Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?

[Martin Weidmann]

"That "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital."

I'm sorry Bill, but this is an assumption you are making and it needs to be stated as such.
This interpretation of the "602" may fit your timeline but it is not inherent in the tapes.

Indeed.

Bill has claimed that he has a source for the second "602" call, but several weeks have now gone by and he hasn't been able to produce it.

On the other hand, in 1964, Butler, the ambulance driver, told George and Patricia Nash that he was trying to get through to the dispatcher to tell him the victim was a police officer.

And the timeline provided by the actual audio recording confirms there was only 38 seconds between the "Code 6" call (confirming the arrival of the ambulance on the scene) and Callaway's radio call. During that time Butler made his first "602" call (28 seconds after the "Code 6"call) and 8 seconds later the second. When he couldn't get trough, Butler said, he returned to the officer. This of course means that Tippit had not yet been placed inside the ambulance, because if he had been, Butler would not have to return to him.

Bill Brown is wrong, but he will never admit it. Rather disappointingly he is too stubborn for that. Instead he will keep on repeating his interpretation of the radio traffic as "evidence" and throw insults my way.

[Bill Brown]

Bill Brown is wrong, but he will never admit it. Rather disappointingly he is too stubborn for that. Instead he will keep on repeating his interpretation of the radio traffic as "evidence" and throw insults my way.

If you prove me wrong, I'll admit it.  I've never had a problem admitting my mistakes.  I simply don't think that I am wrong and you haven't posted anything which proves that I am.

[Martin Weidmann]

If you prove me wrong, I'll admit it.  I've never had a problem admitting my mistakes.  I simply don't think that I am wrong and you haven't posted anything which proves that I am.

So, now you are not only stubborn but also completely dishonest.

First of all, it was you who made the claim that Callaway helped load Tippit into the ambulance before making his radio call, so it's you who should prove that actually happened. You do not get to assume that you are right unless somebody proves you wrong.

Secondly, hell can freeze over 10 times, but it will never ever be possible to prove you wrong, simply because no matter how much solid and conclusive evidence is presented to you, it will never ever be enough for you.

[John Iacoletti]

If you prove me wrong, I'll admit it.  I've never had a problem admitting my mistakes.  I simply don't think that I am wrong and you haven't posted anything which proves that I am.

Repeating “that "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital” over and over again does not make it true. Nobody has to “prove you wrong” about this. It seems you pulled it out of your ass.

[Richard Smith]

So now you agree that the pistol in evidence is the one used to murder Tippit!  Progress.

You actually becoming aware of something that I have never denied is indeed progress.

Now how did the DPD acquire the gun used to kill Tippit to plant it on Oswald? 

If they did, how in the world would I know? When you can't explain a magic trick, does that mean it didn't happen?
 
That's the scenario you want to us to entertain?

No, that's the scenario you want us to entertain!

You accept that the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit but have suggested it is not linked to Oswald due to a "chain of custody" issue. A legal argument valid only in a criminal trial.  What you are actually implying is that the DPD somehow (never explained by you) obtained the murder weapon and for some reason (never explained) decided to plant it on Oswald and allow the actual killer of a fellow police officer to go free.  But they don't stop there.  Now they have to somehow (never explained by you) forge the documentation that links Oswald/Hidell to the pistol that you admit was used to kill Tippit.  They also have to convince the seller and various other parties involved in this transaction to all go along.  And it doesn't end there.  If this gun was purchased and owned by someone other than Oswald, then the police have to search out the records of that transaction to ensure no one ever uncovers the true owner.   All this is entailed in your suggestion that Oswald is not linked to this pistol.  You provide not a scintilla of evidence to support this alternative fantasy.  In fact, you deny being a CTer.  Deny suggesting the evidence against Oswald is fake.  Just yell "chain of custody" "chain of custody".  It is laughable.  I hope you are just spoofing this nonsense to pass the time and don't actually believe there is any validity to your ridiculous contrarian approach to this case.

