They don't have to be able to recognize it to prove a chain of custody. Todd marked it so we know that Todd received CE399. Each said that they delivered the only bullet in their possession. So if Todd didn't switch it, that means Rowley had CE399. If Rowley didn't switch it, then Johnsen had it. If Johnsen didn't switch it, then Wright had it. If Wright didn't switch it, then Tomlinson had it. If Tomlinson didn't switch it, then CE399 was the bullet he found after it fell from the stretcher at Parkland. So unless one of those five switched it, CE399 was the stretcher bullet.
The purpose of a chain of custody is to authenticate a piece of evidence. It needs to be proven that the evidence presented hasn't been manipulated and is the same as the evidence recovered from the crime scene. You can not assume that evidence is authentic unless it is proven not to be. That's the world upside down. Johnsen didn't follow procedure by not placing the bullet he received from Wright in a sealed evidence envelope (which were available at Parkland) and mark it. Instead he put it in his pocket. Nobody knows what happened to the bullet from the moment Johnsen received it and Rowley gave it to Todd.
Is it just a coincidence that it was the Secret Service who
gave both the Parkland bullet and the fragments allegedly found in the Presidential limo to the FBI after, in both cases, not following the correct evidentiary procedure? It also was the Secret Service who, ignored the law and took the body of the President and the Presidential limo to Washington before anybody in Dallas could examine either.
Lots of circumstantial evidence that Oswald took his rifle to the TSBD on 11/22/63. It doesn't matter where it was on 11/21/63. But the place where it had been kept was in the green-brown blanket in the Paine garage. When she saw that it wasn't there, Marina began to fear the worst.
There is no circumstantial evidence at all that Oswald took any rifle to the TSBD on 11/22/63. All there is, are assumptions based on hot air. The whole "Oswald took the rifle to the TSBD" is a flawed theory based on the one hand on the presumed presence of a rifle Ruth Paine's garage and on the other hand on the alleged presence of a bag in the sniper's nest which is believed he used to carry the rifle in. The only two witnesses who actually saw Oswald carry a bag described an entirely different bag and when Frazier was shown the SN bag on Friday evening he instantly denied that it was the bag he had seen. So, not only does the theory make a giant leap to reach a "conclusion" but it also ignores actual evidence that undermines that conclusion.
Of course it matters where the rifle was on 11/21/63, because if it wasn't in Ruth Paine's garage than Oswald couldn't have made the trip to Irving to get it and, as he stayed at the Paine residence from the moment of his arrival until his departure the next day, Oswald wouldn't have been able to get the rifle from elsewhere.
The story about the rifle in the blanket comes from one source only; Marina, who is not the most reliable witness to say the least. And even she didn't get beyond saying that, about a week after leaving New Orleans, she got curious about what was in the blanket. So, in late september she pulled back part of it and saw what she believed to be the wooden stock of a rifle. Even if one assumes that she did indeed see a rifle in that blanket, there is no evidence that it was the rifle that was later found at the TSBD, there is no evidence who the rifle belonged to and there is nothing, except wishful thinking, to conclude that this same rifle was still in that blanket some two months later, when Oswald is supposed to have picked it up.
There is lots of circumstantial evidence from which one can infer that he fired the shots and that the shots came from the 6th floor. That puts him on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination.
Enlighten me, what is this circumstantial evidence you are talking about? I mean factual evidence from which something can indeed be inferred and which can actually be used in a credible way to connect the dots and not just one assumption piled on another!
The Warren Commission didn't even bother to present factual or circumstantial evidence to show that Oswald was on the 6th floor. They just assumed it to be the case and presented it as such in their report. I would argue that there is more circumstantial evidence that places Oswald on the 1st and 2nd floor at the time of the shooting than there ever was for him being on the 6th floor.
You seem to think that every fact has to be independently and all by itself proven beyond a reasonable doubt, without regard to any other facts. Facts are proven by the totality of the evidence. No, I don't think that every fact has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by itself, but I do think that the individual facts which are used to connect the dots a narrative in a circumstantial case should at least be provable factual. Building a circumstantial case based on mere assumptions is like building a house of cards without a foundation.
I have given you a small part of a much bigger list of all sorts of things for which there is not a shred of evidence. You can not prove a fact by a "totality of evidence" that simply doesn't exits.
I would agree that if there was a conspiracy, Oswald was involved and was the shooter. I would also add that I don't see any evidence of a conspiracy or any reason to believe that conspirators would have chosen Oswald to carry out the plan.
There is no doubt in my mind that if there was a conspiracy Oswald must have been involved to some extent for the simple reason that you can not manipulate somebody who is completely uninvolved. I agree with you that the conspirators probably wouldn't have relied on Oswald to carry out their plan but he would make a perfect patsy!
