Podcast On Tippit

[John Mytton]

Conspiracy theorists like to claim that much of the evidence for the Oswald trial would have been inadmissible because the officers lost exclusive custody. As this brief from the O. J. Simpson Civil Trial makes clear, the law is not nearly so rigid.

To establish a proper chain of custody for the physical evidence at
issue, rendering that evidence (and the various tests thereon) admissible,
Goldman need only "show to the satisfaction of the trial court that, taking
all the circumstances into account including the ease or difficulty with
which the particular evidence could have been altered, it is reasonably
certain that there was no alteration." People v. Riser. 47 Cal. 2d 566, 580
(1956) (emphasis added). Where there is only "the barest speculation that
there was tampering, it is proper to admit the evidence and let what doubt
remains go to its weight." Id. at 581; accord People v. Lozano, 57 Cal.
App. 3d 490, 493-96 (1976).

[Martin Weidmann]

Conspiracy theorists like to claim that much of the evidence for the Oswald trial would have been inadmissible because the officers lost exclusive custody. As this brief from the O. J. Simpson Civil Trial makes clear, the law is not nearly so rigid.

To establish a proper chain of custody for the physical evidence at
issue, rendering that evidence (and the various tests thereon) admissible,
Goldman need only "show to the satisfaction of the trial court that, taking
all the circumstances into account including the ease or difficulty with
which the particular evidence could have been altered, it is reasonably
certain that there was no alteration." People v. Riser. 47 Cal. 2d 566, 580
(1956) (emphasis added). Where there is only "the barest speculation that
there was tampering, it is proper to admit the evidence and let what doubt
remains go to its weight." Id. at 581; accord People v. Lozano, 57 Cal.
App. 3d 490, 493-96 (1976).

The clown quotes a rule of evidence for a civil trial, to make a point about a criminal case. No need to say anything more.

[John Mytton]

1. Westbrook testified that the jacket that he found was the same one in evidence. And that's that!

Because cop said so..... HAHAHAHAHAHA... What else did you expect him to say?

A chain of custody is required to avoid exactly this kind of pathetic testimony. In Henry Wade's Dallas a large number of innocent people were found guilty on flawed and manipulated evidence.
A great number of this convictions were later nullified as being unsafe.

But by all means, let's just take the Personnel officer's word for it.   

2. The jacket was initialled by Stombaug [sic], meaning he looked at the jacket and according to a FBI report, the jacket in evidence had Oswald's shirt fibers in one of the sleaves. Slam Dunk!

Of course the jacket was marked by Stombaugh. He did so in Washington after the white jacket had already morphed into the grey one that actually belonged to Oswald. If there were fibers in that jacket there is nothing remarkable about that.

3. Marina positively identified the jacket in evidence. Home run!

Of course she did, as the grey jacket belonged to Oswald. The question is when exactly was that jacket placed in evidence? And with that we're back at square one.... COP SAID SO 

Because cop said so.....

This is getting real boring.

Let's make a running list of what you claim, if you tried this BS in court they'd laugh in your face.

The shells at the Tippit crime scene were planted.
Police substituted Oswald's revolver.
Police somehow swapped Oswald's jacket.
The rifle was planted.
The rifle shells were planted.
Lt. Day lied about the palmprint
Lt. Day lied about the Walker bullet.
The FBI lied about the microfilm.
Everyone in the Interrogations lied.
The backyard photos were either faked or a set-up.
The Police planted the bus transfer.
The Police planted revolver bullets on Oswald.
The arresting Police lied.

I could go on but I've made my point, the unimaginable size of your conspiracy as any sane person can see is totally at odds with reality.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

This is getting real boring.

Let's make a running list of what you claim, if you tried this BS in court they'd laugh in your face.

The shells at the Tippit crime scene were planted.
Police substituted Oswald's revolver.
Police somehow swapped Oswald's jacket.
The rifle was planted.
The rifle shells were planted.
Lt. Day lied about the palmprint
Lt. Day lied about the Walker bullet.
The FBI lied about the microfilm.
Everyone in the Interrogations lied.
The backyard photos were either faked or a set-up.
The Police planted the bus transfer.
The Police planted revolver bullets on Oswald.
The arresting Police lied.

