If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[John Iacoletti]

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.

It has nothing to do with "standards in use at the time".  If that was the "standard", then all that means is that at the time they did nothing to ensure the authenticity of evidence.  It doesn't magically make the evidence authenticatible.  But the fact that they even bothered to initial stuff at all tells you that there were some standards.  They just didn't apply them in any reliable way.

[John Iacoletti]

the same revolver that has a rock solid paper trail back to Oswald

LOL.

[John Iacoletti]

Triple HUH? For McDonald to be proved to have lied, then you need evidence that Carroll said he received the pistol from Officer X or perpetrator Y.

• McDonald saw who he gave the pistol to, Officer Carroll.

• Carroll understandably being focused on a pistol pointed at him didn't see who was holding the pistol.

As I said NOBODY lied.

Just because you can't figure out that there is a difference between being given something and grabbing something doesn't mean that there is no contradiction.

The following images of Oswald's recreated arrest come from the Ruby and Oswald telemovie and the JFK movie. Another interesting observation is how many purely innocent men act this aggressively to an approaching cop and how many would then use their concealed weapon in an attempt to kill this Officer?

Loaded question, given that there is no evidence that anybody used their concealed weapon in an attempt to kill an officer, except maybe in the movies.

[Mitch Todd]

Read what I actually said;

You sound like somebody who says "I know the law" because a guy I know is a lawyer"

What I said is that I've asked lawyers I've known about this particular  issue.

What particular issue? That's way too generic. Just like with most aspects of the law, the devil is in the details! The quality of the question determines the quality of the answer!

Did you ask a lawyer, what effect it would have on a chain of custody, when McDonalds and Carroll marked a revolver presented to them at the Personnel Office some two hours after Oswald was arrested?

Somehow you think it's "stupid" ask a lawyer about a legal issue,

So, now you know what I think? Really? But to answer your question, no it's not stupid to ask a lawyer about a legal issue. What is actually stupid is the appeal to authority fallacy you used it for.

And what I said about the pistol's known chain of possession is correct.

Who made that determination? You or the lawyers you've asked?

Mytton's already set you right on McDonald giving the gun to Carroll,

No he didn't. He made the same mistake you are making.

and your notion that Hill somehow disappeared with it the reappeared is similarly incorrect.

If Hill did not disappear with the revolver between the time he arrived with Oswald at the police station and his presentation of a revolver at the Personnel Office some two hours later, then where exactly was he?

MW: Read what I actually said;

You sound like somebody who says "I know the law" because a guy I know is a lawyer"

How you prefaced the statement doesn't change its meaning or intent of the rest. Especially the part of it you left off: "Do you not understand just how stupid that statement is?"

I said I'd asked lawyers I'd known about admissibility and authentication. You decided I was "stupid" to do so.


So, now you know what I think?

I know what you said. How that relates to what you really think is a question only you can answer.


 
Did you ask a lawyer, what effect it would have on a chain of custody, when McDonalds and Carroll marked a revolver presented to them at the Personnel Office some two hours after Oswald was arrested?

Carroll remained with Hill the entire time between dropping Oswald off at the Homicide office and turning over the marked pistol. The idea that Hill disappeared with the gun is simply another misapprehension of yours.


No he didn't. He made the same mistake you are making.

I've made no mistake. McDonald said he "gave" the pistol to Carroll. Carroll said that he saw the pistol being pointed out at him, then he grabbed it. While Carroll couldn't name the person holding the pistol out, Carroll only grabbed on pistol, McDonald said that he handled one pistol and nobody else said they saw two pistols. Nor did anyone say that one pistol was being fought over at one point in the scuffle and that another appeared at some other point. The only possible source for the pistol Carroll grabbed is McDonald.

If Hill did not disappear with the revolver between the time he arrived with Oswald at the police station and his presentation of a revolver at the Personnel Office some two hours later, then where exactly was he?

Hill and Carroll both said that, after depositing Oswald at the Homicide Bureau, they brought the gun with them to the Personnel Bureau office. In the office, the worked on writing reports until the left to turn over the pistol to Fritz' group.
The notion that Hill alone absconded with the firearm is simply wrong.

[Martin Weidmann]

MW: Read what I actually said;

You sound like somebody who says "I know the law" because a guy I know is a lawyer"

How you prefaced the statement doesn't change its meaning or intent of the rest. Especially the part of it you left off: "Do you not understand just how stupid that statement is?"

I said I'd asked lawyers I'd known about admissibility and authentication. You decided I was "stupid" to do so.

So, now you know better than me what I meant by what I wrote?

So, now you know what I think?

I know what you said. How that relates to what you really think is a question only you can answer.

So, you know what I said, but you just don't understand what I said? Is that it?
 

Did you ask a lawyer, what effect it would have on a chain of custody, when McDonalds and Carroll marked a revolver presented to them at the Personnel Office some two hours after Oswald was arrested?

Carroll remained with Hill the entire time between dropping Oswald off at the Homicide office and turning over the marked pistol. The idea that Hill disappeared with the gun is simply another misapprehension of yours.

