If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[Royell Storing]

"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.

   JFK's body was stolen. Anything coming outta Bethesda regarding that body would Not be admitted.   

[Lance Payette]

   JFK's body was stolen. Anything coming outta Bethesda regarding that body would Not be admitted.

And this would help the CT cause ... how? Nothing coming out of Bethesda would be particularly important to the prosecution of Oswald at all ("And was JFK still dead when he arrived at Bethesda, Dr. Humes?").

I assume by "stolen" you mean removed from Texas without a Texas autopsy. Yes, we here on the prosecution team will stipulate to that. How is that relevant to Oswald?

I assume you think the defense would be arguing that the body was removed from Texas so it could be altered in order to disguise the number and/or direction of the shots and that a Texas autopsy would have revealed ... what? Not only is this purely speculative and therefore inadmissible, but it has little or nothing to do with Oswald's guilt. The issue at trial would not be whether Oswald was the lone assassin but whether he fired at JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD. If he did, he was guilty regardless of who else may have fired.

Stringing together speculative conspiracy factoids is not a defense outside of forums such as this. That's what CTers never seem to understand. They seem to think a trial of Oswald would have looked like a mini-trial of 875 conspiracy factoids and 12 different woulda coulda conspiracy theories. No.

[Dan O'meara]

And this would help the CT cause ... how? Nothing coming out of Bethesda would be particularly important to the prosecution of Oswald at all ("And was JFK still dead when he arrived at Bethesda, Dr. Humes?").

I assume by "stolen" you mean removed from Texas without a Texas autopsy. Yes, we here on the prosecution team will stipulate to that. How is that relevant to Oswald?

I assume you think the defense would be arguing that the body was removed from Texas so it could be altered in order to disguise the number and/or direction of the shots and that a Texas autopsy would have revealed ... what? Not only is this purely speculative and therefore inadmissible, but it has little or nothing to do with Oswald's guilt. The issue at trial would not be whether Oswald was the lone assassin but whether he fired at JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD. If he did, he was guilty regardless of who else may have fired.

Stringing together speculative conspiracy factoids is not a defense outside of forums such as this. That's what CTers never seem to understand. They seem to think a trial of Oswald would have looked like a mini-trial of 875 conspiracy factoids and 12 different woulda coulda conspiracy theories. No.

Can't you think of a single piece of evidence that has a non-defective chain of custody?
Not one?
Don't you think that might be significant somehow?

[Lance Payette]

Can't you think of a single piece of evidence that has a non-defective chain of custody?
Not one?
Don't you think that might be significant somehow?

You're starting to sound like a Harvey & Lee fan. Let us hope not.

To repeat for the last time: We don't know if any evidence has a fatally defective chain of custody until the prosecution attempts to introduce it into evidence, by which time the prosecution will have assembled what it believes to be an adequate chain. You can't simply look at documents or what one witness said to the WC and declare there is a defective chain of custody. Defects have to rise to the level of creating genuine doubt that what is offered into evidence is not what was taken into evidence at the time or has otherwise been altered.

This was a sudden, unanticipated, chaotic event. It is not surprising that documents and memories were all over the map. Again, it always seems to me the CTers have a very artificial, non-real-world perspective, as though law enforcement in these circumstances should have been operating with one eye on how everything might look to CTers with CT microscopes 10, 30 and 60 years later. The fact that a defense attorney might be able to poke holes (raise doubts) about an item of evidence does not mean there is a fatal defect in the chain of evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

You're starting to sound like a Harvey & Lee fan. Let us hope not.

To repeat for the last time: We don't know if any evidence has a fatally defective chain of custody until the prosecution attempts to introduce it into evidence, by which time the prosecution will have assembled what it believes to be an adequate chain. You can't simply look at documents or what one witness said to the WC and declare there is a defective chain of custody. Defects have to rise to the level of creating genuine doubt that what is offered into evidence is not what was taken into evidence at the time or has otherwise been altered.

This was a sudden, unanticipated, chaotic event. It is not surprising that documents and memories were all over the map. Again, it always seems to me the CTers have a very artificial, non-real-world perspective, as though law enforcement in these circumstances should have been operating with one eye on how everything might look to CTers with CT microscopes 10, 30 and 60 years later. The fact that a defense attorney might be able to poke holes (raise doubts) about an item of evidence does not mean there is a fatal defect in the chain of evidence.

We don't know if any evidence has a fatally defective chain of custody until the prosecution attempts to introduce it into evidence,

But the WC can use it and consider it authentic anyway?

You can't simply look at documents or what one witness said to the WC and declare there is a defective chain of custody.

But the WC can declare Oswald to be guilty anyway?

[Tom Mahon]

We don't know if any evidence has a fatally defective chain of custody until the prosecution attempts to introduce it into evidence,

But the WC can use it and consider it authentic anyway?

You can't simply look at documents or what one witness said to the WC and declare there is a defective chain of custody.

But the WC can declare Oswald to be guilty anyway?

Did the Warren Report itself include documents and testimonies that helped you and other "researchers" determine there were potential problems with "chains of possession"?

Should the Warren Commission have asked for a five-year extension of its investigation, or simply declared that "Obvious Patsy" Oswald didn't do it?

[Mitch Todd]

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

From the existing documentation, it can reasonably be inferred that Davenport showed up at the Homicide office with the bullet and button Mollenhoff  had removed from Tippit's body. This shortly after Hill gave the revolver to Baker. Fritz told Davenport to take the spent bullet and button to the ID bureau, then slew two birds with one stone by giving Davenport the gun and cartridges to take as well. 

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

Is it really a "mess?" Who here is really an expert on what would really constitute a "non-mess" chain of custody? And even if the chain of custody is a mess, that does not itself actually invalidate item evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

From the existing documentation, it can reasonably be inferred that Davenport showed up at the Homicide office with the bullet and button Mollenhoff  had removed from Tippit's body. This shortly after Hill gave the revolver to Baker. Fritz told Davenport to take the spent bullet and button to the ID bureau, then slew two birds with one stone by giving Davenport the gun and cartridges to take as well. 
Is it really a "mess?" Who here is really an expert on what would really constitute a "non-mess" chain of custody? And even if the chain of custody is a mess, that does not itself actually invalidate item evidence.

And even if the chain of custody is a mess, that does not itself actually invalidate item evidence.

The chain of custody is one of the main ways to authenticate a piece of evidence. Without authentication, how can you still consider an item valid evidence?