If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Lance Payette]

Since The Caped One - or Lance Payette, as the case may be - started this thread, I will point out once again in regard to chain-of-custody nonsense:

1. I not only was a practicing lawyer for 40+ years, I also slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
2. The Warren Commission was a fact-finding investigation, not a criminal trial. Witnesses and evidence were not held to the standards of the Criminal (or Civil, for that matter) Rules of Evidence.
3. Yes, with respect to some items of evidence there would appear to be chain of custody issues on the basis of what we now know. In a criminal proceeding, the defense counsel would indeed hold the prosecution's feet to the fire on these.
4. However, what we now know is not necessarily what we would know if a prosecutor were to fully prepare his case. A prosecutor in preparing his case would likewise recognize the chain of custody issues and attempt to address them before presenting the evidence at trial. We simply don't know what a rehabilitated chain of custody might look like.
5. Even actual flaws in a chain of custody are not inevitably fatal. Ergo, it is impossible to say (as goofballs like Jim Di Eugenio are wont to do) that an item of evidence would "never" be admitted in a criminal trial.
6. The verdict of history on any subject is always dependent on vast amounts of evidence that might not be admitted in a criminal trial. This is simply the common-sense, real-world reality.
7. Ergo and to wit, all CT-oriented internet forum blather about chain of custody issues is simply uninformed twaddle. Point out apparent discrepancies if you like, but stop playing Pretend Lawyer because you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Martin Weidmann]

Since The Caped One - or Lance Payette, as the case may be - started this thread, I will point out once again in regard to chain-of-custody nonsense:

1. I not only was a practicing lawyer for 40+ years, I also slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
2. The Warren Commission was a fact-finding investigation, not a criminal trial. Witnesses and evidence were not held to the standards of the Criminal (or Civil, for that matter) Rules of Evidence.
3. Yes, with respect to some items of evidence there would appear to be chain of custody issues on the basis of what we now know. In a criminal proceeding, the defense counsel would indeed hold the prosecution's feet to the fire on these.
4. However, what we now know is not necessarily what we would know if a prosecutor were to fully prepare his case. A prosecutor in preparing his case would likewise recognize the chain of custody issues and attempt to address them before presenting the evidence at trial. We simply don't know what a rehabilitated chain of custody might look like.
5. Even actual flaws in a chain of custody are not inevitably fatal. Ergo, it is impossible to say (as goofballs like Jim Di Eugenio are wont to do) that an item of evidence would "never" be admitted in a criminal trial.
6. The verdict of history on any subject is always dependent on vast amounts of evidence that might not be admitted in a criminal trial. This is simply the common-sense, real-world reality.
7. Ergo and to wit, all CT-oriented internet forum blather about chain of custody issues is simply uninformed twaddle. Point out apparent discrepancies if you like, but stop playing Pretend Lawyer because you have no idea what you're talking about.

2. The Warren Commission was a fact-finding investigation, not a criminal trial. Witnesses and evidence were not held to the standards of the Criminal (or Civil, for that matter) Rules of Evidence.

So, the WC conclusions are nothing more than opinions based upon questionable cherry picked evidence, right?

[Tom Sorensen]

2. The Warren Commission was a fact-finding investigation, not a criminal trial. Witnesses and evidence were not held to the standards of the Criminal (or Civil, for that matter) Rules of Evidence.

So, the WC conclusions are nothing more than opinions based upon questionable cherry picked evidence, right?

Or one could say that the commission fell short in the facts department when they got carried away with pinning the murders of JFK and Tippit on Oswald.

[Lance Payette]

2. The Warren Commission was a fact-finding investigation, not a criminal trial. Witnesses and evidence were not held to the standards of the Criminal (or Civil, for that matter) Rules of Evidence.

So, the WC conclusions are nothing more than opinions based upon questionable cherry picked evidence, right?

Again, I will attempt to educate you because I am a kindly model of suffering fools gladly.

The point of a criminal trial is not "Let's try to decide what's factually true, what actually happened." As stated in one USDOJ handbook, "The purpose of criminal trials is not to determine truth but to determine the probability of guilt." The point is whether the prosecution can convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The game for the defense is to raise as many doubts as possible, even if they are absurd; hey, you never know what wacky theory the jury might buy. Contrary to what many of you folks believe, the deck is stacked heavily in favor of the accused. Better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man is convicted, etc., etc. Hence, many of the rules of evidence and procedure have the effect of blocking testimony and evidence of the sort all of us rely upon every day - hearsay, for example.

The focus of the CT community on "court stuff" and whether Oswald would have been found guilty at trial is a massive red herring. A not guilty verdict at a criminal trial would not have precluded the WC from deciding that Oswald nonetheless was the assassin or history from accepting this verdict. Do you seriously think the verdict of history will be that OJ didn't kill Nicole because a jury found him not guilty? The civil verdict of liability was directly contrary to the criminal verdict, and the verdict of history will surely be the same.

Even a full-blown civil or criminal trial ends up being simply the "opinion" of a judge or jury, and I've seen enough to know that those opinions are sometimes badly flawed. The fact that a matter has been litigated tells us little or nothing about the actual truth. The verdict of history is the consensus of those professionals who are most knowledgeable about the subject matter, simple as that. No one thinks historical investigation, research and analysis should be hamstrung by the rules and procedures of litigation. The verdict of history 60+ years after the JFKA is that Oswald acted alone. To change that verdict would require massive new and compelling evidence. A bushel of dubious Conspiracy Factoids and chain-of-custody arguments aren't going to do it.

