So, now you know better than me what I meant by what I wrote?
So, you know what I said, but you just don't understand what I said? Is that it?
Not the answer to my question. I'm curious where you got the information from that Hill and Carroll remained together the entire time. I did find a report they both, and Capt. Westbrook, signed, but beyond that I was unable to find any confirmation for your claim, so why don't you show me where Carroll and Hill said they were together the entire time?
So, Carroll sees a revolver being pointed at him and doesn't know who is holding it and then you assume that it must have been McDonald handing the revolver to him? Did I get that right?
Nor did anyone say that one pistol was being fought over at one point in the scuffle and that another appeared at some other point.
True, but that's exactly what a chain of custody is for; to ensure that there was only one revolver.
The only possible source for the pistol Carroll grabbed is McDonald.
Which is merely your assumption. There is no room for assumptions in a chain of custody!
Not completely true, I'm a afraid. Hill testified (and there is photographic evidence to support him) that at some point he showed the revolver to reporters.
Also, according to Hill, the revolver wasn't marked until 4 PM, some two hours after Oswald had been brought into the police station. Are we really to believe that Hill and Carroll just sat around for two hours in the Personnel Office and then suddenly decided to mark a revolver Hill had on his person all the time?
Apart from this, McDonald also marked the revolver at the Personnel Office, but IMO it's highly doubtful that he got a good enough look at the revolver during the scuffle to be sure the revolver he was marking was the same one Carroll put in his belt at the Texas Theater.
Btw, here's an interesting bit from Hill's testimony;
Mr. HILL. Talked to Walker after he left the interrogation room. He came into the personnel office with us, and we sat down and made sure that--we just talked over our story and made sure that we had all the details as to who was where in the arrest, what door the man came in into the theatre, where they were when the original contact was made, how Bentley hurt his foot, how Lyons hurt his foot, and all this, and decided, well, rather than have to get everybody back together and round them up and all six or seven people sign the one
MW: So, now you know better than me what I meant by what I wrote?
[...]
So, you know what I said, but you just don't understand what I said? Is that it?Whatever you might have been thinking, I know what you wrote. Going back to the origin of this particular line of argument, here is what I originally wrote, in response to Iacoletti:
MT: 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 [here]. 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.Your response was:
You sound like somebody who says "I know the law" because a guy I know is a lawyer". Do you not understand just how stupid that statement is?Everyone reading what you wrote knows what you were trying to say. The thing is, it's not so much that I've known lawyers. It is, I've asked more than one of them about authentication and admissibility over the years, as applied to the JFKA. My conversations with them are why I brought up the difference between fungible and non-fungible real evidence, and why it's important when discussing a firearm. One of them pointed me to the SC Supreme Court decision that I linked to a while back, the decision that flatly declared firearms to be inherently non-fungible. And, as I've already said, such authentication doesn't really work they way you (and JI and some other CTs) seem to want to believe it does. You don't like that, but have no real counterarguments. So you resort to your old tactic of claiming that you've somehow been misinterpreted, without being able to explain what you really meant or otherwise describe what specific misinterpretation was made.
MW: Not completely true, I'm a afraid. Hill testified (and there is photographic evidence to support him) that at some point he showed the revolver to reporters.He said he showed the pistol to reporters when they dropped Oswald off at the Homicide Bureau,
before they proceeded to the Personnel Bureau office. Hill didn't disappear with the gun.
MW: I'm curious where you got the information from that Hill and Carroll remained together the entire timeAs I've already mentioned, I myself am curious as to where you came up with the idea that Hill somehow disappeared with the pistol. I suppose you wouldn't care to tell us why you think that, would you? And where did you get the notion that authentication requires an "unequivocal chain of custody?"
As for Carroll, this is what he said said when the car reached the Municipal building:
Mr. CARROLL. When we got down in the basement and brought Oswald up, I was in front with everyone else surrounding him and we walked directly from the car to the elevator, got on the elevator and went up to the third floor to the homicide and robbery office and took him right into the homicide and robbery office and took him into one of our interrogation rooms, where we released him to the homicide and robbery office.
Mr. BALL. Whom did you release him to?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't recall which one of the officers it was - there were several standing around there, but they would just take him and hand him to one particular officer. We just put him in the room and they more or less come in and we would back off.
Mr. BALL. Where did you go?
Mr. CARROLL. I went into the police personnel office.
Mr. BALL. Who went In there with you?
Mr. CARROLL. There was Jerry Hill, Ray Hawkins, McDonald, Hutson, Bentley, Lyons, and myself. Oh, by the way, Lyons was in the car with us also when we came from the theatre to the police department. I don't remember whether he was sitting In the front or back seat, though, but he did come down with us. Lyons had sprained his ankle and Paul Bentley also had sprained his ankle, and shortly after we went into the police personnel office Lyons and Bentley left and went to Parkland to have their legs checked and taken care of.So he went with Hill to the personnel office. Hill's testimony corroborates this. Here's the kicker though:
Mr. BALL. Did you look at it as you were there in the personnel department?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was McDonald there that day?
Mr. CARROLL. I'm sure he was - I don't actually recall him sitting there. He was there most of the time.
Mr. BALL. Did you see McDonald make a mark on the gun?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes; I saw him make a mark.
Mr. BALL. When was this done?
Mr. CARROLL. It was up in the personnel police office.Carroll knowing that MacDonald was there 'most of the time' implies that Carroll was there the whole time. Hill noted that he wrote the report for both his and Carroll's signature, which also implies Carroll's presence throughout.
Evidence to the contrary is non-existent. No one said that Carrol left or that he was somewhere else.
That being said, where did you get that notion that Hill just up and disappeared with the pistol?
MW: Also, according to Hill, the revolver wasn't marked until 4 PM, some two hours after Oswald had been brought into the police station. Are we really to believe that Hill and Carroll just sat around for two hours in the Personnel Office and then suddenly decided to mark a revolver Hill had on his person all the time?We've already been over the revolver being marked and turned over at 3:15m per Hill's report to Curry. 3:15 and not 4:00. They didn't get to the Municipal Building garage until sometime after 2:00PM, and still had to drag Oswald along to the Homicide Bureau, and deposit him there. They may have only been in the personnel office for an hour before surrendering the pistol. Anyway, Hill and Co. went from the Homicide office to the Personnel office to write reports. That can take a while. As Hill put it:
Walker, Bentley, Lyons, Carroll, and I knew that the prisoner had received a laceration and bruises while effecting his arrest, and that an officer had been scratched while effecting the arrest, and that Bentley had sprained an ankle, and Lyons had sprained an ankle while effecting the arrest--they were fixing to have to make a whole bushel basket of reports--we adjourned to the personnel office, which was further down the hall from homicide and I sat down and started to try to organize the first report on the arrest. I originally had the heading on it, "Injuries sustained by suspect while effecting his arrest in connection with the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit,"There is a video of a Hill interview that was made about 1990, IIRC, where Hill stated that they had to make a report to Curry any time a suspect was injured during an arrest. That's what Hill and Carroll were doing for the hour and a quarter or so that they had the pistol in the PB office. I'll be they also had to write reports whenever an officer was injured.
And it doesn't matter whether Hill and Carroll marked the pistol at the beginning of their custody of it or at the end.
