Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?

[Bill Brown]

So, Oswald did not admit to having a revolver at the Texas Theater?

Btw, are you still here?

What happened to the source you claimed you have, for Callaway helping to load Tippit into the ambulance before making his radio call?

So, Oswald did not admit to having a revolver at the Texas Theater?

I didn't say anything even remotely close to that.

You said: "We all know that Oswald had a revolver."

Iacoletti has argued (a thousand times over) that we do not know for sure that Oswald had a revolver at all at the theater.

What happened to the source you claimed you have, for Callaway helping to load Tippit into the ambulance before making his radio call?

Quote my comment first, then I can try to address it.

[John Iacoletti]

Funny how Brewer, who was back by the stage door on the opposite side of a dimly lit theater saw something that nobody else (even the cops involved in the struggle) saw.

[Martin Weidmann]

I didn't say anything even remotely close to that.

You said: "We all know that Oswald had a revolver."

Iacoletti has argued (a thousand times over) that we do not know for sure that Oswald had a revolver at all at the theater.

Quote my comment first, then I can try to address it.

Stop wasting everybody's time with silly childish games.

You claimed to have a source for Butler, in his second "602" call, was trying to let the dispatcher know that the ambulance was leaving the scene. In other words, if you are correct (quod non), Callaway had already helped to load Tippit into the ambulance.

So, how much longer do we have to wait for that source? Produce it already or admit you've got no such source and you just made it up. 

[Richard Smith]

To summarize, the "chain of custody" standard is applicable only in a criminal trial context.  It is an ideal standard designed to protect the rights in our legal system of even the guilty.  A real or (as in this context) imagined violation of that standard does not, standing alone, constitute evidence that the gun in evidence is not the same one taken from Oswald.  There is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest this.  The evidence and circumstances lend themselves beyond any doubt to the conclusion that the gun in evidence is the same one taken from Oswald.  The DPD confirms this. The documentation confirms this.  The totality of circumstances confirms this.  The fact that there are some examples in history of the police planting evidence does not lend themselves to a conclusion that they did so in this instance.  I've already laid out the reasoning and evidence for that conclusion.  Martin has just repeated "chain of custody" like a pro bono defense attorney defending a guilty client. 

[Martin Weidmann]

To summarize, the "chain of custody" standard is applicable only in a criminal trial context.  It is an ideal standard designed to protect the rights in our legal system of even the guilty.  A real or (as in this context) imagined violation of that standard does not, standing alone, constitute evidence that the gun in evidence is not the same one taken from Oswald.  There is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest this.  The evidence and circumstances lend themselves beyond any doubt to the conclusion that the gun in evidence is the same one taken from Oswald.  The DPD confirms this. The documentation confirms this.  The totality of circumstances confirms this.  The fact that there are some examples in history of the police planting evidence does not lend themselves to a conclusion that they did so in this instance.  I've already laid out the reasoning and evidence for that conclusion.  Martin has just repeated "chain of custody" like a pro bono defense attorney defending a guilty client.

The only one repeating the same old BS time after time is you!

[Bill Chapman]

So, dumb ass, Oswald didn't have a revolver with him at the Texas Theater?

 

 

[John Iacoletti]

To summarize, the "chain of custody" standard is applicable only in a criminal trial context. 

Repeating a fallacious argument over and over doesn’t turn it into a good argument. Authenticity of evidence is important in any context. Garbage in, garbage out.

A real or (as in this context) imagined violation of that standard does not, standing alone, constitute evidence that the gun in evidence is not the same one taken from Oswald.

Nobody has to provide evidence that it is not. You have to provide evidence that it is. Your claim, your burden. “Cop said so” is not sufficient. That’s why chain of custody rules exist in the first place.