[Martin Weidmann]

You accept that the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit but have suggested it is not linked to Oswald due to a "chain of custody" issue. A legal argument valid only in a criminal trial.  What you are actually implying is that the DPD somehow (never explained by you) obtained the murder weapon and for some reason (never explained) decided to plant it on Oswald and allow the actual killer of a fellow police officer to go free.  But they don't stop there.  Now they have to somehow (never explained by you) forge the documentation that links Oswald/Hidell to the pistol that you admit was used to kill Tippit.  They also have to convince the seller and various other parties involved in this transaction to all go along.  And it doesn't end there.  If this gun was purchased and owned by someone other than Oswald, then the police have to search out the records of that transaction to ensure no one ever uncovers the true owner.   All this is entailed in your suggestion that Oswald is not linked to this pistol.  You provide not a scintilla of evidence to support this alternative fantasy.  In fact, you deny being a CTer.  Deny suggesting the evidence against Oswald is fake.  Just yell "chain of custody" "chain of custody".  It is laughable.  I hope you are just spoofing this nonsense to pass the time and don't actually believe there is any validity to your ridiculous contrarian approach to this case.

You accept that the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit but have suggested it is not linked to Oswald due to a "chain of custody" issue. A legal argument valid only in a criminal trial.

No. A legal argument that's always valid. You just want to do away with it, because for you any evidence that can point to Oswald's guilt, no matter how pathetic, is important even if it can't be authenticated. It's for the exact same reason that you have proven yourself beyond doubt to be utterly incapable to argue or debate any particular part of this case beyond being argumentative about anything except the evidence, being dismissive of any opinion that does not match your own, and filling page after page with insignificant drivel.

What you are actually implying is that the DPD somehow (never explained by you) obtained the murder weapon and for some reason (never explained) decided to plant it on Oswald and allow the actual killer of a fellow police officer to go free.

Wrong again. A chain of custody is required to rule out the possibility of evidence manipulation. By not giving a damn about a chain of custody, it's actually you who is saying that you don't care if the DPD manipulated the evidence. And, btw, nobody said anything about planting a revolver on Oswald. A revolver was taken from Oswald and a revolver was handed in to the evidence room, after Hill had allegedly carried it around for several hours. The question that needs to be answered, either way, is; was it the same revolver in both cases? You can assume it was, but you can not prove it.

Now they have to somehow (never explained by you) forge the documentation that links Oswald/Hidell to the pistol that you admit was used to kill Tippit.  They also have to convince the seller and various other parties involved in this transaction to all go along.

Nice strawman. I only have one question; why would they have to do that?

And it doesn't end there.  If this gun was purchased and owned by someone other than Oswald, then the police have to search out the records of that transaction to ensure no one ever uncovers the true owner. 

Again; why?

You're completely barking up the wrong tree here. Is this really the limit of your imagination?

All this is entailed in your suggestion that Oswald is not linked to this pistol.

No it isn't.

Btw don't you also know the difference between a suggestion and asking a question?

You provide not a scintilla of evidence to support this alternative fantasy.

Actually, the one who can't present a shred of proof for the claim that the revolver now in evidence is the one they took from Oswald, is you. Why? Because you don't have a chain of custody, all you've got is assumptions.

Deny suggesting the evidence against Oswald is fake.  Just yell "chain of custody" "chain of custody".  It is laughable.

Well, it works as it should do. It sure has you all fired up throwing hissy fits.... 

I hope you are just spoofing this nonsense to pass the time and don't actually believe there is any validity to your ridiculous contrarian approach to this case.

One thing is for sure. It is a hell of a lot better than just relying on assumptions and blind faith, believing everything you have been told without questioning any of it or having a single critical thought about it, as you do.

If I am a contrarian for not accepting a non factual and unproven case based on unconclusive and questional evidence, as you do, than the title "contrarian" is a honorary one!

[Bill Chapman]

No murder weapon needed to convict re Tippit

[Richard Smith]

You accept that the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit but have suggested it is not linked to Oswald due to a "chain of custody" issue. A legal argument valid only in a criminal trial.

