Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Michael Chambers]

Anyone familiar with the evidence in the case (the addresses relevant to the witnesses) would understand perfectly why there were different addresses.

For example, L.J. Lewis, Pat Patterson, Harold Russell and Warren Reynolds were at the Reynolds Motor Company when they heard the shots.  They looked up Patton towards the sound of the shots and saw a man running down Patton (towards them) with a gun in his hands.  Harold Russell went up to Tenth Street.  Warren Reynolds and Pat Patterson followed the killer.  However, Lewis went inside the offices of the car lot and called the police.  The address of the car lot, where Lewis was calling from, was 510 E. Jefferson Boulevard.

510 E. Jefferson Blvd. was one of the addresses mentioned in the police tapes.

ALSO Tim I found this from Herberts posting on another forum.
Herbert Blenner
Advanced Member
Members
 52 posts

"See the following link for the audio segment used in this article.
 
http://hdblenner.com/temps/tippit.wav
 
The transcripts of radio traffic on Channel-I and an audio file reportedly originating from the dictabelt show that the authorities altered the sequence of recorded events surrounding the murder of Officer Tippit."
 
Part One - Activity on the Primary Police Channel-I
 
When police initially arrived at the scene of the Tippit shooting, the dictabelt had recorded six addresses for the location of the crime scene. This situation is particularly difficult to dismiss since a citizen reported the shooting to the police over the two-way radio of Tippit?s patrol car.

Herb used to make a lot of oddball claims. That the dictabelt recorded numerous different addresses for the location of the crime scene doesn't mean that it was altered in any way. It just shows that there was a lot of confusion at the time.

And just to clarify further in relation to Bill and Tims point of the 6 addresses - neither me or Herbert is saying that meant in itself that the authorities altered the sequence of recorded events surrounding the murder of Officer Tippit."


But that the times on of all concerned don't match meaning mainly the police and ambulance documented data is falsified.

If anyone is interested the tag of that whole Herbert Blenner posting is -
http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/810-hello-police-operator/

[Mitch Todd]

[Just so you know what Rob was replying to]
There are a lot of colt 1911's out there chambered for .38 special, and you can get Desert Eagles chambered for "revolver" cartridges like .357 magnum and .44 magnum. There are revolvers that are chambered for .380 ACP, 9mm luger, and other "auto" cartridges. Rimfire .22 has been fired out of revolvers, semi-autos, pump-action, lever action, single shot, and hamster-driven firearms for decades.  No matter what *you* think a cartridge was designed for, some gunsmith is willing to design a different sort of weapon around it, and has done so. It's been that way for a very long time.

Blah, blah, blah. Even Dale Myers said the automatic shells showed "AUTO" and the revolver shells showed ".38 Special". You would have to think that Hill couldn't read to think he made the mistake claimed.

And Dale Myers' expertise in firearms is......?

As I've already said, the way gun people say .38 auto is ".38 auto," not "auto .38." The way gun people say ".38 special" is ".38"  I hate to repeat myself, but fear the need to in the face of the militantly unthinking.

[Martin Weidmann]

"Nothing more than jurisprudence" you say. Do you actually believe that jurisprudence does not itself set standards to keep the judicial process as uniform and transparent as possible? That it doesn't set rules and tests as to what can be properly admitted and weighed as evidence? Now that would be a funny thing to believe! And no, it's not something that is written in stone in one hundred words or less, Ten Commandments-style. But it doesn't have to be short, concise, pithy, or terse to be a standard.

Do you actually believe that jurisprudence does not itself set standards to keep the judicial process as uniform and transparent as possible?

Nice try to pivot away from your bogus claim that there is an official standard, which clearly there isn't, but here again you screw up big time. Jurisprudence is by nature volatile, evolving and subject to interpretation by individual judges. It is thus by no means an official standard.

That it doesn't set rules and tests as to what can be properly admitted and weighed as evidence?

Not automatically and most certainly not in general terms. Jurisprudence can influence a decision by a Judge but it can never replace the law itself.

And no, it's not something that is written in stone in one hundred words or less, Ten Commandments-style. But it doesn't have to be short, concise, pithy, or terse to be a standard.

  For something to be an official standard it needs to be rock solid. Jurisprudence can ultimately result to some extend in a legal standard, after over time enough rulings based on it have been upheld on appeal, but even that can not be considered the "official standard" you foolishly believed existed.

