If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[John Mytton]

Whatever happened to Bill?

I see the last time he was here was April 26, 2023.

I don't know why Bill left?
Bill was a graphic designer by trade and used to make some real nice graphics and he had a sense of humour which I find is pretty common in LNers whereas CT's take themselves oh so seriously and are usually devoid of any humour of any kind.

JohnM

[Mitch Todd]

You think you alone know what would happen at a hypothetical trial?

The problem is that neither Hill nor Carroll "seized" anything from anybody, Carroll didn't know whose hand he grabbed a gun from, and he didn't mark anything until long after a gun left his possession.

No chain of custody whatsoever.

JI: You think you alone know what would happen at a hypothetical trial?

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. 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. The traditional rules for authentication and admissibility run along the lines of, if the person(s) who initially take possession of the item positively identifies it, then it is authenticated. Of course, there is always going to be an exceptional decision, but exceptional decisions are, of course, exceptions. Typically, these involve direct evidence that the item could not be the authentic item.


JI: No chain of custody whatsoever.

McDonald testified that he gave the gun to Carroll while the scrum was going on. Carroll said that he grabbed the gun from someone who was holding the weapon out from inside the scrum. Those stories match, even if not perfectly. Carroll said he took the gun to the patrol car and gave it to Hill. Hill and Carroll together drove back to City Hall and took the gun to the Personnel Bureau office where they wrote out reports on the arrest. Hill, Carroll, McDonald, and Bentley put their ID mark on the revolver when they gave it over to Det. Baker in the Homicide office. It stays in the Homicide office for something less than 15 minutes, when Fritz has Davenport take it to the ID bureau and turn it in. That is a valid chain of possession, no matter what you seem to want to think.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

JI: You think you alone know what would happen at a hypothetical trial?

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. 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. The traditional rules for authentication and admissibility run along the lines of, if the person(s) who initially take possession of the item positively identifies it, then it is authenticated. Of course, there is always going to be an exceptional decision, but exceptional decisions are, of course, exceptions. Typically, these involve direct evidence that the item could not be the authentic item.


JI: No chain of custody whatsoever.

McDonald testified that he gave the gun to Carroll while the scrum was going on. Carroll said that he grabbed the gun from someone who was holding the weapon out from inside the scrum. Those stories match, even if not perfectly. Carroll said he took the gun to the patrol car and gave it to Hill. Hill and Carroll together drove back to City Hall and took the gun to the Personnel Bureau office where they wrote out reports on the arrest. Hill, Carroll, McDonald, and Bentley put their ID mark on the revolver when they gave it over to Det. Baker in the Homicide office. It stays in the Homicide office for something less than 15 minutes, when Fritz has Davenport take it to the ID bureau and turn it in. That is a valid chain of possession, no matter what you seem to want to think.

I've linked several times to the full transcripts of the Ruby trial and the preliminary "statements of fact" or evidence hearings. These detailed chain-of-custody requirements by the Oswald defenders are simply not there. Not in the Ruby trial, e.g., the revolver, et cetera. People are using modern standards that simply weren't used at the time.

I would imagine one could find transcripts of other trials during those years to see how they handled custody/evidence questions. But the preliminary trial transcripts for things like habeas, et cetera are hand to find online. You'd probably have to go in person to the Dallas County courthouse and dig them out (if they even exist; which I doubt). I did find the trial transcripts for the famous Roe. v. Wade abortion decision that started in a Dallas County court and worked its way up to the Supremes. But that was in 1970 and the evidence hearings really don't tell us anything.

[Martin Weidmann]

JI: You think you alone know what would happen at a hypothetical trial?

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. 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. The traditional rules for authentication and admissibility run along the lines of, if the person(s) who initially take possession of the item positively identifies it, then it is authenticated. Of course, there is always going to be an exceptional decision, but exceptional decisions are, of course, exceptions. Typically, these involve direct evidence that the item could not be the authentic item.


JI: No chain of custody whatsoever.

McDonald testified that he gave the gun to Carroll while the scrum was going on. Carroll said that he grabbed the gun from someone who was holding the weapon out from inside the scrum. Those stories match, even if not perfectly. Carroll said he took the gun to the patrol car and gave it to Hill. Hill and Carroll together drove back to City Hall and took the gun to the Personnel Bureau office where they wrote out reports on the arrest. Hill, Carroll, McDonald, and Bentley put their ID mark on the revolver when they gave it over to Det. Baker in the Homicide office. It stays in the Homicide office for something less than 15 minutes, when Fritz has Davenport take it to the ID bureau and turn it in. That is a valid chain of possession, no matter what you seem to want to think.

I've known plenty of attorneys in my life

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?

I know a few highly successfull business men, so, by your reasoning, that makes me a successfull business man, right?

McDonald testified that he gave the gun to Carroll while the scrum was going on

No, he didn't.

Carroll said that he grabbed the gun from someone who was holding the weapon out from inside the scrum.

Which does not match the claim you made about McDonald and it demonstrates that Carroll didn't know who that somebody was.

