JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Bill Brown on April 22, 2026, 10:52:50 PM ---"And he said look, there's a jacket under the car. He pointed this jacket out to me and it was laying slightly under the rear of one of the cars. I think it was an old Pontiac sitting there, if I remember right. So I walked over and reached under and picked up the jacket." -- Capt. Westbrook
--- End quote ---
Nice try
Mr. WESTBROOK. Now, I did, when I left this scene, I turned this jacket over to one of the officers and I went by that church, I think, and I think that would be on 10th Street.
Now, can you bridge the gap between Westbrook giving the white jacket to "onė of the officers" and Westbrook submitting a grey jacket to the evidence room some 2 hours later?
Bill Brown:
1964 CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Had Oswald went to trial in '64, in preparing for that trial, ADA Bill Alexander would have gone to the DPD and asked them, for example, who found the jacket. He would have been told that Capt. Westbrook found the jacket. Alexander then would have gone to Westbrook and asked Westbrook about the jacket. Westbrook would have told Alexander that he picked up the jacket from under one of the cars behind the Texaco station and then handed it to officer X. Then Alexander would have gone to officer X, who would have told Alexander that he received the jacket from Westbrook and then turned it in to Y at the crime lab.
These names would have been worked out had there been a trial. Alexander would have gotten a statement from officer X and Y. Then, officer X and Y, at an evidentiary hearing, would have been shown the jacket. X would have said he got that jacket from Westbrook. Y would have said he got the jacket from X. Had there been a trial, these names would have been put in place to show a chain of custody of the jacket.
Since there was no trial, Alexander, or anyone else, never saw fit to work it out. This is how it would have occurred in 1964. Then, while researching the case today and with Oswald having been put to death by the state of Texas, there would be no lack of a chain of custody for the jacket because one would have been presented at the evidentiary hearing. And at trial... the Defense would NOT bother with challenging a chain of custody of the jacket because one has already been established and the Defense also does not want the jury wondering why the Defense wants so badly to discount the jacket.
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Bill Brown on April 22, 2026, 11:11:47 PM ---1964 CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Had Oswald went to trial in '64, in preparing for that trial, ADA Bill Alexander would have gone to the DPD and asked them, for example, who found the jacket. He would have been told that Capt. Westbrook found the jacket. Alexander then would have gone to Westbrook and asked Westbrook about the jacket. Westbrook would have told Alexander that he picked up the jacket from under one of the cars behind the Texaco station and then handed it to officer X. Then Alexander would have gone to officer X, who would have told Alexander that he received the jacket from Westbrook and then turned it in to Y at the crime lab.
These names would have been worked out had there been a trial. Alexander would have gotten a statement from officer X and Y. Then, officer X and Y, at an evidentiary hearing, would have been shown the jacket. X would have said he got that jacket from Westbrook. Y would have said he got the jacket from X. Had there been a trial, these names would have been put in place to show a chain of custody of the jacket.
Since there was no trial, Alexander, or anyone else, never saw fit to work it out. This is how it would have occurred in 1964. Then, while researching the case today and with Oswald having been put to death by the state of Texas, there would be no lack of a chain of custody for the jacket because one would have been presented at the evidentiary hearing. And at trial... the Defense would NOT bother with challenging a chain of custody of the jacket because one has already been established and the Defense also does not want the jury wondering why the Defense wants so badly to discount the jacket.
--- End quote ---
I couldn't care less of some "explanation" of what would or possibly would not have happened at trial.
Had Oswald went to trial in '64, in preparing for that trial, ADA Bill Alexander would have gone to the DPD and asked them, for example, who found the jacket. He would have been told that Capt. Westbrook found the jacket. Alexander then would have gone to Westbrook and asked Westbrook about the jacket. Westbrook would have told Alexander that he picked up the jacket from under one of the cars behind the Texaco station and then handed it to officer X. Then Alexander would have gone to officer X, who would have told Alexander that he received the jacket from Westbrook and then turned it in to Y at the crime lab.
So, at trial they would have bothered but the WC/FBI couldn't care less, is that what you are saying?
And btw it wasn't Westbrook who found the jacket and it wasn't officer X who turned in a jacket at the crime lab
These names would have been worked out had there been a trial. Alexander would have gotten a statement from officer X and Y. Then, officer X and Y, at an evidentiary hearing, would have been shown the jacket. X would have said he got that jacket from Westbrook. Y would have said he got the jacket from X. Had there been a trial, these names would have been put in place to show a chain of custody of the jacket.
Yes, that's how a chain of custody normally works. CE2011 was the result of a request by the WC about a number of chains of custody. So, why not this one?
Which of course begs the question of how the WC could conclude that the grey jacket presented by Westbrook to the evidence room at 3:00 PM was the same as the white jackets the officers at the parking lot reported to have seen.
And that brings me back to my original question; can you bridge the gap between Westbrook giving the white jacket to "onė of the officers" and Westbrook submitting a grey jacket to the evidence room some 2 hours later?
Or is your answer simply, they just threw away all the rules of evidence because they "knew" they had their man?
Bill Brown:
Once Oswald was murdered and there'd be no trial, there was no concern for a proper chain of custody of the jacket.
John Mytton:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on April 22, 2026, 11:23:58 PM ---....they "knew" they had their man?
--- End quote ---
Well, DUH!
Oswald was positively identified at the scene.
Oswald was seen fumbling with his gun and removing shells.
The shells seen being discarded were a 100% match to Oswald's revolver.
The cartridges used to kill officer J.D. Tippit were a mix of Winchester-Western and Remington-Peters .38 Special rounds, the SAME mix as found in Oswald's revolver.
Oswald tried to kill more Police when arrested.
Oswald was arrested with the same revolver that was purchased by him.
This insane need to find a cop killer innocent is psychotic!
JohnM
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version