Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?

[Martin Weidmann]

In which we learn that the same contrarians who protest that no one has suggested a conspiracy contend that the gun found on Oswald was either switched or planted on him per the usual "chain of possession" nonsense which has no relevance outside of a criminal trial.  I'm sure they are not suggesting a conspiracy.  That would be a "strawman" to conclude.  Just that all the evidence was faked.  The implications don't matter if it creates any real or imagined doubt of Oswald's guilt. That is the sole objective. The DPD concluded on the fly to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit. They didn't care if he really did it or if a dangerous cop killer was never arrested.  They planted a gun on him at the TT or they switched the gun in his possession to another gun presumably to link him to the crime.  But then CTers argue this gun doesn't link Oswald to the crime making the switch pointless!  Round and round we go down the rabbit hole.

per the usual "chain of possession" nonsense which has no relevance outside of a criminal trial.

Why do you keep on saying stupid things like this, if you don't like being called a fool.

A chain of possession exists to protect the authenticity of the evidence. Ignoring it, or calling it nonsense, is the same as saying that it doesn't matter if the evidence can not be authenticated.

The implications don't matter if it creates any real or imagined doubt of Oswald's guilt.

The implications of a lack of chain of custody don't matter if the "evidence" can be used to "prove" Oswald's guilt.

The DPD concluded on the fly to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit.

Who, except you of course, said ever something this stupid?

They planted a gun on him at the TT or they switched the gun in his possession to another gun presumably to link him to the crime.

The law is clear; without a sound chain of custody, the authenticity of evidence can not be assumed and a possibility of manipulation can not be ruled out.

Btw, who are "they"?

[John Iacoletti]

In which we learn that the same contrarians who protest that no one has suggested a conspiracy contend that the gun found on Oswald was either switched or planted on him per the usual "chain of possession" nonsense which has no relevance outside of a criminal trial.

Of course it’s relevant. If you can’t authenticate the evidence then you cannot state with any reliability that it was “the gun found on Oswald” — inside or outside the context of a trial.

I'm sure they are not suggesting a conspiracy.  That would be a "strawman" to conclude.  Just that all the evidence was faked. 

Now that’s a strawman. Nobody said all the evidence is faked. It doesn’t need to be since it doesn’t conclusively show who killed Kennedy anyway.

[Richard Smith]

per the usual "chain of possession" nonsense which has no relevance outside of a criminal trial.

Why do you keep on saying stupid things like this, if you don't like being called a fool.

A chain of possession exists to protect the authenticity of the evidence. Ignoring it, or calling it nonsense, is the same as saying that it doesn't matter if the evidence can not be authenticated.

The implications don't matter if it creates any real or imagined doubt of Oswald's guilt.

The implications of a lack of chain of custody don't matter if the "evidence" can be used to "prove" Oswald's guilt.

The DPD concluded on the fly to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit.

Who, except you of course, said ever something this stupid?

They planted a gun on him at the TT or they switched the gun in his possession to another gun presumably to link him to the crime.

The law is clear; without a sound chain of custody, the authenticity of evidence can not be assumed and a possibility of manipulation can not be ruled out.

Btw, who are "they"?

You are not a conspiracy theorist.  Right?  So why question whether the gun taken from Oswald is the same one in evidence?  Why would anyone switch the gun?  You don't even believe the gun in evidence is linked to the crime.  Right?  You while not being a conspiracy theorist entertain the possibility that someone for some unknown reason either planted a gun on Oswald or switched the gun he did have with another gun.  A gun that you believe is not linked to the crime!  Wow.  That goes well beyond the rabbit hole.  Just shouting "chain of custody" over and over again is weak sauce.  There is no real doubt that the gun in evidence is the same one taken from Oswald.  What "law" are you referring too?  This is a discussion of the case and not a criminal trial in which the rights even of the guilty are protected.  That is endless contrarian nonsense. 

[John Iacoletti]

You are not a conspiracy theorist.  Right?  So why question whether the gun taken from Oswald is the same one in evidence? 

Because it’s questionable. Duh.

There is no real doubt that the gun in evidence is the same one taken from Oswald. 

Of course there’s doubt. That’s the whole point of authenticating evidence. Your blind faith that it’s authentic means nothing.

