It would be authenticated because it bears the mark of Bob Carroll, the first police officer to have unambiguous custody of the pistol and in whose presence the pistol remained until Hill, Carroll, et al, marked it before turning it over to Homicide. Once Carroll testifies "yes, that is the pistol I grabbed that day, and I see the personal mark I made on it," it would have been authenticated. An item, X, that has travelled from A to B to C to D......to F is still X if someone at F can establish that X at F is the same X at A. Whatever happens in the middle letters is immaterial.
Again, you and Martin are trying to avoid dealing with the pistol by:
a.) demanding that the pistol be "authenticated."
b.) only accepting your own highly personal (and so far undisclosed) method of authentication as the correct one.
c.) declaring the pistol "inauthenticatable"
d.) disingenuously conflating "authenticated" with "authentic" in such a way as to presume that the pistol must in fact be ignored.
Bob Carroll, the first police officer to have unambiguous custody of the pistol and in whose presence the pistol remained until Hill, Carroll, et al, marked it Where exactly did Carroll say that the revolver remained in his presence until it was marked?
