If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Mitch Todd]

I keep seeing people trying to use "authentication" as some kind of Get Out of Jail Free card.

Remarkable! Evidence is authentic or it isn't. This is nothing inbetween.

 Asking for authentication isn't a "Get out if jail free" thing, it's about ensuring that a piece of evidence is authentic and thus valid to support a claim of guilt!


The MO for this is to move goalposts or otherwise demand an unreasonable level of proof,

lack of formal authentication does not in itself invalidate evidence.

Asking for authenticated evidence is an unreasonable level of proof? Really? So, are we supposed to accept any evidence regardless if it's authentic or not?

MW: Evidence is authentic or it isn't. This is nothing inbetween.

"Authentic" and "authenticated" are two parallel concepts that are not necessarily the same thing. An authentic item is always authentic whether or not it has been authenticated. My beef is with the deliberate confusion of these two concepts. A related issue is the inevitable appearance That Guy who invariably demands to apply a highly personal standard for authentication. Said highly personal standard is almost always specifically designed to set the bar impractically high, and rarely resembles what is actually done in practice.  The purpose of all this is to allow That Guy to simply ignore hostile evidence by trying to use a bogus authentication standard to unilaterally declare that the hostile evidence is "unauthenticated," then equating "unauthenticated" with "invalid" 

[Martin Weidmann]

MW: Evidence is authentic or it isn't. This is nothing inbetween.

"Authentic" and "authenticated" are two parallel concepts that are not necessarily the same thing. An authentic item is always authentic whether or not it has been authenticated. My beef is with the deliberate confusion of these two concepts. A related issue is the inevitable appearance That Guy who invariably demands to apply a highly personal standard for authentication. Said highly personal standard is almost always specifically designed to set the bar impractically high, and rarely resembles what is actually done in practice.  The purpose of all this is to allow That Guy to simply ignore hostile evidence by trying to use a bogus authentication standard to unilaterally declare that the hostile evidence is "unauthenticated," then equating "unauthenticated" with "invalid"

"Authentic" and "authenticated" are two parallel concepts that are not necessarily the same thing. An authentic item is always authentic whether or not it has been authenticated.

Agreed, but for something to be used as evidence of guilt, it will have to be authenticated.

A related issue is the inevitable appearance That Guy who invariably demands to apply a highly personal standard for authentication.

There is no such thing as demanding a "highly personal standard". A piece of evidence can either be authenticated or it can not.

Said highly personal standard is almost always specifically designed to set the bar impractically high, and rarely resembles what is actually done in practice.

And who decides what is actually done in practice? The person who sets the bar low?

The purpose of all this is to allow That Guy to simply ignore hostile evidence by trying to use a bogus authentication standard to unilaterally declare that the hostile evidence is "unauthenticated," then equating "unauthenticated" with "invalid"

and then there is a guy who uses his low standard to declare evidence valid..... So, where does that leave us?

[John Mytton]

MW: Evidence is authentic or it isn't. This is nothing inbetween.

"Authentic" and "authenticated" are two parallel concepts that are not necessarily the same thing. An authentic item is always authentic whether or not it has been authenticated. My beef is with the deliberate confusion of these two concepts. A related issue is the inevitable appearance That Guy who invariably demands to apply a highly personal standard for authentication. Said highly personal standard is almost always specifically designed to set the bar impractically high, and rarely resembles what is actually done in practice.  The purpose of all this is to allow That Guy to simply ignore hostile evidence by trying to use a bogus authentication standard to unilaterally declare that the hostile evidence is "unauthenticated," then equating "unauthenticated" with "invalid"

That's an excellent summation but as I suspected and reading Martin's knee jerk response, it's going to fall on deaf ears.
Since the 60's this entire assassination has been controversial to malcontents and uneducated misfits because at the heart of it all, a little communist dweeb with a rifle can literally change history so there must be a deeper reason behind it.

