Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (32 page)

To reject the hypotheses that the analysis was incorrect and/or that the fingerprints were planted, the evidence would need to be properly
authenticated
, and that takes us to our second question,
is the evidence
authentic
?

In this regard,
Federal Rule Of Evidence
901 (a) provides as follows:

As the rule states, the proponent of a claim “must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” In other words, the evidence must be
genuine
. If the prosecution says that a defendant used
this
knife to stab a victim, then the prosecution must produce
this
knife and not some other knife that
looks like
that knife, and be able to
prove
it. If the prosecution says that the defendant shot the victim with a .22 caliber pistol, then it had better not produce as evidence shotgun pellets. If the prosecution’s proof that a defendant murdered a victim is blood on the clothes, the material on the clothes should be
blood
, not
paint
. If the prosecution says that it is Oswald’s fingerprint on the box, it should be able to prove that it was Oswald’s fingerprint, and not someone else’s, and that even if it was Oswald’s fingerprint, it was placed there by Oswald, not someone else, and if it was Oswald’s fingerprint placed there by Oswald himself, it was placed there at 12:30 p.m.

There are two techniques used to authenticate evidence,
ready identification
and
chain of custody
. Ready identification is used when an item has a unique, one-of-a-kind characteristic, and chain of custody is used when an object does
not
have a uniquely identifying characteristic.

As Steven Emanuel and Joel Friedman explained, “[t]he chain of custody method of authentication requires that every ‘link’ in the chain of custody — every person who has handled or possessed the object since it was first recognized as being relevant to the case — must explain what he did with it.” (
Emanuel On Evidence
, p. 465). This distinction was articulated by the Supreme Court of Montana in
State of Montana v. Sox
, 212 Mont. 488 at 491-2; 689 P.2d 252 (1984):

There are essentially two recognized methods of identifying physical evidence: ready identification and chain of custody.
The former method is used when the article has a unique characteristic that makes it readily identifiable. The exhibits in the instant case lend themselves to ready identifiability; the computer components had Canadian stock stickers attached to them and one component had even had its sticker realigned in a unique manner by Barnhart. The guitar too, was very unique and easily identifiable.

In his book on evidentiary foundations, Imwinkelried assures us that when introducing a readily identifiable piece of evidence, “the foundation is complete so long as the witness testifies that he or she previously observed the characteristic and presently recalls the characteristic.” E. Imwinkelried,
Evidentiary Foundations
(1980), at p. 81. Only when the evidence is so commonplace as to be non-unique or when the witness has failed to observe its uniqueness is it necessary to lay a chain of custody foundation.

The Alabama Supreme Court in 1991 explained the significance of the chain of custody, as well as the significance of the concept of “links” and “missing links” (“
Ex parte Holton
”, 590 So.2d 918, 920 (Ala. 1991); emphasis supplied):

The chain of custody is composed of ‘link’. A ‘link’ is anyone who handled the item.
The State must identify each link from the time the item was seized. In order to show a proper chain of custody, the record must show each link and also the following with regard to each link’s possession of the item: (1) [the] receipt of the item; (2) [the] ultimate disposition of the item, i.e., transfer, destruction, or retention; and (3) [the] safeguarding and handling of the item between receipt and disposition.

If the State, or any other proponent of demonstrative evidence, fails to identify a link or fails to show for the record any one of the three criteria as to each link, the result is a ‘missing’ link, and the item is inadmissible.
If, however, the State has shown each link and has shown all three criteria as to each link, but has done so with circumstantial evidence, as opposed to the direct testimony of the ‘link’, as to one or more [of the] criteria or as to one or more links, the result is a ‘weak’ link. When the link is ‘weak’, a question of credibility and weight is presented, not one of admissibility.

How are links authenticated? Through a series of technical requirements. These technical requirements for establishing a chain of custody are extremely rigorous. Consider this description of proper protocol for a drug prosecution (“Chapter 10. Authentication And Identification,” “Testimony of Witness With Knowledge,” 31 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 7106(b)(1), 38-40; paragraph separations added by author; emphasis supplied):

[I]n a drug prosecution a chain of custody for contraband seized from the defendant would typically be established in the following manner.

