55 years later...

[Paul May]

Nothing in your comment was specific. Might you clear that up?

[Jon Banks]

Nothing in your comment was specific. Might you clear that up?

My point is that experts have been proven wrong or not credible. Even in JFK assassination investigations.

[Mitch Todd]

It doesn?t help that until recently at least, experts and Prosecutors have been dishonest about the reliability of Forensic Science. It?s highly subjective (junk science in some cases) and only in the past decade or so have many of the problems with Forensic Science been brought to light.

https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/the-flaws-in-forensic-science/

From the "about the author" blurb for that article:

"Lauren J. Young is Science Friday?s digital producer. When she?s not shelving books as a library assistant, she?s adding to her impressive Pez dispenser collection."

That resume' doesn't exactly inspire a great deal of confidence in her expertise on the subject matter.

A number of previously-accepted forensic techniques have been discarded as being poorly- or un-supported science-- bite mark and blood spatter analyses come to mind. Other techniques have been oversold and/or misused as unique indicators (eg, fiber analysis and CBLA) though they still likely maintain some usefulness. All of that put together still doesn't invalidate the other methods in use. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Mitch Todd]

My point is that experts have been proven wrong or not credible. Even in JFK assassination investigations.

First and foremost among them is probably Robert Groden, whose assertions didn't survive first contact with the HSCA photography panel. His self-immolation on the stand at the OJ trial was a simply icing on the cake.

[Jon Banks]

From the "about the author" blurb for that article:

"Lauren J. Young is Science Friday?s digital producer. When she?s not shelving books as a library assistant, she?s adding to her impressive Pez dispenser collection."

That resume' doesn't exactly inspire a great deal of confidence in her expertise on the subject matter.

He?s not alone though. There?s a whole movement among scientists to expose the flaws in Forensic ?Science?.

Law Enforcement and Prosecutors over-sell the reliability of most methods in Forensics.

All of that put together still doesn't invalidate the other methods in use. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree but there are a few things we can throw out with regards to the Kennedy assassination investigations like the NAA Lead Analysis and the Hair and Fiber Analysis.

[Bill Chapman]

Bill, that is a circular argument of sorts!  A dog chasing it's tail never catches it!

In the meantime, if you have evidence revealing that anybody but the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means do post it.

Don't sidetrack.  Answer my question!!  How can you conduct a proper investigation of any event if you are in charge of it,  part of it and are investigating yourself even though you were part of the crime scene?    Think about it.  If you are in charge of the entire investigation (of yourself nonetheless),  how is the process not biased?

A proper investigation would have involved an independent inquiry into his death, something which was circumvented by those SS players involved.  By removing the body, vehicle etc. out of the hands of the Texas jurisdiction, you are bypassing protocol and the rule of law!   That is what happened in this case!  Why not let a standard lawful investigation run its course.   If you are innocent, you have nothing to fear by the process.  However, if you are guilty, I guess you don't want that investigation to take place!

The conspiracy comes in from the fact that you allow Greer and Kellerman to be part of the investigation team.  These are possible suspects.  These were people at the very crime scene!  Post independent agents instead.   How did the "Navy Corpsman" get in there with a camera and then have his rolls of film destroyed?  Who was controlling this scene?  We know who was controlling the crime scene and it certainly wasn't the President!

I would argue that you and your ilk are the ones coming up with distractions: The simple fact is that no one can show that anyone but the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.

You may claim that my point is off topic but in reality it underscores every topic on every JFK forum whether you lot like it or not.

[Jon Banks]

I would argue that you and your ilk are the ones coming up with distractions: The simple fact is that no one can show that anyone but the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.

There are unconfirmed claims of people expressing knowledge of an attempt on Kennedy's life being imminent in the days and weeks prior to 11/22/63.

Some or all of those claims may lack credibility but I'm not confident enough to say that Oswald is the only one who knew Kennedy would be shot that day.

Hell, we don't even have enough evidence to prove Oswald knew prior to 11/22/63 that Kennedy's parade route would pass TSBD :

Mr. JARMAN: Well, he was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all.