Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Mitch Todd]

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

The defense's convinced the jury with two arguments against the gloves: 1) the gloves --famously-- didn't fit OJ's hand, and 2) that OJ was supposed to have cut one of his fingers during the murder, but there were no holes, tears, cuts, or other openings in the gloves that would correspond to the injury. That is, they were the wrong gloves. Neither of those issues have to do with chain of custody.

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

Herbert never ever had the actual original Police radio broadcast tape of the sequence.

[Tim Nickerson]

Unfortunately, none of the shells in question meet that requirement.

The Davis shells do. But even if they didn't it wouldn't matter since their having been made readily identifiable by Dhority and Doughty did away with the need for a chain of custody.

[Tim Nickerson]

You talk out of 2 sides of your mouth...LOL
you really should pay more attention to what you write...

Michael, you have difficulty grasping even simple concepts. You should try harder.

first you said...[/i]...will rarely, if ever? ---

What's so funny?

Now you say it MUST be authenticated...and there is more than one way to do that?

Go ahead demonstrate some examples of authenticating evidence without CoE
Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial.

funny part is you left this out of your original quote...
The process whereby a lawyer establishes these basic prerequisites is called laying a foundation, accomplished by calling witnesses who establish the item's chain of custody.     https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/real-and-demonstrative-evidence.html

"The easiest and usually the least troublesome way to authenticate real evidence is by the testimony of a witness who can identify a unique object in court. For example, the curator of a museum may be able to testify that he is familiar with, say, Picasso's "Dames de Avignon" and that what has been marked as exhibit so-and-so is in fact that unfortunate painting. It is important to remember, however, that many more mundane objects may be amenable to this kind of identification. A unique contract, or one that has been signed, may be authenticated by a person who is familiar with the document or its signatures. A ring may have an inscription by which it can be identified. Even a manufactured object, like a wallet, may be identifiable by its owner after years of use have given it a unique personality.

The second method--identification in court of an object that has been made unique, is extremely useful since it sometimes allows a lawyer or client to avoid the pitfalls of proving a chain of custody by exercising some forethought. If a witness who can establish an object's relevance to the case marks it with his signature, initials, or another mark that will allow him to testify that he can tell it from all other objects of its kind, that witness will be allowed to identify the object in court and thus to authenticate it. Often, if a member of the lawyer's staff or another person early in the chain of custody marks the evidence, big problems can be avoided if a later link in the chain turns out to be missing.

The third and least desirable way to authenticate real evidence is by establishing a chain of custody. Establishing a chain of custody requires that the whereabouts of the evidence at all times since the evidence was involved in the events at issue be established by competent testimony."

https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/summary-of-the-rules-of-evidence.html

[Tim Nickerson]

The marks on the shells were?

On the inside rims of the shells.

[Tim Nickerson]

"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.

Martin, I pointed out that evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated. You said No. You were wrong. "Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial."

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

Having OJ try the gloves on was not the Defense challenging the chain of custody. It was the prosecution being stupid. It was Christopher Darden, not the Defense , who had OJ try putting the gloves on.

[Tim Nickerson]

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

Mike, the paraffin tests on the FBI agents who test-fired the rifle also tested negative on the cheek. Sorry, but the paraffin test does not exonerate your guy.

[Bill Chapman]

The defense's convinced the jury with two arguments against the gloves: 1) the gloves --famously-- didn't fit OJ's hand, and 2) that OJ was supposed to have cut one of his fingers during the murder, but there were no holes, tears, cuts, or other openings in the gloves that would correspond to the injury. That is, they were the wrong gloves. Neither of those issues have to do with chain of custody.

OJ was wearing rubber gloves under the actual gloves when he tried them on in court
Of course he had to struggle to put them on.