If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Mitch Todd]

UNATTENDED.  That alone is enough to break any hope of a chain of custody.

The question you keep avoiding is ON WHAT BASIS did McDonald or Carroll know that they were initialing the same gun that they handled? That's the whole point of evidence handling rules and documenting chains of custody.  And why did Bentley initial it at all?  He didn't even handle it.  What should have happened is that the person who recovered the evidence should have marked it immediately and turned it directly over to the evidence locker.

How would he know that if the revolver itself wasn't in his sight the entire time?  And what is your evidence Carroll was even with Hill the entire time?  You keep asserting this, but it is merely an assumption.

JI: UNATTENDED.  That alone is enough to break any hope of a chain of custody.

"Sitting on a desk" does not itself indicate "UNATTENDED" "UNATTENDED" is simply your own presumption. When Westbrook sees the pistol on the desktop, he asks Hill, et al, about it. That implies that Hill, et al, were right there with it. 


JI: And why did Bentley initial it at all?

It doesn't matter whether or not  Bentley initialed it. Only that Carroll and Hill did.


That's the whole point of evidence handling rules and documenting chains of custody

What "evidence handling rules" are you talking about? The ones that you and Martin seem to enjoy inventing?


JI: What should have happened is that the person who recovered the evidence should have marked it immediately and turned it directly over to the evidence locker.
 
Is this another one of those "evidence handling rules" that keep appearing out of thin air? When did you become an expert at 1963 judicial procedure?


How would he know that if the revolver itself wasn't in his sight the entire time?  And what is your evidence Carroll was even with Hill the entire time?  You keep asserting this, but it is merely an assumption.

I've already pointed out earlier in this thread the testimony that puts Carroll with Hill until the gun was turned over.
 

[John Iacoletti]

"Sitting on a desk" does not itself indicate "UNATTENDED" "UNATTENDED" is simply your own presumption. When Westbrook sees the pistol on the desktop, he asks Hill, et al, about it. That implies that Hill, et al, were right there with it. 

When did Westbrook say that when he saw the gun on the desk he asked Hill about it?

Is this another one of those "evidence handling rules" that keep appearing out of thin air? When did you become an expert at 1963 judicial procedure?

I never claimed to be an expert.  The federal rules of evidence require that the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.  And the question you keep avoiding is ON WHAT BASIS did McDonald or Carroll know that they were initialing the same gun that they handled?  The police must have known enough about preserving chain of custody to bother to scratch their initials at all, even if it was a half-assed attempt after-the fact.

Instead of quibbling about what "1963 procedures" were, how about answering how the "procedures" they did use did anything to make the evidence authenticatable?

I've already pointed out earlier in this thread the testimony that puts Carroll with Hill until the gun was turned over.

Except it does nothing of the kind.  It's pure assumption on your part.

[Tom Graves]

On what basis did McDonald or Carroll know that they were initialing the same gun that they handled?  The police must have known enough about preserving chain of custody to bother to scratch their initials at all (sic), even if it was a half-assed attempt after-the fact.

Iacoletti,

Do you think Officers McDonald and Carroll wittingly or unwittingly initialed a Smith & Wesson revolver on 11/22/63 that the evil, evil Deep State bad guys who killed Officer Tippit with it had tied in advance, paperwork-wise, to poor widdle patsy Oswald and either planted on him at the Texas Theater or pulled a switcheroo on at some point after the TT incident?

[Mitch Todd]

When did Westbrook say that when he saw the gun on the desk he asked Hill about it?

I never claimed to be an expert.  The federal rules of evidence require that the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.  And the question you keep avoiding is ON WHAT BASIS did McDonald or Carroll know that they were initialing the same gun that they handled?  The police must have known enough about preserving chain of custody to bother to scratch their initials at all, even if it was a half-assed attempt after-the fact.

Instead of quibbling about what "1963 procedures" were, how about answering how the "procedures" they did use did anything to make the evidence authenticatable?

Except it does nothing of the kind.  It's pure assumption on your part.

I see one of you finally managed to find the US FRE. In fact, " the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is" is an exact quote from the beginning of rule 901, "Authenticating or Identifying Evidence". This is a longer except:

a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.

(b) Examples. The following are examples only — not a complete list — of evidence that satisfies the requirement:

   (1) Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge . Testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be.
       [...]

...Just like I've said before. And it's the very first example listed! Of course, The testimony of Hill, Carroll, McDonald, Bentley, etc (especially Hill and Carroll) fall under this first example. So we've already reached authentication under Federal standards.

 
JI: "And the question you keep avoiding is ON WHAT BASIS did McDonald or Carroll know that they were initialing the same gun that they handled?"

I've avoided nothing. I've already explained how they know it was the same gun. Not doing it over and over again. Go back and re-read the earlier entries.


JI: Instead of quibbling about what "1963 procedures" were, how about answering how the "procedures" they did use did anything to make the evidence authenticatable?

