If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Martin Weidmann]

I didn't say that. Either you're misreading or misrepresenting what I said. I said you've refused to believe me from the get go before anything was presented. It's just matter of habit rather than evidence or reason.

BTW, you noticed that I answered your question in the post just before the one you replied to, didn't you?

I didn't say that.

True. You said nothing of significance at all. Instead of actually providing any evidence for your claim that Carroll and Hill (who carried the revolver) were together all the time and/or that Carroll had the revolver in "unambiguous custody" until it was marked by several officers, you, rather childishly complained that I didn't believe you anyway. Since you didn't offer any evidence, what do you expect me to do? Just believe something because you said it? Really?

The fact is that the record shows that Carroll gave a revolver to Hill as they got into the car at the Texas Theater to drive Oswald to the police station, which makes the "Carroll had the revolver in "unambiguous custody" claim completely untrue.

BTW, you noticed that I answered your question in the post just before the one you replied to, didn't you?

No, you didn't answer the question. Carroll testifying that McDonald was at the personnel department "most of the time", while at the same time saying that he (Carroll) did not actually recall him sitting there, is in no way evidence for your claim that Carroll and Hill where together all the time that Hill had the revolver.

What destroys your argument completely is the fact that Hill was photographed showing a revolver to reporters and Carroll is nowhere to be seen!

Care to try again?

[Martin Weidmann]

You don't seem to understand what "shifting the burden" is. I would have been shifting the burden had I responded with "no, you prove that Carroll wasn't in the PB office." But that's not what I said. I asked him a different question: where did he get the idea that Hill just R-U-N-N-O-F-T with the revolver? He brought that notion up well before I brought Carroll into this, and so far hasn't provided any explanation where the notion came from. He brought it up, and should be able to explain where the idea came from.

Some skeptic you are, kid.

I asked him a different question: where did he get the idea that Hill just R-U-N-N-O-F-T with the revolver?

I never said that Hill "just R-U-N-N-O-F-T" with the revolver.

What I did say is that the record shows that Hill received a revolver from Carroll at the Texas Theater at about 2 PM. It also shows that a revolver was not submitted to the evidence room until well after 3 PM, which means that we don't know where the revolver was between those two times or that the revolver submitted to the evidence room was the same as the one Hill received from Carroll.

I say again; Are we really to believe that Hill and Carroll just sat around for more than an hour in the Personnel Office and then suddenly decided to mark a revolver Hill had on his person all the time?

[John Mytton]

I asked him a different question: where did he get the idea that Hill just R-U-N-N-O-F-T with the revolver?

I never said that Hill "just R-U-N-N-O-F-T" with the revolver.

What I did say is that the record shows that Hill received a revolver from Carroll at the Texas Theater at about 2 PM. It also shows that a revolver was not submitted to the evidence room until well after 3 PM, which means that we don't know where the revolver was between those two times or that the revolver submitted to the evidence room was the same as the one Hill received from Carroll.

I say again; Are we really to believe that Hill and Carroll just sat around for more than an hour in the Personnel Office and then suddenly decided to mark a revolver Hill had on his person all the time?

Unbelievable, just give it up Martin, your argument is worthless and has failed!

McDonald took the revolver from Oswald.
McDonald gave the revolver to Carroll.
Carroll gave the revolver to Hill.
Hill kept the revolver on his person till he put his name on it.

Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.

Oswald ordered the revolver in the name of his alias, Alek Hidell.



Oswald's application for PO Box 2915



Oswald ordered the revolver, to PO Box, 2915



Seaport sent the revolver to Oswald's PO Box, 2915



The shipping company was Railway Express, PO Box 2915



In Oswald's possessions was a revolver holster.




Multiple eyewitnesses saw Oswald shake the revolver shells from the revolver.

When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell.
Barbara Jeanette Davis, Affidavit

The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up.
Mrs. Virginia Davis, Affidavit

Mr. BELIN - What else did you see?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.

The revolver shells recovered from the murder scene were exclusively matched to Oswald's revolver.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.




JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Unbelievable, just give it up Martin, your argument is worthless and has failed!

McDonald took the revolver from Oswald.
McDonald gave the revolver to Carroll.
Carroll gave the revolver to Hill.
Hill kept the revolver on his person till he put his name on it.

Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.

Oswald ordered the revolver in the name of his alias, Alek Hidell.

Oswald's application for PO Box 2915

Oswald ordered the revolver, to PO Box, 2915

Seaport sent the revolver to Oswald's PO Box, 2915

The shipping company was Railway Express, PO Box 2915

In Oswald's possessions was a revolver holster.

Multiple eyewitnesses saw Oswald shake the revolver shells from the revolver.

When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell.
Barbara Jeanette Davis, Affidavit

The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up.
Mrs. Virginia Davis, Affidavit

Mr. BELIN - What else did you see?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.

The revolver shells recovered from the murder scene were exclusively matched to Oswald's revolver.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.


JohnM

Unbelievable, just give it up Martin, your argument is worthless and has failed!

Nice story, but it's the same old superficial one where it is assumed that the revolver Hill marked and submitted to the evidence room is the same one that McDonald took from Oswald.

The only thing that's missing in this "believe me because a cop said so" BS is the actual proof for that assumption.

It's probably in vain, but let me try to dumb it down for you as much as I can.

McDonald took the revolver from Oswald.
McDonald gave the revolver to Carroll.
Carroll gave the revolver to Hill.

McDonald was in a struggle with Oswald when he took the revolver from him. He claimed that he gave it to Carroll.

