Conclusions or assumptions

[Martin Weidmann]

What "two different explanations" have you offered?

The jury is asked to look at the evidence as a whole. I don't know of any case where a conviction hinged on a single "probable".

What "two different explanations" have you offered?

More diversion. I did not say I have offered two different explanations. I said I could offer them.

Why don't you simply try to answer my question? If, as you claim, Oswald would not think the rifle was untraceable, then why did he use an alias to order it?


The jury is asked to look at the evidence as a whole. I don't know of any case where a conviction hinged on a single "probable".

Who said a conviction would hinge on a single "probable"? The use of the word "probable" means that something isn't certain. In other words, there is no evidence to support it, yet you consider it nevertheless as a "reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence", which it clearly isn't. It's an assumption. And the WC case against Oswald is riddled with assumptions for which very often reasonable other explanations have or can be offered.

So if the jury has to look at evidence riddled with assumptions, that would be alright with you?

[Martin Weidmann]

And you would just shoot it down as not being a "reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence" if my explanation implicated Oswald. Been there; bought the T-shirt.

Even if some isolated claim about Oswald could be out-and-out dismissed or -- rarely in your case -- be convincingly undermined with a counter-explanation, it would do little to weaken the LN evidence overall.

That's your opinion that "there is no evidence to support it". So far, the CTs' counter-explanations have been lamer. Unfortunately the general public is conspiracy-minded and don't want to do the science.

Thanks for your opinion.

Reasonable judgment, after examining a range of alternatives.

Like, per your OP, Oswald writing the the orderform, envelope and money order and then it not being used? Or Oswald holding somebody else's rifle in the BY photos? That more reasonable? Well, I guess if you can find a judge/jury like-minded.

A jury is tasked with weighing the prosecution scenario against the defense counter-argument, including sometimes an alternative theory. In the OJ Simpson Criminal Trial, the jury chose to believe OJ cut his finger on a broken drinking glass, that Fuhrman was a racist who planted the glove at Rockingham, that the bloodstained socks at Rockingham and blood drops/smears in the Bronco and at Bundy were planted, and that the DNA evidence was contaminated from a blood sample taken from OJ.

And you would just shoot it down as not being a "reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence" if my explanation implicated Oswald. Been there; bought the T-shirt.

Another typical LN cop out. You are a die hard LN, so whatever explanation you give will always implicate Oswald in one way or another. By this "logic" you would never have to answer a question, which of course is utter nonsense. You can either tell us why Oswald used the Hidell alias, if he would not think the rifle was untraceable, or you can't.

Why not be honest and simply say that you have no credible answer to the question?

Even if some isolated claim about Oswald could be out-and-out dismissed or -- rarely in your case -- be convincingly undermined with a counter-explanation, it would do little to weaken the LN evidence overall.

The overall LN evidence doesn't need to be undermined with counter-explanations, riddled as it is with speculation and assumptions, it can barely stand up by its own.

That's your opinion that "there is no evidence to support it". So far, the CTs' counter-explanations have been lamer. Unfortunately the general public is conspiracy-minded and don't want to do the science.

If you disagree with my opinion that there is no evidence to support it, why don't you prove me wrong by providing the evidence the "probably" claim is based on?

And even if it is true that "CTs' counter-explanations have been lamer" that still does not make your opinion more valid or credible.

Reasonable judgment, after examining a range of alternatives.

BS. What other alternatives were examined?

Like, per your OP, Oswald writing the the orderform, envelope and money order and then it not being used?

Who said anything about the orderform etc not being used? My question relates to those documents not only having been written by Oswald but also being used.

Or Oswald holding somebody else's rifle in the BY photos? That more reasonable? Well, I guess if you can find a judge/jury like-minded.

I haven't owned any weapon all my life, but I was photographed once holding somebody else's rifle. What's unreasonable about that?

Obviously, my two questions in the OP are asked against the background of the possibility that Oswald was being manipulated to set him up as a fall guy. If you consider it impossible that Oswald was or could be manipulated you will never be able to look beyond yourself.

A jury is tasked with weighing the prosecution scenario against the defense counter-argument, including sometimes an alternative theory. In the OJ Simpson Criminal Trial, the jury chose to believe OJ cut his finger on a broken drinking glass, that Fuhrman was a racist who planted the glove at Rockingham, that the bloodstained socks at Rockingham and blood drops/smears in the Bronco and at Bundy were planted, and that the DNA evidence was contaminated from a blood sample taken from OJ.

What are you babbling about? That jury basically accepted the defense argument that, for a number of reasons, including the lack of a solid chain of custody for a blood vial, the evidence presented by the prosecution could not be trusted. In other words; the prosecution did not present a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you consider what the OJ jury did a "reasonable assessment of the available facts and evidence" then I do not understand at all what your problem in the case against Oswald is. The OJ jury did exactly what you would not want a jury to do in Oswald's case, despite the fact that the case against OJ was far more solid than the case against Oswald ever was or will be. A jury can not simply overlook weaknesses in the prosecution's case such as assumptions based on what they think "probably" happened. 

