Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Mitch Todd]

Scattered?

Hill also later said he put his mark in them...

What happened to those marks?

Offhand, I don't remember the exact term he used, but he did say that he figured it was an auto from the way that the cases were distributed. Or, "scattered" as I said it. Like I said, I think that the ".32 dark finish automatic" description of the murderous firearm exerted an influence of it's own, and likely more than anything  to do with the location of the cases.

As for the marks, I don't know. I wearied of CT chain-of-custody arguments years ago, when I realized that the goalposts would never stop being moved on me. Just like you are now trying to do by changing the subject from "why did Hill radio 'automatic .38'" to "what is the chain of evidence for the .38 cases?"

It looks like someone else has taken up that thankless task anyway, so I'll leave it to them. The subject seems to be in good hands.

[Martin Weidmann]

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


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.


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

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

If there was an official standard you would be able to search for and find the relevant document(s) and show it here. The mere fact that you pathetically try to fall back on an alleged assurance by some unnamed person who you claim `knows for sure "is telling enough". You will not be able to produce a document containing an official standard simply because it doesn?t exist.

And you in fact have admitted as much.... by saying (1) that there is no "concisely-written thing" and (2) that it is "made up of guidelines and appellate (and maybe even Supreme) court decisions" which is actually nothing more than jurisprudence.

[Tim Nickerson]

Evidently not when Poe and Barnes testified.

You want to try again?

Neither Poe nor Barnes had anything to do with the Davis shells.

[Tim Nickerson]

And the marks read?

However Dhority and Doughty marked them.

[Tim Nickerson]

What was the one he had, that used to come up as a little box on the screen, supposed to be then Tim?

(ie the 2 minute excerpt with the citizen(Bowley?Benavides) calling in on it and a bit before it and a minute or so after it.)

I mean at that time I checked it in other places round the internet and they were all the same time and statements.

I don't recall him having a little box on the screen. Whatever it was , it was not the actual original Police radio broadcast tape.

[Tim Nickerson]

EDIT by reply quoting -

ALSO Tim I found this from Herberts posting on another forum.
Herbert Blenner
Advanced Member
Members
 52 posts

"See the following link for the audio segment used in this article.
 
http://hdblenner.com/temps/tippit.wav
 
The transcripts of radio traffic on Channel-I and an audio file reportedly originating from the dictabelt show that the authorities altered the sequence of recorded events surrounding the murder of Officer Tippit."
 
Part One - Activity on the Primary Police Channel-I
 
When police initially arrived at the scene of the Tippit shooting, the dictabelt had recorded six addresses for the location of the crime scene. This situation is particularly difficult to dismiss since a citizen reported the shooting to the police over the two-way radio of Tippit?s patrol car.

Herb used to make a lot of oddball claims. That the dictabelt recorded numerous different addresses for the location of the crime scene doesn't mean that it was altered in any way. It just shows that there was a lot of confusion at the time.

[Tim Nickerson]

I am I wrong in seeing the seemingly lack of a response to the citizen phone in on Tppits radio? I believe Last time it came up there was silence

What are you looking for Matt?

[Mitch Todd]

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

If there was an official standard you would be able to search for and find the relevant document(s) and show it here. The mere fact that you pathetically try to fall back on an alleged assurance by some unnamed person who you claim `knows for sure "is telling enough". You will not be able to produce a document containing an official standard simply because it doesn?t exist.

And you in fact have admitted as much.... by saying (1) that there is no "concisely-written thing" and (2) that it is "made up of guidelines and appellate (and maybe even Supreme) court decisions" which is actually nothing more than jurisprudence.

"Nothing more than jurisprudence" you say. Do you actually believe that jurisprudence does not itself set standards to keep the judicial process as uniform and transparent as possible? That it doesn't set rules and tests as to what can be properly admitted and weighed as evidence? Now that would be a funny thing to believe! And no, it's not something that is written in stone in one hundred words or less, Ten Commandments-style. But it doesn't have to be short, concise, pithy, or terse to be a standard.