It's not quibbling. Authentication is a process, and the DPD officers were going to use the procedures in practice at the time, and they should be held to those procedures, not latter-day impositions.  Of course, you're really just trying to move the goal posts by demanding that we retroactively apply some ersatz "authentication protocol" that is nothing more than a creature of your own invention. But that is simply your own invention.


JI: The police must have known enough about preserving chain of custody to bother to scratch their initials at all, even if it was a half-assed attempt after-the fact.

You say that you "never claimed to be an expert," so how do you know this is "half-assed?" The guys who held possession of the pistol from the Texas Theatre auditorium to DPD HQ initialed it when they relinquished possession of it to the Homicide Bureau. That's what should have happened. 


JI: When did Westbrook say that when he saw the gun on the desk he asked Hill about it?

In his WC testimony:

Mr. WESTBROOK. It was marked by Officer Jerry Hill and a couple or three more, and when they come in with the gun, I just went on down and told Captain Fritz that the gun was in my office and he sent a man up after it. I didn't take it down.
Mr. BALL. Did you see McDonald mark it?
Mr. WESTBROOK. He possibly could have he was in there.
Mr. BALL. Did you See the .gun unloaded?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No, sir; I didn't see it unloaded. When I saw it, the gun was laying on Mr. McGee's desk and the shells were out of it.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I’m always struck by the extent to which, in every JFKA conspiracy theory, the conspirators seem to have been Diabolical Geniuses half the time and Bumbling Stooges the other half. The Stooges, fortunately for the CT community, left the hundreds or thousands of supposed “clues” that are the lifeblood of their theories.

Couldn’t little old me have done better, I sometimes wonder? Instead of debating the Magic Bullet for the 900th time, I like to try to picture what a plausible conspiracy involving LHO might have looked like. What if I had been in charge?

I simply reject as implausible a massive conspiracy extending over a long period and involving umpteen individuals, agencies and organizations, including a cardboard LHO as The Most Interesting Man Who Ever Lived. This isn’t what a real-world conspiracy looks like, especially a Presidential one where being caught would be a guarantee of execution. In any event, my focus as the would-be assassination planner is simply on how a realistic LHO-as-patsy scheme might have worked.

A conspiracy with LHO as the designated patsy seemingly must have been implemented not long before 11-22. LHO, as a Russian defector and pro-Castro agitator, might have been on our anti-Castro radar screens as a potential patsy in the summer, but him getting the job at the TSBD on October 16th, together with the route of JFK’s motorcade becoming known on November 19th, must have seemed like an answer to prayer. As if by magic, our patsy was right where he needed to be!

We’ll assume we’ve previously established a relationship with LHO as fellow Casto supporters, albeit bogus ones. So now we leap into action. Critical elements, it seems to me, would be:

1.   Keep this as simple as possible. JFK dies and all signs point to our patsy. Mission accomplished, neat and clean. Nobody gets executed.
2.   Our patsy must be under complete control shortly before and at the time of the assassination.
3.   A plausible assassination weapon must be easily connected to our patsy.
4.   If the actual assassination weapon is a different one, it must be of the same type and caliber.
5.   The ammunition must be a common type and easily obtainable. Nothing exotic - no Bruno Magli shoes, if you get my drift.
6.   From wherever the fatal shot is fired, the trajectory must not be wildly different from a shot fired from the patsy’s location.
7.   Our patsy cannot survive the assassination.

This all seems obvious, just Assassination 101 sort of stuff. Violate any of these basics and you’re practically asking to get caught. We’re better than that.

We don’t want shooters in front of JFK, for crying out loud. That would pretty much blow the entire patsy thing and exponentially increase the complexity and risk of the assassination. Let’s keep in mind that this a Presidential assassination – we’re all going to die if this goes awry.

We simply need a single sniper at a location consistent with the 6th floor of the TSBD (which we have shrewdly identified as the preferred location). Perhaps the TSBD itself, the Dal-Tex building, or some other elevated location to the rear of the Presidential limousine. But no triple overpass, picket fence or manhole cover – we’re not that stupid; if we were going to shoot JFK from the front, we don’t need a patsy in the TSBD at all. What do you think we’re going to do, gentlemen – alter the body, bribe autopsy doctors, fake X-rays and steal the brain? We're not trying to write science fiction here, people.

No, we need only one reasonably well-dressed sniper who can blend into the woodwork at the selected location. This will be no problem at either the TSBD or Dal-Tex building. How lucky are we that JFK is going to be going down Elm during the lunch hour? It’s perfect, I tell ya!

No, we don’t need spotters with umbrellas and walkie-talkies and other nonsense – our assassin is a pro, and this shot is a piece of cake. Do professional hits require a 12-man support team? Perhaps our guy will flub a shot or two just to add to the plausibility of LHO as the gunman – yes, I like it, somebody write that down.

