I didn't say that.
True. You said nothing of significance at all. Instead of actually providing any evidence for your claim that Carroll and Hill (who carried the revolver) were together all the time and/or that Carroll had the revolver in "unambiguous custody" until it was marked by several officers, you, rather childishly complained that I didn't believe you anyway. Since you didn't offer any evidence, what do you expect me to do? Just believe something because you said it? Really?
The fact is that the record shows that Carroll gave a revolver to Hill as they got into the car at the Texas Theater to drive Oswald to the police station, which makes the "Carroll had the revolver in "unambiguous custody" claim completely untrue.
BTW, you noticed that I answered your question in the post just before the one you replied to, didn't you?
No, you didn't answer the question. Carroll testifying that McDonald was at the personnel department "most of the time", while at the same time saying that he (Carroll) did not actually recall him sitting there, is in no way evidence for your claim that Carroll and Hill where together all the time that Hill had the revolver.
What destroys your argument completely is the fact that Hill was photographed showing a revolver to reporters and Carroll is nowhere to be seen!
Care to try again?
MT: I didn't say that.MW: True. You said nothing of significance at all. Neither did you. Just your usual attempt to declare yourself the victor.
MW: The fact is that the record shows that Carroll gave a revolver to Hill as they got into the car at the Texas Theater to drive Oswald to the police station, which makes the "Carroll had the revolver in "unambiguous custody" claim completely untrue.Once again, you either misunderstand or misrepresent what I said. I said that Carroll was the "
first police officer to have unambiguous custody of the pistol", and so is the person where the chain of custody started. I didn't say he was the the only one. I also said that he was present until the pistol was turned over to the Homicide guys. You've confused these two things.
No, you didn't answer the question. Carroll testifying that McDonald was at the personnel department "most of the time", while at the same time saying that he (Carroll) did not actually recall him sitting there, is in no way evidence for your claim that Carroll and Hill where together all the time that Hill had the revolver.If McDonald was actually standing rather than sitting down while he was in the room, then Carroll's statement is true. It's also quite possible to be aware of someone's presence nearby while not paying attention to what they're actually doing. Such as, you're busy writing a report with someone else while some other person is standing (or sitting, or kneeling, or laying, or playing tiddly-winks, or what-have-you) behind you and your co-author. That would also lead to a Carroll's statement being true. He's not so stupid to lie about it, then contradict himself in the next sentence.
What destroys your argument completely is the fact that Hill was photographed showing a revolver to reporters and Carroll is nowhere to be seen!What photograph is this? You keep talking about it, but seem quite shy to show it. And, in any case, the photos taken inside the police HQ hallways have a field of view of only a few feet due to the close quarters. Carroll could be less than five feet away from Hill and still be out of frame.
