If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[Richard Smith]

The old "chain of custody" rabbit hole yet again?  You know CTers are in trouble when they start rolling that out.  Chain of custody is an issue in a criminal judicial process.  Like the presumption of innocence, it is not necessary to apply it outside that context.  The only question is whether the evidence is genuine or not.  Reasonable people do not require a report detailing the process with the names of police officers involved.  Do we need such a report to accept that a pistol was found in Ford's Theatre after the Lincoln assassination?  Does the lack of such a report cause us to doubt that Booth brought a pistol and used it to shoot Lincoln?  Of course not.  That is laughable defense attorney deflection when they know their client is stone cold guilty.  The process is put on trial instead of the defendant. 

There is not a scintilla of evidence that lends itself to any doubt regarding the genuineness of the most important items of evidence in this case.  None.  In fact, there are many films and photos of the evidence at the crime scene.  When it comes to the single most important piece of evidence in the case - the rifle - there is a variety of evidence from different sources dating back for months that link it to LHO and no one else including a serial number.  If CTers want to go down the endless rabbit hole of chain of custody regarding the jacket etc, knock yourself out.  This is a simple case.  Oswald owned the rifle found at the crime scene, that rifle was used to assassinate JKF, and Oswald had no alibi for the moment of the assassination or provide any explanation for the presence of his rifle.  In fact, Oswald lied to the police about his ownership of the rifle, fled the crime scene, and murdered a police officer.  It's difficult to understand how there could even be much more evidence to link Oswald to this crime than exists.  Just repeating "chain of custody" over and over again makes none of that go away.

[Dan O'meara]

The chain of custody is what actually occurred with an item of evidence: Officer A picked it up at the scene, retained possession until handing it to Officer B, who retained possession before handing it to Detective C, who delivered it to Officer D who was in charge of the evidence room and who logged it in. If, in the heat of a chaotic event, Officer A writes a report stating that he handed it to Officer X, this is not a "defect in the chain of custody." It is a discrepancy between what Officer A did and what he wrote. If Officer B testifies "No, he handed it to me," Officer X testifies he didn't receive it, and Officer A agrees he erred in writing his report, there is no defect in the chain of custody (except in Conspiracy World, of course, where all three officers are obviously lying).

I just happened to be reading Secret Service Agent Donald Burke's report of 11-23-63 detailing the retrieval of the Postal Money Order from the National Archives and Record Services federal records center in Alexandria, VA on that date. The report details the extreme care the National Archives official, Postal official and Secret Service officials took to establish a rock-solid chain of custody from the records center to the safe at the Secret Service office. It's wonderful when that occurs, but it doesn't always occur and it isn't necessarily fatal when it doesn't (except in Conspiracy World).

Here is the basic idea from an Illinois case involving seized cocaine:

"The court in Woods noted the State bears the burden of showing a chain of custody sufficiently complete to make it improbable the evidence has been subject to tampering or substitution by showing the police took reasonable protective measures to ensure the substance recovered was the same as the substance tested. Unless a defendant produces evidence of actual tampering, substitution, or contamination, a sufficiently complete chain of custody does not require every person in the chain to testify. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d at 467, 828 N.E.2d at 255. Deficiencies in a chain of custody go to the weight and not the admissibility of evidence. Even where a link is missing in a chain of custody, the evidence is properly admitted where testimony sufficiently described the condition of the evidence when delivered which matched the description of the evidence when examined. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d at 467-68, 828 N.E.2d at 255."

"If, in the heat of a chaotic event, Officer A writes a report stating that he handed it to Officer X, this is not a "defect in the chain of custody." It is a discrepancy between what Officer A did and what he wrote. If Officer B testifies "No, he handed it to me," Officer X testifies he didn't receive it, and Officer A agrees he erred in writing his report, there is no defect in the chain of custody."

That's a lovely story.
Why don't we have a look at some actual evidence from the actual case and see what you make of it.

