Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?

[Bill Chapman]

“A Hidell” wasn’t a “known alias associated with Oswald”. That’s just more “Richard” misinformation.

AJ Hidell (aka Lee Harvey Oswald) was in charge of armament procurement
OH Lee (aka Lee Harvey Oswald) was in charge of safe-house procurement
Dirty Harvey (aka Lee Harvey Oswald) was in charge of shooting cops
Lee Harvey Oswald was in charge of screwing things up his entire life

------------
QUOTE OF
THE DAY
------------
'Hidell: Rhymes with Fidel'
>attributed to Marina Oswald

[Richard Smith]

You acknowledged in this very thread that it would be pointless to plant a gun on Oswald unless that gun had been used in the Tippit murder.

No. I never said anything about planting a gun on Oswald. Stop making stuff up.

The gun in evidence is either the gun taken from Oswald or another gun planted by the DPD to frame him

True, but who said anything about the DPD (as in the entire police department) planting a gun?

Now you are claiming that you never claimed the gun in evidence was planted on Oswald!!! Huh?

Try to think harder. You'll figure it out at the end, I'm sure. Here's a clue; introducing something into evidence is not the same as planting something on a person. Get it now?

What does that even mean if you are claiming there is a "chain of custody" issue with the gun in evidence?

After dismissing it as nonsense, you now have to ask what the chain of custody issue is? Really?

If someone didn't falsely place it into evidence as the gun found on him, then this is the gun taken from Oswald.  And per your own acknowledgement it is the gun used to kill Tippit.  Good grief. 

Wow, you're actually starting to get it. The chain of custody requirement is in place to ensure that the authenticity of the evidence is protected and safeguarded. So all you have to do now is prove that the revolver Hill walked around with for several hours, showed to people and claimed that it was Oswald's was indeed the revolver taken from Oswald.

Mr. BELIN. Now I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit 143. Would you state if you know what this is?
Mr. HILL. This is a .38 caliber revolver, Smith & Wesson, with a 2" barrel that would contain six shells. It is an older gun that has been blue steeled, and has a worn wooden handle.
Mr. BELIN. Have you ever seen this gun before?
Mr. HILL. I am trying to see my mark on it to make sure, sir. I don't recall specifically where I marked it, but I did mark it, if this is the one. I don't remember where I did mark it, now.
Here it is, Hill right here, right in this crack.
Mr. BELIN. Officer, you have just pointed out a place which I will identify as a metal portion running along the butt of the gun. Can you describe it any more fully?
Mr. HILL. It would be to the inside of the pistol grip holding the gun in the air. It would begin under the trigger guard to where the last name H-i-l-1 is scratched in the metal.
Mr. BELIN. Who put that name in there?
Mr. HILL. I did.
Mr. BELIN. When did you do that?
Mr. HILL. This was done at approximately 4 p.m., the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963, in the personnel office of the police department.
Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BELIN. Was this gun the gun that Officer Carroll handed to you?
Mr. HILL. And identified to me as the suspect's weapon.

<>

Mr. BELIN. Now, you said as the driver of the car, Bob Carroll, got in the car, he handed this gun to you?
Mr. HILL. Right, sir.

So, can you tell me how Hill knew that the revolver he had been carrying around for hours did indeed belong to Oswald?
And - as if you are going to answer this question [yeah right] - , don't say he just trusted Carroll's word, because Carroll testified that he did not even know from which hand he pulled the revolver.

Just saying "no it isn't" in time honored Monty Python-style does not rebut that evidence.

Just saying "no it isn't" is still a hell of a lot better than completely ignoring questions and never provide any answers, as you always do.

But as just about everything you write is Monty Python-esque, my reply is very fitting. And there is nothing to rebut since what you claim to be conclusive evidence just isn't. It always comes down to the same problem with you; you confuse your opinion with the actual evidentiary value of the evidence.

I can't follow what you are babbling about here.  This is Inspector Clouseau nonsense.  Why should anyone have to "figure out" what you are claiming?  You kept saying there is "chain of custody" problem with the gun in evidence (i.e. there is a problem linking that gun to the one taken from Oswald at the TT).  After you understood that it made no sense to plant a gun on Oswald that had nothing to do with the crime, you admitted that this gun was obviously used to kill Tippit.  Now you are claiming you never suggested it was planted!!!  Making some bizarre distinction about the "entire" DPD planting versus some individual DPD officer.  Wow.  Either this is the gun taken from Oswald or someone planted it to frame Oswald.  It did not descend from the heavens.  The serial numbers from a preexisting document linke this gun to Oswald via his PO Box.  It was ordered in a known alias used by Oswald.  The order requested that it be sent to his PO Box.  That is the SAME gun in evidence.  The one owned by Oswald.  The one the DPD confirm they took from him. 

[John Iacoletti]

And down we go the rabbit hole of “Richard’s” misinformation. The DPD can’t “confirm” they took it from Oswald because there is no chain of custody. That’s the whole point that keeps eluding you.

And you can’t seem to grasp the difference between “planting evidence” and “planting evidence ON OSWALD”.

