From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Clark Panel
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:42:00 GMT
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

U54778@uicvm.uic.edu writes...
>Mr. Todd frequently states unequivically his faith in all this expert testimony
> and untainted pristine evidence.  Could he please explain to me what the
>concept of "chain of evidence" is to him and why this concept is used
>profusely in court proceedings?

	It's "chain of possession", not "chain of evidence". Chain of 
	possession questions are generally used by defense lawyers (and
	the occaisional plaintiff's attourney and DA) as an attempt to 
	impeach evidence against their clients. Generally speaking, this
	is a pretty chicken shit way to impeach evidence, since the worst
	it might prove is that no one knew where evidence X was at such
	and such a time. It could mean that someone was diddling with
	the evidence --it could also mean that the evidence was misplaced
	(this seems to happen more than one would suspect), or that
	the paperwork was done improperly, not done, (ie, reciepts), or
	any number of other, less sinister causes.
	
	While a break in the chain of possession can be suspicious, there
	is still the burden of substantiating any charges of fakery,
	substitution, or any other fraud. Without this, any argument
	using a break in the chain to impeach any piece of evidence
	fails.


>WASHINGTON, June 17 ---- A Central Intelligence Agency officer who was
>assisting a Congressional committee in the investigation of the 1963
>assassination of Pres. Kennedy was dismissed after his fingerprints
>were found on sensitive evidence kept in a committee  safe, the CIA
>acknowledged today... He refused
>to elaborate on the reported unauthorized entry into the locked safe,
>where the committee kept physical evidence of the assassination, including
>autopsy photos, X-rays and the bullet that wounded both the President and
>then Governor John B. Connally of Texas.

>Certainly, this could be as innocent as it sounds.  But it raises a lot
>of questions in my mind.  And I wonder what this incident would do to
>a prosecution's case when confronted with demand for chain of evidence.

	They would have to demonstrate that the agent tampered with the
	evidence. Considering, for instance, that two members of the
	forensics panel had seen the autopsy materials prior to the
	agent's access to the safe, and that they saw no differences
	between the photos then and now, it would be quite difficult to
	prove that he did anything to them. CE399 could easily be
	checked against known photos of the bullet, right down to
	checking the groving in the base of the bullet.

	It all comes down to, "ok,  there are problems in the chain of
	posession. So what? How does it affect the case?"

                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\