Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?

[John Iacoletti]

How about we try this one at a time to avoid going down every contrarian rabbit hole?

Was the revolver in evidence used to kill Tippit?  It seems like the answer has to be yes regardless of whether you are a LNer or CTer because it was either used by Oswald to do so or was planted on him to link him to that crime.  It would make no apparent sense to plant a gun that wasn't used in the crime to frame someone.  But what say the contrarian?

The weapon used to kill Tippit is indeterminate. There were insufficient characteristics on the bullets to identify a specific gun.

Next BS claim?

[Richard Smith]

Poor little "Richard"... So desperately trying to get out of the mess he has gotten himself into.

And still no names of the officers who "Richard" claims can confirm that a revolver was taken from Oswald at the TT and that it was CE143.....

LOL

What is with the constant commentary and insults?  How about trying to have a discussion?  This is not a trick question.  Was the gun in evidence used to kill Tippit? 

[Martin Weidmann]

What is with the constant commentary and insults?  How about trying to have a discussion?  This is not a trick question.  Was the gun in evidence used to kill Tippit?

How about trying to have a discussion?

This, coming from you, is the joke of the week.

You want to know what the problem is with the chain of custody? You being unable to name the officer(s) who took a revolver from Oswald and your inability to show that CE143 is the revolver that was allegedly taken from Oswald. That is the problem with the chain of custody.

Now, after you can not back up your bogus claims with any evidence, you suddenly want a "discussion"? For what? So you can argue until hell freezes over that it somehow doesn't matter that you can't name the officers and that you are right anyway? No thank you, I'm not wasting my time on that. Even more so, as your posting history reveals beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are utterly incapable to have a discussion, as that requires the answering of questions and you won't or can't even answer a basic question.

Now, go back to just repeating your usual BS, because that seems to be the only thing you are good at.

[Bill Chapman]

McDonald gives the gun to Carroll..

then, after leaving the theater and taking Oswald to the cop shop:



...good so far 


--------
BONUS
--------

[John Iacoletti]

...good so far 

Nope.

Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.

[John Mytton]

Nope.

Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.

Yep.

Mr. BALL. What happened when you jerked the pistol free?
Mr. McDONALD. When I jerked it free, I was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don't know why, and when I brought the pistol out, it grazed me across the cheek here, and I put it all the way out to the aisle, holding it by the butt. I gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll...

JohnM

[Bill Chapman]

Nope.

Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.

Correct. And the hand-over to Sgt. Hill happened in the car as Oswald was being driven away from the TT.
Meantime, in other news, McDonald said he took the gun from Oswald and handed, or gave it, to Carroll.

--------
BONUS
--------
If I was a CT, I'd claim that there was no gun in Oswald's pants at all: He was just happy to see them.