Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Martin Weidmann]

So you have no explanation whatsoever for why the DPD would switch the pistols, frame a person they knew was innocent, and let the guilty person who they obtained the pistol from go free?  It just could have happened.  Got it.

Why should I need to explain that? It's another strawman.

The sole purpose of a chain of custody is to establish that a piece of evidence is in fact related to the alleged crime, rather than having, for example, been "planted" fraudulently to make someone appear guilty. In other words, to limit the possibility that a claim of "it could have happened" is successful and thus questioning (at the least) or destroying (at the worst) the evidentiary value of that piece of evidence.

It's a law enforcement officer's job to ensure that a credible, well documented chain of custody is established for each piece of evidence. You don't get to say "it doesn't matter that there is no credible chain of custody, because you can't explain why the police would tamper with the evidence". That's not how it works.... You don't know that?

Oh wait, I'm asking a die hard LN who will use any excuse to keep Oswald in play as the lone gun man. So, who cares about a chain of custody, right?

[Bill Chapman]

I reckon there's a lot of yoga gurus who would be envious of that stretch.

Wait, there's more: I have a sneaking suspicion that Oswald left CE 163 behind in order to mask his plan to bugger off; to minimize the chances of being stopped by Shelly (for instance) who would be more likely to raise an eyebrow or two at the sight of Oswald in a jacket.

Edited May 22 10:12am EST
Edited May 22 3:00pm EST

[Richard Smith]

Why should I need to explain that? It's another strawman.

The sole purpose of a chain of custody is to establish that a piece of evidence is in fact related to the alleged crime, rather than having, for example, been "planted" fraudulently to make someone appear guilty. In other words, to limit the possibility that a claim of "it could have happened" is successful and thus questioning (at the least) or destroying (at the worst) the evidentiary value of that piece of evidence.

It's a law enforcement officer's job to ensure that a credible, well documented chain of custody is established for each piece of evidence. You don't get to say "it doesn't matter that there is no credible chain of custody, because you can't explain why the police would tamper with the evidence". That's not how it works.... You don't know that?

Oh wait, I'm asking a die hard LN who will use any excuse to keep Oswald in play as the lone gun man. So, who cares about a chain of custody, right?

Now we learn that not only do you not have to provide any evidence whatsoever to support the suggestion that the pistol was planted or rebut the actual evidence linking it to Oswald, but you also don't even need to provide any explanation for WHY the DPD would knowingly frame an innocent person and let the person they knew had murdered a fellow officer to go free.  We must simply just accept that possibility.  All of this based on an OJ-like alleged brief delay in logging the evidence on a day in which both the President of the United States and a police officer had been murdered.  A pretty busy day.  Unreal.  You should be embarrassed to peddle this nonsense.

[Martin Weidmann]

Now we learn that not only do you not have to provide any evidence whatsoever to support the suggestion that the pistol was planted or rebut the actual evidence linking it to Oswald, but you also don't even need to provide any explanation for WHY the DPD would knowingly frame an innocent person and let the person they knew had murdered a fellow officer to go free.  We must simply just accept that possibility.  All of this based on an OJ-like alleged brief delay in logging the evidence on a day in which both the President of the United States and a police officer had been murdered.  A pretty busy day.  Unreal.  You should be embarrassed to peddle this nonsense.

Which only shows that you have learned nothing and have no respect for normal police procedures and the legal requirement to provide a credible chain of custody for each piece of evidence.

rebut the actual evidence linking it to Oswald,

This is by far the most idiotic comment in your pathetic rant. The chain of custody's main purpose is to credibly link a piece of evidence to a suspect. Such a link is not automatically assumped as you seem to believe or favor. It is not necessary to rebut evidence without a credible chain of custody. Just how ignorant are you?

[Bill Chapman]

Vince Bugliosi, an actual lawyer, had a different experience with the ins & outs in dealing with this chain-of-custody thing. You can find this information on DVP's blog where he corresponds directly with the aforementioned Bugliosi.

[Martin Weidmann]

Vince Bugliosi, an actual lawyer, had a different experience with the ins & outs in dealing with this chain-of-custody thing. You can find this information on DVP's blog where he corresponds directly with the aforementioned Bugliosi.

Being a prosecutor of course he will have a different take on chain of custody matters. For a prosecutor chains of custody can be a real pain. I haven't checked on DVP's blog (can't really be bothered to get information from a propaganda site) but even if Bugliosi managed to get away with a chain of custody matter, that still doesn't make it the norm.

[Bill Brown]

As I recall, Baker describes Oswald wearing a jacket in the TSBD lunch room and then only moments later Mrs. Reid describes Oswald in just a white t-shirt w/o any jacket or outer shirt.  I think you would drive yourself crazy drying to reconcile all the descriptions.  It is not something anyone had cause to note at the time and recall later.

And that really is all that needs to be said.

[Bill Chapman]

Being a prosecutor of course he will have a different take on chain of custody matters. For a prosecutor chains of custody can be a real pain. I haven't checked on DVP's blog (can't really be bothered to get information from a propaganda site) but even if Bugliosi managed to get away with a chain of custody matter, that still doesn't make it the norm.

Reclaiming History

Vince Bugliosi:

"I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible. I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it*, not its admissibility"

via David Von Pein Blog Spot

*My emphasis