I told you it was kinda long winded. Anyway, I figure that Michaelis knows what's what regarding this issue more than you or I could. And, as I've already noted, careful inspection --or even not-quite-so-careful-inspection-- shows that DL-30/Ex 5 was designed to track the COD payment all the way back to the shipper, inform the shipper that REA had received the COD money and forwarded it to the shipper. Seaport Traders' possession of the completed document is demonstration that the item had indeed been paid for by the consignee. That is exactly the sort of thing you said you were looking for, I recall.
Anyway, I figure that Michaelis knows what's what regarding this issue more than you or I could. You can figure that as much as you like but as Michaelis wasn't even working for Seaport (he was a manager for Merchanteers Inc who supervised Seaport Trading) when the order was processed, I wouldn't be so sure about his level of intimate knowledge of their procedures as you want to be. In any event, your comment is nothing more than a weak and flawed "because he said so" appeal to authority.
inform the shipper that REA had received the COD money and forwarded it to the shipper And how do you think they forwarded the money? Did they send somebody from Dallas to California with the cash perhaps?
Seaport Traders' possession of the completed document is demonstration that the item had indeed been paid for by the consignee. Really? So, you claim that somehow the invoice was returned to Seaport in addition to the COD money?
I have this other funny feeling that the chain-of-custody thing doesn't work quite the way that you think it does.
That would indeed be a funny feeling. Actually it would be a laughable one.
"Chain of custody need not be demonstrated for every piece of tangible evidence that is accepted into the trial court's record. Physical evidence that is readily identifiable by the witness might not need to be supported by chain-of-custody proof. For example, no chain-of-custody foundation is required for items that are imprinted with a serial number or inscribed with initials by an officer who collected the evidence."
(https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/chain+of+custody)
So, you get you "knowledge" from an on line dictionary? Wow! By it self what the dictionary says is true, but the problem here is that there is no witness who could identify the revolver by an easily identifiable feature like the serial number, because nobody really saw the revolver up close until Hill produced it at the police station. So, what you would be left with is the identification by initials inscribed in the item by the officer who collected it. This of course is again a massive problem because, until Hill produced the revolver at the lunchroom of the police station some two hours after Oswald was arrested,
nobody had placed any initials on it. And, if memory serves, some of the initials on the revolver are from officers who actually never handled the revolver at all.
This kinda brings you back to square one; a chain of custody exists to prevent and/or eliminate, as much as possible, the possibility of tampering with the evidence. Due to the two hour gap between Oswald's arrest and the initialling of the revolver at the police station's lunchroom nobody has any way of knowing if the revolver Hill produced was indeed the same one as the one taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater.
Or, as a law firm's website explains:
"Chain of custody issues do not apply to every piece of evidence. Establishing a proper chain of custody is only required for fungible evidence. Put simply, fungible evidence is evidence that has the capability of mutation, substitution, or degradation. For example, drugs and blood have been considered to be fungible evidence. A crack pipe, however, is ?a distinct and recognizable physical object,? and therefore, can be admissible without a proper showing of the chain of custody."
(https://bixonlaw.com/evidence-chain-custody/)
You destroy your own argument as a revolver is in fact a piece of fungible evidence as it can be substituted!
I read through those, and a number of other commentaries on the subject from sources that I would expect to be knowledgeable of the matter, and they all followed along the lines of what I've quoted. I can't find one that would require the sort of behavior you claim as the standard.
Your quotes are ok. They just work against you.
As it is, we have a chain of custody, as established by the testimonies of the principals. McDonald grabbed the gun from Oswald. Carroll took the gun from McDonald's hand. Carroll gave the gun to Hill when they got in the car to take Oswald to the Dallas municipal building.
So far so good. It would be fair to conclude that what Hill received was in fact the revolver taken from Oswald
But then, this happened;
Once there, Hill, McDonald, and Carroll took Oswald to an interrogation room in the Homicide Bureau's office on the third floor. After leaving Oswald there, they decamped to the Personnel office, wrote reports, then marked the pistol with their initials.
Which is exactly where the problem lies; None of the officers who initialed the revolver Hill gave them had any way of knowing that this was in fact the revolver taken from Oswald. All they knew is that Hill told them it was, but even Hill had no evidence for that!
Well, so far, we have:
For establishing the authenticity of the gun: the testimonies of McDonald, Hill, and Carroll, and their recognition of their initials scratched into the metal of the gun.
Against establishing the authenticity of the gun: nothing.
It's not a hard choice. Unless you don't want to make it.
I have already explained how wrong you are. I can't explain it any better, but I'll give it one more try by asking you a simple question;
We agree that Hill took possession of the revolver taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater. And we also agree that the DPD officers initialled the revolver now in evidence some two hours later in the DPD lunchroom after Hill showed the weapon to them.
So, here is the question; How do we know with any kind of certainty that the revolver initialed by the DPD officers is in fact the same revolver as the one taken from Oswald some two hours earlier?
And, when you answer bare in mind that a chain of custody authethication of evidence just about always comes up when the word of a law enforcement officer about that evidence is questioned or challenged.
So, please try to answer the question with something else than "because Hill told us so"! Can you do that?
Companies are required to keep certain records, but not necessarily everything. That being said, the problem is that you have yet to show that there is a bad light on the investigation here. The best you can do is insinuate that Hill might have done something with the weapon taken from Oswald, but you have no evidence whatsoever to support the supposition. Without such evidence, you instead try to assert some strict standard behavior regarding chain of possession, but a little digging appears to show that no such standard actually exist. You also continue to ignore the meaning of the REA COD brief, but it's exactly what you were asking for in the first place.
That being said, the problem is that you have yet to show that there is a bad light on the investigation here. Classic LN reversed burden of proof BS. The claim is that the revolver is authentic. That needs to be proven!
The best you can do is insinuate that Hill might have done something with the weapon taken from Oswald, but you have no evidence whatsoever to support the supposition. I do not insinuate anything nor do I need evidence. The law says that evidence has to be authenticated in order to prevent tampering by law enforcement (which, and this might come as a shock to you, does indeed happen from time to time). One of the ways to do so is by producing a sound chain of custody!
Without such evidence, you instead try to assert some strict standard behavior regarding chain of possession, but a little digging appears to show that no such standard actually exist. Actually what seems not to exist is an ability on your part to understand what is written.
You also continue to ignore the meaning of the REA COD brief, but it's exactly what you were asking for in the first place. No it isn't and you seem to be unable to explain it would be. Apart, that is, from attaching an incorrect meaning to the document.
