Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Martin Weidmann]

Vince Bugliosi, an actual lawyer, had a different experience with the ins & outs in dealing with this chain-of-custody thing. You can find this information on DVP's blog where he corresponds directly with the aforementioned Bugliosi.

Being a prosecutor of course he will have a different take on chain of custody matters. For a prosecutor chains of custody can be a real pain. I haven't checked on DVP's blog (can't really be bothered to get information from a propaganda site) but even if Bugliosi managed to get away with a chain of custody matter, that still doesn't make it the norm.

[Bill Brown]

As I recall, Baker describes Oswald wearing a jacket in the TSBD lunch room and then only moments later Mrs. Reid describes Oswald in just a white t-shirt w/o any jacket or outer shirt.  I think you would drive yourself crazy drying to reconcile all the descriptions.  It is not something anyone had cause to note at the time and recall later.

And that really is all that needs to be said.

[Bill Chapman]

Being a prosecutor of course he will have a different take on chain of custody matters. For a prosecutor chains of custody can be a real pain. I haven't checked on DVP's blog (can't really be bothered to get information from a propaganda site) but even if Bugliosi managed to get away with a chain of custody matter, that still doesn't make it the norm.

Reclaiming History

Vince Bugliosi:

"I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible. I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it*, not its admissibility"

via David Von Pein Blog Spot

*My emphasis

[Martin Weidmann]

And that really is all that needs to be said.

Then let's talk about something else;

You still haven't explained why you said Dan O'meara and I were incorrect?

You guys are incorrect. Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance before he got on the patrol car radio. The order of events on the police tapes tell you this.

when in fact you yourself have misinterpreted the radio tapes and then tried to pass your opinion of as fact.

The order of events on the police tapes tell you this.

No. What you hear on the police tapes is explained in the 1964 Nash article " The Other Witnesses" in which it states:

"Butler radioed his arrival at the scene at 1:18 p.m., within 60 seconds of leaving the funeral home. He remembers that there were at least 10 people standing around the man lying on the ground. It was not until he and his assistant pulled back a blanket covering Tippit that they realized the victim was a policeman.
   
Butler ran back to his radio to inform headquarters. The radio was busy and he could not cut in. He yelled “Mayday” to no avail, and went back to Tippit."

And Callaway himself blows your incorrect theory out of the water. Not only in his testimony but also, on 02/25/64 when he was interviewed by FBI agent Arthur Carter, who writes in his FD 302 report:

.......he [Callaway] observed that TIPPIT had been shot in the temple. He said TIPPIT was lying on his pistol and he, CALLAWAY, took the pistol and put it on the hood of TiPPIT's patrol car. Then he got in the patrol car and used the police radio to contact the Dallas Police Department, who advised they were aware that the police officer [TIPPIT] had been shot. He said the dispatcher told him to get off the air. About that time an ambulance came up and CALLAWAY said he and an unidentified citizen helped the ambulance driver put the officer (TIPPIT) in the ambulance.

Do you now care to explain why Dan and I are incorrect, or are you going to continue running from this question, as you have been doing since 16 May?

[Martin Weidmann]

Reclaiming History

Vince Bugliosi:

"I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case
would be admissible. I can tell you from personal experience that
excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is
rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical
situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial
judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of
the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much
weight or credence the jury will give it*, not its admissibility"

via David Von Pein Blog Spot

*My emphasis

Aha... you've clearly not understood that the admissibility of evidence at trial does not say anything about the credibility of that evidence. When a chain of custody does not exist the defense has two options;

1. they can object to the admissibility of that evidence, which is not so easy as it sounds, because the bar for admissibility is really low. As long as the argument can be made to the judge that the evidence is related to the case (even for a little bit) the judge will likely allow it in. A judge normally does not want to decide which evidence is credible or not. Unless there is clearly no link between the evidence and the crime a judge will prefer to let the jury decide.

or

2. you can challenge the credibility of that evidence in front of the jury, by pointing out that there is no solid (enough) chain of custody and that there are credibility issues with that evidence.

The latter is what Cochran did in the OJ trial with the bloody glove. The only person in the chain of custody for that glove, if I remember correctly, was Mark Fuhrman and by destroying his credibility on the stand as well as the "demonstration" of OJ trying to put on the glove was not only enough for the jury to deem that evidence not credible but also to come back with a not guilty verdict.

So, it seems this thing backfired for you because I basically agree with Bugs.... and he's "an actual lawyer", don't you know.

Go figure.   

[Bill Chapman]

Aha... you've clearly not understood that the admissibility of evidence at trial does not say anything about the credibility of that evidence. When a chain of custody does not exist the defense has two options;

1. they can object to the admissibility of that evidence, which is not so easy as it sounds, because the bar for admissibility is really low. As long as the argument can be made to the judge that the evidence is related to the case (even for a little bit) the judge will likely allow it in. A judge normally does not want to decide which evidence is credible or not. Unless there is clearly no link between the evidence and the crime a judge will prefer to let the jury decide.

or

2. you can challenge the credibility of that evidence in front of the jury, by pointing out that there is no solid (enough) chain of custody and that there are credibility issues with that evidence.

The latter is what Cochran did in the OJ trial with the bloody glove. The only person in the chain of custody for that glove, if I remember correctly, was Mark Fuhrman and by destroying his credibility on the stand as well as the "demonstration" of OJ trying to put on the glove was not only enough for the jury to deem that evidence not credible but also to come back with a not guilty verdict.

So, it seems this thing backfired for you because I basically agree with Bugs.... and he's "an actual lawyer", don't you know.

Go figure.   

I quoted Bugliosi verbatim and you agree with him: Yet you're trying to make me seem the fool. Wtf is your problem. Are you sure you've got the correct Wiki page in front of you?

[Martin Weidmann]

I quoted Bugliosi verbatim and you agree with him: Yet you're trying to make me seem the fool. Wtf is your problem. Are you sure you've got the correct Wiki page in front of you?

Yet you're trying to make me seem the fool.

I wasn't trying. If you feel the fool, it has nothing to do with me.

You claimed Bugliosi had "a different experience with the ins & outs in dealing with this chain-of-custody thing."

Vince Bugliosi, an actual lawyer, had a different experience with the ins & outs in dealing with this chain-of-custody thing. You can find this information on DVP's blog where he corresponds directly with the aforementioned Bugliosi.

Except he didn't have a "different experience" at all....

[Bill Chapman]

Yet you're trying to make me seem the fool.

I wasn't trying. If you feel the fool, it has nothing to do with me.

You claimed Bugliosi had "a different experience with the ins & outs in dealing with this chain-of-custody thing."

Except he didn't have a "different experience" at all....

'I wasn't trying. If you feel the fool, it has nothing to do with me.'
Where did I say I felt like a fool? I said you tried to make me seem the fool.

It is on you.