Those stories match, even if not perfectly.

No, they don't match at all.

Carroll said he took the gun to the patrol car and gave it to Hill.

True, to some extend. Carroll give Hill a (not "the") revolver and told him he was told that it was the revolver taken from Oswald. Details matter!

Hill and Carroll together drove back to City Hall and took the gun to the Personnel Bureau office where they wrote out reports on the arrest. Hill, Carroll, McDonald, and Bentley put their ID mark on the revolver when they gave it over to Det. Baker in the Homicide office.

The problem is that Hill (and Carroll) did not take the revolver to the Personnel Bureau office straight away. In fact, Hill, carried it around (showing it to the media) for more than an hour and then presented a (not "the") revolver to the men at the Personnel Bureau office.

That is a valid chain of possession, no matter what you seem to want to think.

No it isn't! A chain of custody is unequivocal. This one isn't! You've got Carroll giving Hill a revolver, which he does not know from whom it was taken and saying to Hill he was told it was Oswald's revolver. Then you have Hill who (as the official story goes) carries a revolver on his person for no particular reason instead of delivering it to the evidence room upon arrival at the police station. And then, more than an hour after his arrival, Hill produces a revolver to other officers who mark it. Btw some of those officers als marked the grey jacket despite the fact that they were never part of that chain of custody.

What you have here is no chain of custody.... it's Swiss cheese!

[John Mytton]

I've known plenty of attorneys in my life

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?

I know a few highly successfull business men, so, by your reasoning, that makes me a successfull business man, right?

McDonald testified that he gave the gun to Carroll while the scrum was going on

No, he didn't.

Carroll said that he grabbed the gun from someone who was holding the weapon out from inside the scrum.

Which does not match the claim you made about McDonald and it demonstrates that Carroll didn't know who that somebody was.

Those stories match, even if not perfectly.

No, they don't match at all.

Carroll said he took the gun to the patrol car and gave it to Hill.

True, to some extend. Carroll give Hill a (not "the") revolver and told him he was told that it was the revolver taken from Oswald. Details matter!

Hill and Carroll together drove back to City Hall and took the gun to the Personnel Bureau office where they wrote out reports on the arrest. Hill, Carroll, McDonald, and Bentley put their ID mark on the revolver when they gave it over to Det. Baker in the Homicide office.

The problem is that Hill (and Carroll) did not take the revolver to the Personnel Bureau office straight away. In fact, Hill, carried it around (showing it to the media) for more than an hour and then presented a (not "the") revolver to the men at the Personnel Bureau office.

That is a valid chain of possession, no matter what you seem to want to think.

No it isn't! A chain of custody is unequivocal. This one isn't! You've got Carroll giving Hill a revolver, which he does not know from whom it was taken and saying to Hill he was told it was Oswald's revolver. Then you have Hill who (as the official story goes) carries a revolver on his person for no particular reason instead of delivering it to the evidence room upon arrival at the police station. And then, more than an hour after his arrival, Hill produces a revolver to other officers who mark it. Btw some of those officers als marked the grey jacket despite the fact that they were never part of that chain of custody.

What you have here is no chain of custody.... it's Swiss cheese!

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?

I know a few highly successfull business men, so, by your reasoning, that makes me a successfull business man, right?

Typical Weidmann slop, Todd never equated getting legal advice with making him a lawyer, he merely had experts clarify the law. Whereas the only highly successful businessmen Martin knows are the ones he sees on the telly!

McDonald testified that he gave the gun to Carroll while the scrum was going on

No, he didn't.

This is why people don't want to debate you, because you constantly lie and misrepresent the evidence.

• Officer McDonald confirms he removed the pistol from Oswald.

Mr. BALL - Your right hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. Now, as we fell into the seats, I called out, "I have got him," and Officer T. A. Hutson, he came to the row behind us and grabbed Oswald around the neck. And then Officer C. T. Walker came into the row that we were in and grabbed his left arm. And Officer Ray Hawkins came to the row in front of us and grabbed him from the front.
By the time all three of these officers had got there, I had gotten my right hand on the butt of the pistol and jerked it free.

• Officer McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll

Mr. BALL - What happened when you jerked the pistol free?
Mr. McDONALD - When I jerked it free, I was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don't know why, and when I brought the pistol out, it grazed me across the cheek here, and I put it all the way out to the aisle, holding it by the butt. I gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll at that point.

Hill and Carroll together drove back to City Hall and took the gun to the Personnel Bureau office where they wrote out reports on the arrest. Hill, Carroll, McDonald, and Bentley put their ID mark on the revolver when they gave it over to Det. Baker in the Homicide office.

The problem is that Hill (and Carroll) did not take the revolver to the Personnel Bureau office straight away. In fact, Hill, carried it around (showing it to the media) for more than an hour and then presented a (not "the") revolver to the men at the Personnel Bureau office.

How pathetic, it doesn't matter if Hill carried the pistol for 5 minutes or 5 hours, he testified that he never relinquished control of Oswald's revolver, the same revolver that has a rock solid paper trail back to Oswald. I'd like to see you convince even the dumbest Jury that Hill substituted your make believe revolver with Oswald's revolver.