Now, can/will you answer the two OP questions, or will you continue to waste my time with cop outs and vague excuses?

Here are the two questions again;

1. Let's suppose that Oswald did in fact write the orderform, envelope and money order, how does that justify the conclusion that he ordered the rifle for himself and actually received it?

2. Let's assume that the BY photos are indeed authentic, how do they justify the conclusion that Oswald is holding a rifle that is his property?

[Jon Banks]

A jury is tasked with weighing the prosecution scenario against the defense counter-argument, including sometimes an alternative theory. In the OJ Simpson Criminal Trial, the jury chose to believe OJ cut his finger on a broken drinking glass, that Fuhrman was a racist who planted the glove at Rockingham, that the bloodstained socks at Rockingham and blood drops/smears in the Bronco and at Bundy were planted, and that the DNA evidence was contaminated from a blood sample taken from OJ.

There is an all-too-common practice in our justice system known as Framing the Guilty. A police officer (or crime lab supervisor or medical examiner or district attorney) is convinced of a suspect's guilt but fears the bastard will walk free. The police officer (or other administrator of justice) will therefore bury exculpatory evidence, manufacture or plant inculpatory evidence, coerce a false confession, or provide favorable treatment to a third party in exchange for false testimony.

Since the dirtbag being framed is guilty, no harm is done.

http://www.skepticaljuror.com/2014/04/framing-guilty-framing-innocent.html


"Framing the guilty" (framing people that the police presume to be guilty) is a real problem in Law Enforcement. I don't know how common it is but it does happen.

More video emerges of Baltimore police staging evidence: prosecutors
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-maryland-police/more-video-emerges-of-baltimore-police-staging-evidence-prosecutors-idUSKCN1B127W


What I mean is, while OJ may have been guilty as sin, the LAPD did in fact, cut corners and maybe staged some evidence in order to ensure that OJ wouldn't get away with it.

O.J. Simpson case taught police what not to do at a crime scene
https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2014/06/08/oj-simpson-case-taught-police-what-not-to-do-at-a-crime-scene/

Police Detective Philip Vannatter drew Simpson’s blood at the LAPD on June 13, the day after the killings. But instead of booking it into evidence, Vannatter put the blood vial in his pocket and went to Simpson’s home where criminalists were collecting evidence.

Jurors questioned why he would have carried it around for hours rather than booking it and the defense argued it may have been used to plant evidence such as blood drops on Simpson’s front walkway.


Black Americans know better than most other Americans how corrupt Law Enforcement can be. So that explains why the Black Jurors in the OJ trial were receptive to the Defense's arguments about evidence tampering and potential staging of evidence.


If Oswald lived to go to trial and got a good lawyer, the problems with the evidence against him would've been exposed and challenged in court. Of course, there might've been fewer problems with the evidence had he lived. Many of the typical things done to preserve evidence and chain of custody were tossed out the window once Ruby killed Oswald.

[Martin Weidmann]

There is an all-too-common practice in our justice system known as Framing the Guilty. A police officer (or crime lab supervisor or medical examiner or district attorney) is convinced of a suspect's guilt but fears the bastard will walk free. The police officer (or other administrator of justice) will therefore bury exculpatory evidence, manufacture or plant inculpatory evidence, coerce a false confession, or provide favorable treatment to a third party in exchange for false testimony.

Since the dirtbag being framed is guilty, no harm is done.

http://www.skepticaljuror.com/2014/04/framing-guilty-framing-innocent.html


"Framing the guilty" (framing people that the police presume to be guilty) is a real problem in Law Enforcement. I don't know how common it is but it does happen.

More video emerges of Baltimore police staging evidence: prosecutors
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-maryland-police/more-video-emerges-of-baltimore-police-staging-evidence-prosecutors-idUSKCN1B127W


What I mean is, while OJ may have been guilty as sin, the LAPD did in fact, cut corners and maybe staged some evidence in order to ensure that OJ wouldn't get away with it.

O.J. Simpson case taught police what not to do at a crime scene
https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2014/06/08/oj-simpson-case-taught-police-what-not-to-do-at-a-crime-scene/

Police Detective Philip Vannatter drew Simpson’s blood at the LAPD on June 13, the day after the killings. But instead of booking it into evidence, Vannatter put the blood vial in his pocket and went to Simpson’s home where criminalists were collecting evidence.

Jurors questioned why he would have carried it around for hours rather than booking it and the defense argued it may have been used to plant evidence such as blood drops on Simpson’s front walkway.


Black Americans know better than most other Americans how corrupt Law Enforcement can be. So that explains why the Black Jurors in the OJ trial were receptive to the Defense's arguments about evidence tampering and potential staging of evidence.