The idea that two men can be shot through by a single bullet is not controversial.
Neither is the idea that a shot from the Sniper's Nest passing through JFK must hit JBC (even Royell's beloved Knotts Lab shows this must be the case)
In principle the Single Bullet Theory is not a controversial one.
The real problem with it is the insistence that CE399 was the bullet that passed through both men. Considering the amount of damage done, in particular the shattering of JBC's wrist bone, and the relatively "pristine" nature of the bullet, it is very difficult for many to accept that this was the bullet involved.
Even more problematic was the nature of it's discovery and the subsequent handling of this vital piece of evidence.

Darrell Tomlinson discovered a bullet on a stretcher in a corridor of Parkland hospital. He was unsure what to do about it until a hospital manager and retired police officer, O P Wright came by. Tomlinson drew Wright's attention to the bullet. Wright knew what to do and he searched around until he found Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen and gave him the bullet explaining where it was found.
Up to this point we cannot expect a chain of custody as Tomlinson and Wright are civilians but we would expect them to be asked to identify the bullet at a later date.
Johnsen travels to Washington with the bullet where he hands it to the Chief of the Secret Service James Rowley who then hands the bullet to FBI agent Elmer Todd who takes it to the FBI lab in Washington where it is handed to FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier.

Tomlinson - Wright - Johnsen - Rowley - Todd - Frazier

The Warren Commission asked the FBI in May 1964 to attempt to authenticate the chain of possession of various items of evidence, including Commission Exhibit 399. Although Todd and Frazier had both initialed CE399, Johnsen and Rowley had neglected to do so. There was no record of the chain of custody before CE399 was given to Todd.
It was Todd, the agent who had received the bullet from Rowley, who showed the CE399 to Rowley, Johnsen, Wright and Tomilinson.
All four men refused to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day.
The only people who do positively identify the bullet are the same men who initialed it - Todd and Frazier.
Considering the monumental importance of this piece of evidence it is noteworthy that neither Johnsen nor Wright are called before the Warren Commission.
Rowley testifies but is not asked about CE399.
Unbelievably, Tomlinson, the man who initially discovered the bullet, is asked to give evidence but is not asked a single question about the bullet itself. He is not asked to describe it, he is not shown it so he can confirm it is the same bullet, he is not even shown a picture of it.

In your capacity as a lawyer how does this stack up in terms of a chain of custody?

[Dan O'meara]

The old "chain of custody" rabbit hole yet again?  You know CTers are in trouble when they start rolling that out.  Chain of custody is an issue in a criminal judicial process.  Like the presumption of innocence, it is not necessary to apply it outside that context.  The only question is whether the evidence is genuine or not.  Reasonable people do not require a report detailing the process with the names of police officers involved.  Do we need such a report to accept that a pistol was found in Ford's Theatre after the Lincoln assassination?  Does the lack of such a report cause us to doubt that Booth brought a pistol and used it to shoot Lincoln?  Of course not.  That is laughable defense attorney deflection when they know their client is stone cold guilty.  The process is put on trial instead of the defendant. 

There is not a scintilla of evidence that lends itself to any doubt regarding the genuineness of the most important items of evidence in this case.  None.  In fact, there are many films and photos of the evidence at the crime scene.  When it comes to the single most important piece of evidence in the case - the rifle - there is a variety of evidence from different sources dating back for months that link it to LHO and no one else including a serial number.  If CTers want to go down the endless rabbit hole of chain of custody regarding the jacket etc, knock yourself out.  This is a simple case.  Oswald owned the rifle found at the crime scene, that rifle was used to assassinate JKF, and Oswald had no alibi for the moment of the assassination or provide any explanation for the presence of his rifle.  In fact, Oswald lied to the police about his ownership of the rifle, fled the crime scene, and murdered a police officer.   Just repeating "chain of custody" over and over again makes none of that go away.

The old "chain of custody" rabbit hole yet again?

 
Yeah, Richard, the stupid chain of custody thing.
What a stupid waste of time.
Why do they even bother with a chain of custody?
What's the point?
It just holds up the lynching process.
Why even bother with evidence at all?
We could really speed things along, couldn't we 

"It's difficult to understand how there could even be much more evidence to link Oswald to this crime than exists."

Who is arguing that Oswald wasn't linked to the assassination?