You can twist and turn all you want but the fact remains that there is no offical standard.

[Tim Nickerson]

ALSO Tim I found this from Herberts posting on another forum.
Herbert Blenner
Advanced Member
Members
 52 posts

"See the following link for the audio segment used in this article.
 
http://hdblenner.com/temps/tippit.wav
 
The transcripts of radio traffic on Channel-I and an audio file reportedly originating from the dictabelt show that the authorities altered the sequence of recorded events surrounding the murder of Officer Tippit."
 
Part One - Activity on the Primary Police Channel-I
 
When police initially arrived at the scene of the Tippit shooting, the dictabelt had recorded six addresses for the location of the crime scene. This situation is particularly difficult to dismiss since a citizen reported the shooting to the police over the two-way radio of Tippit?s patrol car.

And just to clarify further in relation to Bill and Tims point of the 6 addresses - neither me or Herbert is saying that meant in itself that the authorities altered the sequence of recorded events surrounding the murder of Officer Tippit."


But that the times on of all concerned don't match meaning mainly the police and ambulance documented data is falsified.

If anyone is interested the tag of that whole Herbert Blenner posting is -
http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/810-hello-police-operator/

Michael, if you have a case to make then make it. As I said, Herbert Blenner made a lot of oddball claims and was generally ignored by most here, when not made sport of.  I suspect that Herb was a rather sharp guy in his day. It's just that his day had long passed when he posted stuff like that in your link.

[Martin Weidmann]

Quote from: Tim Nickerson on June 17, 2018, 04:38:09 AM
Evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated.

Quote from: Martin Weidmann on June 17, 2018, 05:14:35 AM
No... this comment alone shows that you have no idea how the admittance of evidence works..



Provide the transcript that has them challenging the chain of custody of the gloves.

Quote from: Tim Nickerson on June 17, 2018, 04:38:09 AM[/url]
Evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated.

Yes, Tim, you did write that, but you also wrote this;

Evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated. Establishing a chain of custody is one means of authenticating evidence. Once it has been admitted into court as real evidence, there's very little that a defense team can do about it. Particularly if it's a non-fungible item. If the defense has something concrete to present to the jury once the evidence has been admitted then fine. However, they will not be allowed free reign to spout unsupported claims against the evidence. Not in any properly run court anyway.

Here you foolishly pretend implicitly that once a piece of evidence is admitted by a judge the chain of custody is no longer an issue and this can not be used by the defense to discredit or cast doubt about that piece of evidence by attacking the chain of custody and that is simply not true! If it were true, we wouldn't need trials... we would just have judges who decide what evidence to let in and (since it can't be challenged at trial) go straight to conviction.

Remember, also at the OJ trial, the lab technician who carried a vial of blood with him for too long? The entire blood evidence was attacked through this lab technician not following correct procedures.

Provide the transcript that has them challenging the chain of custody of the gloves.

Perhaps this is a bit difficult for you to understand, Tim, but the sole purpose for discrediting Fuhrman on the stand were the gloves and the chain of custody of the glove allegedly found at the back of OJ's house by Mark Fuhrman. That planted a reasonable doubt (if he lies about using the N word under oath, what else will he lie about) in the mind of people. There are videos of F. Lee Bailey questioning Fuhrman on YouTube, but you need to open your eyes and ears to see and here the obvious!

Now, let's go back to my original question. I asked you;

Since when are you an expert on how high or low courts of law determine the bar must be?

Please tell me where you get your expertise from?

[Bill Brown]

Of course the guy with the burden, Brown, hasn't attempted to show that there is a chain of custody as he claims.

Is this supposed to be your way of explaining the problem with the chain of custody of the two Davis shells?  Lame.

These two shells were positively identified by Doughty and Dhority as the shells each collected from the scene.

[Bill Brown]

Why not quote LHO's legal representative stating this? Oh, that's right, LHO had NO legal representation.

Another lame post.

What does any of that have to do with Markham's 11/22/63 positive identification of Lee Oswald as the man she saw shoot Tippit?

[Bill Brown]

Why would a kid running across the lawn equal a suspect in the JDT murder?

Wouldn't you have to ask C.T. Walker that question?