If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[John Iacoletti]

For what it's worth....

In their Supplemental Offence Report,  Davenport and Bardin wrote that "at 3:30 Captain Fritz of the Homicide Bureau advised Officers  to take the 38 S &W snubnose (Ser # 510210) that was used in the shooting and 3 live 38 shells and [we] also turned these over to Capt Doughty of the ID bureau" 

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338163/m1/1/

Gerald Hill wrote a duties and actions report for Curry on 5 Dec 1963. In this account, Hill, Carroll, and McDonald turn the pistol over to Homicide detective TL Baker at "approximately 3:15 PM." See here: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337502/m1/3/?q=gerald%20hill

From this, it would appear that Hill gave the pistol to the Homicide squad ~3:15PM, and they in turn handed it to Davenport at ~3:30PM, tasking the latter to turn the gun over to the ID Bureau. Given this, there's no discrepancy.

Did Baker ever actually give it to Doughty?  And if so, how did Davenport end up with it?

Does anybody really think this mess is a chain of custody?

[Martin Weidmann]

Did Baker ever actually give it to Doughty?  And if so, how did Davenport end up with it?

Does anybody really think this mess is a chain of custody?

Does anybody really think this mess is a chain of custody?

Of course not. But it did explain the discrepancy between Hill's WC testimony and the receipt Davenport obtained from the evidence room.

You know, the discrepancy John Mytton wanted to ignore.

Btw, thanks for posting that document, John!

[John Mytton]

Does anybody really think this mess is a chain of custody?

Of course not. But it did explain the discrepancy between Hill's WC testimony and the receipt Davenport obtained from the evidence room.

You know, the discrepancy John Mytton wanted to ignore.

Btw, thanks for posting that document, John!

Of course not. But it did explain the discrepancy between Hill's WC testimony and the receipt Davenport obtained from the evidence room.

You know, the discrepancy John Mytton wanted to ignore.

Hilarious, so much for leaving the Forum and so much for ignoring little old me but thanks for hanging around to supply the laughs.
Also quite amusing is that just yesterday you agreed with Mitch that your obsession with an easily explained time discrepancy was sufficiently answered with the original documents? Your self serving vacillations as usual are quite bizarre.

JohnM

[Lance Payette]

Does anybody really think this mess is a chain of custody?

Of course not. But it did explain the discrepancy between Hill's WC testimony and the receipt Davenport obtained from the evidence room.

You know, the discrepancy John Mytton wanted to ignore.

Btw, thanks for posting that document, John!

"Chain of custody" is a mantra of the Oswald Defense Counsel branch of the CT community. It's a favorite of Jim DiEugenio. Defects in the chain of custody may affect either the weight or admissibility of an item of evidence. If there is a reasonable probability the item offered is the same item originally taken into evidence, it will be admitted. perhaps with an instruction to the jury concerning its weight. If there is not a reasonable probability, it will not be admitted. At trial, the various officers would testify as to what actually occurred and why there seem to be inconsistencies in their reports. That would determine whether there was, in fact, an actual defect in the chain of custody. Except in CT World, you can't look at 60-year-old documents and conclude the chain of custody was defective.

[Martin Weidmann]

"Chain of custody" is a mantra of the Oswald Defense Counsel branch of the CT community. It's a favorite of Jim DiEugenio. Defects in the chain of custody may affect either the weight or admissibility of an item of evidence. If there is a reasonable probability the item offered is the same item originally taken into evidence, it will be admitted. perhaps with an instruction to the jury concerning its weight. If there is not a reasonable probability, it will not be admitted. At trial, the various officers would testify as to what actually occurred and why there seem to be inconsistencies in their reports. That would determine whether there was, in fact, an actual defect in the chain of custody. Except in CT World, you can't look at 60-year-old documents and conclude the chain of custody was defective.

If there is a reasonable probability the item offered is the same item originally taken into evidence, it will be admitted.

A reasonable probability?   

At trial, the various officers would testify as to what actually occurred and why there seem to be inconsistencies in their reports. That would determine whether there was, in fact, an actual defect in the chain of custody.