There, I've done sufficient glad suffering for a while. I really am kind of a saint, doncha think?

[John Mytton]

Again, I will attempt to educate you because I am a kindly model of suffering fools gladly.

The point of a criminal trial is not "Let's try to decide what's factually true, what actually happened." As stated in one USDOJ handbook, "The purpose of criminal trials is not to determine truth but to determine the probability of guilt." The point is whether the prosecution can convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The game for the defense is to raise as many doubts as possible, even if they are absurd; hey, you never know what wacky theory the jury might buy. Contrary to what many of you folks believe, the deck is stacked heavily in favor of the accused. Better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man is convicted, etc., etc. Hence, many of the rules of evidence and procedure have the effect of blocking testimony and evidence of the sort all of us rely upon every day - hearsay, for example.

The focus of the CT community on "court stuff" and whether Oswald would have been found guilty at trial is a massive red herring. A not guilty verdict at a criminal trial would not have precluded the WC from deciding that Oswald nonetheless was the assassin or history from accepting this verdict. Do you seriously think the verdict of history will be that OJ didn't kill Nicole because a jury found him not guilty? The civil verdict of liability was directly contrary to the criminal verdict, and the verdict of history will surely be the same.

Even a full-blown civil or criminal trial ends up being simply the "opinion" of a judge or jury, and I've seen enough to know that those opinions are sometimes badly flawed. The fact that a matter has been litigated tells us little or nothing about the actual truth. The verdict of history is the consensus of those professionals who are most knowledgeable about the subject matter, simple as that. No one thinks historical investigation, research and analysis should be hamstrung by the rules and procedures of litigation. The verdict of history 60+ years after the JFKA is that Oswald acted alone. To change that verdict would require massive new and compelling evidence. A bushel of dubious Conspiracy Factoids and chain-of-custody arguments aren't going to do it.

There, I've done sufficient glad suffering for a while. I really am kind of a saint, doncha think?

The game for the defense is to raise as many doubts as possible, even if they are absurd; hey, you never know what wacky theory the jury might buy.

JohnM

[Mitch Todd]

No, "stories" told long after the fact do not constitute a valid chain of custody.  To see why, just ask yourself how McDonald could possibly know that the gun he initialed hours later in the personnel office was the same gun he handled in the theater?

Well then, you're outta luck, kid. In court, you still need to have witnesses come in to testify in order to validate any chain of custody, no matter the medium it comes packed in. You can't get away from those stories told long after fact.

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, I will attempt to educate you because I am a kindly model of suffering fools gladly.

The point of a criminal trial is not "Let's try to decide what's factually true, what actually happened." As stated in one USDOJ handbook, "The purpose of criminal trials is not to determine truth but to determine the probability of guilt." The point is whether the prosecution can convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The game for the defense is to raise as many doubts as possible, even if they are absurd; hey, you never know what wacky theory the jury might buy. Contrary to what many of you folks believe, the deck is stacked heavily in favor of the accused. Better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man is convicted, etc., etc. Hence, many of the rules of evidence and procedure have the effect of blocking testimony and evidence of the sort all of us rely upon every day - hearsay, for example.

The focus of the CT community on "court stuff" and whether Oswald would have been found guilty at trial is a massive red herring. A not guilty verdict at a criminal trial would not have precluded the WC from deciding that Oswald nonetheless was the assassin or history from accepting this verdict. Do you seriously think the verdict of history will be that OJ didn't kill Nicole because a jury found him not guilty? The civil verdict of liability was directly contrary to the criminal verdict, and the verdict of history will surely be the same.

Even a full-blown civil or criminal trial ends up being simply the "opinion" of a judge or jury, and I've seen enough to know that those opinions are sometimes badly flawed. The fact that a matter has been litigated tells us little or nothing about the actual truth. The verdict of history is the consensus of those professionals who are most knowledgeable about the subject matter, simple as that. No one thinks historical investigation, research and analysis should be hamstrung by the rules and procedures of litigation. The verdict of history 60+ years after the JFKA is that Oswald acted alone. To change that verdict would require massive new and compelling evidence. A bushel of dubious Conspiracy Factoids and chain-of-custody arguments aren't going to do it.

There, I've done sufficient glad suffering for a while. I really am kind of a saint, doncha think?

Again, I will attempt to educate you because I am a kindly model of suffering fools gladly.

But in no way are you an arrogant jerk, right?

The point of a criminal trial is not "Let's try to decide what's factually true, what actually happened."

Kicking in an open door?

A not guilty verdict at a criminal trial would not have precluded the WC from deciding that Oswald nonetheless was the assassin

True, but that still would be a mere conclusion based on questionable cherry picked evidence.

And, of course, if there had been a trial and a verdict, there wouldn't have been a WC and all the "evidence" would have been challegend instead of being cherry picked and blindly accepted

The verdict of history 60+ years after the JFKA is that Oswald acted alone.

Really? And here is little old me thinking that history is written by the victor, regardless if it is true or not.

Even a full-blown civil or criminal trial ends up being simply the "opinion" of a judge or jury, and I've seen enough to know that those opinions are sometimes badly flawed.

But the opinion of a government commission that tried to hide the evidence for 75 years couldn't possibly be flawed?

There, I've done sufficient glad suffering for a while. I really am kind of a saint, doncha think?

You and your fragile ego don't want to know what I think.

[Martin Weidmann]

It would seem that Mitch can't or doesn't want to answer my question;

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?

So, I'll just assume that his claim is bogus.