David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[Martin Weidmann]

It is to demonstrate to the court that the evidence that purports to be taken from a scene was, in fact, so.  But the court doesn't have to determine that beyond all doubt.  No one monitors each exhibit 24 hours a day.  If there is a serious breach, the court may be asked to have it declared inadmissible.  But not all breaches result in the evidence being declared inadmissible.

If law enforcement is unable to demonstrate who had custody of the evidence for some period, the accused can apply to the court to have the evidence excluded.  But if the application is rejected and, therefore, admitted on the basis of credible testimony to establish the chain of custody, the evidence is heard by the jury.  Discrepancies can be relevant in assessing the weight to be given to it, but the evidence is still admitted.

It is to demonstrate to the court that the evidence that purports to be taken from a scene was, in fact, so.

Indeed.

If there is a serious breach, the court may be asked to have it declared inadmissible.  But not all breaches result in the evidence being declared inadmissible.

True. And judges normally are pretty hesitant to declare a piece of evidence inadmissible.

If law enforcement is unable to demonstrate who had custody of the evidence for some period, the accused can apply to the court to have the evidence excluded.

Or the defense let's it come in to destroy it in front of the jury. Like what happened to Mark Fuhrman and the bloody glove found near Simpson's home.

Discrepancies can be relevant in assessing the weight to be given to it, but the evidence is still admitted.

That's true, but not all the evidence that is admitted at trial is actually proof of anything. In this particular case it could have been a strategy of the defense to let the prosecutor first make the claim that this absolutely was the revolver that was used to kill Tippit before questioning the chain of custody and thus suggesting to the jury that this may not be the revolver that was taken from Oswald.

[Andrew Mason]

I did not say that Oswald identified the revolver CE143 as belonging to him.  The officers did that. 

No they didn't. Carroll could not say who he took the revolver from and Hill testified that Carroll had told him it was Oswald's gun. Neither Carroll or Hill knew if it was Oswald's revolver or not!

But that is not a chain of custody issue.  They all establish that the gun came from the scene of the arrest.  It is a question of whether it was Oswald's gun or whether it belonged to someone else at the scene.  Then the questions would be: what happened to the gun that Oswald admitted having? Was this a gun that a police officer was carrying? If it was a police officer, why was it drawn pointing away from the officers who were wrestling with Oswald? etc.  A jury can easily figure that out. 

I said that Oswald admitted to carrying a revolver and I was suggesting that you were proposing that there was a conspiracy to "then trick several officers into identifying it as the gun that Oswald admitted he was carrying."

You can call it whatever you want, but the bottom line is that no officer actually saw and initialed that revolver until several hours after Oswald's arrest when Hill showed up at the personnel room with a revolver and told the officers that it was Oswald's. Hill may well have believed that what he said was true, but he really had no way of knowing that for sure, as he merely accepted Carroll's word for it.

But Hill vouches for it being the gun that Carroll handed him.  That's all you need. There is no period when it was not in Carroll or Hill's possession and control until Carroll initialed it.

[Martin Weidmann]

But that is not a chain of custody issue.  They all establish that the gun came from the scene of the arrest.  It is a question of whether it was Oswald's gun or whether it belonged to someone else at the scene.  Then the questions would be: what happened to the gun that Oswald admitted having? Was this a gun that a police officer was carrying? If it was a police officer, why was it drawn pointing away from the officers who were wrestling with Oswald? etc.  A jury can easily figure that out. 
But Hill vouches for it being the gun that Carroll handed him.  That's all you need. There is no period when it was not in Carroll or Hill's possession and control until Carroll initialed it.

But that is not a chain of custody issue.  They all establish that the gun came from the scene of the arrest.

No. It is a chain of custody issue, because you do not get to assume that the revolver now in evidence is in fact that one that came from the scene of the arrest.

Then the questions would be: what happened to the gun that Oswald admitted having?

Well, let's see. If the revolver now in evidence isn't the one they took from Oswald, the most logical answer would have to be that the actual revolver was disappeared.

Was this a gun that a police officer was carrying? If it was a police officer, why was it drawn pointing away from the officers who were wrestling with Oswald? etc.  A jury can easily figure that out.

You are now arguing that the evidence is somehow credible, not because the evidence itself is conclusive but simply because you say so.

But Hill vouches for it being the gun that Carroll handed him.  That's all you need.

That's the classic "it's true because the cop said so" argument. When you go with that, you can just as easily do away with the chain of custody requirement all together.

There is no period when it was not in Carroll or Hill's possession and control until Carroll initialed it.