And with each passing decade the uncleaned masses dig into every aspect and split the already split hair more and more, yet nobody to this day has found anyone behind the conspiracy, so the tactics change and it's no longer about discovering their suspected truth, so now we're at the point of evidence having to be authenticated to an undisclosed personal standard just so in their eyes Oswald's legacy can be cleared.

But what is obvious to me and I've said this before, that this isn't like planting weed on a suspect which even then has it's difficulties but the absolutely MASSIVE conspiracy which involved virtually every facet of law enforcement(who some were at odds with each other), means that every participant knew that every aspect was under extreme scrutiny, so who knew who and what was looking over their shoulder? I personally believe with that in mind that everybody told the truth to the best of their abilities and of course people aren't machines and there will be tiny contradictions, for instance just watch how Martin recently went to town because of Gerald Hill's months later approximate memory, it's a joke.

Sure with hindsight I would have a word in many authorities ears to correct some mistakes like the WC depiction of Kennedy's head wound(sheesh), carrying out the open ended rifle bag which surely lost blanket fibers, not moving the rifle bag from the sniper's nest, more thorough autopsy photos and ETC. but none of this changes the mountain of evidence which convicts Oswald!

JohnM

[Lance Payette]

The chain of custody is what actually occurred with an item of evidence: Officer A picked it up at the scene, retained possession until handing it to Officer B, who retained possession before handing it to Detective C, who delivered it to Officer D who was in charge of the evidence room and who logged it in. If, in the heat of a chaotic event, Officer A writes a report stating that he handed it to Officer X, this is not a "defect in the chain of custody." It is a discrepancy between what Officer A did and what he wrote. If Officer B testifies "No, he handed it to me," Officer X testifies he didn't receive it, and Officer A agrees he erred in writing his report, there is no defect in the chain of custody (except in Conspiracy World, of course, where all three officers are obviously lying).

I just happened to be reading Secret Service Agent Donald Burke's report of 11-23-63 detailing the retrieval of the Postal Money Order from the National Archives and Record Services federal records center in Alexandria, VA on that date. The report details the extreme care the National Archives official, Postal official and Secret Service officials took to establish a rock-solid chain of custody from the records center to the safe at the Secret Service office. It's wonderful when that occurs, but it doesn't always occur and it isn't necessarily fatal when it doesn't (except in Conspiracy World).

Here is the basic idea from an Illinois case involving seized cocaine:

"The court in Woods noted the State bears the burden of showing a chain of custody sufficiently complete to make it improbable the evidence has been subject to tampering or substitution by showing the police took reasonable protective measures to ensure the substance recovered was the same as the substance tested. Unless a defendant produces evidence of actual tampering, substitution, or contamination, a sufficiently complete chain of custody does not require every person in the chain to testify. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d at 467, 828 N.E.2d at 255. Deficiencies in a chain of custody go to the weight and not the admissibility of evidence. Even where a link is missing in a chain of custody, the evidence is properly admitted where testimony sufficiently described the condition of the evidence when delivered which matched the description of the evidence when examined. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d at 467-68, 828 N.E.2d at 255."

[Martin Weidmann]

The chain of custody is what actually occurred with an item of evidence: Officer A picked it up at the scene, retained possession until handing it to Officer B, who retained possession before handing it to Detective C, who delivered it to Officer D who was in charge of the evidence room and who logged it in. If, in the heat of a chaotic event, Officer A writes a report stating that he handed it to Officer X, this is not a "defect in the chain of custody." It is a discrepancy between what Officer A did and what he wrote. If Officer B testifies "No, he handed it to me," Officer X testifies he didn't receive it, and Officer A agrees he erred in writing his report, there is no defect in the chain of custody (except in Conspiracy World, of course, where all three officers are obviously lying).

I just happened to be reading Secret Service Agent Donald Burke's report of 11-23-63 detailing the retrieval of the Postal Money Order from the National Archives and Record Services federal records center in Alexandria, VA on that date. The report details the extreme care the National Archives official, Postal official and Secret Service officials took to establish a rock-solid chain of custody from the records center to the safe at the Secret Service office. It's wonderful when that occurs, but it doesn't always occur and it isn't necessarily fatal when it doesn't (except in Conspiracy World).