I could go on but I've made my point, the unimaginable size of your conspiracy as any sane person can see is totally at odds with reality.

JohnM

The same old LN crap over and over again. Full of lies and misrepresentations of course....

Most of those claims I have never made. Others are questions about for example chain of custody matter which LNs can never answer.

[John Mytton]

The clown quotes a rule of evidence for a civil trial, to make a point about a criminal case. No need to say anything more.

The doctrine of precedents I quoted came from criminal cases. You are so stupid!

https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-riser-24135

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1832570.html

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

The doctrine of precedents I quoted came from criminal cases. You are so stupid!

https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-riser-24135

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1832570.html

JohnM

Conspiracy theorists like to claim that much of the evidence for the Oswald trial would have been inadmissible because the officers lost exclusive custody. As this brief from the O. J. Simpson Civil Trial makes clear, the law is not nearly so rigid.

As this brief from the O. J. Simpson Civil Trial makes clear, the law is not nearly so rigid.

Our resident self-appointed "law-professor" strikes again....

What anybody who understands even the most basic things about the law knows is that in law very little is ever cut and dry. That's why there is jurisprudence. There is no point in finding some quote on the internet and present it as if it has any relationship with another case. Even two cases who look identical could nevertheless have different outcomes,

The National Institute of Justice said this about a chain of custody;

The reason for establishing a chain of custody is to prevent substitution of, tampering with, mistaking the identity of, damaging, altering, contaminating, misplacing or falsifying the evidence.
This principle and procedure creates legal integrity of the evidence. The chain of custody verifies both the legal integrity and the authenticity of all evidence. Without proof of an intact chain of custody, the evidence may be excluded from trial or afforded less weight by the trier of fact. 

Yet, our resident self-appointed legal eagle basically says that COP SAID SO would be enough to ignore or by pass the chain of custody. Hilarious!

Mytton is very much exactly like the WC... at first superficial glance they might seem to tell a plausible story, but when you dig only a little bit deeper everything falls apart.

[John Mytton]

As this brief from the O. J. Simpson Civil Trial makes clear, the law is not nearly so rigid.

Our resident self-appointed "law-professor" strikes again....

What anybody who understands even the most basic things about the law knows is that in law very little is ever cut and dry. That's why there is jurisprudence. There is no point in finding some quote on the internet and present it as if it has any relationship with another case. Even two cases who look identical could nevertheless have different outcomes,

The National Institute of Justice said this about a chain of custody;

The reason for establishing a chain of custody is to prevent substitution of, tampering with, mistaking the identity of, damaging, altering, contaminating, misplacing or falsifying the evidence.
This principle and procedure creates legal integrity of the evidence. The chain of custody verifies both the legal integrity and the authenticity of all evidence. Without proof of an intact chain of custody, the evidence may be excluded from trial or afforded less weight by the trier of fact. 

Yet, our resident self-appointed legal eagle basically says that COP SAID SO would be enough to ignore or by pass the chain of custody. Hilarious!

...or afforded less weight by the trier of fact.

At the very least the quote from The National Institute of Justice says without a solid chain of custody, evidence is afforded less weight. Doesn't mean it's necessarily excluded.

You'd have to fight very hard to remove the jacket from evidence.

1. Earlene Roberts saw Oswald zipping up a jacket.
2. Benavides saw Oswald wearing a jacket.
3. Callaway positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
4. Markham positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
5. Virginia Davis positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
6. Barbara Davis positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
7. Scoggins positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
8. Mary Brock positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
9. Sam Guinyard positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
10. Westbrook recovered Oswald's jacket and later positively ID'd it.
11. Marina identified the Jacket.

12. Oswald is arrested without his jacket, where did it go?

The prosecution would drag out all of the above eyewitnesses and the defence would be left with trying to disprove each and every eyewitness to what they saw. Good luck with that. And at the end of the day the jacket is only a fraction of the evidence in what convicts Oswald for the murder of Tippit, so I can understand why the CT's try so hard to isolate the Jacket evidence, because it's all you got!

JohnM