If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[John Iacoletti]

Iacoletti,

How many bad guys and really, really bad gals do you figure were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?

Just a few, or oodles and gobs?

Graves, give it a rest.

[Tom Graves]

Graves, give it a rest.

Iacoletti,

Just answer the question.

How many bad guys and really, really bad gals do you think (sic) were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?

1) Just a few

2) Oodles and gobs

3) Somewhere in between

[John Iacoletti]

Iacoletti,

Just answer the question.

How many bad guys and really, really bad gals do you think (sic) were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?

1) Just a few

2) Oodles and gobs

3) Somewhere in between

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[Tom Graves]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

In other words, you think (correctly) that there was no conspiracy, but you really get off on 1) helping "former KGB officer" Vladimir Putin tear our body politic apart, and 2) fantasizing that you're Oswald's public defender lawyer?

[John Iacoletti]

In other words, you think (correctly) that there was no conspiracy, but you really get off on 1) helping "former KGB officer" Vladimir Putin tear our body politic apart, and 2) fantasizing that you're Oswald's public defender lawyer?

Graves, get a life.

Do you ever wondering why you incessantly create these new garbage threads and nobody ever responds to them? Take the hint.

[Tom Graves]

Graves, get a life.

Do you ever wondering why you incessantly create these new garbage threads and nobody ever responds to them? Take the hint.

Iacoletti,

Do you think the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, or not?

If so, how many people do you think were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the shooting, the "patsy-ing," and the all-important cover up?

Just a few?

[Mitch Todd]

I’m not confused. I see exactly what you’re doing. You made a claim you have absolutely no evidence for, so you’re trying to turn it around and shift the burden.

This “unambiguous custody” thing is a contrivance too. Where did you pull that out of? And if the chain of custody began with Carroll (who didn’t even know whose hand he grabbed it from) then why did McDonald initial the gun later?

Oh, but you are definitely confused.

First, I provided evidence for my claim.

Second, Martin's current positions is this: Hill made off with the revolver by himself for some period of time before it was turned into the Homicide squad. He hasn't provided any evidence for this happening, other than a reference to a photograph that he has neither shown nor linked to. The burden to produce evidence for his take, whether it be a photograph, testimony, or signed gift card from the Truth Fairy, is on him. Period. I can't shift that burden to him because that burden has been on him --and only on him-- since he first made that claim.

Third, Carroll is the first Police Officer that can be shown to had uncontested possession of the pistol. This is not true for McDonald. So he is the first to have unambiguous custody of it. As for your statement that Carroll "didn’t even know whose hand he grabbed it from," we don't just have Carroll's word for it. Carroll said that he grabbed it after he saw someone hold it towards him from out of the scrum. McDonald said he held it out of the scrum and "gave" it to Carroll. Carroll said he received only one gun from the scrum. McDonald also did not mention giving a second gun to any one. No one reported a second gun or two guns being involved in the scuffle. The logical upshot is Carroll got the gun from McDonald, whether or not Carroll recognized who he seized it from. Carroll giving the gun to Hill doesn't change this. It just adds Hill to the chain of custody. And it especially doesn't matter if Carrol remains with Hill.