Not the answer to my question. I'm curious where you got the information from that Hill and Carroll remained together the entire time. I did find a report they both, and Capt. Westbrook, signed, but beyond that I was unable to find any confirmation for your claim, so why don't you show me where Carroll and Hill said they were together the entire time?

No he didn't. He made the same mistake you are making.

I've made no mistake. McDonald said he "gave" the pistol to Carroll. Carroll said that he saw the pistol being pointed out at him, then he grabbed it. While Carroll couldn't name the person holding the pistol out, Carroll only grabbed on pistol, McDonald said that he handled one pistol and nobody else said they saw two pistols. Nor did anyone say that one pistol was being fought over at one point in the scuffle and that another appeared at some other point. The only possible source for the pistol Carroll grabbed is McDonald.

So, Carroll sees a revolver being pointed at him and doesn't know who is holding it and then you assume that it must have been McDonald handing the revolver to him? Did I get that right?

Nor did anyone say that one pistol was being fought over at one point in the scuffle and that another appeared at some other point.

True, but that's exactly what a chain of custody is for; to ensure that there was only one revolver.

The only possible source for the pistol Carroll grabbed is McDonald.

Which is merely your assumption. There is no room for assumptions in a chain of custody!

If Hill did not disappear with the revolver between the time he arrived with Oswald at the police station and his presentation of a revolver at the Personnel Office some two hours later, then where exactly was he?

Hill and Carroll both said that, after depositing Oswald at the Homicide Bureau, they brought the gun with them to the Personnel Bureau office. In the office, the worked on writing reports until the left to turn over the pistol to Fritz' group.
The notion that Hill alone absconded with the firearm is simply wrong.

Not completely true, I'm a afraid. Hill testified (and there is photographic evidence to support him) that at some point he showed the revolver to reporters.
Also, according to Hill, the revolver wasn't marked until 4 PM, some two hours after Oswald had been brought into the police station. Are we really to believe that Hill and Carroll just sat around for two hours in the Personnel Office and then suddenly decided to mark a revolver Hill had on his person all the time?

Apart from this, McDonald also marked the revolver at the Personnel Office, but IMO it's highly doubtful that he got a good enough look at the revolver during the scuffle to be sure the revolver he was marking was the same one Carroll put in his belt at the Texas Theater.


Btw, here's an interesting bit from Hill's testimony;

Mr. HILL. Talked to Walker after he left the interrogation room. He came into the personnel office with us, and we sat down and made sure that--we just talked over our story and made sure that we had all the details as to who was where in the arrest, what door the man came in into the theatre, where they were when the original contact was made, how Bentley hurt his foot, how Lyons hurt his foot, and all this, and decided, well, rather than have to get everybody back together and round them up and all six or seven people sign the one

[Mitch Todd]

It has nothing to do with "standards in use at the time".  If that was the "standard", then all that means is that at the time they did nothing to ensure the authenticity of evidence.  It doesn't magically make the evidence authenticatible.  But the fact that they even bothered to initial stuff at all tells you that there were some standards.  They just didn't apply them in any reliable way.

It would be authenticated because it bears the mark of Bob Carroll, the first police officer to have unambiguous custody of the pistol and in whose presence the pistol remained until Hill, Carroll, et al, marked it before turning it over to Homicide. Once Carroll testifies "yes, that is the pistol I grabbed that day, and I see the personal mark I made on it," it would have been authenticated. An item, X, that has travelled from A to B to C to D......to F is still X if someone at F can establish that X at F is the same X at A. Whatever happens in the middle letters is immaterial.

Again, you and Martin are trying to avoid dealing with the pistol by:

a.) demanding that the pistol be "authenticated."
b.) only accepting your own highly personal (and so far undisclosed) method of authentication as the correct one.
c.) declaring the pistol "inauthenticatable"
d.) disingenuously conflating "authenticated" with "authentic" in such a way as to presume that the pistol must in fact be ignored.

[Tom Sorensen]

The evidence room usually closed at noon on Fridays. Why would this Friday be any different? Plus, it gave Hill and the boys time to line up their stories—LOL.

[Martin Weidmann]

It would be authenticated because it bears the mark of Bob Carroll, the first police officer to have unambiguous custody of the pistol and in whose presence the pistol remained until Hill, Carroll, et al, marked it before turning it over to Homicide. Once Carroll testifies "yes, that is the pistol I grabbed that day, and I see the personal mark I made on it," it would have been authenticated. An item, X, that has travelled from A to B to C to D......to F is still X if someone at F can establish that X at F is the same X at A. Whatever happens in the middle letters is immaterial.

Again, you and Martin are trying to avoid dealing with the pistol by:

a.) demanding that the pistol be "authenticated."
b.) only accepting your own highly personal (and so far undisclosed) method of authentication as the correct one.
c.) declaring the pistol "inauthenticatable"
d.) disingenuously conflating "authenticated" with "authentic" in such a way as to presume that the pistol must in fact be ignored.

Bob Carroll, the first police officer to have unambiguous custody of the pistol and in whose presence the pistol remained until Hill, Carroll, et al, marked it

Where exactly did Carroll say that the revolver remained in his presence until it was marked?