JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on November 25, 2024, 06:25:52 AM
-
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.
The same holds true with the four shell casings found at the scene and the revolver taken from Oswald when he was arrested which was linked to those four shell casings.
-
1964 CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Had Oswald went to trial in '64, in preparing for that trial, ADA Bill Alexander would have went 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 went 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 went 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 serving a life sentence, 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.
The same holds true with the four shell casings found at the scene and the revolver taken from Oswald when he was arrested which was linked to those four shell casings.
Garbage. There is no clean chain of custody anywhere in this case.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/4523/thread
-
Many officers who were not trained as crime scene investigators were involved in searching the TSBD and hunting for the cop killer. On top of that, there was some confusion and miscommunication regarding the FBI’s intrusion into the case. This is why some of the documentation is a little “fuzzy”. I agree that if LHO had survived and had a trial many questions would have been answered. I believe that any competent trial judge and impartial jury (all juries are supposed to be impartial) would most likely have accepted the officers’ testimonies regarding the questions.
-
1964 CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Had Oswald went to trial in '64, in preparing for that trial, ADA Bill Alexander would have went 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 went 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 went 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 serving a life sentence, 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.
The same holds true with the four shell casings found at the scene and the revolver taken from Oswald when he was arrested which was linked to those four shell casings.
If you read/go over the Ruby trial and various motions and hearings you can see how the court handled the question of the revolver and the chain of custody. It was simply a matter of the police under oath identifying the weapon. Nothing about chain of custody forms or documentation being needed. My guess is this would have been done in any Oswald trial re the other physical evidence.
For example read this exchange where DPD officer L.C. Graves identifies the revolver as the one he took from Ruby: https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217784#relPageId=7&search=revolver
The 6th Floor Museum apparently has all of the Ruby trial/hearing transcripts here: https://emuseum.jfk.org/collections/31576/jack-ruby-trial-transcripts. You can go over how they handled the admission of evidence.
Just to add: it's always fascinating how some conspiracy believers demand all of the evidence - "Release the files!!" - then turn around and try to suppress the evidence against Oswald using legal standards and rules. C'mon, you're not fooling anyone but yourselves here.
-
If you read/go over the Ruby trial and various motions and hearings you can see how the court handled the question of the revolver and the chain of custody. It was simply a matter of the police identifying the weapon under oath. Nothing about chain of custody forms or documentation being needed. My guess is this would have been done in any Oswald trial re the other physical evidence.
For example read this exchange where DPD officer L.C. Graves identifies the revolver as the one he took from Ruby: https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217784#relPageId=7&search=revolver
The 6th Floor Museum apparently has all of the Ruby trial/hearing transcripts here: https://emuseum.jfk.org/collections/31576/jack-ruby-trial-transcripts
Just to add: it's always fascinating how some conspiracy believers demand all of the evidence - "Release the files!!" - then turn around and try to suppress the evidence against Oswald using legal standards and rules. C'mon, you're not fooling anyone but yourselves here.
Great points, Steve. Thanks.
-
With respect to evidence gathered at the TSBD following the assassination, ALL of that Evidence could easily have been tossed out of court. I continue researching just how completely un-secure the entire TSBD building was for at least 2.5 hours following the kill shot. The DPD's well intended attempt to secure the TSBD was nothing short of a Clown Show. For starters, it's hard to figure how law enforcement could confront the alleged shooter, let him go, and then simply permit him to waltz out of the building. I have found the goods and in the face of this, I continue finding even more evidence to throw onto this blazing fire. 61+ years later, this is just too easy. TO BE CONTINUED .........................
-
"If you read/go over the Ruby trial and various motions and hearings you can see how the court handled the question of the revolver and the chain of custody. It was simply a matter of the police identifying the weapon under oath" Steve
many people would argue the obvious . which is that
A : there was zero doubt that Ruby committed a murder , he did so on live tv after all . so the pistol in that case was not of any great concern , evidentiary wise anyway , i mean it was wrenched from his hand at the scene . they had the killer as they say bang to rights , he was not arguing he did not kill .so guilt was not in question . as there was zero question of guilt then likewise there was no question about the weapon or the ammo etc .
