If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Tom Graves]

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?

Did the Warren Report itself include documents and testimonies that helped you and other "researchers" determine there were potential problems with "chains of possession"?

Should the Warren Commission have asked for a five-year extension of its investigation, or simply declared that "Obvious Patsy" Oswald didn't do it?

[Mitch Todd]

Did Baker ever actually give it to Doughty?  And if so, how did Davenport end up with it?

From the existing documentation, it can reasonably be inferred that Davenport showed up at the Homicide office with the bullet and button Mollenhoff  had removed from Tippit's body. This shortly after Hill gave the revolver to Baker. Fritz told Davenport to take the spent bullet and button to the ID bureau, then slew two birds with one stone by giving Davenport the gun and cartridges to take as well. 

Does anybody really think this mess is a chain of custody?

Is it really a "mess?" Who here is really an expert on what would really constitute a "non-mess" chain of custody? And even if the chain of custody is a mess, that does not itself actually invalidate item evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

From the existing documentation, it can reasonably be inferred that Davenport showed up at the Homicide office with the bullet and button Mollenhoff  had removed from Tippit's body. This shortly after Hill gave the revolver to Baker. Fritz told Davenport to take the spent bullet and button to the ID bureau, then slew two birds with one stone by giving Davenport the gun and cartridges to take as well. 
Is it really a "mess?" Who here is really an expert on what would really constitute a "non-mess" chain of custody? And even if the chain of custody is a mess, that does not itself actually invalidate item evidence.

And even if the chain of custody is a mess, that does not itself actually invalidate item evidence.

The chain of custody is one of the main ways to authenticate a piece of evidence. Without authentication, how can you still consider an item valid evidence?

[John Mytton]

And even if the chain of custody is a mess, that does not itself actually invalidate item evidence.

As the chain of custody is one of the main ways to authenticate a piece of evidence. Without authentication, how can you still consider an item valid evidence?

As usual you're missing the point, in the case of the revolver.

Oswald was arrested while carrying the revolver.
Oswald admitted to carrying the revolver.
Oswald ordered the revolver.
The revolver in evidence is the exact same revolver that he purchased.
Oswald being in a bind about the rifle being mail order, simply made up a fictitious Fort Worth origin for the revolver.

Besides as I said yesterday, why swap a revolver that is extremely difficult to match the expended bullets with another revolver that is extremely difficult to match the expended bullets, that only makes sense in the Bizarro World of CT's.

JohnM

[Royell Storing]

Did the Warren Report itself include documents and testimonies that helped you and other "researchers" determine there were potential problems with "chains of possession"?

Should the Warren Commission have asked for a five-year extension of its investigation, or simply declared that "Obvious Patsy" Oswald didn't do it?

   "...asked for a 5yr extension of it's investigation?". Do you think anyone on the WC wanted LBJ/J Edgar taking them out too?

[Tom Graves]

Do you think anyone on the WC wanted LBJ/J Edgar taking them out too?

LOL!

Good one!

[John Iacoletti]

"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.

Of course you can, because chain of custody must be documented at the time or it's not a chain of custody.

The mantra of the LN-faithful is "cop said so, therefore it's true".  Unless the cop says something that doesn't fit the orthodoxy, like Roger Craig.

So what is your "reasonable probability" for the few pieces of physical evidence in this case based on?  This isn't about "admissibility", it's about the reliability of the evidence you are basing your conclusions on.