Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?

[Martin Weidmann]

I predict that “Richard” will continue to rant on this particular point, ignore everything else that has been presented or asked, and regurgitate the same litany of misinformation yet again.

Of course he will.... It's a one trick pony with no answers or any valid claims about the evidence.

[Bill Chapman]

All Carroll knew was that he grabbed a gun out of some unknown person’s hand. All Hill knew was that Carroll handed him a gun, either inside the theater, while getting into the police car, or during the car ride, depending on who and when you ask.

How did McDonald or Carroll know that the gun they initialed hours later in the personnel office was the same gun they handled?

Baker makes no mention of taking possession of the gun in any testimony or report. The CSSS form that he filled out that day lists other evidence, but not the gun.

Davenport filed a report saying that Fritz told “officers” to take the gun and give it to Doughty. Davenport filled out the CSSS, saying that he submitted it to both Barnes and Doughty. Who gave it to Davenport and when?

Westbrook testified that at one point he just saw the gun in his office laying on Mr. McGee’s desk with the shells taken out of it. Who put it there and when? And how long was it there?

There is no chain of custody for the revolver.

---------------
10th & Patton
Shots fired
---------------

EYES ON

There was a chain of custody for Oswald w/revolver all along Patton
Each link in the chain is supplied by each witness in turn
 
Shoutout to Bill (Boots on the Ground) Brown for the initial observation

[Richard Smith]

Stop playing games and answer my questions.

And stop misrepresenting what I actually said;

Now before you, in your obvious desperation, try to make something more out of this than it actually is; the revolver now in evidence is clearly linked to Tippit's killing, simply because it has been entered into evidence as being linked to Tippit's killing.
That's it... no more and no less.

For crying out loud, a 5 year old can understand this, but I bet you won't.

What is with the hysterics?  Misreprsenting what you said??? I quoted exactly what you said.  Here it is again:  "The revolver in evidence is clearly linked to Tippit's killing"  That seems pretty clear.  It is "linked to Tippit's killing."  Tippit's killing!  For the love of God.  Such endless dishonesty.  There was never any debate that the gun was in evidence!  HA HA HA.  You should be ashamed to peddle this nonsense.  You clearly acknowledged that the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit.  You were conceding that this is a point of obvious logic since there would be no point to plant a gun on Oswald unless that gun links him to the crime.

[Martin Weidmann]

What is with the hysterics?  Misreprsenting what you said??? I quoted exactly what you said.  Here it is again:  "The revolver in evidence is clearly linked to Tippit's killing"  That seems pretty clear.  It is "linked to Tippit's killing."  Tippit's killing!  For the love of God.  Such endless dishonesty.  There was never any debate that the gun was in evidence!  HA HA HA.  You should be ashamed to peddle this nonsense.  You clearly acknowledged that the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit.  You were conceding that this is a point of obvious logic since there would be no point to plant a gun on Oswald unless that gun links him to the crime.

There is nothing in this pathetic rant that wasn't predicted.

Misreprsenting what you said??? I quoted exactly what you said. 

No, you quoted only part of what I actually said. That's misrepresentation.

That seems pretty clear.  It is "linked to Tippit's killing."  Tippit's killing!  For the love of God.  Such endless dishonesty.

Nothing dishonest about it. Just a statement of fact.

You clearly acknowledged that the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit.

Did I? Don't think so! Is your imagination running wild again, as per usual?

Rather than desperately seeking my acknowledgement (which you will never get), here's something for you to do; why don't you prove that CE143 was used to kill Tippit and that it was taken from Oswald? Oh wait, you can't. You just assume it, which is why you are so desperately seeking my acknowledgement. 

You were conceding that this is a point of obvious logic since there would be no point to plant a gun on Oswald unless that gun links him to the crime.

I conceded nothing of the kind. Not much of what you say has anything to do with logic.
Btw what does it take to make you understand that no gun was ever planted on Oswald?

Anyway, I've now completely lost interest in talking to you. It's a point of obvious logic that there is no point in talking to you because on the one hand you won't listen to reason and don't answer my questions and on the other hand you can't argue the facts of the case if it saved your life and you keep on posting nothing but dishonest BS. You seem to be living in some sort of fantasy world and somehow you have foolishly convinced yourself that it is "reality".

You're on your own from now on. Have fun talking to the mirror.

[Richard Smith]

There is nothing in this pathetic rant that wasn't predicted.

Misreprsenting what you said??? I quoted exactly what you said. 

No, you quoted only part of what I actually said. That's misrepresentation.

That seems pretty clear.  It is "linked to Tippit's killing."  Tippit's killing!  For the love of God.  Such endless dishonesty.

Nothing dishonest about it. Just a statement of fact.

You clearly acknowledged that the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit.

Did I? Don't think so! Is your imagination running wild again, as per usual?

Rather than desperately seeking my acknowledgement (which you will never get), here's something for you to do; why don't you prove that CE143 was used to kill Tippit and that it was taken from Oswald? Oh wait, you can't. You just assume it, which is why you are so desperately seeking my acknowledgement. 

You were conceding that this is a point of obvious logic since there would be no point to plant a gun on Oswald unless that gun links him to the crime.

I conceded nothing of the kind. Not much of what you say has anything to do with logic.
Btw what does it take to make you understand that no gun was ever planted on Oswald?

Anyway, I've now completely lost interest in talking to you. It's a point of obvious logic that there is no point in talking to you because on the one hand you won't listen to reason and don't answer my questions and on the other hand you can't argue the facts of the case if it saved your life and you keep on posting nothing but dishonest BS. You seem to be living in some sort of fantasy world and somehow you have foolishly convinced yourself that it is "reality".

You're on your own from now on. Have fun talking to the mirror.

In response to the obvious point that it wouldn't make any sense to plant a gun to frame Oswald unless that gun was used to kill Tippit you responded: "The revolver in evidence is clearly linked to Tippit's killing."  It is "linked to Tippit's killing." Why you are struggling so mightily against what is perhaps the only sensical thing that you have ever acknowledged on this is forum is immensely amusing.  Your lazy "chain of custody" claim came back to bite you in the backside because the only reason to plant a gun on Oswald would be if the planted gun links Oswald to the crime.  There would be no point to plant a gun that wasn't, as you conceded, "linked to Tippit's killing."  Now you are behaving like a child that has been forced to acknowledge there is no Santa Clause or whatever they call him in "Europe." 

[Martin Weidmann]

Let's not forget that we are still waiting for Bill Brown to provide us with the source that confirms that the second "602" by ambulance driver Butler was "to contact the dispatcher to tell him they were en route to the hospital”.

[John Iacoletti]

Exactly as predicted. “Richard” is colossally predictable as well as being a colossal waste of time.

[Richard Smith]

Let's not forget that we are still waiting for Bill Brown to provide us with the source that confirms that the second "602" by ambulance driver Butler was "to contact the dispatcher to tell him they were en route to the hospital”.

Let's also not forget that you suggested there was a "chain of custody" issue regarding Oswald's possession of the gun in evidence but also claimed that you are not suggesting it was planted because you now understand (and even conceded) it would be pointless to plant a gun to frame Oswald for the Tippit murder unless that gun was used to kill Tippit.  The gun apparently just materialized from the heavens!  You are increasingly like Inspector Clouseau:  "I believe everything and I believe nothing. I suspect everyone and I suspect no one."