Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer  (Read 101169 times)

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1045
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #670 on: June 18, 2018, 03:58:55 AM »
Of course the guy with the burden, Brown, hasn't attempted to show that there is a chain of custody as he claims.

Is this supposed to be your way of explaining the problem with the chain of custody of the two Davis shells?  Lame.

These two shells were positively identified by Doughty and Dhority as the shells each collected from the scene.

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1045
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #671 on: June 18, 2018, 04:00:12 AM »
Why not quote LHO's legal representative stating this? Oh, that's right, LHO had NO legal representation.

Another lame post.

What does any of that have to do with Markham's 11/22/63 positive identification of Lee Oswald as the man she saw shoot Tippit?

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1045
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #672 on: June 18, 2018, 04:01:16 AM »
Why would a kid running across the lawn equal a suspect in the JDT murder?

Wouldn't you have to ask C.T. Walker that question?

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1653
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #673 on: June 18, 2018, 04:12:41 AM »
Quote from: Tim Nickerson on June 17, 2018, 04:38:09 AM[/url]
Evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated.

Yes, Tim, you did write that,

That's right. And you said No. You were wrong.

Quote
but you also wrote this;

Here you foolishly pretend implicitly that once a piece of evidence is admitted by a judge the chain of custody is no longer an issue and this can not be used by the defense to discredit or cast doubt about that piece of evidence by attacking the chain of custody and that is simply not true! If it were true, we wouldn't need trials... we would just have judges who decide what evidence to let in and (since it can't be challenged at trial) go straight to conviction.

Remember, also at the OJ trial, the lab technician who carried a vial of blood with him for too long? The entire blood evidence was attacked through this lab technician not following correct procedures.

Why only bold that part?

Particularly if it's a non-fungible item. If the defense has something concrete to present to the jury once the evidence has been admitted then fine. However, they will not be allowed free reign to spout unsupported claims against the evidence. Not in any properly run court anyway.

Quote
Provide the transcript that has them challenging the chain of custody of the gloves.

Perhaps this is a bit difficult for you to understand, Tim, but the sole purpose for discrediting Fuhrman on the stand were the gloves and the chain of custody of the glove allegedly found at the back of OJ's house by Mark Fuhrman. That planted a reasonable doubt (if he lies about using the N word under oath, what else will he lie about) in the mind of people. There are videos of F. Lee Bailey questioning Fuhrman on YouTube, but you need to open your eyes and ears to see and here the obvious!

You're right. It is a bit difficult for me to understand. Post the transcript. That should help.

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2270
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #674 on: June 18, 2018, 04:22:57 AM »
That's right. And you said No. You were wrong.

Why only bold that part?

Particularly if it's a non-fungible item. If the defense has something concrete to present to the jury once the evidence has been admitted then fine. However, they will not be allowed free reign to spout unsupported claims against the evidence. Not in any properly run court anyway.

You're right. It is a bit difficult for me to understand. Post the transcript. That should help.

Post the transcript. That should help.

I seriously doubt it would.

Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #675 on: June 18, 2018, 04:23:09 AM »
As usual pardon my ignorance

 From Rob Caprio

On June 15, 1964, the same cartridge cases designated C47-C50, were shown by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum to Pete Barnes, an officer of the Dallas Police Department assigned to the Crime Laboratory, and he identified his marking on two of two of these cases, which also bear the markings ?Q-74? and ?Q-77?

 So these are the shells that Poe claimed to have received from Benavides and Poe sort of claimed to have initialed and are now being claimed by Odum to have been marked by himself? I thought I saw Odum received, or picked up, one of the Davis sister shells after that Sister located them for the officers some time after originally telling the officers of their approximate locations?  Odum assisted in finding the other Davis sister shell? And Doughity the other? No officer was apparently able to find any of these shells without being directed to them or being picked up by the witnesses

Offline Howard Gee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #676 on: June 18, 2018, 02:52:50 PM »
As I said, Herbert Blenner made a lot of oddball claims and was generally ignored by most here, when not made sport of.

Was Blenner the whacko who claimed it wasn't Oswald being placed in the ambulance based on his nostrils ?

Or was that another nut ?

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1653
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #677 on: June 18, 2018, 06:21:43 PM »
Exactly.

Poe and Barnes, before the commission, under oath, were kind enough to mistakenly pick Q-75 that you claimed was "readily identifiable".

But you just made that up, didn't you?

Barnes said "I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75". "I believe" is not a positive identification. Poe said that he wanted to say that Q-77 and Q-75 were his but he couldn't swear to it. He could not find his mark on either of them and he couldn't swear that he had ever marked either of the shells that he received from Benevides. Q-75 was not readily identifiable to Barnes or Poe because neither of them had marked it. Q-75 was readily identifiable to Dhority because he had made it so by placing his mark on it.

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1653
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #678 on: June 18, 2018, 06:23:28 PM »
Cut the BS, Tim.

List the marks.

Put up or shut up.

Why should I have to list the marks?

I don't know what Dhority's mark looks like because I've never seen it. But you can be sure that Dhority could recognize his own mark. I've seen Doughty's mark on a number of items. They are not always identical. They differ a bit, depending on what type of material they are on and the size of the marking. Doughty's mark on the inside rim of Q-76 would look very much like the following. Though much smaller of course.


Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #679 on: June 18, 2018, 11:57:49 PM »
Just so everyone knows Todd is playing games. Automatic shells and revolver shells look differently and are marked differently. Todd must be saying that Hill was majorly incompetent to confuse the two.

 If I understand Hill's history with his own statements

 He calls in at 1.40 and reprts automatic shells

Denies this at the WC

30 tears later says he did find the automatic shells

 My opinion is that does not make his story completely untenable since a lot of folks tended to change their initial stories for the WC

 

Mobile View