Post by Rob Caprio on Jan 29, 2024 21:02:05 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
iv1.lisimg.com/image/9521086/623full-will-fritz.jpg
nationalinterest.org/sites/default/files/main_images/1030px-Mannlicher-Carcano_Rifle_Owned_by_Lee_Harvey_Oswald.jpg
1.bp.blogspot.com/-xMASHuENDuQ/T07-Ortw7TI/AAAAAAAAF4Q/Y63uJHUInzo/s801/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Building.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) assassinated President John F. Kennedy (JFK), shot and killed Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT), wounded Texas Governor John B. Connally (JBC) and attempted to kill retired General Edwin Walker. The evidence supporting these claims is absent from the WC’s twenty-six volumes of exhibits and testimony however, therefore, this has left many questions for us today. I have asked so many questions in this series already, and now it is time for another.
**********************************************
Why did Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz not initial the alleged murder weapon (Commission Exhibit 139)?
Nothing is more important than the Chain of Custody (CoC) in a criminal case as it confirms the legitimacy of the evidence that is presented in a court of law. Here is more on this issue.
Quote on
When evidence can be used in court to convict persons of crimes, it must be handled in a scrupulously careful manner to prevent tampering or contamination. The idea behind recording the chain of custody is to establish that the alleged evidence is in fact related to the alleged crime, rather than having, for example, been “planted” fraudulently to make someone appear guilty.
An identifiable person must always have the physical custody of a piece of evidence. In practice, this means that a police officer or detective will take charge of a piece of evidence, document its collection, and hand it over to an evidence clerk for storage in a secure place. These transactions, and every succeeding transaction between the collection of the evidence and its appearance in court, should be completely documented chronologically in order to withstand legal challenges to the authenticity of the evidence. Documentation should include the conditions under which the evidence is gathered, the identity of all evidence handlers, duration of evidence custody, security conditions while handling or storing the evidence, and the manner in which evidence is transferred to subsequent custodians each time such a transfer occurs (along with the signatures of persons involved at each step).
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
Quote off
This is the problem that many have with the assassination alleged evidence of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) as much of it does not have a proper chain of custody attached to it. Notice too how this definition says, “alleged evidence” and “alleged crime” as before a trial and verdict nothing is for sure.
The official narrative defenders like to claim everything that the Warren Commission (WC) presented is evidence, but it isn’t because much of it has no CoC and because it went through no process to be admitted into a court of law (this process includes the defense team). Therefore, it is “alleged evidence.”
Part of the discovery and handling process is initialing the evidence, and yet, Captain Fritz failed to do this with the alleged murder weapon (Commission Exhibit (CE) 139).
Mr. BALL. Did you initial the rifle?
Mr. FRITZ. The rifle; no, sir.
No? Why would he not initial the rifle? How do we know the rifle in the National Archives (NA) is the same rifle that they allegedly found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) Building on November 22, 1963? We don’t. There is already doubt due to different characteristics of the rifle presented as being the discovered one in the TSBD and the one in the NA.
And now we also have NO initials from Captain Fritz to further cloud the issue. Even the WC lawyer is surprised by this.
Mr. BALL. You didn't. Who did you give the rifle to after you ejected this live cartridge?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe that that rifle, I didn't take the rifle with me, Lieutenant Day took that rifle, I believe, to the city hall, and later I asked him to bring it down--I don't believe I ever carried that rifle to city hall. I believe Lieutenant Day carried it to city hall, anyway if you will ask him, he can be more positive than I.
All we constantly see is “I believe” from him. This was the assassination of a President, and he seems unsure of anything. Is this how you conduct a murder investigation? If he can’t be positive about whether he carried the rifle to City Hall or not, then we should have serious doubts about the rest of his statements concerning this case.
Captain Fritz was part of the process as he took the rifle and supposedly ejected a bullet, but we are supposed to believe that he would not initial it for CoC?
Can any official narrative defender please provide a reasonable explanation for why Captain Fritz did not put his initials on CE 139?