B: that Oswalds alleged guilt is very much still in question . that the evidence in this case is still very much disputed . where a weapon can without any doubt be placed in Rubys hand (he did so on live tv ) oswalds actions and the evidence in his case can be and is very much disputed .
so i do not see how one could see the two cases as the same .
-
Another cool story, bro. A valid contemporaneously documented chain-of-custody either exists from the beginning or it does not exist at all. It can't be "re-created" after the fact.
Besides, the jacket allegedly found in the car park isn't evidence of anything, so it really doesn't matter anyway.
-
Another cool story, bro. A valid contemporaneously documented chain-of-custody either exists from the beginning or it does not exist at all. It can't be "re-created" after the fact.
Besides, the jacket allegedly found in the car park isn't evidence of anything, so it really doesn't matter anyway.
How many bad guys do you figure were involved altogether in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important Cover Up?
Couple hundred?
More?
-
We filed motions to suppress evidence in the 2017 mock trial on a variety of grounds. because of the time constraints, the parties decided to allow all evidence to be admitted and we would use questions about the reliability of the evidence for the jury to considering how much weight to give a particular piece of evidence. The government's evidence had lots of problems.
The judge in the Ruby trial was not very good so one should not use him as a guidepost for what evidence would have been admissible or how the evidence would have been handled. Remember that Ruby's conviction was overturned.
-
Garbage. There is no clean chain of custody anywhere in this case.
You're full of beans.
It's clean enough for reasonable people, but not, of course, for tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists who believe the assassination was a conspiracy by the evil, evil CIA or the evil, evil [fill in the blank] and therefore oodles and gobs of bad guys and bad gals must have been involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover-up.
-
You're full of beans.
It's clean enough for reasonable people, but not, of course, for tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists who believe the assassination was a conspiracy by the evil, evil CIA or the evil, evil [fill in the blank] and therefore oodles and gobs of bad guys and bad gals must have been involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover-up.
Let me guess. You consider yourself to be reasonable, right?
What a pathetic joke :D
A truly reasonable person would explain why the chain of custody was indeed clean, instead of just, like a 5 year old, insulting people who do not share his opinion.
-
We filed motions to suppress evidence in the 2017 mock trial on a variety of grounds. because of the time constraints, the parties decided to allow all evidence to be admitted and we would use questions about the reliability of the evidence for the jury to considering how much weight to give a particular piece of evidence. The government's evidence had lots of problems.
The judge in the Ruby trial was not very good so one should not use him as a guidepost for what evidence would have been admissible or how the evidence would have been handled. Remember that Ruby's conviction was overturned.
Hi Lawrence, welcome to the forum.
Could you please provide some more details about the 2017 mock trial?
I would be interested to learn how the problems with the evidence impacted the deliberations of the jurors.
-
Let me guess. You consider yourself to be reasonable, right?
What a pathetic joke :D
A truly reasonable person would explain why the chain of custody was indeed clean, instead of just, like a five-year-old, insulting people who do not share his opinion.
I said clean enough, dum-dum. And sufficiently plausible for rational people who realize that accepting the alternative is to accept the ludicrous proposition that oodles and gobs of bad guys and bad gals were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up.
-
The issue that will not die!
Bill's 2024 post is essentially correct.
I can cheerfully stipulate that seemingly critical items of evidence MIGHT have been ruled inadmissible at a criminal trial and that Oswald MIGHT have been found not guilty. And so what?
Once again: The point of a criminal trial is to determine whether the prosecution can meet its burden of proof that the accused is guilty. The purpose is not to determine "what really happened" or to write history.
As Bill suggests, before moving to introduce evidence at trial the prosecution would have recognized any defects in the chain of custody and attempted to rehabilitate them with testimony at trial. The judge could either find the defects fatal and rule the evidence inadmissible or allow the evidence while instructing the jury that the defects could be considered in weighing its probative value.
History is not bound by legal niceties. There are no formal burdens of proof, rules of evidence or rules of procedure. Historians - and us, as laymen - simply assess the evidence as we have it, warts and all. Ditto for the WC. If we think they erred in their admission and evaluation of evidence, that's fair game for discussion.
But outside the context of a criminal trial, squawking about "chain of custody" and "admissibility" is just a distraction, a red herring.
The issue that will not die!
