Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?

[Bill Brown]

For what it's worth, Gerald Hill tried to turn over the revolver once back at headquarters (after arriving from the theater) but was told to hang onto it in order to keep the chain of possession to a minimum.

Another one of those things you can't remember where you've heard it first, I'm sure....

Hey, it is what it is.  It's the truth, regardless.

[Martin Weidmann]

Hey, it is what it is.  It's the truth, regardless.

So, it's another one of those "It's true, because I say so" things?

But I get it, it's your version of what you believe to be the truth!   

[John Iacoletti]

I would appreciate a cite for this one too, because all Hill testified to was that Baker told him to “hold on to it until later”, and true to form the WC didn’t bother to confirm this with Baker. I also don’t see how giving it to Baker now or later would have any effect on keeping the chain of possession to a minimum. In fact, why does Baker need to have it at all?

[Richard Smith]

In which we learn that the same contrarians who protest that no one has suggested a conspiracy contend that the gun found on Oswald was either switched or planted on him per the usual "chain of possession" nonsense which has no relevance outside of a criminal trial.  I'm sure they are not suggesting a conspiracy.  That would be a "strawman" to conclude.  Just that all the evidence was faked.  The implications don't matter if it creates any real or imagined doubt of Oswald's guilt. That is the sole objective.  The DPD concluded on the fly to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit.  They didn't care if he really did it or if a dangerous cop killer was never arrested.  They planted a gun on him at the TT or they switched the gun in his possession to another gun presumably to link him to the crime.  But then CTers argue this gun doesn't link Oswald to the crime making the switch pointless!  Round and round we go down the rabbit hole.

[Martin Weidmann]

In which we learn that the same contrarians who protest that no one has suggested a conspiracy contend that the gun found on Oswald was either switched or planted on him per the usual "chain of possession" nonsense which has no relevance outside of a criminal trial.  I'm sure they are not suggesting a conspiracy.  That would be a "strawman" to conclude.  Just that all the evidence was faked.  The implications don't matter if it creates any real or imagined doubt of Oswald's guilt. That is the sole objective. The DPD concluded on the fly to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit. They didn't care if he really did it or if a dangerous cop killer was never arrested.  They planted a gun on him at the TT or they switched the gun in his possession to another gun presumably to link him to the crime.  But then CTers argue this gun doesn't link Oswald to the crime making the switch pointless!  Round and round we go down the rabbit hole.

per the usual "chain of possession" nonsense which has no relevance outside of a criminal trial.

Why do you keep on saying stupid things like this, if you don't like being called a fool.

A chain of possession exists to protect the authenticity of the evidence. Ignoring it, or calling it nonsense, is the same as saying that it doesn't matter if the evidence can not be authenticated.

The implications don't matter if it creates any real or imagined doubt of Oswald's guilt.

The implications of a lack of chain of custody don't matter if the "evidence" can be used to "prove" Oswald's guilt.

The DPD concluded on the fly to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit.

Who, except you of course, said ever something this stupid?

They planted a gun on him at the TT or they switched the gun in his possession to another gun presumably to link him to the crime.

The law is clear; without a sound chain of custody, the authenticity of evidence can not be assumed and a possibility of manipulation can not be ruled out.

Btw, who are "they"?

[John Iacoletti]

In which we learn that the same contrarians who protest that no one has suggested a conspiracy contend that the gun found on Oswald was either switched or planted on him per the usual "chain of possession" nonsense which has no relevance outside of a criminal trial.

Of course it’s relevant. If you can’t authenticate the evidence then you cannot state with any reliability that it was “the gun found on Oswald” — inside or outside the context of a trial.

I'm sure they are not suggesting a conspiracy.  That would be a "strawman" to conclude.  Just that all the evidence was faked. 

Now that’s a strawman. Nobody said all the evidence is faked. It doesn’t need to be since it doesn’t conclusively show who killed Kennedy anyway.

[Richard Smith]

per the usual "chain of possession" nonsense which has no relevance outside of a criminal trial.

Why do you keep on saying stupid things like this, if you don't like being called a fool.

A chain of possession exists to protect the authenticity of the evidence. Ignoring it, or calling it nonsense, is the same as saying that it doesn't matter if the evidence can not be authenticated.

The implications don't matter if it creates any real or imagined doubt of Oswald's guilt.

The implications of a lack of chain of custody don't matter if the "evidence" can be used to "prove" Oswald's guilt.

The DPD concluded on the fly to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit.

Who, except you of course, said ever something this stupid?

They planted a gun on him at the TT or they switched the gun in his possession to another gun presumably to link him to the crime.

The law is clear; without a sound chain of custody, the authenticity of evidence can not be assumed and a possibility of manipulation can not be ruled out.

Btw, who are "they"?

You are not a conspiracy theorist.  Right?  So why question whether the gun taken from Oswald is the same one in evidence?  Why would anyone switch the gun?  You don't even believe the gun in evidence is linked to the crime.  Right?  You while not being a conspiracy theorist entertain the possibility that someone for some unknown reason either planted a gun on Oswald or switched the gun he did have with another gun.  A gun that you believe is not linked to the crime!  Wow.  That goes well beyond the rabbit hole.  Just shouting "chain of custody" over and over again is weak sauce.  There is no real doubt that the gun in evidence is the same one taken from Oswald.  What "law" are you referring too?  This is a discussion of the case and not a criminal trial in which the rights even of the guilty are protected.  That is endless contrarian nonsense.