If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[John Mytton]

Whatever happened to Bill?

I see the last time he was here was April 26, 2023.

I don't know why Bill left?
Bill was a graphic designer by trade and used to make some real nice graphics and he had a sense of humour which I find is pretty common in LNers whereas CT's take themselves oh so seriously and are usually devoid of any humour of any kind.

JohnM

[Mitch Todd]

You think you alone know what would happen at a hypothetical trial?

The problem is that neither Hill nor Carroll "seized" anything from anybody, Carroll didn't know whose hand he grabbed a gun from, and he didn't mark anything until long after a gun left his possession.

No chain of custody whatsoever.

JI: You think you alone know what would happen at a hypothetical trial?

I've known plenty of attorneys in my life. Occasionally, I've abused those relationships a bit to ask about some of the legal issues involved. Sometimes, I find myself in an interesting discussion. Other times, I've been pointed to a specific article or court decision. The upshot of all this activity is that that admissibility and authentication as practiced is somewhat different than what many conspiracy mavens would like to believe. The traditional rules for authentication and admissibility run along the lines of, if the person(s) who initially take possession of the item positively identifies it, then it is authenticated. Of course, there is always going to be an exceptional decision, but exceptional decisions are, of course, exceptions. Typically, these involve direct evidence that the item could not be the authentic item.


JI: No chain of custody whatsoever.

McDonald testified that he gave the gun to Carroll while the scrum was going on. Carroll said that he grabbed the gun from someone who was holding the weapon out from inside the scrum. Those stories match, even if not perfectly. Carroll said he took the gun to the patrol car and gave it to Hill. Hill and Carroll together drove back to City Hall and took the gun to the Personnel Bureau office where they wrote out reports on the arrest. Hill, Carroll, McDonald, and Bentley put their ID mark on the revolver when they gave it over to Det. Baker in the Homicide office. It stays in the Homicide office for something less than 15 minutes, when Fritz has Davenport take it to the ID bureau and turn it in. That is a valid chain of possession, no matter what you seem to want to think.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

JI: You think you alone know what would happen at a hypothetical trial?

I've known plenty of attorneys in my life. Occasionally, I've abused those relationships a bit to ask about some of the legal issues involved. Sometimes, I find myself in an interesting discussion. Other times, I've been pointed to a specific article or court decision. The upshot of all this activity is that that admissibility and authentication as practiced is somewhat different than what many conspiracy mavens would like to believe. The traditional rules for authentication and admissibility run along the lines of, if the person(s) who initially take possession of the item positively identifies it, then it is authenticated. Of course, there is always going to be an exceptional decision, but exceptional decisions are, of course, exceptions. Typically, these involve direct evidence that the item could not be the authentic item.


JI: No chain of custody whatsoever.

McDonald testified that he gave the gun to Carroll while the scrum was going on. Carroll said that he grabbed the gun from someone who was holding the weapon out from inside the scrum. Those stories match, even if not perfectly. Carroll said he took the gun to the patrol car and gave it to Hill. Hill and Carroll together drove back to City Hall and took the gun to the Personnel Bureau office where they wrote out reports on the arrest. Hill, Carroll, McDonald, and Bentley put their ID mark on the revolver when they gave it over to Det. Baker in the Homicide office. It stays in the Homicide office for something less than 15 minutes, when Fritz has Davenport take it to the ID bureau and turn it in. That is a valid chain of possession, no matter what you seem to want to think.

I've linked several times to the full transcripts of the Ruby trial and the preliminary "statements of fact" or evidence hearings. These detailed chain-of-custody requirements by the Oswald defenders are simply not there. Not in the Ruby trial, e.g., the revolver, et cetera. People are using modern standards that simply weren't used at the time.

I would imagine one could find transcripts of other trials during those years to see how they handled custody/evidence questions. But the preliminary trial transcripts for things like habeas, et cetera are hand to find online. You'd probably have to go in person to the Dallas County courthouse and dig them out (if they even exist; which I doubt). I did find the trial transcripts for the famous Roe. v. Wade abortion decision that started in a Dallas County court and worked its way up to the Supremes. But that was in 1970 and the evidence hearings really don't tell us anything.