Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?

[Richard Smith]

To summarize, the "chain of custody" standard is applicable only in a criminal trial context.  It is an ideal standard designed to protect the rights in our legal system of even the guilty.  A real or (as in this context) imagined violation of that standard does not, standing alone, constitute evidence that the gun in evidence is not the same one taken from Oswald.  There is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest this.  The evidence and circumstances lend themselves beyond any doubt to the conclusion that the gun in evidence is the same one taken from Oswald.  The DPD confirms this. The documentation confirms this.  The totality of circumstances confirms this.  The fact that there are some examples in history of the police planting evidence does not lend themselves to a conclusion that they did so in this instance.  I've already laid out the reasoning and evidence for that conclusion.  Martin has just repeated "chain of custody" like a pro bono defense attorney defending a guilty client. 

[Martin Weidmann]

To summarize, the "chain of custody" standard is applicable only in a criminal trial context.  It is an ideal standard designed to protect the rights in our legal system of even the guilty.  A real or (as in this context) imagined violation of that standard does not, standing alone, constitute evidence that the gun in evidence is not the same one taken from Oswald.  There is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest this.  The evidence and circumstances lend themselves beyond any doubt to the conclusion that the gun in evidence is the same one taken from Oswald.  The DPD confirms this. The documentation confirms this.  The totality of circumstances confirms this.  The fact that there are some examples in history of the police planting evidence does not lend themselves to a conclusion that they did so in this instance.  I've already laid out the reasoning and evidence for that conclusion.  Martin has just repeated "chain of custody" like a pro bono defense attorney defending a guilty client.

The only one repeating the same old BS time after time is you!

[Bill Chapman]

So, dumb ass, Oswald didn't have a revolver with him at the Texas Theater?

 

 

[John Iacoletti]

To summarize, the "chain of custody" standard is applicable only in a criminal trial context. 

Repeating a fallacious argument over and over doesn’t turn it into a good argument. Authenticity of evidence is important in any context. Garbage in, garbage out.

A real or (as in this context) imagined violation of that standard does not, standing alone, constitute evidence that the gun in evidence is not the same one taken from Oswald.

Nobody has to provide evidence that it is not. You have to provide evidence that it is. Your claim, your burden. “Cop said so” is not sufficient. That’s why chain of custody rules exist in the first place.

[Bill Chapman]

Funny how Brewer, who was back by the stage door on the opposite side of a dimly lit theater saw something that nobody else (even the cops involved in the struggle) saw.

------
FACT
------

[Richard Smith]

The only one repeating the same old BS time after time is you!

LOL.  Where is Otto?

[Martin Weidmann]

LOL.  Where is Otto?

When repeating crappy arguments doesn't work...... look for a diversion   

[John Iacoletti]

------
FACT
------

Mr. BELIN. Did you see who hit whom first?
Mr. HUTSON. No.
Mr. BELIN. You are shaking your head, no.
Mr. HUTSON. No, I didn't.
Mr. BELIN. Okay.
Mr. HUTSON. The lights were down. The lights were on in the theatre, but it was dark.
Mr. BELIN. All right.