JFK Assassination Forum

This is getting real boring.

Let's make a running list of what you claim, if you tried this BS in court they'd laugh in your face.

The shells at the Tippit crime scene were planted.
Police substituted Oswald's revolver.
Police somehow swapped Oswald's jacket.
The rifle was planted.
The rifle shells were planted.
Lt. Day lied about the palmprint
Lt. Day lied about the Walker bullet.
The FBI lied about the microfilm.
Everyone in the Interrogations lied.
The backyard photos were either faked or a set-up.
The Police planted the bus transfer.
The Police planted revolver bullets on Oswald.
The arresting Police lied.

I could go on but I've made my point, the unimaginable size of your conspiracy as any sane person can see is totally at odds with reality.

JohnM

The same old LN crap over and over again. Full of lies and misrepresentations of course....

Most of those claims I have never made. Others are questions about for example chain of custody matter which LNs can never answer.

Conspiracy theorists like to claim that much of the evidence for the Oswald trial would have been inadmissible because the officers lost exclusive custody. As this brief from the O. J. Simpson Civil Trial makes clear, the law is not nearly so rigid.

To establish a proper chain of custody for the physical evidence at
issue, rendering that evidence (and the various tests thereon) admissible,
Goldman need only "show to the satisfaction of the trial court that, taking
all the circumstances into account including the ease or difficulty with
which the particular evidence could have been altered, it is reasonably
certain that there was no alteration." People v. Riser. 47 Cal. 2d 566, 580
(1956) (emphasis added). Where there is only "the barest speculation that
there was tampering, it is proper to admit the evidence and let what doubt
remains go to its weight." Id. at 581; accord People v. Lozano, 57 Cal.
App. 3d 490, 493-96 (1976).

The clown quotes a rule of evidence for a civil trial, to make a point about a criminal case. No need to say anything more.

At the end of the day it would be up to a judge and jury to determine if the jacket was actually at the crime scene.

1. Westbrook testified that the jacket that he found was the same one in evidence. And that's that!

Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.

2. The jacket was initialled by Stombaug, meaning he looked at the jacket and according to a FBI report, the jacket in evidence had Oswald's shirt fibers in one of the sleaves. Slam Dunk!

3. Marina positively identified the jacket in evidence. Home run!

Mrs. OSWALD. This is a pullover sweater. This is his pullover sweater.
Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?

JohnM

1. Westbrook testified that the jacket that he found was the same one in evidence. And that's that!

Because cop said so..... HAHAHAHAHAHA... What else did you expect him to say?

A chain of custody is required to avoid exactly this kind of pathetic testimony. In Henry Wade's Dallas a large number of innocent people were found guilty on flawed and manipulated evidence.
A great number of this convictions were later nullified as being unsafe.

But by all means, let's just take the Personnel officer's word for it.   

2. The jacket was initialled by Stombaug [sic], meaning he looked at the jacket and according to a FBI report, the jacket in evidence had Oswald's shirt fibers in one of the sleaves. Slam Dunk!

Of course the jacket was marked by Stombaugh. He did so in Washington after the white jacket had already morphed into the grey one that actually belonged to Oswald. If there were fibers in that jacket there is nothing remarkable about that.

3. Marina positively identified the jacket in evidence. Home run!

Of course she did, as the grey jacket belonged to Oswald. The question is when exactly was that jacket placed in evidence? And with that we're back at square one.... COP SAID SO 

Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Approximately five minutes later two individuals from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, appeared at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, making inquiry as to whether she had noticed the young white man come by the station. She indicated she had, at which time they informed her that this individual had in all probability shot a Dallas police officer. She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Mrs. BROCK advised at the time she saw OSWALD on November 22, 1963, she was unaware of the fact that President JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY had been assassinated, and she was unaware that Dallas Police Officer J. D. TIPPIT had been shot.

on 1/21/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461

By Special Agents JOHN T. KESLER and VERNON MITCHEM - LAC Date dictated 1/22/64

That's one hell of a memory. Identifying a person who walked past her at a fast pace, some two months earlier, from a photograph.

Or could the two months of massive media exposure and finger pointing at Oswald have something to do with it?

Scoggings, who identified Oswald in a line up couldn't identify him from a photo the next day...... Something wrong in paradise methinks!

In October of '64, Frazier was clearly saying that the rifle was in the bag.  You don't have to like it.

Sure, Bill... Whatever you say, Bill.  Pffffff

It makes of course complete sense (not) for Frazier to deny that the bag was large enough to conceal a rifle from day one, then suddenly sign an "affidavit" saying the opposite and then go back to maintain his old position for the next 60 years.

But as you believe the WC BS, we already know that you are easily fooled, so why wouldn't you believe this nonsense as well, right?