If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Martin Weidmann]

You're missing the point. The adequacy of the chain of custody would be determined at trial. The prosecutor would have interviewed all the officers and established the chain of custody to his satsifaction before offering the jacket in evidence. If the defense raised a chain of custody objection, the court would hear and decide the matter. The Warren Commission, to the chagrin of CTers, was not a criminal trial. In the chaos of 11-22, it is entirely possible that what look like defects in the chain of custody (e.g., Westbrook's inability to identify the original officer) would not be deemed defects at all. If CTers would stay in their lane and stop trying to play Oswald Defense Counsel, they would look less silly. Jim DiEugenio, some sort of school teacher I  believe, wss constantly lecturing me on evdentiary and other legal issues and pretty much making an ass of himself except in the eyes of his minions.

You're missing the point. The adequacy of the chain of custody would be determined at trial. The prosecutor would have interviewed all the officers and established the chain of custody to his satsifaction before offering the jacket in evidence. If the defense raised a chain of custody objection, the court would hear and decide the matter.

Yeah, I got that alright

The Warren Commission, to the chagrin of CTers, was not a criminal trial.

Exactly. It was a commission to rubber stamp an already pre-determined outcome. Yet, all the LNs, blindly accept their report as proof of Oswald's guilt. Go figure!

In the chaos of 11-22, it is entirely possible that what look like defects in the chain of custody (e.g., Westbrook's inability to identify the original officer) would not be deemed defects at all.

And it's also entirely possible that they would be deemed defects. So, where does that leave us?

[Dan O'meara]

"Chain of custody" is a mantra of the Oswald Defense Counsel branch of the CT community. It's a favorite of Jim DiEugenio. Defects in the chain of custody may affect either the weight or admissibility of an item of evidence. If there is a reasonable probability the item offered is the same item originally taken into evidence, it will be admitted. perhaps with an instruction to the jury concerning its weight. If there is not a reasonable probability, it will not be admitted. At trial, the various officers would testify as to what actually occurred and why there seem to be inconsistencies in their reports. That would determine whether there was, in fact, an actual defect in the chain of custody. Except in CT World, you can't look at 60-year-old documents and conclude the chain of custody was defective.

Other than the rifle name a single piece of evidence that has chain of custody that wasn't "defective"
Just one piece of evidence.
Anything you like.

[Royell Storing]

"Chain of custody" is a mantra of the Oswald Defense Counsel branch of the CT community. It's a favorite of Jim DiEugenio. Defects in the chain of custody may affect either the weight or admissibility of an item of evidence. If there is a reasonable probability the item offered is the same item originally taken into evidence, it will be admitted. perhaps with an instruction to the jury concerning its weight. If there is not a reasonable probability, it will not be admitted. At trial, the various officers would testify as to what actually occurred and why there seem to be inconsistencies in their reports. That would determine whether there was, in fact, an actual defect in the chain of custody. Except in CT World, you can't look at 60-year-old documents and conclude the chain of custody was defective.

   JFK's body was stolen. Anything coming outta Bethesda regarding that body would Not be admitted.   

[Lance Payette]

   JFK's body was stolen. Anything coming outta Bethesda regarding that body would Not be admitted.

And this would help the CT cause ... how? Nothing coming out of Bethesda would be particularly important to the prosecution of Oswald at all ("And was JFK still dead when he arrived at Bethesda, Dr. Humes?").

I assume by "stolen" you mean removed from Texas without a Texas autopsy. Yes, we here on the prosecution team will stipulate to that. How is that relevant to Oswald?

I assume you think the defense would be arguing that the body was removed from Texas so it could be altered in order to disguise the number and/or direction of the shots and that a Texas autopsy would have revealed ... what? Not only is this purely speculative and therefore inadmissible, but it has little or nothing to do with Oswald's guilt. The issue at trial would not be whether Oswald was the lone assassin but whether he fired at JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD. If he did, he was guilty regardless of who else may have fired.

Stringing together speculative conspiracy factoids is not a defense outside of forums such as this. That's what CTers never seem to understand. They seem to think a trial of Oswald would have looked like a mini-trial of 875 conspiracy factoids and 12 different woulda coulda conspiracy theories. No.

[Dan O'meara]

And this would help the CT cause ... how? Nothing coming out of Bethesda would be particularly important to the prosecution of Oswald at all ("And was JFK still dead when he arrived at Bethesda, Dr. Humes?").

I assume by "stolen" you mean removed from Texas without a Texas autopsy. Yes, we here on the prosecution team will stipulate to that. How is that relevant to Oswald?

I assume you think the defense would be arguing that the body was removed from Texas so it could be altered in order to disguise the number and/or direction of the shots and that a Texas autopsy would have revealed ... what? Not only is this purely speculative and therefore inadmissible, but it has little or nothing to do with Oswald's guilt. The issue at trial would not be whether Oswald was the lone assassin but whether he fired at JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD. If he did, he was guilty regardless of who else may have fired.

Stringing together speculative conspiracy factoids is not a defense outside of forums such as this. That's what CTers never seem to understand. They seem to think a trial of Oswald would have looked like a mini-trial of 875 conspiracy factoids and 12 different woulda coulda conspiracy theories. No.

Can't you think of a single piece of evidence that has a non-defective chain of custody?
Not one?
Don't you think that might be significant somehow?

[Lance Payette]

Can't you think of a single piece of evidence that has a non-defective chain of custody?
Not one?
Don't you think that might be significant somehow?

You're starting to sound like a Harvey & Lee fan. Let us hope not.

To repeat for the last time: We don't know if any evidence has a fatally defective chain of custody until the prosecution attempts to introduce it into evidence, by which time the prosecution will have assembled what it believes to be an adequate chain. You can't simply look at documents or what one witness said to the WC and declare there is a defective chain of custody. Defects have to rise to the level of creating genuine doubt that what is offered into evidence is not what was taken into evidence at the time or has otherwise been altered.

This was a sudden, unanticipated, chaotic event. It is not surprising that documents and memories were all over the map. Again, it always seems to me the CTers have a very artificial, non-real-world perspective, as though law enforcement in these circumstances should have been operating with one eye on how everything might look to CTers with CT microscopes 10, 30 and 60 years later. The fact that a defense attorney might be able to poke holes (raise doubts) about an item of evidence does not mean there is a fatal defect in the chain of evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

You're starting to sound like a Harvey & Lee fan. Let us hope not.

To repeat for the last time: We don't know if any evidence has a fatally defective chain of custody until the prosecution attempts to introduce it into evidence, by which time the prosecution will have assembled what it believes to be an adequate chain. You can't simply look at documents or what one witness said to the WC and declare there is a defective chain of custody. Defects have to rise to the level of creating genuine doubt that what is offered into evidence is not what was taken into evidence at the time or has otherwise been altered.

This was a sudden, unanticipated, chaotic event. It is not surprising that documents and memories were all over the map. Again, it always seems to me the CTers have a very artificial, non-real-world perspective, as though law enforcement in these circumstances should have been operating with one eye on how everything might look to CTers with CT microscopes 10, 30 and 60 years later. The fact that a defense attorney might be able to poke holes (raise doubts) about an item of evidence does not mean there is a fatal defect in the chain of evidence.

We don't know if any evidence has a fatally defective chain of custody until the prosecution attempts to introduce it into evidence,

But the WC can use it and consider it authentic anyway?

You can't simply look at documents or what one witness said to the WC and declare there is a defective chain of custody.

But the WC can declare Oswald to be guilty anyway?