Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm at odds with Dan in case you haven't noticed. Do try to keep up or move along.
And no concocting of fairy tales necessary as Oswald has already been caught red-handed
with his greasy little paws in the cookie jar:

BILL CHAPMAN

I'm at odds with Dan in case you haven't noticed.

Oh yes I have noticed. We actually both agree that Oswald left CE 163 at the TSBD after wearing it to work that Friday morning. We also agree that he did not enter the rooming house with a jacket either wearing or carrying it.

Dan's flawed conclusion that Oswald wore CE 162 to work on Friday and left the TSBD with it is extremely weak. It requires Reid, Bledsoe and Roberts to be wrong or "mistaken". It assumes that McWatters was indeed talking about Oswald as the man he saw wearing a jacket, when in fact McWatters never identified Oswald and it leaves completely unexplained that fact that CE 163 was later found at the TSBD. Just calling it a "mystery" and then ignore it simply won't do.

[Bill Chapman]

Without getting too 'pantomime' about - I've not said that you ever said you don't accept Frazier's testimony about the jacket.
It's just that...well...I get the strong impression (maybe I'm wrong here) that you are of the opinion Oswald wore CE 163 to work and left it behind in his rush to get out of the TSBD.
If so, by default, you do not accept Frazier's unequivocal testimony regarding what jacket Oswald wore to work that morning.
Not being defensive.
Just saying.

It makes sense Frazier would want to diminish the size of the package Oswald was carrying as the investigating authorities would rightly find it difficult to believe Frazier didn't notice that Oswald was carrying a rifle-shaped package to work with him.
Frazier was also correct to believe that the very act of driving Oswald to work that morning was going to impact negatively on his life, and, as I understand it, it really did impact negatively on his life.
But that doesn't (IMO) extend to the description of what jacket Oswald had on that morning. And Frazier is definitive about what jacket Oswald had on that morning.
So, as far as accepting his testimony on this detail "hands-down", I don't see the problem.
And I don't see what bearing it has on Oswald's guilt as far as the assassination is concerned.

The fact also remains that Frazier's testimony is definitive whilst Linnie Mae's is uncertain, to say the least.
As for CE 163 being left behind in the TSBD...it's a mystery.
All we can say, with confidence, is that it wasn't the jacket Oswald wore to work that morning.
That is, of course, if Frazier's testimony on the matter means anything.
And I believe it does.

Let's agree to disagree about it.

If you believe as I do that Oswald was trying to minimize the size of the package, including folding it in the back seat, then you'll surely agree that the larger, bulkier CE 163 jacket would be the go-to choice to effect that ruse. Buell would have no choice but to rail really hard in support for the less-bulky jacket  (remember he said 'the one with the bulky sleeves') in order to distance himself from any 'you-should-have-noticed' blame game.

And yes, we have arrived at a stalemate.

[Dan O'meara]

If you believe as I do that Oswald was trying to minimize the size of the package, including folding it in the back seat, then you'll surely agree that the larger, bulkier CE 163 jacket would be the first choice to effect that ruse. Buell would have no choice but to rail really hard in support for the less-bulky jacket  (remember he said 'the one with the bulky sleeves') in order to distance himself from any 'you-should- have-noticed' blame.

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

[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.