If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[John Iacoletti]

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.

No, "stories" told long after the fact do not constitute a valid chain of custody.  To see why, just ask yourself how McDonald could possibly know that the gun he initialed hours later in the personnel office was the same gun he handled in the theater?

[John Iacoletti]

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.

It has nothing to do with "standards in use at the time".  If that was the "standard", then all that means is that at the time they did nothing to ensure the authenticity of evidence.  It doesn't magically make the evidence authenticatible.  But the fact that they even bothered to initial stuff at all tells you that there were some standards.  They just didn't apply them in any reliable way.

[John Iacoletti]

the same revolver that has a rock solid paper trail back to Oswald

LOL.

[John Iacoletti]

Triple HUH? For McDonald to be proved to have lied, then you need evidence that Carroll said he received the pistol from Officer X or perpetrator Y.

• McDonald saw who he gave the pistol to, Officer Carroll.

• Carroll understandably being focused on a pistol pointed at him didn't see who was holding the pistol.

As I said NOBODY lied.

Just because you can't figure out that there is a difference between being given something and grabbing something doesn't mean that there is no contradiction.

The following images of Oswald's recreated arrest come from the Ruby and Oswald telemovie and the JFK movie. Another interesting observation is how many purely innocent men act this aggressively to an approaching cop and how many would then use their concealed weapon in an attempt to kill this Officer?

Loaded question, given that there is no evidence that anybody used their concealed weapon in an attempt to kill an officer, except maybe in the movies.