[Lance Payette]

The old "chain of custody" rabbit hole yet again?  You know CTers are in trouble when they start rolling that out.  Chain of custody is an issue in a criminal judicial process.  Like the presumption of innocence, it is not necessary to apply it outside that context.  The only question is whether the evidence is genuine or not.  Reasonable people do not require a report detailing the process with the names of police officers involved.  Do we need such a report to accept that a pistol was found in Ford's Theatre after the Lincoln assassination?  Does the lack of such a report cause us to doubt that Booth brought a pistol and used it to shoot Lincoln?  Of course not.  That is laughable defense attorney deflection when they know their client is stone cold guilty.  The process is put on trial instead of the defendant. 

There is not a scintilla of evidence that lends itself to any doubt regarding the genuineness of the most important items of evidence in this case.  None.  In fact, there are many films and photos of the evidence at the crime scene.  When it comes to the single most important piece of evidence in the case - the rifle - there is a variety of evidence from different sources dating back for months that link it to LHO and no one else including a serial number.  If CTers want to go down the endless rabbit hole of chain of custody regarding the jacket etc, knock yourself out.  This is a simple case.  Oswald owned the rifle found at the crime scene, that rifle was used to assassinate JKF, and Oswald had no alibi for the moment of the assassination or provide any explanation for the presence of his rifle.  In fact, Oswald lied to the police about his ownership of the rifle, fled the crime scene, and murdered a police officer.  It's difficult to understand how there could even be much more evidence to link Oswald to this crime than exists.  Just repeating "chain of custody" over and over again makes none of that go away.

Yes. As I've said, the CT community seems weirdly obsessed with whether Oswald would have been convicted at a trial that's never going to happen and whether evidence could be kept out of a trial that's never going to happen. This is Jim DiEugenio's entire schtick. I truly don't understand it.

Despite some of the comments here, a criminal trial is stacked heavily in favor of the defendant's rights. It's a test of whether the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of 12 citizens, not a quest for historical truth. In many administrative hearings, even ones involving extremely serious matters, the rules of evidence don't apply at all. The Warren Commission was a fact-finding body, not a criminal court.

Except at the fringes of Conspiracy World, there's no serious doubt Oswald bought the rifle that was found in the TSBD, that weapon was fired at JFK, and Oswald fired it. The totality of the evidence is overwhelming. Sure, a defense attorney would attempt to poke holes at every stage - that's the job - but where conspiracy theories fall apart is at the level of epistemology: rationality and logic. They simply make no real-world sense, especially if they are predicated on Oswald being a patsy. I've never heard one that, if you thought about it in real-world terms, was not fundamentally absurd.

WHY would any conspiracy involving conspirators over age ten with IQs over 75 require Oswald as a patsy and all the complexity this would entail? If you wanted to point the finger at Castro or Castro fanatics, there would be vastly simpler and more compelling ways to do it. Good Lord, have a handful of mysterious Cubans who made sure they were overheard muttering "Today Fidal will be vindicated," leave a handful of pro-Castro materials laying around and perhaps even a manifesto stuck to the picket fence, and use plausible, high-powered, assassination-quality weapons and ammunition fired from several locations in a hit that would practically scream para-military operation. WHY do you need an obscure character like Oswald and a hit that by any standard looks like he could have done it all by himself? You need this, if you're a CTer, because THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. Your conspiracy theory is an ad hoc, after-the-fact overlay that makes no rational or logical sense.

I cannot explain CTers' defense counsel mentality, while pretty much ignoring rationality and logic, on any basis other than "this is simply how the conspiracy-prone mind works."

[Martin Weidmann]

The old "chain of custody" rabbit hole yet again?

 
Yeah, Richard, the stupid chain of custody thing.
What a stupid waste of time.
Why do they even bother with a chain of custody?
What's the point?
It just holds up the lynching process.
Why even bother with evidence at all?
We could really speed things along, couldn't we 

"It's difficult to understand how there could even be much more evidence to link Oswald to this crime than exists."

Who is arguing that Oswald wasn't linked to the assassination?

It's beyond me how anybody can take anything Richard Smith says seriously, when one of his claims (and I paraphrase) is that "the evidence that Oswald came down the stairs at the TSBD just after the shots is...... that it happened".

