1964 Chain Of Custody

[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.

[Lance Payette]

The issue that will not die!

Bill's 2024 post is essentially correct.

I can cheerfully stipulate that seemingly critical items of evidence MIGHT have been ruled inadmissible at a criminal trial and that Oswald MIGHT have been found not guilty. And so what?

Once again: The point of a criminal trial is to determine whether the prosecution can meet its burden of proof that the accused is guilty. The purpose is not to determine "what really happened" or to write history.

As Bill suggests, before moving to introduce evidence at trial the prosecution would have recognized any defects in the chain of custody and attempted to rehabilitate them with testimony at trial. The judge could either find the defects fatal and rule the evidence inadmissible or allow the evidence while instructing the jury that the defects could be considered in weighing its probative value.

History is not bound by legal niceties. There are no formal burdens of proof, rules of evidence or rules of procedure. Historians - and us, as laymen - simply assess the evidence as we have it, warts and all. Ditto for the WC. If we think they erred in their admission and evaluation of evidence, that's fair game for discussion.

But outside the context of a criminal trial, squawking about "chain of custody" and "admissibility" is just a distraction, a red herring.

The issue that will not die!

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

And sufficiently plausible for rational people

There you go again. You really have a high opinion of yourself. You are making the classic mistake of thinking that your opinion is superior and always right.

who realize that accepting the alternative is to accept the ludicrous proposition

What you consider to be a ludicrous proposition could well be something that is going way over your head. You are making a strawman argument by starting from a point of view that a conspiracy and cover up must have involved many people who all completely understood what was actually going on.

I am still waiting for your reason to consider the evidence "clean enough". I guess it's easier for you to just insult other people.... which by itself is telling enough.