Actually, we don't know that. And it seems that Hill gave the revolver to Paul Bentley as well.

The bottom line is that Hill handed in a revolver to the evidence room which was initialed by some officers in the personnel room because Hill told them it was Oswald's revolver. You can argue about it all day long, but there simply is no way to know where that revolver came from, other than believing the word of a cop who himself admits that he doesn't know first hand either.

[John Iacoletti]

It just goes to weight.  There is no way that you can conclude that the gun with the officers' initials was anything other than Oswald's revolver.  Even if you think that there is a scintilla of doubt about it, the only other conclusion would be that there was an enormous conspiracy to falsify evidence.

False dictotomy.  It only takes one person to say "hey, this is Oswald's revolver.  Initial it".

  The possibility that it was not the gun retrieved from Oswald and was innocently and unintentionally replaced by another gun that just so happened to have fired shells that other officers said they picked up at the Tippit murder scene is a non-starter.

Wrong.  No officer said he picked up a shell at the Tippit murder scene.

[John Iacoletti]

Have you ever wondered why the chain of custody for evidence actually exists?

 

If "cop said so" was good enough, there would be no need for it.

[John Iacoletti]

But Hill vouches for it being the gun that Carroll handed him.  That's all you need. There is no period when it was not in Carroll or Hill's possession and control until Carroll initialed it.

This is BS too.  Carroll didn't have any first hand knowledge of where the gun he grabbed came from or even who was holding it.  I doubt McDonald even knew who grabbed it until he heard Carroll's story.  This is why cops should be separated and interviewed immediately, just like witnesses and suspect are.  Carroll also didn't know what happened to the gun he gave Hill after he gave it to Hill.  And why are cops passing this piece of evidence around like a hot potato.  The first cop to get it should have bagged and tagged it.

Also, 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? It had to be before the initial-fest because as soon as everybody (including Bentley who never even handled it) initialed the gun, Hill said he turned it over to Baker.  So, no, its whereabouts cannot be accounted for at all times.

[Charles Collins]

This is BS too.  Carroll didn't have any first hand knowledge of where the gun he grabbed came from or even who was holding it.  I doubt McDonald even knew who grabbed it until he heard Carroll's story.  This is why cops should be separated and interviewed immediately, just like witnesses and suspect are.  Carroll also didn't know what happened to the gun he gave Hill after he gave it to Hill.  And why are cops passing this piece of evidence around like a hot potato.  The first cop to get it should have bagged and tagged it.

Also, 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? It had to be before the initial-fest because as soon as everybody (including Bentley who never even handled it) initialed the gun, Hill said he turned it over to Baker.  So, no, its whereabouts cannot be accounted for at all times.

At what point in time and under what conditions did these officers make the statements that you are basing your claims on?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

At what point in time and under what conditions did these officers make the statements that you are basing your claims on?

He's going to try and "deconstruct" the evidence and make the revolver disappear. But he won't give an alternate explanation for the existence of this revolver; he won't explain how it came to be in the possession of the police; he won't explain how the police got the actual revolver that was used to shoot Tippit. The shells recovered by eyewitnesses as the scene (from places AWAY from the direct location of the shooting (by Tippit's car); that dismisses the "gun was an automatic" argument) - many of whom say the gunman was Oswald - were fired from that revolver. If it wasn't Oswald then how did the police acquire that revolver?

Again: how did they get that revolver?

He won't answer any of this. He can't. He's trapped himself in his defense of Oswald so that he cannot offer any alternative explanations. Because his approach in defending Oswald - making the evidence disappear - makes him unable with any intellectual consistency to argue for an alternative. Because the evidence for that too must disappear. He's made the revolver and rifle and other evidence disappear and he can't without being exposed for being a conspiracy believer (which he denies) provide one.

Meanwhile, he'll be silent about all sorts of bizarre conspiracy claims like the recent ones involving Ruth Paine. He critically challenges Tracy's examination of the claims but NOT the actual claims. The person making the claims about Paine being some sort of CIA asset or conspirator goes unchallenged.

Lots of other people have tried reasoning with him. They all failed. It's best to move on from this type of conspiracy mindset. You cannot reason with it. I don't know what these people are doing; but it's a big internet and you come across all sorts of things. This is an example of it.

At least the conspiracy believers - who say they are such people - are consistent. Their explanations are absurd, they involve planning and coordination of dozens of people -including civilians. There is no evidence for such planning. It's all supposition and fantasies. But they make them anyway. They don't run when asked for an explanation.