If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Martin Weidmann]

MW: You sound like somebody who says "I know the law" because a guy I know is a lawyer". Do you not understand just how stupid that statement is?

What I said is that I've asked lawyers I've known about this particular  issue. Somehow you think it's "stupid" ask a lawyer about a legal issue, which goes to show who's really acting stupidly here.

And what I said about the pistol's known chain of possession is correct. Mytton's already set you right on McDonald giving the gun to Carroll, and your notion that Hill somehow disappeared with it the reappeared is similarly incorrect.

Read what I actually said;

You sound like somebody who says "I know the law" because a guy I know is a lawyer"

What I said is that I've asked lawyers I've known about this particular  issue.

What particular issue? That's way too generic. Just like with most aspects of the law, the devil is in the details! The quality of the question determines the quality of the answer!

Did you ask a lawyer, what effect it would have on a chain of custody, when McDonald and Carroll marked a revolver presented to them at the Personnel Office some two hours after Oswald was arrested?

Somehow you think it's "stupid" ask a lawyer about a legal issue,

So, now you know what I think? Really? But to answer your question, no it's not stupid to ask a lawyer about a legal issue. What is actually stupid is the appeal to authority fallacy you used it for.

And what I said about the pistol's known chain of possession is correct.

Who made that determination? You or the lawyers you've asked?

Mytton's already set you right on McDonald giving the gun to Carroll,

No he didn't. He made the same mistake you are making.

and your notion that Hill somehow disappeared with it the reappeared is similarly incorrect.

If Hill did not disappear with the revolver between the time he arrived with Oswald at the police station and his presentation of a revolver at the Personnel Office some two hours later, then where exactly was he?

[John Iacoletti]

The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence.

Great.  So you don't understand what "documented" means, or what "provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence" means.  Not to mention what "confirmed" means.

That explains a lot.

Now John, tell me where in this confirmed "chain of custody" where there is any possibility where the pistol was substituted and don't forget there is a paper trail which has Oswald ordering and having a pistol sent to his PO Box which required pick-up from Railway Express's Dallas office.

No, there is no "paper trail" showing that any "pistol" was sent to any PO Box or picked up by Oswald.

By the way John, don't forget the only person who orders a pistol with an oversized barrel is someone who wants to get away with murder.

There no need to "remember" some claim you just pulled out of your azz.

[John Iacoletti]

Seriously? So the "conspirators" invented an alias which added a redundant extra step which makes the entire process even more complicated, when they could have just used the name Oswald was born with?
The only person who invents an alias for himself is someone who wants to divert away from himself. DUH!

Nice strawman.  You trying to take the title away from Strawman "Smith"?

Is this supposed to be evidence of Oswald using Hidell as an alias for himself?

Besides Holmes spells it out quite clearly that mail with the correct address is placed in your PO Box because what the heck is a postal worker gonna do, send it back to the sender? LOL!

FBI informant Holmes' assertion was at odds with the postal regulations at the time.

[John Iacoletti]

McDonald testified that he gave the gun to Carroll while the scrum was going on. Carroll said that he grabbed the gun from someone who was holding the weapon out from inside the scrum. Those stories match, even if not perfectly. Carroll said he took the gun to the patrol car and gave it to Hill. Hill and Carroll together drove back to City Hall and took the gun to the Personnel Bureau office where they wrote out reports on the arrest. Hill, Carroll, McDonald, and Bentley put their ID mark on the revolver when they gave it over to Det. Baker in the Homicide office. It stays in the Homicide office for something less than 15 minutes, when Fritz has Davenport take it to the ID bureau and turn it in. That is a valid chain of possession, no matter what you seem to want to think.

No, "stories" told long after the fact do not constitute a valid chain of custody.  To see why, just ask yourself how McDonald could possibly know that the gun he initialed hours later in the personnel office was the same gun he handled in the theater?

[John Iacoletti]

I've linked several times to the full transcripts of the Ruby trial and the preliminary "statements of fact" or evidence hearings. These detailed chain-of-custody requirements by the Oswald defenders are simply not there. Not in the Ruby trial, e.g., the revolver, et cetera. People are using modern standards that simply weren't used at the time.

It has nothing to do with "standards in use at the time".  If that was the "standard", then all that means is that at the time they did nothing to ensure the authenticity of evidence.  It doesn't magically make the evidence authenticatible.  But the fact that they even bothered to initial stuff at all tells you that there were some standards.  They just didn't apply them in any reliable way.

[John Iacoletti]

the same revolver that has a rock solid paper trail back to Oswald

LOL.

[John Iacoletti]

Triple HUH? For McDonald to be proved to have lied, then you need evidence that Carroll said he received the pistol from Officer X or perpetrator Y.

• McDonald saw who he gave the pistol to, Officer Carroll.

• Carroll understandably being focused on a pistol pointed at him didn't see who was holding the pistol.

As I said NOBODY lied.

Just because you can't figure out that there is a difference between being given something and grabbing something doesn't mean that there is no contradiction.

The following images of Oswald's recreated arrest come from the Ruby and Oswald telemovie and the JFK movie. Another interesting observation is how many purely innocent men act this aggressively to an approaching cop and how many would then use their concealed weapon in an attempt to kill this Officer?

Loaded question, given that there is no evidence that anybody used their concealed weapon in an attempt to kill an officer, except maybe in the movies.