Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Tim Nickerson]

Each to their own Tim.

For mine I am more than happy that timing from Herbert Blenners actual Dictaphone recording, available since day one 1963( ie putting it and your internet clock up at the same time on your screen and timing each instance and the overall sequence in light of all the other claimed times) proves that all such documented police and ambulance claims are proved wrong and therefore proved as dileberately falsified.

I remember doing that fully last time I was here at this forum and it irrevocably proves that.

Each to their own.

Herbert Blenners actual Dictaphone recording? What are you talking about?

[Michael Chambers]

Herbert Blenners actual Dictaphone recording? What are you talking about?

Herbert used to have the actual original Police radio broadcast tape of the sequence.

I wouldn't 100% know if it was fully authentic and unaltered but he seemed to think it was
and at the time I found other instances of it all saying it was the unaltered one from day one 1963.

[Martin Weidmann]

"Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial."
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/real-and-demonstrative-evidence.html


The OJ trial? Wow Martin. Your desperation slip is showing.

"Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial."

Poor misguided Tim. It seems you still don?t understand. Evidence presented in court must of course be relevant to the case. A judge is not going to allow something that has nothing to do with the case. However, the admittance of a piece of evidence only means that the judge agrees that the evidence should be presented to the jury, who will then decide the probative value.

The OJ trial? Wow Martin. Your desperation slip is showing.

If anything is showing it is your inability to respond with anything of substance. There is nothing desperate about showing you an actual case which destroys your argument. The point I made was clear. In the OJ trial, the judge admitted the gloves and the jury concluded that they actually did not prove the prosecutors claim. One of the ways the evidence was discredited by the defense was by challenging the chain of custody! And that kinda destroys your argument, but I doubt you will ever see or admit that 

[Howard Gee]

Saint Oz and OJ have something in common.

They're both double murderers.

[Mike Orr]

The Paraffin test on Oswald showed his hands tested positive and his right cheek tested negative which was proof he had not fired a rifle that day, and his hands would have tested positive because he dealt with moving boxes of books . The bottom line is that Oswald would have made a hell of a shot from the break room . Case Closed

[Howard Gee]

The Paraffin test on Oswald showed his hands tested positive and his right cheek tested negative which was proof he had not fired a rifle that day, and his hands would have tested positive because he dealt with moving boxes of books . The bottom line is that Oswald would have made a hell of a shot from the break room . Case Closed

Paraffin tests aren't known for their reliability and Saint Oz could have washed his smirking face before he murdered JDT. So there goes your claim that the paraffin test is proof of innocence.

On the other hand, Saint Oz's prints were found on the rifle used to murder JFK.

The droolers either have to claim that someone else used C2766 in the assassination or that the print and ballistic evidence was faked.

It would have been a helluva shot from the break room. Not so much from the 6th floor sniper's nest though.

OSWALD: PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSIN AND COP KILLER

[Walt Cakebread]

Paraffin tests aren't known for their reliability and Saint Oz could have washed his smirking face before he murdered JDT. So there goes your claim that the paraffin test is proof of innocence.

On the other hand, Saint Oz's prints were found on the rifle used to murder JFK.

The droolers either have to claim that someone else used C2766 in the assassination or that the print and ballistic evidence was faked.

It would have been a helluva shot from the break room. Not so much from the 6th floor sniper's nest though.

OSWALD: PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSIN AND COP KILLER

The droolers either have to claim that someone else used C2766 in the assassination or that the print and ballistic evidence was faked.

There's not a shred of doubt that the evidence was faked..... The Carcano wasn't even fired that day.   There is ample photographic evidence that reveals the evidence photos are fake.....They are NOT genuine in situ photos of the alleged "crime scene".    Many of the DPD police officers testified that the did in fact "reconstruct " the scenes for the fake photo taking.....

[Mitch Todd]

I'm not really trying trying pick a fight. All I did was ask you a question. You answered it, and gave away maybe more than you intended.


Only in your delusion mind

No delusions at all. You really did give up more than you maybe wanted to.

What it comes down to is, you don't really know what the "official" (for lack of a better term) standard would be for weighing chain of evidence issues. 

Stop acting stupid? there isn't a official standard. It doesn?t exist! The bar is beyond a reasonable doubt and that is different for each individual.

Oh, but I've been assured there is, and by someone who actually knows for sure. It's not a concisely-written thing like you'll find from ISO or ANSI or an IETF RFC, but made up of guidelines and appellate (and maybe even Supreme) court decisions. Oh, and it's tied into admissibility.

Just don't expect others to hop to beat of your own presumption.

There never was a presumption on my part, but I'll let you get on to hop to beat of Tim's beat.

You presumed that "there isn't a official standard. It doesn?t exist!" That is totally wrong. So much for "never."