[Martin Weidmann]

I can't follow what you are babbling about here.  This is Inspector Clouseau nonsense.  Why should anyone have to "figure out" what you are claiming?  You kept saying there is "chain of custody" problem with the gun in evidence (i.e. there is a problem linking that gun to the one taken from Oswald at the TT).  After you understood that it made no sense to plant a gun on Oswald that had nothing to do with the crime, you admitted that this gun was obviously used to kill Tippit.  Now you are claiming you never suggested it was planted!!!  Making some bizarre distinction about the "entire" DPD planting versus some individual DPD officer.  Wow.  Either this is the gun taken from Oswald or someone planted it to frame Oswald.  It did not descend from the heavens.  The serial numbers from a preexisting document linke this gun to Oswald via his PO Box.  It was ordered in a known alias used by Oswald.  The order requested that it be sent to his PO Box.  That is the SAME gun in evidence.  The one owned by Oswald.  The one the DPD confirm they took from him.

I can't follow what you are babbling about here.  This is Inspector Clouseau nonsense.

Of course you can't follow it. That's the entire point. You are indeed clueless...

You kept saying there is "chain of custody" problem with the gun in evidence (i.e. there is a problem linking that gun to the one taken from Oswald at the TT).

Sure there is. Anybody who has any knowledge of the subject only needs to read the testimony of Hill to understand what the problem is. Too bad you're not that anybody.

After you understood that it made no sense to plant a gun on Oswald that had nothing to do with the crime, you admitted that this gun was obviously used to kill Tippit.

Now, who is babbling?

Now you are claiming you never suggested it was planted!!!  Making some bizarre distinction about the "entire" DPD planting versus some individual DPD officer.  Wow. 

First of all there is a major difference between an entire police department and one individual officer. Secondly there is a massive difference between planting something on somebody and just handing something in as evidence and claiming it belonged to a specific person.

Either this is the gun taken from Oswald or someone planted it to frame Oswald.

Which only tells us that you are still just a clueless as you were before.

That is the SAME gun in evidence.  The one owned by Oswald.  The one the DPD confirm they took from him.

Except the DPD never confirmed they took the revolver now in evidence from Oswald and they never proved that he was the owner of that particular revolver. You can repeat the same false claims over and over again as much as you like, they will never become true.

[Richard Smith]

I can't follow what you are babbling about here.  This is Inspector Clouseau nonsense.

Of course you can't follow it. That's the entire point. You are indeed clueless...

You kept saying there is "chain of custody" problem with the gun in evidence (i.e. there is a problem linking that gun to the one taken from Oswald at the TT).

Sure there is. Anybody who has any knowledge of the subject only needs to read the testimony of Hill to understand what the problem is. Too bad you're not that anybody.

After you understood that it made no sense to plant a gun on Oswald that had nothing to do with the crime, you admitted that this gun was obviously used to kill Tippit.

Now, who is babbling?

Now you are claiming you never suggested it was planted!!!  Making some bizarre distinction about the "entire" DPD planting versus some individual DPD officer.  Wow. 

First of all there is a major difference between an entire police department and one individual officer. Secondly there is a massive difference between planting something on somebody and just handing something in as evidence and claiming it belonged to a specific person.

Either this is the gun taken from Oswald or someone planted it to frame Oswald.

Which only tells us that you are still just a clueless as you were before.

That is the SAME gun in evidence.  The one owned by Oswald.  The one the DPD confirm they took from him.

Except the DPD never confirmed they took the revolver now in evidence from Oswald and they never proved that he was the owner of that particular revolver. You can repeat the same false claims over and over again as much as you like, they will never become true.

Why don't you lay out the exact scenario that you are suggesting regarding chain of custody instead of playing the endless contrarian in which everything is true and everything is suspect?  There is a revolver in evidence.  The DPD officers indicate that they took a revolver from Oswald upon his arrest.  No DPD officer has ever suggested this is not the revolver in evidence.  That revolver has the same serial number as the revolver sent to a PO Box associated with Oswald per an order in a known alias used by Oswald in Oswald's handwriting. No other revolver has ever been associated with Oswald via any means.  Spin a yarn now.

[Martin Weidmann]

Why don't you lay out the exact scenario that you are suggesting regarding chain of custody instead of playing the endless contrarian in which everything is true and everything is suspect?  There is a revolver in evidence.  The DPD officers indicate that they took a revolver from Oswald upon his arrest.  No DPD officer has ever suggested this is not the revolver in evidence.  That revolver has the same serial number as the revolver sent to a PO Box associated with Oswald per an order in a known alias used by Oswald in Oswald's handwriting. No other revolver has ever been associated with Oswald via any means.  Spin a yarn now.

Why don't you lay out the exact scenario that you are suggesting regarding chain of custody

I already have, but I will do again, after you start answering questions... Fair enough?

There is a revolver in evidence.

Yes, there is

The DPD officers indicate that they took a revolver from Oswald upon his arrest.

Name the officers who said that they took a revolver from Oswald?

No DPD officer has ever suggested this is not the revolver in evidence.

Just how many DPD officers had sufficient knowledge about the revolver to make such a suggestion?

No other revolver has ever been associated with Oswald via any means.

So what? Did they look for another revolver? Did they look for the shop in Fort Worth where Oswald said he bought his revolver?

[John Iacoletti]

Why don't you lay out the exact scenario that you are suggesting regarding chain of custody instead of playing the endless contrarian in which everything is true and everything is suspect?  There is a revolver in evidence.  The DPD officers indicate that they took a revolver from Oswald upon his arrest.  No DPD officer has ever suggested this is not the revolver in evidence.  That revolver has the same serial number as the revolver sent to a PO Box associated with Oswald per an order in a known alias used by Oswald in Oswald's handwriting. No other revolver has ever been associated with Oswald via any means.  Spin a yarn now.

Parroting the same misinformation over and over again will not save you. Neither will shifting the burden. You can either demonstrate that CE143 was ever in Oswald’s possession or you cannot. And you cannot.