Here is the basic idea from an Illinois case involving seized cocaine:

"The court in Woods noted the State bears the burden of showing a chain of custody sufficiently complete to make it improbable the evidence has been subject to tampering or substitution by showing the police took reasonable protective measures to ensure the substance recovered was the same as the substance tested. Unless a defendant produces evidence of actual tampering, substitution, or contamination, a sufficiently complete chain of custody does not require every person in the chain to testify. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d at 467, 828 N.E.2d at 255. Deficiencies in a chain of custody go to the weight and not the admissibility of evidence. Even where a link is missing in a chain of custody, the evidence is properly admitted where testimony sufficiently described the condition of the evidence when delivered which matched the description of the evidence when examined. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d at 467-68, 828 N.E.2d at 255."

The chain of custody is what actually occurred with an item of evidence: Officer A picked it up at the scene, retained possession until handing it to Officer B, who retained possession before handing it to Detective C, who delivered it to Officer D who was in charge of the evidence room and who logged it in. If, in the heat of a chaotic event, Officer A writes a report stating that he handed it to Officer X, this is not a "defect in the chain of custody."

Agreed. But, as happend with the jacket; (1) the officer - if that's what he was, because Westbrook wasn't sure - who found the jacket remains unidentified and never writes a report, (2) and Westbrook isn't entirely sure where the jacket was found, (3) the jacket is described as being white in several radio communications, (4) the officer Westbrook gave the jacket to also remains unidentified, (5) the jacket then disappears for more than an hour only to turn up in Westbrook's possesion again, now suddenly being grey and carrying the markings of 7 officers, including Westbrook, who submited it to the evidence room but completely omits any information about the discovery of the jacket in his December 3rd report to Chief Curry, then you clearly do have a defect in the chain of custody.

[Richard Smith]

The old "chain of custody" rabbit hole yet again?  You know CTers are in trouble when they start rolling that out.  Chain of custody is an issue in a criminal judicial process.  Like the presumption of innocence, it is not necessary to apply it outside that context.  The only question is whether the evidence is genuine or not.  Reasonable people do not require a report detailing the process with the names of police officers involved.  Do we need such a report to accept that a pistol was found in Ford's Theatre after the Lincoln assassination?  Does the lack of such a report cause us to doubt that Booth brought a pistol and used it to shoot Lincoln?  Of course not.  That is laughable defense attorney deflection when they know their client is stone cold guilty.  The process is put on trial instead of the defendant. 

There is not a scintilla of evidence that lends itself to any doubt regarding the genuineness of the most important items of evidence in this case.  None.  In fact, there are many films and photos of the evidence at the crime scene.  When it comes to the single most important piece of evidence in the case - the rifle - there is a variety of evidence from different sources dating back for months that link it to LHO and no one else including a serial number.  If CTers want to go down the endless rabbit hole of chain of custody regarding the jacket etc, knock yourself out.  This is a simple case.  Oswald owned the rifle found at the crime scene, that rifle was used to assassinate JKF, and Oswald had no alibi for the moment of the assassination or provide any explanation for the presence of his rifle.  In fact, Oswald lied to the police about his ownership of the rifle, fled the crime scene, and murdered a police officer.  It's difficult to understand how there could even be much more evidence to link Oswald to this crime than exists.  Just repeating "chain of custody" over and over again makes none of that go away.

[Dan O'meara]

The chain of custody is what actually occurred with an item of evidence: Officer A picked it up at the scene, retained possession until handing it to Officer B, who retained possession before handing it to Detective C, who delivered it to Officer D who was in charge of the evidence room and who logged it in. If, in the heat of a chaotic event, Officer A writes a report stating that he handed it to Officer X, this is not a "defect in the chain of custody." It is a discrepancy between what Officer A did and what he wrote. If Officer B testifies "No, he handed it to me," Officer X testifies he didn't receive it, and Officer A agrees he erred in writing his report, there is no defect in the chain of custody (except in Conspiracy World, of course, where all three officers are obviously lying).

