1964 Chain Of Custody

[John Iacoletti]

Another cool story, bro.  A valid contemporaneously documented chain-of-custody either exists from the beginning or it does not exist at all.  It can't be "re-created" after the fact.

Besides, the jacket allegedly found in the car park isn't evidence of anything, so it really doesn't matter anyway.

[Tom Graves]

Another cool story, bro.  A valid contemporaneously documented chain-of-custody either exists from the beginning or it does not exist at all.  It can't be "re-created" after the fact.

Besides, the jacket allegedly found in the car park isn't evidence of anything, so it really doesn't matter anyway.

How many bad guys do you figure were involved altogether in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important Cover Up?

Couple hundred?

More?

[Lawrence Schnapf]

We filed motions to suppress evidence in the 2017 mock trial on a variety of grounds. because of the time constraints, the parties decided to allow all evidence to be admitted and we would use questions about the reliability of the evidence for the jury to considering how much weight to give a particular piece of  evidence. The government's evidence had lots of problems.

The judge in the Ruby trial was not very good so one should not use him as a guidepost for what evidence would have been admissible or how the evidence would have been handled. Remember that Ruby's conviction was overturned. 

[Tom Graves]

Garbage. There is no clean chain of custody anywhere in this case.

You're full of beans.

It's clean enough for reasonable people, but not, of course, for tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists who believe the assassination was a conspiracy by the evil, evil CIA or the evil, evil [fill in the blank] and therefore oodles and gobs of bad guys and bad gals must have been involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover-up.

[Martin Weidmann]

You're full of beans.

It's clean enough for reasonable people, but not, of course, for tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists who believe the assassination was a conspiracy by the evil, evil CIA or the evil, evil [fill in the blank] and therefore oodles and gobs of bad guys and bad gals must have been involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover-up.

Let me guess. You consider yourself to be reasonable, right?

What a pathetic joke 

A truly reasonable person would explain why the chain of custody was indeed clean, instead of just, like a 5 year old, insulting people who do not share his opinion.

[Martin Weidmann]

We filed motions to suppress evidence in the 2017 mock trial on a variety of grounds. because of the time constraints, the parties decided to allow all evidence to be admitted and we would use questions about the reliability of the evidence for the jury to considering how much weight to give a particular piece of  evidence. The government's evidence had lots of problems.

The judge in the Ruby trial was not very good so one should not use him as a guidepost for what evidence would have been admissible or how the evidence would have been handled. Remember that Ruby's conviction was overturned.

Hi Lawrence, welcome to the forum.

Could you please provide some more details about the 2017 mock trial?

I would be interested to learn how the problems with the evidence impacted the deliberations of the jurors.

[Tom Graves]

Let me guess. You consider yourself to be reasonable, right?

What a pathetic joke 

A truly reasonable person would explain why the chain of custody was indeed clean, instead of just, like a five-year-old, insulting people who do not share his opinion.

I said clean enough, dum-dum. And sufficiently plausible for rational people who realize that accepting the alternative is to accept the ludicrous proposition that oodles and gobs of bad guys and bad gals were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up.