Podcast On Tippit

[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
 

[John Corbett]

It always amuses me when conspiracy hobbyists try to get Oswald off on technicalities. It is a tacit admission they know their client is guilty.

Our criminal courts have two very important missions, to find the truth while at the same time protecting the rights of the accused. Sometimes those two missions are at cross purposes and usually that means the courts come down on the side of protecting the rights of the accused, even if sometimes that means the guilty go free.

History has no such conflicts. It has no duty to protect the rights of the accused. It's sole purpose is to find the truth. That means looking at all available evidence without any concern for the rights of the accused. Even though Oswald was never tried in court, I have no problem concluding without a shadow of a doubt he was guilty. I feel the same way about O. J. Simpson. I can say without hesitation that both men were double murderers even though neither was ever convicted in court of those crimes. I'm glad they are both dead.

[Martin Weidmann]

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

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.

At least you have learned something now! Good for you.... and yes, it depends on case by case.

Oh btw, nobody is talking about evidence being excluded. It doesn't have to be. A lack of a solid chain of custody, as for the jacket in this case, leaves the evidence without proper authentication. And that by itself is enough, because no sane person would want to rely on evidence that can not and isn't being autheticated. LNs of course do exactly the latter as a matter of routine!


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.

Oh boy... this is so stupid. Let's see if I can tell you this in simple words. If Earlene Roberts is wrong and Oswald didn't leave the rooming house wearing a jacket all those people who "positively identified Oswald" at a questionable line up could not have seen Oswald!

# 10. is just the same COP SAID SO BS you have just been schooled on. Which only shows how LNs operate. They will repeat a lie time after time no matter how often it has been debunked.

# 11. Marina identified the jacket, he says. And, indeed, she did. She identified the grey jacket that did belong to Oswald. She never identified the white jacket Westbrook gave to an unknown police officer. Claiming that the two jackets are one and the same requires proof and that's exactly what is completely missing here!

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. 

What prosecution would that be? You have a crystal ball, do you?

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!

Now, there's an idiotic contradiction if I ever saw one. On the one hand he claims that the jacket is only a fraction of the evidence and then he says he can't understand why CT's try so hard to isolate the jacket. It just doesn't make sense. If there was more evidence than only the jacket it wouldn't make any sense at all for anybody to only concentrate on the jacket alone.

The facts are very simple;

1. Earlene Roberts is a highly unreliable witness who wasn't paying much attention, had bad vision, only saw Oswald walking out of the house for a few seconds and was known for making up stories.

2. There is plausible evidence that places Oswald's grey jacket (the one identified by Marina) in Irving on Thursday evening. There is no way that jacket could have been in Oak Cliff on Friday morning.

3. There is no evidence that the jacket, described as being white in several radio communications, which has no chain of custody whatsoever is the same jacket as the one now in evidence with markings of a number of officers on it, who were not and could not have been in the chain of custody. Marking an item of evidence when you had never anything to do with it is manipulation of that piece of evidence.

So, if you want to play the "at court they would do" game, let's try this;

The defense would call Earlene Roberts and go after her full force to find out if her story held up.
Then they would call the officers who searched Ruth Paine's house on Saturday and ask them under oath if they saw the grey jacket in Irving or not
Then they would find out who the patrol officers were who actually did hold the jacket and ask them what they saw and what happened to the jacket between the moment Westbrook gave it to one of them and the moment the grey jacket showed up at the police station.
And finally, they would call the officers who put their markings on the grey jacket and ask they how and why that happened.

I'll leave it to our resident self-appointed legal eagle to determine for himself what the outcome of all that could possibly be. He'll probably get it all wrong, but that's a given and not much to worry about.

[Martin Weidmann]

It always amuses me when conspiracy hobbyists try to get Oswald off on technicalities. It is a tacit admission they know their client is guilty.

Our criminal courts have two very important missions, to find the truth while at the same time protecting the rights of the accused. Sometimes those two missions are at cross purposes and usually that means the courts come down on the side of protecting the rights of the accused, even if sometimes that means the guilty go free.

History has no such conflicts. It has no duty to protect the rights of the accused. It's sole purpose is to find the truth. That means looking at all available evidence without any concern for the rights of the accused. Even though Oswald was never tried in court, I have no problem concluding without a shadow of a doubt he was guilty. I feel the same way about O. J. Simpson. I can say without hesitation that both men were double murderers even though neither was ever convicted in court of those crimes. I'm glad they are both dead.

There goes mr. "shoot to kill first, ask questions later" again.

It always amuses me when conspiracy hobbyists try to get Oswald off on technicalities.

What technicalities would that be? Asking for evidence to be authenticated instead of assumed to be valid. Or perhaps simply ignore the rules for the chain of custody and assume anything that could be used to point to Oswald is solid evidence?

Our criminal courts have two very important missions, to find the truth while at the same time protecting the rights of the accused.

Oh please, do us all a favor! A criminal court is a battleground where two parties fight to win regardless of what the truth actually is. The prison system houses a large number of innocent people who were wrongly convicted on bad witness. Tell them about the court protecting the rights of the accused.

History has no such conflicts. It has no duty to protect the rights of the accused. It's sole purpose is to find the truth.

For crying out load. Just how gullible are you? History is written by the victors. It has nothing to do with the truth!

When Henry Tudor defeated Richard III and became king the first thing he did was to make the day before the battle as the day that he became king, so that history would recall that he was the rightful king defending his country against the usurper Richard of York. So much for the truth!