No. A legal argument that's always valid. You just want to do away with it, because for you any evidence that can point to Oswald's guilt, no matter how pathetic, is important even if it can't be authenticated. It's for the exact same reason that you have proven yourself beyond doubt to be utterly incapable to argue or debate any particular part of this case beyond being argumentative about anything except the evidence, being dismissive of any opinion that does not match your own, and filling page after page with insignificant drivel.

What you are actually implying is that the DPD somehow (never explained by you) obtained the murder weapon and for some reason (never explained) decided to plant it on Oswald and allow the actual killer of a fellow police officer to go free.

Wrong again. A chain of custody is required to rule out the possibility of evidence manipulation. By not giving a damn about a chain of custody, it's actually you who is saying that you don't care if the DPD manipulated the evidence. And, btw, nobody said anything about planting a revolver on Oswald. A revolver was taken from Oswald and a revolver was handed in to the evidence room, after Hill had allegedly carried it around for several hours. The question that needs to be answered, either way, is; was it the same revolver in both cases? You can assume it was, but you can not prove it.

Now they have to somehow (never explained by you) forge the documentation that links Oswald/Hidell to the pistol that you admit was used to kill Tippit.  They also have to convince the seller and various other parties involved in this transaction to all go along.

Nice strawman. I only have one question; why would they have to do that?

And it doesn't end there.  If this gun was purchased and owned by someone other than Oswald, then the police have to search out the records of that transaction to ensure no one ever uncovers the true owner. 

Again; why?

You're completely barking up the wrong tree here. Is this really the limit of your imagination?

All this is entailed in your suggestion that Oswald is not linked to this pistol.

No it isn't.

Btw don't you also know the difference between a suggestion and asking a question?

You provide not a scintilla of evidence to support this alternative fantasy.

Actually, the one who can't present a shred of proof for the claim that the revolver now in evidence is the one they took from Oswald, is you. Why? Because you don't have a chain of custody, all you've got is assumptions.

Deny suggesting the evidence against Oswald is fake.  Just yell "chain of custody" "chain of custody".  It is laughable.

Well, it works as it should do. It sure has you all fired up throwing hissy fits.... 

I hope you are just spoofing this nonsense to pass the time and don't actually believe there is any validity to your ridiculous contrarian approach to this case.

One thing is for sure. It is a hell of a lot better than just relying on assumptions and blind faith, believing everything you have been told without questioning any of it or having a single critical thought about it, as you do.

If I am a contrarian for not accepting a non factual and unproven case based on unconclusive and questional evidence, as you do, than the title "contrarian" is a honorary one!

You completely misunderstand - likely intentionally - the difference between the legal standard that governs a criminal trial and a discussion outside that context to determine what happened.  In a criminal trial, the rights even of the guilty are taken into consideration.  The prosecution has a high burden to convict someone for a crime.  Even if there is evidence that proves beyond any doubt that a person has committed a crime, that evidence might be excluded due to a violation of the defendants rights.  Can you understand how that is different than reaching a conclusion as to whether an individual nevertheless committed the act?  If, for example, there is a film of an individual committing the crime, the fact that this film might be excluded from consideration in a legal context does not preclude everyone else from reaching the conclusion that the film demonstrates that the individual committed the crime.  Here, you suggest that there is a "chain of custody" issue.   A legal concept applied only in a criminal context.  This is a procedural question applicable only in a trial.  Even if you were correct that there is some issue with the chain of custody (and that is highly debatable), that alone does not mean there is doubt about Oswald's possession of this gun.  You do not provide a scintilla of evidence that actually demonstrates that the gun in evidence was not the same gun obtained from Oswald.  You do not address the totality of evidence and circumstances that link him to that particular gun.  Those are not assumptions.  There are documents that link him to the gun.  The DPD confirm they took that gun from him.  You can't even articulate a rational explanation for how or why this occurred.  You just shout over and over "chain of custody" as though that itself casts doubt on the matter.  It is a lazy defense attorney tactic when the facts, evidence, and common sense lend themselves to a different conclusion.