Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?

[Martin Weidmann]

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."

 

Just for the record; I am not suggesting there was a chain of custody issue, I am stating as a matter of fact there was indeed a massive evidentiary problem with the chain of custody. That's why you can't name a single officer who allegedly took CE143 from Oswald!

The thing you constantly fail to understand (what a surprise!) is that a problem with the chain of custody does not necessarily mean that the evidence is not authentic. It merely means that it can not be authenticated and relied upon. But that's probably to complicated for you to comprehend, right, Sherlock?

[Richard Smith]

Just for the record; I am not suggesting there was a chain of custody issue, I am stating as a matter of fact there was indeed a massive evidentiary problem with the chain of custody. That's why you can't name a single officer who allegedly took CE143 from Oswald!

The thing you constantly fail to understand (what a surprise!) is that a problem with the chain of custody does not necessarily mean that the evidence is not authentic. It merely means that it can not be authenticated and relied upon. But that's probably to complicated for you to comprehend, right, Sherlock?

In which Martin once again invokes his inner Inspector Clouseau:  "I believe everything and I believe nothing. I suspect everyone and I suspect no one."  So you are not claiming it is fake but you are not claiming it is authentic.  A world of endless doubt in which nothing can be proven or disproven.  And round and round it goes down the rabbit hole.

[Martin Weidmann]

In which Martin once again invokes his inner Inspector Clouseau:  "I believe everything and I believe nothing. I suspect everyone and I suspect no one."  So you are not claiming it is fake but you are not claiming it is authentic.  A world of endless doubt in which nothing can be proven or disproven.  And round and round it goes down the rabbit hole.

In which "Richard" shows us once again what a fool he really is.

He still doesn't understand that it doesn't matter what he or I believe/suspect or not believe/suspect. The case against Oswald needs to be proven, not just assumed (like "Richard" does). In order to prove that case one needs evidence that is authenticated. The authenticity of the revolver needs to be proven. When no such authentication exist the case is not proven, regardless whether "Richard" likes it or not.

[Richard Smith]

In which "Richard" shows us once again what a fool he really is.

He still doesn't understand that it doesn't matter what he or I believe/suspect or not believe/suspect. The case against Oswald needs to be proven, not just assumed (like "Richard" does). In order to prove that case one needs evidence that is authenticated. The authenticity of the revolver needs to be proven. When no such authentication exist the case is not proven, regardless whether "Richard" likes it or not.

There are third party documents pre-existing Nov. 22 that link Oswald - via a specific serial number - to a revolver that was ordered using a known alias used by Oswald and sent to his PO Box.  That same revolver - with the same serial number as the one sent to Oswald - was placed into evidence. The DPD officers present at his arrest took this revolver from Oswald.  There are pictures of them carrying it out of the TT.  There is not a scintilla of evidence produced by yourself or any "researcher" over the last sixty years that indicates that Oswald possessed any other revolver.  As we have discussed ad nauseum, shouting "chain of custody" casts no doubt on the issue.  Even if you do it over and over.  The fact remains that the evidence links Oswald to a specific revolver - the same one in evidence which the DPD took from him upon his arrest.  Those present at the TT took a revolver from Oswald and placed it in evidence.  Whatever procedural fantasy you wish to entertain casts no doubt on the authenticity of this gun as the one taken from Oswald.  Nor can you formulate any reasonable explanation for how or why the DPD could obtain the gun sent to Oswald's PO Box and plant it on him less than an hour after the Tippit murder.  Nor why they would frame Oswald for this crime and knowingly allow the murderer of a fellow police officer to escape justice.  Pedantic and vague unsupported claims relating to "chain of custody" does nothing to cast any doubt whatsoever on the facts and evidence that link Oswald to this revolver.

[Bill Chapman]

billchapman

[Martin Weidmann]

There are third party documents pre-existing Nov. 22 that link Oswald - via a specific serial number - to a revolver that was ordered using a known alias used by Oswald and sent to his PO Box.  That same revolver - with the same serial number as the one sent to Oswald - was placed into evidence. The DPD officers present at his arrest took this revolver from Oswald.  There are pictures of them carrying it out of the TT.  There is not a scintilla of evidence produced by yourself or any "researcher" over the last sixty years that indicates that Oswald possessed any other revolver.  As we have discussed ad nauseum, shouting "chain of custody" casts no doubt on the issue.  Even if you do it over and over.  The fact remains that the evidence links Oswald to a specific revolver - the same one in evidence which the DPD took from him upon his arrest.  Those present at the TT took a revolver from Oswald and placed it in evidence.  Whatever procedural fantasy you wish to entertain casts no doubt on the authenticity of this gun as the one taken from Oswald.  Nor can you formulate any reasonable explanation for how or why the DPD could obtain the gun sent to Oswald's PO Box and plant it on him less than an hour after the Tippit murder.  Nor why they would frame Oswald for this crime and knowingly allow the murderer of a fellow police officer to escape justice.  Pedantic and vague unsupported claims relating to "chain of custody" does nothing to cast any doubt whatsoever on the facts and evidence that link Oswald to this revolver.

Ignore and misrepresent the actual evidence, wash, rinse and post again... "Richard Smith" in a nutshell.

And before you start whining again; your pathetic little rant offers nothing new or significant and isn't worthy of a reply.

[John Iacoletti]

….and “Richard” regurgitates his litany of BS claims once again — exactly as predicted.

[Richard Smith]

Ignore and misrepresent the actual evidence, wash, rinse and post again... "Richard Smith" in a nutshell.

And before you start whining again; your pathetic little rant offers nothing new or significant and isn't worthy of a reply.

Commentary - check. 
Insults - check. 
Attempts at deflection - big check on that one.   

We miss Otto.  Is he in "Europe" with you?  Send him my regards.