The one currently at the national archives. If you dispute it was found on him, then you are going down the road of saying any evidence you don't like was planted. If you tried that as a lawyer in court, the judge would just ignore you.
If you tried that as a lawyer in court, the judge would just ignore you.Are you a legal eagle, to make that determination?
If you dispute it was found on him, then you are going down the road of saying any evidence you don't like was planted.You've got it backwards. I don't have to dispute that this was the revolver that was found on him. You need to show, as part of your prima facie case, that it was indeed the revolver and by doing so you need to explain this;
Detective Hill was given the revolver they allegedly took from Oswald in the car at the Texas Theater and did not witness first hand it being taken from Oswald. He was told it was Oswald's.
Mr. BELIN. And being that he had the keys to the car, Bob Carroll drove the vehicle.
Mr. HILL. As he started to get in the car, he handed me a pistol, which he identified as the one that had been taken from the suspect in the theatre.
Mr. BELIN. When did he identify this to you?
Mr. HILL. I asked him was this his. He said, "No, it is the suspect's."He then kept that revolver on his person until around 4 PM when he took it to the personnel office of DPD HQ, where he put his intials on it.
Mr. BELIN. Who put that name in there?
Mr. HILL. I did.
Mr. BELIN. When did you do that?
Mr. HILL. This was done at approximately 4 p.m., the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963, in the personnel office of the police department.
He then told the officers that were present in the room that this was the weapon taken from Oswald and had some of them (who were not even involved in the chain of custody) initial it as well.
Only then did Detective Hill Traffic cop Davenport (huh, where did he come from? He was at Methodist Hospital with Tippit) submit the revolver to the Identification Bureau of the DPD.
Detective Carroll, who was involved in the arrest of Oswald, did not put his initials on the revolver, despite the fact that he was indeed part of the chain of custody. So, they had him "identify" the weapon some five months after the events simply by looking at it. Who needs initials, right? Now, pay attention to the last question and answer;
Mr. BELIN. Well, today is the following Thursday. At that time we didn't have some of the exhibits here, Officer Carroll, and since then they have come in. I now want to hand you one of the exhibits which has been marked as Commission Exhibit 143 and ask you to state what that is?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir. It is a .38 caliber revolver with a blue steel 2" barrel with wooden handle.
Mr. BELIN. Have you ever seen this before?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes; I have.
Mr. BELIN. Where did you first see it?
Mr. CARROLL. I first saw it in the Texas Theatre on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Would you just tell us about this weapon, when you first saw it?
Mr. CARROLL. The first time I saw the weapon, it was pointed in my direction and I reached and grabbed it and stuck it into my belt.
Mr. BELIN. What did you happen to be doing at the time?
Mr. CARROLL. At the time I was assisting in the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whose hand was on the gun when you saw it pointed in your direction?
Mr. CARROLL. No; I do not.
Feel free to assume that the revolver now in evidence at the National Archives is the one they took from Oswald, but without a proper chain of custody (i.e. where officers do not simply tell eachother it's the weapon) all you will ever have is an assumption.