I just happened to be reading Secret Service Agent Donald Burke's report of 11-23-63 detailing the retrieval of the Postal Money Order from the National Archives and Record Services federal records center in Alexandria, VA on that date. The report details the extreme care the National Archives official, Postal official and Secret Service officials took to establish a rock-solid chain of custody from the records center to the safe at the Secret Service office. It's wonderful when that occurs, but it doesn't always occur and it isn't necessarily fatal when it doesn't (except in Conspiracy World).

Here is the basic idea from an Illinois case involving seized cocaine:

"The court in Woods noted the State bears the burden of showing a chain of custody sufficiently complete to make it improbable the evidence has been subject to tampering or substitution by showing the police took reasonable protective measures to ensure the substance recovered was the same as the substance tested. Unless a defendant produces evidence of actual tampering, substitution, or contamination, a sufficiently complete chain of custody does not require every person in the chain to testify. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d at 467, 828 N.E.2d at 255. Deficiencies in a chain of custody go to the weight and not the admissibility of evidence. Even where a link is missing in a chain of custody, the evidence is properly admitted where testimony sufficiently described the condition of the evidence when delivered which matched the description of the evidence when examined. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d at 467-68, 828 N.E.2d at 255."

"If, in the heat of a chaotic event, Officer A writes a report stating that he handed it to Officer X, this is not a "defect in the chain of custody." It is a discrepancy between what Officer A did and what he wrote. If Officer B testifies "No, he handed it to me," Officer X testifies he didn't receive it, and Officer A agrees he erred in writing his report, there is no defect in the chain of custody."

That's a lovely story.
Why don't we have a look at some actual evidence from the actual case and see what you make of it.

The idea that two men can be shot through by a single bullet is not controversial.
Neither is the idea that a shot from the Sniper's Nest passing through JFK must hit JBC (even Royell's beloved Knotts Lab shows this must be the case)
In principle the Single Bullet Theory is not a controversial one.
The real problem with it is the insistence that CE399 was the bullet that passed through both men. Considering the amount of damage done, in particular the shattering of JBC's wrist bone, and the relatively "pristine" nature of the bullet, it is very difficult for many to accept that this was the bullet involved.
Even more problematic was the nature of it's discovery and the subsequent handling of this vital piece of evidence.

Darrell Tomlinson discovered a bullet on a stretcher in a corridor of Parkland hospital. He was unsure what to do about it until a hospital manager and retired police officer, O P Wright came by. Tomlinson drew Wright's attention to the bullet. Wright knew what to do and he searched around until he found Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen and gave him the bullet explaining where it was found.
Up to this point we cannot expect a chain of custody as Tomlinson and Wright are civilians but we would expect them to be asked to identify the bullet at a later date.
Johnsen travels to Washington with the bullet where he hands it to the Chief of the Secret Service James Rowley who then hands the bullet to FBI agent Elmer Todd who takes it to the FBI lab in Washington where it is handed to FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier.

Tomlinson - Wright - Johnsen - Rowley - Todd - Frazier

The Warren Commission asked the FBI in May 1964 to attempt to authenticate the chain of possession of various items of evidence, including Commission Exhibit 399. Although Todd and Frazier had both initialed CE399, Johnsen and Rowley had neglected to do so. There was no record of the chain of custody before CE399 was given to Todd.
It was Todd, the agent who had received the bullet from Rowley, who showed the CE399 to Rowley, Johnsen, Wright and Tomilinson.
All four men refused to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day.
The only people who do positively identify the bullet are the same men who initialed it - Todd and Frazier.
Considering the monumental importance of this piece of evidence it is noteworthy that neither Johnsen nor Wright are called before the Warren Commission.
Rowley testifies but is not asked about CE399.
Unbelievably, Tomlinson, the man who initially discovered the bullet, is asked to give evidence but is not asked a single question about the bullet itself. He is not asked to describe it, he is not shown it so he can confirm it is the same bullet, he is not even shown a picture of it.

In your capacity as a lawyer how does this stack up in terms of a chain of custody?