1964 Chain Of Custody

[Bill Brown]

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.

[Michael Capasse]

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

[Charles Collins]

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.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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 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.

[Bill Brown]

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.

[Royell Storing]

  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 .........................     

[Fergus O'Brien]

"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 .