[Richard Smith]

The leitmotiv of the CTer "mind" is an inability to filter knowledge from an endless morass of information.  There are always baseless alternative possibilities to be conjured up.  They literally cannot see the forest for all the trees.  They invoke standards from the criminal justice system in which there is a presumption of innocence and protections designed to protect the right of even the guilty to suggest that there is doubt of a fact because that process may not have been followed to the letter.  Conflating the criminal justice system with reality.  They go into hysterics at the suggestion that a fact can be reasonably proven by a standard other than that of a criminal trial.  Putting aside the fact that almost all of their "chain of custody" concerns are laughable EVEN under the criminal justice standards, it just further highlights that the primary objective is to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt rather than to review the facts and evidence to determine who assassinated JFK.  Do they do this intentionally because they have doubt that Oswald pulled the trigger?  Perhaps some do.  For most of these contrarians, however, I think they have a desire to play endless devil's advocate.  Why do they do this to the tune of tens of thousands of posts on the same subject?  That is better addressed by a psychiatrist but there may be an element of attention seeking in taking a contrary position to all the established facts and evidence.  Look at me!  They can just say "no it doesn't" whenever anyone presents evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt.  And on and on and on these people can go down the rabbit hole in the circle of lunacy.  Thankfully, to establish a fact, it is not necessary for every loon to be convinced of it.  Bottom line: there is no doubt whatsoever that LHO assassinated JFK.  After 60 years, there is no credible evidence that he was involved in a conspiracy. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The old "chain of custody" rabbit hole yet again?  You know CTers are in trouble when they start rolling that out.  Chain of custody is an issue in a criminal judicial process.  Like the presumption of innocence, it is not necessary to apply it outside that context.  The only question is whether the evidence is genuine or not.  Reasonable people do not require a report detailing the process with the names of police officers involved.  Do we need such a report to accept that a pistol was found in Ford's Theatre after the Lincoln assassination?  Does the lack of such a report cause us to doubt that Booth brought a pistol and used it to shoot Lincoln?  Of course not.  That is laughable defense attorney deflection when they know their client is stone cold guilty.  The process is put on trial instead of the defendant. 

There is not a scintilla of evidence that lends itself to any doubt regarding the genuineness of the most important items of evidence in this case.  None.  In fact, there are many films and photos of the evidence at the crime scene.  When it comes to the single most important piece of evidence in the case - the rifle - there is a variety of evidence from different sources dating back for months that link it to LHO and no one else including a serial number.  If CTers want to go down the endless rabbit hole of chain of custody regarding the jacket etc, knock yourself out.  This is a simple case.  Oswald owned the rifle found at the crime scene, that rifle was used to assassinate JKF, and Oswald had no alibi for the moment of the assassination or provide any explanation for the presence of his rifle.  In fact, Oswald lied to the police about his ownership of the rifle, fled the crime scene, and murdered a police officer.  It's difficult to understand how there could even be much more evidence to link Oswald to this crime than exists.  Just repeating "chain of custody" over and over again makes none of that go away.

The transcripts of the Ruby trial including the preliminary hearings on evidence - "statements of facts" it was called - can be read if you need something to help you sleep. There's nothing in them at all about "chain of custody" or other similar demands. It's not there.

For example, the DPD officer, L.C. Graves, who took the revolver from Ruby simply identified it while under oath. The state/prosecution entered it - it was Exhibit #6 - he said that was the one he took and that was that.

The idea that if the "chain of custody" is insufficient that that alone means the evidence can be dismissed is simply made up. It's only used when evidence against Oswald is brought up. A conspiracy believer can cite all sorts of crackpots and cranks who make claims against Ruth Paine or others and this legal standard is never used. If you are going to use it- frankly I don't know why since its a legal standard not a historical one; do we use it when trying to reconstruct any other event? the Lindberg baby kidnapping for example? - then be consistent, please.

You can read the other "statements of facts" hearings where the evidence was introduced. Again, none of this "chain of custody" standard was used.

Graves's testimony is here:
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217784#relPageId=3

The full sent of transcripts - habeas hearing, change of venue, jury selection, evidence - are here: https://maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=2104

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes. As I've said, the CT community seems weirdly obsessed with whether Oswald would have been convicted at a trial that's never going to happen and whether evidence could be kept out of a trial that's never going to happen. This is Jim DiEugenio's entire schtick. I truly don't understand it.