We know that LHO owns a Carcano, but we aren’t trusting the assassination to that clunker and all the red flags it would raise. No, we have LHO fondle a plausible assassination weapon identical to the sniper’s a day or two before the assassination and stash a bill of sale dated the same day among his papers at his room while he’s at work on Friday morning. Someone can pose as a city inspector or potential tenant to get the stashing done. I'm thinking potential tenant, but whatever.

Since the TSBD is pretty much wide-open, we stash the rifle and some empty shells on Thursday night as Hancock and Boylan suggest. Oh, wait, this would run the risk they'll be discovered before the assassination, particularly since we know an entire crew is laying flooring up there. Hmmm.

Let’s re-think that. Our well-dressed sniper will enter the TSBD at 12:10 or so on Friday, posing as customer of one of the publishing companies if asked, and will ascend to the 6th floor with two disassembled rifles, one covered with LHO’s fingerprints and one to be used for the assassination. Yes, we like this better.

LHO can’t be going to Ruth Paine’s on Thursday evening. Whoever came up with this idea is hereby demoted to Junior Assassin Trainee. No, LHO needs to be in his room as usual and be called to the telephone for two or three calls from us. Nothing related to the assassination, of course, just get him to the phone to talk about the weather or Cuba or something so everyone who overhears the calls will recall this after the assassination. A nice touch, no?

We do still have the problem of controlling LHO. Obviously, the patsy thing goes poof if he’s seen within the TSBD at the time of the assassination or, worse yet, seen and photographed out on the steps. What if the idiot actually admires JFK and runs down the sidewalk waving at him? Can’t happen, people.

On top of that, we don’t know how he’s going to react to the assassination. What if he just joins in the excitement with everyone else and shows no concern until “his” rifle is discovered? What if the end result is that his alibi is accepted by the those who count? We simply can’t have that.

This would seem to be our biggest challenge, gentlemen. LHO has to be seen at the location of the rifle in reasonable time-proximity to the shooting and not be seen anywhere else at the time of the shooting. How do we even guarantee that location will be vacant at the time of the shooting? How do we have both LHO and our sniper in place in time for the whole charade to play out? What if some of the workers decide to watch the motorcade from the 6th floor – huh?

Damn, this is a serious problem. We could have a couple of well-dressed thugs – even dressed as cops, perhaps – inside the TSBD to restrain and muzzle LHO for ten minutes before and after the assassination, but how do we assure this activity isn’t observed? Even if they were dressed as cops and even if they shot LHO after the assassination, how would we guarantee this activity wasn’t observed? Somehow, we absolutely have to have LHO and our sniper alone on the 6th floor by themselves when the assassination occurs.

Put your brains to work, my fellow conspirators. Someone suggests we make sure the elevators are stuck? OK, good, as long as everyone else goes down and only LHO, a thug or two and our sniper remain. How do we guarantee that? Hypnosis, maybe? Just thinking outside the box here.

What if LHO somehow exits the TSBD, someone asks? No, that simply cannot be allowed to happen. We’re not idiots here – he is not going to exit the TSBD. There simply has to be someone dressed as a cop on the stairwell who shoots him as a last resort. Bugsy, that will be you. If you aren’t needed, just blend in and walk out.

Wow, I really am an amateur at this. Even the cleanest conspiracy I can think of has a frightening number of loose ends. And this is the problem I see with absolutely every conspiracy theory. They are all overly complicated, unrealistic Rube Goldberg contraptions that no Presidential assassin worth his salt would ever have bought into. They all start with a conspiracy as though it were axiomatic and work backwards to try fit LHO into it.

Well, hell, what does this patsy nonsense add to our plan anyway, except unacceptable complexity and risk? Forget LHO. Let’s just flood Dealey Plaza with kill teams, leave a bunch of pro-Castro leaflets and other clues laying around, and create so much confusion no one can ever figure out what happened or why! Genius, no?

This post, in addition to being a giant strawman argument, displays an unfortunate lack of knowledge of history and a narrow thinking pattern. I hope you never go into law enforcement, because you would probably never solve a complicated crime.

History is full of examples where even the most carefully planned military operations encountered snafus, failed to anticipate certain developments, miscommunications, misunderstandings, etc., etc. The same thing happened with the JFK plot.

Also, most JFK conspiracy theorists do not posit the all-knowing, omni-present plot assumed by your strawman polemic. I again note the example of the Iran-Contra conspiracy. No more than two or three dozen people out of the hundreds who were involved conceived and initiated the plot and knew the scope of the operation. The same thing was true of the JFK assassination plot.

[Tom Graves]

[...]

Dear Michael,

Why do you have such a strong psychological need to believe the JFKA was a conspiracy?

Is it because you started thinking that way when it was "common knowledge" that Oswald was a crummy marksman and all three shots were fired in six seconds?

Did you buy into the idea (perhaps with a little encouragement from Comrade Oliver Stone) that it was a conspiracy by the evil, evil, evil Military Industrial Intelligence-Community Complex, and now you just can't let it go?

-- Tom