Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?

[Mitch Todd]

What goes straight over Todd's head is the fact that both Bowles and Cason talk about clocks that need to be adjusted because they were not running correctly.

How Todd can claim (as he clearly does) that, despite these remarks, the time stamps on the DPD recording are not only correct but also reflect real time is the real conundrum.

I have said from the beginning --a couple of years ago-- that we can't assume that any of the clocks in general use in those days could be assumed to be running right on standard time. I have also stated that it can be determined from the record derived from channel one and channel two [and also from the recordings themselves] that the channel one and channel two clocks were running to within a minute of each other, and other evidence (the McIntire photo, Greer/Kellerman, Rowley, Powers) shows that channel two was within a minute of standard time that afternoon.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought about it differently.

[John Iacoletti]

"...[that] doesn’t mean that the maximum they could ever be off is two minutes."

You are technically correct.

Thank you. That invalidates your entire claim that he said that the dispatcher clocks were kept to within a minute of each other." You omitted “or so” and “normal procedure” in your dishonest summary.

The problem is, if the radio dispatcher clocks were that far off, we'd see it in the data.

What data? You can’t use the time announcements to validate the time announcements. There is no “data” that tells you how far apart they were that day.

We don't. So far, you have presented no evidence whatsoever that any of the dispatcher clocks were out of the spec Bowles described. 

You’ve presented no evidence that they were at most a minute apart that day. Which is your claim.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the channel one recordings have been "edited" or "dubbed" outside of where consecutive recordings have been spliced together. There are a handful of splice points between 12:20 and 1:20, but any hope that channel one is some massive spliceapalooza is badly misplaced.

Ignoring your “massive spliceapalooza” strawman, a splice IS an edit. And of course they were dubbed. Multiple times. None of us are listening to the original Dictabelt and Audograph. And they had a tendency to skip and repeat sections. Those (at least) were edited as well.

[John Iacoletti]

"Usually" is what usually happens.
Therefore, we usually expect
that the usual thing usually happens.

When unusual things happen,
they are usually unexpected,
since if we usually expect the usual,
then we don't expect the unusual.
And the unusual is the unexpected.

So then, the higher burden of proof
falls upon the unexpected
rather than the expected

Thus, the higher burden of proof
falls on the unusual
rather than the usual

No, the burden of proof lies on the person claiming that “usually” really means always.

[John Iacoletti]

I have also stated that it can be determined from the record derived from channel one and channel two [and also from the recordings themselves] that the channel one and channel two clocks were running to within a minute of each other,

You stated that but provided no evidence for it.

and other evidence (the McIntire photo, Greer/Kellerman, Rowley, Powers) shows that channel two was within a minute of standard time that afternoon.

No, because none of those things have any known association with “standard time”.

[Bill Brown]

For what it's worth, Gerald Hill tried to turn over the revolver once back at headquarters (after arriving from the theater) but was told to hang onto it in order to keep the chain of possession to a minimum.

Another one of those things you can't remember where you've heard it first, I'm sure....

Hey, it is what it is.  It's the truth, regardless.

[Martin Weidmann]

Hey, it is what it is.  It's the truth, regardless.

So, it's another one of those "It's true, because I say so" things?

But I get it, it's your version of what you believe to be the truth!   

[John Iacoletti]

I would appreciate a cite for this one too, because all Hill testified to was that Baker told him to “hold on to it until later”, and true to form the WC didn’t bother to confirm this with Baker. I also don’t see how giving it to Baker now or later would have any effect on keeping the chain of possession to a minimum. In fact, why does Baker need to have it at all?

[Richard Smith]

In which we learn that the same contrarians who protest that no one has suggested a conspiracy contend that the gun found on Oswald was either switched or planted on him per the usual "chain of possession" nonsense which has no relevance outside of a criminal trial.  I'm sure they are not suggesting a conspiracy.  That would be a "strawman" to conclude.  Just that all the evidence was faked.  The implications don't matter if it creates any real or imagined doubt of Oswald's guilt. That is the sole objective.  The DPD concluded on the fly to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit.  They didn't care if he really did it or if a dangerous cop killer was never arrested.  They planted a gun on him at the TT or they switched the gun in his possession to another gun presumably to link him to the crime.  But then CTers argue this gun doesn't link Oswald to the crime making the switch pointless!  Round and round we go down the rabbit hole.