Carroll, doesn't say he got a revolver from McDonald. According to his testimony, he saw a pistol pointing at him, during the struggle, which he grabbed and stuck it in his belt. 

Now, unless McDonald and Carroll had a extraordinary capability of sight, it's highly unlikely that either man got a good look at the revolver while being in a struggle. Carroll, when asked if he had seen a mark on Oswald's face, said in his testimony that he wasn't paying much attention to anything, because they were trying to get Oswald subdued. That doesn't sound like a man who had a close enough look at a revolver sufficient to identify that weapon more than an hour later.

Hill kept the revolver on his person till he put his name on it.

Carroll, who according to Hill was driving the car, says in his testimony that he gave the revolver to Hill in the car as it pulled out from the Texas Theater.
And Hill did indeed say that he kept the revolver on his person until he marked it more than an hour later. Which of course begs the question why he didn't submit it to the evidence room as soon as he arrived at the police station.

Are we really to believe that McDonald and Carroll had a good enough look at the revolver to identify it, more than an hour after the arrest, when Hill took it out of his pocket at the Personnel room? Or did McDonald and Carroll simply mark the revolved because they assumed it was indeed the same one they took from Oswald? And what plausible reason could Hill have had to walk around with a crucial piece of evidence for more than an hour after the arrest, when he could and should have submitted it to the evidence room directly after his arrival at the police station? 

Get back to me when you have something of value to add, John 

[John Iacoletti]

You don't seem to understand what "shifting the burden" is. I would have been shifting the burden had I responded with "no, you prove that Carroll wasn't in the PB office." But that's not what I said. I asked him a different question: where did he get the idea that Hill just R-U-N-N-O-F-T with the revolver?

Nobody claimed that Hill ran off with the revolver.  You claimed that Carroll was in the presence of the Hill the entire time and when challenged for evidence for YOUR claim, you shifted it to demand proof that Hill ran off with the revolver.

In case you've already forgotten:

Carroll remained with Hill the entire time between dropping Oswald off at the Homicide office and turning over the marked pistol.

[John Iacoletti]

Unbelievable, just give it up Martin, your argument is worthless and has failed!

McDonald took the revolver from Oswald.
McDonald gave the revolver to Carroll.
Carroll gave the revolver to Hill.
Hill kept the revolver on his person till he put his name on it.

That's a brilliant regurgitation of the unverifiable story.

[Mitch Todd]

I didn't say that.

True. You said nothing of significance at all. Instead of actually providing any evidence for your claim that Carroll and Hill (who carried the revolver) were together all the time and/or that Carroll had the revolver in "unambiguous custody" until it was marked by several officers, you, rather childishly complained that I didn't believe you anyway. Since you didn't offer any evidence, what do you expect me to do? Just believe something because you said it? Really?

The fact is that the record shows that Carroll gave a revolver to Hill as they got into the car at the Texas Theater to drive Oswald to the police station, which makes the "Carroll had the revolver in "unambiguous custody" claim completely untrue.

BTW, you noticed that I answered your question in the post just before the one you replied to, didn't you?

No, you didn't answer the question. Carroll testifying that McDonald was at the personnel department "most of the time", while at the same time saying that he (Carroll) did not actually recall him sitting there, is in no way evidence for your claim that Carroll and Hill where together all the time that Hill had the revolver.

What destroys your argument completely is the fact that Hill was photographed showing a revolver to reporters and Carroll is nowhere to be seen!

Care to try again?

MT: I didn't say that.

MW: True. You said nothing of significance at all.

Neither did you. Just your usual attempt to declare yourself the victor.

MW: The fact is that the record shows that Carroll gave a revolver to Hill as they got into the car at the Texas Theater to drive Oswald to the police station, which makes the "Carroll had the revolver in "unambiguous custody" claim completely untrue.

Once again, you either misunderstand or misrepresent what I said. I said that Carroll was the "first police officer to have unambiguous custody of the pistol", and so is the person where the chain of custody started. I didn't say he was the the only one. I also said that he was present until the pistol was turned over to the Homicide guys. You've confused these two things.


No, you didn't answer the question. Carroll testifying that McDonald was at the personnel department "most of the time", while at the same time saying that he (Carroll) did not actually recall him sitting there, is in no way evidence for your claim that Carroll and Hill where together all the time that Hill had the revolver.

If McDonald was actually standing rather than sitting down while he was in the room, then Carroll's statement is true. It's also quite possible to be aware of someone's presence nearby while not paying attention to what they're actually doing. Such as, you're busy writing a report with someone else while some other person is standing (or sitting, or kneeling, or laying, or playing tiddly-winks, or what-have-you) behind you and your co-author. That would also lead to a Carroll's statement being true. He's not so stupid to lie about it, then contradict himself in the next sentence.


What destroys your argument completely is the fact that Hill was photographed showing a revolver to reporters and Carroll is nowhere to be seen!

What photograph is this? You keep talking about it, but seem quite shy to show it.  And, in any case, the photos taken inside the police HQ hallways have a field of view of only a few feet due to the close quarters. Carroll could be less than five feet away from Hill and still be out of frame.

[Mitch Todd]

Nobody claimed that Hill ran off with the revolver.  You claimed that Carroll was in the presence of the Hill the entire time and when challenged for evidence for YOUR claim, you shifted it to demand proof that Hill ran off with the revolver.

JI: Nobody claimed that Hill ran off with the revolver. 

It is exactly what he's arguing, whether he realizes it or not;  that Hill had the pistol and just disappeared with it for some amount of time. Otherwise, Martin's argument makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe the hyperbole confused you.