[Martin Weidmann]

You are not a conspiracy theorist.  Right?  So why question whether the gun taken from Oswald is the same one in evidence?  Why would anyone switch the gun?  You don't even believe the gun in evidence is linked to the crime.  Right?  You while not being a conspiracy theorist entertain the possibility that someone for some unknown reason either planted a gun on Oswald or switched the gun he did have with another gun.  A gun that you believe is not linked to the crime!  Wow.  That goes well beyond the rabbit hole.  Just shouting "chain of custody" over and over again is weak sauce.  There is no real doubt that the gun in evidence is the same one taken from Oswald.  What "law" are you referring too?  This is a discussion of the case and not a criminal trial in which the rights even of the guilty are protected.  That is endless contrarian nonsense.

So why question whether the gun taken from Oswald is the same one in evidence?

Because, unlike you, I don't take anything on blind faith.

You don't even believe the gun in evidence is linked to the crime.  Right?

Wrong. The revolver in evidence is clearly linked to Tippit's killing. Whether it is linked to Oswald is another matter.

You while not being a conspiracy theorist entertain the possibility that someone for some unknown reason either planted a gun on Oswald or switched the gun he did have with another gun.

What do you mean with "for some unknown reason"? That's a pretty stupid remark, because if the revolver was indeed switched the reason would obviously be to frame Oswald.

That goes well beyond the rabbit hole.

All your flawed straw man go that way.... why should this one be any different?

This is a discussion of the case and not a criminal trial in which the rights even of the guilty are protected.

So, in a discussion of the case, outside the court room, it's not important that the evidence being discussed is authentic? Is that what you are saying? If it is... WOW!

[Richard Smith]

So why question whether the gun taken from Oswald is the same one in evidence?

Because, unlike you, I don't take anything on blind faith.

You don't even believe the gun in evidence is linked to the crime.  Right?

Wrong. The revolver in evidence is clearly linked to Tippit's killing. Whether it is linked to Oswald is another matter.

You while not being a conspiracy theorist entertain the possibility that someone for some unknown reason either planted a gun on Oswald or switched the gun he did have with another gun.

What do you mean with "for some unknown reason"? That's a pretty stupid remark, because if the revolver was indeed switched the reason would obviously be to frame Oswald.

That goes well beyond the rabbit hole.

All your flawed straw man go that way.... why should this one be any different?

This is a discussion of the case and not a criminal trial in which the rights even of the guilty are protected.

So, in a discussion of the case, outside the court room, it's not important that the evidence being discussed is authentic? Is that what you are saying? If it is... WOW!

So now you agree that the pistol in evidence is the one used to murder Tippit!  Progress.  Now how did the DPD acquire the gun used to kill Tippit to plant it on Oswald?  Did they take this from the real killer?  If so, why not arrest the real killer?  Did they have it in for Oswald for some inexplicable reason and allow the murderer of a fellow cop to go free?  That's the scenario you want to us to entertain?  And again, you are not a CTer or suggesting a conspiracy?  You are just discussing the case without any agenda.  LOL.   

[Martin Weidmann]

So now you agree that the pistol in evidence is the one used to murder Tippit!  Progress.  Now how did the DPD acquire the gun used to kill Tippit to plant it on Oswald?  Did they take this from the real killer?  If so, why not arrest the real killer?  Did they have it in for Oswald for some inexplicable reason and allow the murderer of a fellow cop to go free?  That's the scenario you want to us to entertain?  And again, you are not a CTer or suggesting a conspiracy?  You are just discussing the case without any agenda.  LOL.   

So now you agree that the pistol in evidence is the one used to murder Tippit!  Progress.

You actually becoming aware of something that I have never denied is indeed progress.

Now how did the DPD acquire the gun used to kill Tippit to plant it on Oswald? 

If they did, how in the world would I know? When you can't explain a magic trick, does that mean it didn't happen?
 
That's the scenario you want to us to entertain?

No, that's the scenario you want us to entertain!

[John Iacoletti]

The bullets removed from Tippit did not have sufficient characteristics to identify what weapon fired them, so it makes little difference how many people "agree" what gun killed Tippit.

And why would it be necessary to "plant" anything on Oswald, when there is no documented chain of custody for CE143 or any evidence that it was ever in his possession?