Let's take the jacket for example, shall we?

Despite the fact that 7 different officers marked the grey jacket with their initials, only one of them (Capt. Westbrook) testified before the WC and all he could say is that some person who could have been a police officer pointed him to a jacket under a car in a parking lot. Westbrook could not identify the man and he has never been identified since. Westbrook also said that he gave the jacket to another officer, who he also could not identify and who has to date remained anonymous. In addition he failed to explain how it came to be that he was the person who submitted the grey jacket to the evidence room.

And let's not forget there were no inconsistencies in the officer's report, because there were no reports!

What do you think, mr. lawyer, is there a defect in the chain of custody or not?

Except in CT World, you can't look at 60-year-old documents and conclude the chain of custody was defective.

Are you suggesting that anybody looking at the same information 60 years ago would not conclude that the chain of custody was defective?

[Lance Payette]

Are you suggesting that anybody looking at the same information 60 years ago would not conclude that the chain of custody was defective?

You're missing the point. The adequacy of the chain of custody would be determined at trial. The prosecutor would have interviewed all the officers and established the chain of custody to his satsifaction before offering the jacket in evidence. If the defense raised a chain of custody objection, the court would hear and decide the matter. The Warren Commission, to the chagrin of CTers, was not a criminal trial. In the chaos of 11-22, it is entirely possible that what look like defects in the chain of custody (e.g., Westbrook's inability to identify the original officer) would not be deemed defects at all. If CTers would stay in their lane and stop trying to play Oswald Defense Counsel, they would look less silly. Jim DiEugenio, some sort of school teacher I  believe, wss constantly lecturing me on evdentiary and other legal issues and pretty much making an ass of himself except in the eyes of his minions.

[Martin Weidmann]

You're missing the point. The adequacy of the chain of custody would be determined at trial. The prosecutor would have interviewed all the officers and established the chain of custody to his satsifaction before offering the jacket in evidence. If the defense raised a chain of custody objection, the court would hear and decide the matter. The Warren Commission, to the chagrin of CTers, was not a criminal trial. In the chaos of 11-22, it is entirely possible that what look like defects in the chain of custody (e.g., Westbrook's inability to identify the original officer) would not be deemed defects at all. If CTers would stay in their lane and stop trying to play Oswald Defense Counsel, they would look less silly. Jim DiEugenio, some sort of school teacher I  believe, wss constantly lecturing me on evdentiary and other legal issues and pretty much making an ass of himself except in the eyes of his minions.

You're missing the point. The adequacy of the chain of custody would be determined at trial. The prosecutor would have interviewed all the officers and established the chain of custody to his satsifaction before offering the jacket in evidence. If the defense raised a chain of custody objection, the court would hear and decide the matter.

Yeah, I got that alright

The Warren Commission, to the chagrin of CTers, was not a criminal trial.

Exactly. It was a commission to rubber stamp an already pre-determined outcome. Yet, all the LNs, blindly accept their report as proof of Oswald's guilt. Go figure!

In the chaos of 11-22, it is entirely possible that what look like defects in the chain of custody (e.g., Westbrook's inability to identify the original officer) would not be deemed defects at all.

And it's also entirely possible that they would be deemed defects. So, where does that leave us?

[Dan O'meara]

"Chain of custody" is a mantra of the Oswald Defense Counsel branch of the CT community. It's a favorite of Jim DiEugenio. Defects in the chain of custody may affect either the weight or admissibility of an item of evidence. If there is a reasonable probability the item offered is the same item originally taken into evidence, it will be admitted. perhaps with an instruction to the jury concerning its weight. If there is not a reasonable probability, it will not be admitted. At trial, the various officers would testify as to what actually occurred and why there seem to be inconsistencies in their reports. That would determine whether there was, in fact, an actual defect in the chain of custody. Except in CT World, you can't look at 60-year-old documents and conclude the chain of custody was defective.

Other than the rifle name a single piece of evidence that has chain of custody that wasn't "defective"
Just one piece of evidence.
Anything you like.