The government might first call as a witness the arresting officer to testify that he found in defendant’s possession a bag containing a white powder. This witness would testify that he kept the bag and its contents
in his possession
and secure until he placed it into an evidence container and
sealed that container in a way that would reveal if it had been opened
. The officer then might
testify that he gave the container to a police chemist.

The chemist then might be called as a witness to confirm that, when he received the container,
it had not been opened
. The chemist might further testify that he opened the container, removed the contents, and
conducted tests to establish the nature of those contents
. Finally, the chemist would testify that he placed the contents back into the container, resealed it, brought it to court, and that
the container shows no indication that it subsequently had been opened.

This foundation is sufficient to authenticate the bag and its contents because the perceptions of the two witnesses, combined with the circumstantial evidence that the container had not been disturbed except by the chemist, would be sufficient to sustain a finding that the exhibit was the same item and in the same condition as the item found in defendant’s possession. Further,
the chemist now would be permitted to testify as to the results of his analysis of the evidence since the chain of custody tying the evidence to the defendant establishes the relevance of that testimony
.

The standards in a murder case with a death penalty as a consequence, needless to say, can be no less rigorous.

The bottom line: if the key evidence in The Case Against Oswald does not satisfy legal requirements that have been used to authenticate evidence, it is
at the very least
not admissible. And, in certain circumstances, a failure to meet these parameters may be seen as meta-evidence that the evidence has been
manufactured
, which would taint the credibility of all the other evidence in the case.

ELEMENT TWO

Lee Harvey Oswald, at the time of the assassination, was present at the window from which it was alleged that the shots were fired (the sixth floor of the southeast window of the Texas School Book Depository), and the weapon purported to be Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 mm Italian rifle was in Oswald’s possession at the time it was fired.

If the shots were fired from the southeast window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and Oswald was not even at that window, then obviously he did not fire the shots. Moreover, even if he
was
at the window, if he was not holding the rifle, then obviously he did not fire the shots. In either of these situations the proposition would be positively disproven.

ELEMENT THREE

A rifleman of Lee Harvey Oswald’s capabilities could plausibly have fired 3 separate shots using the Mannlicher-Carcano within the elapsed time of the shooting and with the requisite accuracy required.

The assassin, or assassins, had a challenging shot. For a period of time, there was an oak tree between the sixth floor window and the President’s limousine, which was traveling at approximately eleven miles per hour. The final shot that hit the President was approximately 80 yards from the sixth-floor window, 20 yards shy of a football field away. In addition, the complete shot sequence from the first to the last shot took place anywhere from approximately 5.5 to 7 seconds, very close to the limits established by the Warren Commission regarding how fast the rifle could be fired.

That’s not all: even if Oswald were the best shot in the world, the Mannlicher-Carcano had to be of a certain level of quality for the shot to be made. For example, the scope on the rifle should have been calibrated with its target (in other words, if you have a bull’s-eye in the crosshairs, and instead hit the outer ring of a target, not to mention missing it entirely, you do not have a properly-sighted scope!). The same reasoning would be true for the bolt and firing pin and any other rifle component.

If Oswald cannot make the shot, he cannot be a gunman, lone or otherwise.

ELEMENT FOUR

Lee Harvey Oswald was not framed for the murder of President John F. Kennedy.

Issues with the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald may lead to an inference, if not an outright deduction, that Oswald was framed for murder. If that is the case, then we will be led on a path to gather evidence outside the official case that can be used to confirm and/or further develop this hypothesis. If we take that route, we may find an extraordinary amount of evidence not considered by the Warren Commission which demonstrates that very point. The more evidence that is found, the lower the confidence level for this element, which could easily drop below the threshold requirement.

If this element is not established beyond a reasonable doubt, then there is a significant possibility, if not certainty, that Oswald was framed, and if that is the case, the only possible verdict that could be returned is “not guilty.”

Conclusion

So much for the analysis of the necessity of the elements of
Propositions
One
and
Two
.

We’ve come a long way. The essential background has been covered.

Let us now look at the evidence underlying the first element of
Proposition One
, and apply what we’ve learned.