No it isn't! A chain of custody is unequivocal.

Welcome to the Bonkers Fantasy CT World populated with Oswald apologists!

The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody

• Oswald confirmed to various Police Officers he was carrying a pistol
• McDonald confirms he took the pistol from Oswald.
• McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll.
• Carroll confirms he gave the pistol to Hill.
• Hill confirms he took the pistol from Carroll.
• Hill confirms that he kept the pistol on his person until he inscribed it with his name.
• The revolver in evidence has a paper trail leading directly to Oswald's PO Box.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Typical Weidmann slop, Todd never equated getting legal advice with making him a lawyer, he merely had experts clarify the law. Whereas the only highly successful businessmen Martin knows are the ones he sees on the telly!

This is why people don't want to debate you, because you constantly lie and misrepresent the evidence.

• Officer McDonald confirms he removed the pistol from Oswald.

Mr. BALL - Your right hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. Now, as we fell into the seats, I called out, "I have got him," and Officer T. A. Hutson, he came to the row behind us and grabbed Oswald around the neck. And then Officer C. T. Walker came into the row that we were in and grabbed his left arm. And Officer Ray Hawkins came to the row in front of us and grabbed him from the front.
By the time all three of these officers had got there, I had gotten my right hand on the butt of the pistol and jerked it free.

• Officer McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll

Mr. BALL - What happened when you jerked the pistol free?
Mr. McDONALD - When I jerked it free, I was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don't know why, and when I brought the pistol out, it grazed me across the cheek here, and I put it all the way out to the aisle, holding it by the butt. I gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll at that point.

How pathetic, it doesn't matter if Hill carried the pistol for 5 minutes or 5 hours, he testified that he never relinquished control of Oswald's revolver, the same revolver that has a rock solid paper trail back to Oswald. I'd like to see you convince even the dumbest Jury that Hill substituted your make believe revolver with Oswald's revolver.

Welcome to the Bonkers Fantasy CT World populated with Oswald apologists!

The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody

• Oswald confirmed to various Police Officers he was carrying a pistol
• McDonald confirms he took the pistol from Oswald.
• McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll.
• Carroll confirms he gave the pistol to Hill.
• Hill confirms he took the pistol from Carroll.
• Hill confirms that he kept the pistol on his person until he inscribed it with his name.
• The revolver in evidence has a paper trail leading directly to Oswald's PO Box.

JohnM

Your obsession with me playing up again, John?

I've known plenty of attorneys in my life

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?

Typical Weidmann slop, Todd never equated getting legal advice with making him a lawyer, he merely had experts clarify the law. Whereas the only highly successful businessmen Martin knows are the ones he sees on the telly!

And where exactly did I say that Todd "equated getting legal advice with making him a lawyer"? What Todd said was an appeal to authority. It's as simple as that!

Are you so ignorant that you don't understand that there are also people who know the law without being a lawyer?

Misrepresent much?


• McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll.
• Carroll confirms he gave the pistol to Hill.

Too bad that Carroll does not confirm that McDonald gave him a pistol.

Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; and then when I got up close enough, I saw a pistol pointing at me so I reached and grabbed the pistol and jerked the pistol away and stuck it In my belt, and then I grabbed Oswald.
Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.

So, somebody is clearly lying here! Who is it; McDonald or Carroll?

[John Mytton]

Your obsession with me playing up again, John?

And where exactly did I say that Todd "equated getting legal advice with making him a lawyer"? What Todd said was an appeal to authority. It's as simple as that!

Are you so ignorant that you don't understand that there are also people who know the law without being a lawyer?

Misrepresent much?


• McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll.
• Carroll confirms he gave the pistol to Hill.

Too bad that Carroll does not confirm that McDonald gave him a pistol.

Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; and then when I got up close enough, I saw a pistol pointing at me so I reached and grabbed the pistol and jerked the pistol away and stuck it In my belt, and then I grabbed Oswald.
Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.

So, somebody is clearly lying here! Who is it; McDonald or Carroll?

And where exactly did I say that Todd "equated getting legal advice with making him a lawyer"?

HUH? Your very own example "I know a few highly successfull(sic) business men, so, by your reasoning, that makes me a successfull(sic) business man".

So, somebody is clearly lying here! Who is it; McDonald or Carroll?

Double HUH? Neither Police Officer lied!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

HUH? Your very own example "I know a few highly successfull(sic) business men, so, by your reasoning, that makes me a successfull(sic) business man".

Double HUH? Neither Police Officer lied!

JohnM

HUH? Your very own example "I know a few highly successfull(sic) business men, so, by your reasoning, that makes me a successfull(sic) business man".

You forgot to quote the question mark!

Double HUH? Neither Police Officer lied!

Hilarious! So, McDonald can give a revolver to Carroll without Carroll knowing who gave it to him? Are you for real?

Carroll said he grabbed a pistol pointing at him.

Just try to be honest for once, John.