Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Tim Nickerson]

That's exactly right... and those law enforcement officers (Doughty and Dhority) later both positively identified the two shells as the shells turned over to them by the Davis girls.

A proper chain of possession must be maintained from the time it is collected by law enforcement personnel to the time it appears in court.

A proper chain of possession should be maintained from the time it is collected by law enforcement personnel to the time it appears in court. However, an imperfect chain of custody will rarely, if ever, keep items like bullets, shells, guns, knives, or any other non-fungible item from being admitted into court as evidence.

These clowns can claim there is a problem with the chain of custody, but any clown can make any claim they want, no matter how hollow, unfounded and wrong the claim is.  It is another thing entirely to actually show what the chain of custody problem is.

Well said Bill. CTs do make some rather ridiculous claims. And many of them should know better. Take Bill Simpich for example. The guy is a lawyer, yet he claims that a chain of custody for CE-399 is non-existent and , as such, that bullet would be excluded at any trial. Of course, he's wrong on both accounts. Simpich states outright that Elmer Todd's marking is not on CE-399. He essentially calls Todd a liar and he does so based not on any close personal examination of CE-399 himself, but rather on low resolution photos of the bullet from the National Archives. The guy is definitely a CT clown.

[Tim Nickerson]

The affidavit then is accurate ...the confrontation occurred at 1:06 PM?

Do you really think it would have taken 11 minutes for the shooting of officer Tippit to be reported?

[Michael Chambers]

Do you really think it would have taken 11 minutes for the shooting of officer Tippit to be reported?

wasn't it reported on Tippits police radio by bystanders within 2-3 minutes?


Edit - 4 minutes maybe?

[Michael Chambers]

Makes a lot of sense to me anyway that Markham on the way to work stops in 1st floor washeteria to try and payphone daughter but line engaged.
Leaving that she looks at washeteria clock and sees 1.04pm. She's in no real hurry as her 1.12 bus is usually late anyway.

She arrives at 10th and Patton approx. 2 minutes or so later. Stands watches Police cruiser and ensuing events,
Bowley after exiting car checks watch at 1.10pm. 30 seconds later Bowley calls shooting in.

I remember from my past visits to this forum that from Herbert Blenner's Dictaphone tapes you can time and prove all the supposed 1.14-1.25pm official times
as wrong and therefore all dileberately falsified to such, and that the latest possible was about 1.49 minutes prior to 1.14-15pm.
Therefore leaving the ONLY time evidence as strong credible witness's Markham, Bowley etc.

Now who would want to falsify those times like that??

Good enough that strong evidence and likelihood for me anyway.

I tried to find Herbert Blenners site to get that again, but all of Herberts sites are no longer accessable that I could find.

[Walt Cakebread]

Makes a lot of sense to me anyway that Markham on the way to work stops in 1st floor washeteria to try and payphone daughter but line engaged.
Leaving that she looks at washeteria clock and sees 1.04pm. She's in no real hurry as her 1.12 bus is usually late anyway.

She arrives at 10th and Patton approx. 2 minutes or so later. Stands watches Police cruiser and ensuing events,
Bowley after exiting car checks watch at 1.10pm. 30 seconds later Bowley calls shooting in.

I remember from my past visits to this forum that from Herbert Blenner's Dictaphone tapes you can time and prove all the supposed 1.14-1.25pm official times
as wrong and therefore all dileberately falsified to such, and that the latest possible was about 1.49 minutes prior to 1.14-15pm.
Therefore leaving the ONLY time evidence as strong credible witness's Markham, Bowley etc.

Now who would want to falsify those times like that??

Good enough that strong evidence and likelihood for me anyway.

I tried to find Herbert Blenners site to get that again, but all of Herberts sites are no longer accessable that I could find.

She arrives at 10th and Patton approx. 2 minutes or so later. Stands watches Police cruiser and ensuing events,
Bowley after exiting car checks watch at 1.10pm.

But Mrs Markham specified that the time was about 1:06......

[Martin Weidmann]

Since I began debating with you on the issue four or five years ago.

Merely asking for a sound and conclusive chain of custody for a piece of evidence is one thing. Assuming that an imperfect chain of custody will automatically preclude an item from being admitted as evidence is another thing entirely.

Since I began debating with you on the issue four or five years ago.

So you do claim to be an expert on the matter.... that's a bold and interesting claim. Can you back it up with something?


Merely asking for a sound and conclusive chain of custody for a piece of evidence is one thing. Assuming that an imperfect chain of custody will automatically preclude an item from being admitted as evidence is another thing entirely.

I agree, but the trouble for you is that I never claimed anything of the kind. You are the one who keeps on assuming that items being  admitted into evidence actually has some sort of significant meaning. The fact is that just about every day things are being entered into evidence at courts around the country that actually are proof of very little.

Evidence gets entered into court for the purpose of being weighed and examined by the lawyers on both sides and ultimately the jury. What you seem to fail to understand is that sometimes defense lawyers do not oppose a piece of bad or questionable evidence being admitted because it ultimately helps their case.

So, perhaps you should focus less on your obsession about something being entered into evidence at court meaning something it really doesn`t and pay some more time at determining whether a piece of evidence will hold up under scrutiny.

[Mitch Todd]

You are being far too humble. Average jurors don't argue with the attorneys.

Another silly comment. Is this a courtroom and is Tim an attorney? I don't think so?.

When you made yourself an "average juror," you invoked the courtroom. Tim is
trying to argue something, which would make him the equivalent of an attorney
in the courtroom metaphor. Therefore, you're a juror who is arguing with an
attorney. How many "average jurors" do that?
 

But thanks for admitting that you really don't know much about how chain of custody works in the world outside of assassination research.

Where precisely did I admit that? You wouldn't be making up your own reality as you go along, would you?

When you said "I don't have to be an expert on anything to make my own determination." That is, BTW, technically true, but it's also incredibly subjective, not likely to transfer well, and not likely to convince.

Not that it matters much, as this is not about me. It's about Tim's foolish claim that courts of law adhere to a lower evidentary standard than I do.... Could it be that your reading comprehension is such that you missed that?

Once you set up chain of possession as something you personally determine completely on your own, you made it all about you. Do you not get that?

I myself do not know what the courts consider proper chain of possession. You have already admitted that you do not know either, whether you want to believe it or not. Whether or not Tim does is open to question, I guess. But I was asking you to find out if you really had any reason to argue with him over what a proper standard would be.