's pants at all: He was just happy to see them. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Okay, LNs...

Who is lying?

Is it Carroll;

Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.


or is it McDonald;

Mr. BALL. What happened when you jerked the pistol free?
Mr. McDONALD. When I jerked it free, I was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don't know why, and when I brought the pistol out, it grazed me across the cheek here, and I put it all the way out to the aisle, holding it by the butt. I gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll...

Well....

[Richard Smith]

How about trying to have a discussion?

This, coming from you, is the joke of the week.

You want to know what the problem is with the chain of custody? You being unable to name the officer(s) who took a revolver from Oswald and your inability to show that CE143 is the revolver that was allegedly taken from Oswald. That is the problem with the chain of custody.

Now, after you can not back up your bogus claims with any evidence, you suddenly want a "discussion"? For what? So you can argue until hell freezes over that it somehow doesn't matter that you can't name the officers and that you are right anyway? No thank you, I'm not wasting my time on that. Even more so, as your posting history reveals beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are utterly incapable to have a discussion, as that requires the answering of questions and you won't or can't even answer a basic question.

Now, go back to just repeating your usual BS, because that seems to be the only thing you are good at.

So much endless commentary.  Why so frightened to answer a simple question? Here it is again:  Was the gun in evidence used to kill Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

So much endless commentary.  Why so frightened to answer a simple question? Here it is again:  Was the gun in evidence used to kill Tippit?

I'll answer your question, after you have answered mine. Fair enough?

Name the officer(s) who took a revolver from Oswald?

What proof do you have to show that CE143 is the revolver that was allegedly taken from Oswald?

[Richard Smith]

So why question whether the gun taken from Oswald is the same one in evidence?

Because, unlike you, I don't take anything on blind faith.

You don't even believe the gun in evidence is linked to the crime.  Right?

Wrong. The revolver in evidence is clearly linked to Tippit's killing. Whether it is linked to Oswald is another matter.

Martin now is frightened for some reason to answer the question as to whether the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit.  But he had acknowledged in this very thread that "it is clearly linked to Tippit's killing."  His reluctance to just confirm what he has already said on this very thread is another example of his dishonest approach to this case.  This is the only logical conclusion since either Oswald used this gun to kill Tippit or it was planted on him by someone in the DPD to frame him for that crime. It would make no sense to plant a gun that doesn't link him to the crime (the entire purpose of planting the gun).  Why this is like pulling teeth to get around the endless commentary, insults, and attempts at deflections when Martin has already indicated that the gun was used in the crime is a matter of psychological wonderment.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin now is frightened for some reason to answer the question as to whether the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit.  But he had acknowledged in this very thread that "it is clearly linked to Tippit's killing."  His reluctance to just confirm what he has already said on this very thread is another example of his dishonest approach to this case.  This is the only logical conclusion since either Oswald used this gun to kill Tippit or it was planted on him by someone in the DPD to frame him for that crime. It would make no sense to plant a gun that doesn't link him to the crime (the entire purpose of planting the gun).  Why this is like pulling teeth to get around the endless commentary, insults, and attempts at deflections when Martin has already indicated that the gun was used in the crime is a matter of psychological wonderment.

Why do you insist on keeping on making yourself look like a fool?

I told you, I would answer your question after you answered my questions. The one who is frightened to answer questions is you!

How you get from the revolver now in evidence being "clearly linked to Tippit's killing" to "Martin has already indicated that the gun was used in the crime" is utterly beyond any reason.

Well, actually I do know how; it's your usual dishonesty!

You can do a song and dance as much as you like, but until you have answered my questions, you won't get anymore answers from me.


Name the officer(s) who took a revolver from Oswald?

What proof do you have to show that CE143 is the revolver that was allegedly taken from Oswald?