We again see either poor handling of the evidence or misconduct in the handling of the evidence by the Dallas Police Department (DPD) which leads to the assumption that it was not actually found in situ at the crime scene. This means it could have been planted at some point and this leads to sinking the conclusion the WC provided us about what occurred in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) Building on November 22, 1963. Based on this, the WC is sunk again.
iv1.lisimg.com/image/9521086/623full-will-fritz.jpg
nationalinterest.org/sites/default/files/main_images/1030px-Mannlicher-Carcano_Rifle_Owned_by_Lee_Harvey_Oswald.jpg
1.bp.blogspot.com/-xMASHuENDuQ/T07-Ortw7TI/AAAAAAAAF4Q/Y63uJHUInzo/s801/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Building.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) assassinated President John F. Kennedy (JFK), shot and killed Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT), wounded Texas Governor John B. Connally (JBC) and attempted to kill retired General Edwin Walker. The evidence supporting these claims is absent from the WC’s twenty-six volumes of exhibits and testimony however, therefore, this has left many questions for us today. I have asked so many questions in this series already, and now it is time for another.
**********************************************
Why did Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz not initial the alleged murder weapon (Commission Exhibit 139)?
Nothing is more important than the Chain of Custody (CoC) in a criminal case as it confirms the legitimacy of the evidence that is presented in a court of law. Here is more on this issue.
Quote on
When evidence can be used in court to convict persons of crimes, it must be handled in a scrupulously careful manner to prevent tampering or contamination. The idea behind recording the chain of custody is to establish that the alleged evidence is in fact related to the alleged crime, rather than having, for example, been “planted” fraudulently to make someone appear guilty.
An identifiable person must always have the physical custody of a piece of evidence. In practice, this means that a police officer or detective will take charge of a piece of evidence, document its collection, and hand it over to an evidence clerk for storage in a secure place. These transactions, and every succeeding transaction between the collection of the evidence and its appearance in court, should be completely documented chronologically in order to withstand legal challenges to the authenticity of the evidence. Documentation should include the conditions under which the evidence is gathered, the identity of all evidence handlers, duration of evidence custody, security conditions while handling or storing the evidence, and the manner in which evidence is transferred to subsequent custodians each time such a transfer occurs (along with the signatures of persons involved at each step).
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
Quote off
This is the problem that many have with the assassination alleged evidence of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) as much of it does not have a proper chain of custody attached to it. Notice too how this definition says, “alleged evidence” and “alleged crime” as before a trial and verdict nothing is for sure.
The official narrative defenders like to claim everything that the Warren Commission (WC) presented is evidence, but it isn’t because much of it has no CoC and because it went through no process to be admitted into a court of law (this process includes the defense team). Therefore, it is “alleged evidence.”
Part of the discovery and handling process is initialing the evidence, and yet, Captain Fritz failed to do this with the alleged murder weapon (Commission Exhibit (CE) 139).
Mr. BALL. Did you initial the rifle?
Mr. FRITZ. The rifle; no, sir.
No? Why would he not initial the rifle? How do we know the rifle in the National Archives (NA) is the same rifle that they allegedly found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) Building on November 22, 1963? We don’t. There is already doubt due to different characteristics of the rifle presented as being the discovered one in the TSBD and the one in the NA.
And now we also have NO initials from Captain Fritz to further cloud the issue. Even the WC lawyer is surprised by this.
Mr. BALL. You didn't. Who did you give the rifle to after you ejected this live cartridge?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe that that rifle, I didn't take the rifle with me, Lieutenant Day took that rifle, I believe, to the city hall, and later I asked him to bring it down--I don't believe I ever carried that rifle to city hall. I believe Lieutenant Day carried it to city hall, anyway if you will ask him, he can be more positive than I.
All we constantly see is “I believe” from him. This was the assassination of a President, and he seems unsure of anything. Is this how you conduct a murder investigation? If he can’t be positive about whether he carried the rifle to City Hall or not, then we should have serious doubts about the rest of his statements concerning this case.
Captain Fritz was part of the process as he took the rifle and supposedly ejected a bullet, but we are supposed to believe that he would not initial it for CoC?
Can any official narrative defender please provide a reasonable explanation for why Captain Fritz did not put his initials on CE 139?
We again see either poor handling of the evidence or misconduct in the handling of the evidence by the Dallas Police Department (DPD) which leads to the assumption that it was not actually found in situ at the crime scene. This means it could have been planted at some point and this leads to sinking the conclusion the WC provided us about what occurred in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) Building on November 22, 1963. Based on this, the WC is sunk again.