If Oswald lived to go to trial and got a good lawyer, the problems with the evidence against him would've been exposed and challenged in court. Of course, there might've been fewer problems with the evidence had he lived. Many of the typical things done to preserve evidence and chain of custody were tossed out the window once Ruby killed Oswald.

This is exactly why I wonder what Jerry was thinking about when he refered to the OJ case as that case demonstrates extremely clearly why chain of custody is so important for authentication of evidence. The example you gave about Vannatter and the blood vial is highly similar to Hill handing in a revolver some two hours after he allegedly took it from Oswald at the Texas Theater and Westbrook handing in a grey jacket, previously described in radio traffic as white, and marked by officers who never handled the jacket. And there are more examples of this.

And it doesn't even have to be police or prosecutorial misconduct. Evidence could also have been manipulated prior to the investigators obtaining it. Not easy to prove perhaps, but nevertheless a possibility that needs to be considered.

Jerry just wants to ignore all the potential problems with the evidence as if none of it matters because he feels they got the right man. I wouldn't be surprised if he is one of those LNs who don't even want to consider the inconsistencies in the official narrative for fear of stumbling onto something that forces him to question his own opinion.

[Jon Banks]

This is exactly why I wonder what Jerry was thinking about when he refered to the OJ case as that case demonstrates extremely clearly why chain of custody is so important for authentication of evidence. The example you gave about Vannatter and the blood vial is highly similar to Hill handing in a revolver some two hours after he allegedly took it from Oswald at the Texas Theater and Westbrook handing in a grey jacket, previously described in radio traffic as white, and marked by officers who never handled the jacket. And there are more examples of this.

And it doesn't even have to be police or prosecutorial misconduct. Evidence could also have been manipulated prior to the investigators obtaining it. Not easy to prove perhaps, but nevertheless a possibility that needs to be considered.

Jerry just wants to ignore all the potential problems with the evidence as if none of it matters because he feels they got the right man. I wouldn't be surprised if he is one of those LNs who don't even want to consider the inconsistencies in the official narrative for fear of stumbling onto something that forces him to question his own opinion.

Yeah, the OJ case is a terrible example of police behavior with regards to the integrity of the evidence.

The police and prosecutors often get away with improper handling of evidence or staging crime scenes because most suspects can’t afford the kind of legal defense team that OJ had.

In the Kennedy assassination, it almost certainly seems that the 6th floor crime scene was tampered with and staged before photos were taken. But there are similar problems throughout for the Dallas police evidence and crime scenes. It’s not clear if it was due to malice or negligence. Most likely, both things were at play.

Even FBI agents have criticized the handling of evidence by the DPD.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yeah, the OJ case is a terrible example of police behavior with regards to the integrity of the evidence.

The police and prosecutors often get away with improper handling of evidence or staging crime scenes because most suspects can’t afford the kind of legal defense team that OJ had.

In the Kennedy assassination, it almost certainly seems that the 6th floor crime scene was tampered with and staged before photos were taken. But there are similar problems throughout for the Dallas police evidence and crime scenes. It’s not clear if it was due to malice or negligence. Most likely, both things were at play.

Even FBI agents have criticized the handling of evidence by the DPD.

In the Kennedy assassination, it almost certainly seems that the 6th floor crime scene was tampered with and staged before photos were taken.

Well, the absence of an in situ photograph of the location of the paper bag and the conflicting testimony about who found it and where, as well as Capt. Fritz picking up the shells and throwing them back down again and the moving of some boxes between photo shoots certainly isn't in the manual of how to perserve and project the integrity of a crime scene, that's for sure.

And Detective Hill handing in a revolver which he claimed was taken of Oswald at the Texas Theater, some two hours earlier, and Captain Westbrook handing in a grey jacket, which previously was described several times in radio traffic as being white, and with initials of cops on it that never were in the chain of custody while the officers who actually handled the jacket remain unidentified doesn't do much for the credibility of the case against Oswald either.

[Richard Smith]

Part of establishing a case against a suspect involves presenting a theory of how the suspect might've did it.

Obviously, no one except Oswald knows for sure how he transported his rifle to Walker scene.  By asking that question, therefore, you are calling for some speculation.  And not having a film documenting how he carried the rifle in no way precludes him from having done so.  What we do know with absolute certainty is that Oswald was the person who pulled the trigger.  His own wife confirms that he came home on the night of the Walker attempt and confessed to her.  There would have been no way for Oswald to know that an attempt had been made on Walker at that point in time except for his personal knowledge of the event.  There were no newspapers, Internet, or TV reports available to Oswald in the middle of the night in 1963.  Marina also confirms that he left her a note on what to do if he was killed or arrested that night.  He had recon photos of Walker's home etc.  It's a slam dunk.