-
I said clean enough, dum-dum. And sufficiently plausible for rational people who realize that accepting the alternative is to accept the ludicrous proposition that oodles and gobs of bad guys and bad gals were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up.
And sufficiently plausible for rational people
There you go again. You really have a high opinion of yourself. You are making the classic mistake of thinking that your opinion is superior and always right.
who realize that accepting the alternative is to accept the ludicrous proposition
What you consider to be a ludicrous proposition could well be something that is going way over your head. You are making a strawman argument by starting from a point of view that a conspiracy and cover up must have involved many people who all completely understood what was actually going on.
I am still waiting for your reason to consider the evidence "clean enough". I guess it's easier for you to just insult other people.... which by itself is telling enough.
-
The issue that will not die!
Bill's 2024 post is essentially correct.
I can cheerfully stipulate that seemingly critical items of evidence MIGHT have been ruled inadmissible at a criminal trial and that Oswald MIGHT have been found not guilty. And so what?
Once again: The point of a criminal trial is to determine whether the prosecution can meet its burden of proof that the accused is guilty. The purpose is not to determine "what really happened" or to write history.
As Bill suggests, before moving to introduce evidence at trial the prosecution would have recognized any defects in the chain of custody and attempted to rehabilitate them with testimony at trial. The judge could either find the defects fatal and rule the evidence inadmissible or allow the evidence while instructing the jury that the defects could be considered in weighing its probative value.
History is not bound by legal niceties. There are no formal burdens of proof, rules of evidence or rules of procedure. Historians - and us, as laymen - simply assess the evidence as we have it, warts and all. Ditto for the WC. If we think they erred in their admission and evaluation of evidence, that's fair game for discussion.
But outside the context of a criminal trial, squawking about "chain of custody" and "admissibility" is just a distraction, a red herring.
The issue that will not die!
So, what you are saying is that outside the context of a criminal trial, you can just ignore evidence you don't like, use questionable evidence and declare somebody guilty and then pretend that's the final verdict?
That's what LNs are doing here all the time. Yet, at the same time, they defend their position with cherry picked parts of the evidence and complain when non-believers call them out on their misrepresentation of the facts.
Isn't it just nice to be able to create your own case against Oswald and declare it to be the only correct opinion.
Too bad that in the 2017 mock trial more than 80% of the viewers considered the case against Oswald wasn't proven!
-
It's clean enough for reasonable people
Everybody thinks their own BS is "reasonable".
-
I said clean enough, dum-dum. And sufficiently plausible for rational people who realize that accepting the alternative is to accept the ludicrous proposition that oodles and gobs of bad guys and bad gals were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white)
-
Once again: The point of a criminal trial is to determine whether the prosecution can meet its burden of proof that the accused is guilty. The purpose is not to determine "what really happened" or to write history.
Forget the criminal trial. How do you determine "what really happened" without reliable evidence?
-
Forget the criminal trial. How do you determine "what really happened" without reliable evidence?
You make a judgment as to what evidence is most reliable and what inferences are most reasonable.
Your posts all seem to be in the vein that we can't really know anything about anything insofar as the JFKA is concerned, which is an interesting quasi-Kantian philosophical position but not really a useful one.
-
You make a judgment as to what evidence is most reliable and what inferences are most reasonable.
Your posts all seem to be in the vein that we can't really know anything about anything insofar as the JFKA is concerned, which is an interesting quasi-Kantian philosophical position but not really a useful one.
He once said, when he dropped his mask, that McDonald planted a "throw down" gun on Oswald in the theater. He's perfectly willing to reject idealism and make judgments when he wants to. But only if it doesn't involve Oswald in a crime. I guess Oswald didn't yell and complain about this framing of the revolver because he wasn't into small talk?
His problem isn't that he's a weasel; it's that he's bad at it.
-
You make a judgment as to what evidence is most reliable and what inferences are most reasonable.
Which always seems to match your pre-existing bias. Go figure!
Your posts all seem to be in the vein that we can't really know anything about anything insofar as the JFKA is concerned, which is an interesting quasi-Kantian philosophical position but not really a useful one.
It's even less useful to equate "makes sense to me" with "what really happened". What's wrong with just admitting that you don't know what you don't know?
-
He said, when he dropped his mask, that McDonald planted a "throw down" gun on Oswald in the theater.
Please cite me ever stating that.