Despite some of the comments here, a criminal trial is stacked heavily in favor of the defendant's rights. It's a test of whether the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of 12 citizens, not a quest for historical truth. In many administrative hearings, even ones involving extremely serious matters, the rules of evidence don't apply at all. The Warren Commission was a fact-finding body, not a criminal court.

Except at the fringes of Conspiracy World, there's no serious doubt Oswald bought the rifle that was found in the TSBD, that weapon was fired at JFK, and Oswald fired it. The totality of the evidence is overwhelming. Sure, a defense attorney would attempt to poke holes at every stage - that's the job - but where conspiracy theories fall apart is at the level of epistemology: rationality and logic. They simply make no real-world sense, especially if they are predicated on Oswald being a patsy. I've never heard one that, if you thought about it in real-world terms, was not fundamentally absurd.

WHY would any conspiracy involving conspirators over age ten with IQs over 75 require Oswald as a patsy and all the complexity this would entail? If you wanted to point the finger at Castro or Castro fanatics, there would be vastly simpler and more compelling ways to do it. Good Lord, have a handful of mysterious Cubans who made sure they were overheard muttering "Today Fidal will be vindicated," leave a handful of pro-Castro materials laying around and perhaps even a manifesto stuck to the picket fence, and use plausible, high-powered, assassination-quality weapons and ammunition fired from several locations in a hit that would practically scream para-military operation. WHY do you need an obscure character like Oswald and a hit that by any standard looks like he could have done it all by himself? You need this, if you're a CTer, because THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. Your conspiracy theory is an ad hoc, after-the-fact overlay that makes no rational or logical sense.

I cannot explain CTers' defense counsel mentality, while pretty much ignoring rationality and logic, on any basis other than "this is simply how the conspiracy-prone mind works."

the CT community seems weirdly obsessed with whether Oswald would have been convicted at a trial

I don't know about the CT community, but there's little doubt in my mind that, back then, Oswald would have been convicted, regardless of his guilt or not.

a criminal trial is stacked heavily in favor of the defendant's rights. It's a test of whether the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of 12 citizens, not a quest for historical truth.

Exactly what I said earlier; a trial is about winning and not necessarily about actual guilt.

The Warren Commission was a fact-finding body, not a criminal court.

Agreed, but even a fact-finding body has to consider whether a piece of evidence it wants to reply on is factly authentic. And they did, at least to some extent. Why else did they ask the FBI to obtain authentication (by way of a chain of custody) of a number of key pieces of evidence, like C399?

there's no serious doubt Oswald bought the rifle that was found in the TSBD, that weapon was fired at JFK, and Oswald fired it.

Really? If you say so.... But if that's true, why has there been so much discussion for 60 years now?

Why haven't you (and your ilk) not managed to persuade people that what you claim is actually true?

I have asked LNs time and time again to provide evidence for their claims and they either simply refuse to do so (like you) or they fall back on "evidence" that doesn't support their claim or they mistake assumption for evidence!

A simple request for authentication of a piece of evidence seems to be an LN's kryptonite!

The totality of the evidence is overwhelming. Sure, a defense attorney would attempt to poke holes at every stage - that's the job - but where conspiracy theories fall apart is at the level of epistemology: rationality and logic.

Didn't you just implicitly say that the evidence rules of a trial do not apply for a "fact finding body"? So, why are you now trying to make a point based upon what a defense attorney would do?

They simply make no real-world sense, especially if they are predicated on Oswald being a patsy. I've never heard one that, if you thought about it in real-world terms, was not fundamentally absurd.

If something doesn't make sense to you, that doesn't mean doesn't actually make sense. It only means that you don't (want to) understand it.

WHY do you need an obscure character like Oswald and a hit that by any standard looks like he could have done it all by himself?

Perhaps just because there will always be people, like yourself, who will advocate that it's absurd. The fact that you and others believe it couldn't have happened, could well be reason for individuals who are much more sophisticated than you to do exactly that. Ever considered that possibility?