JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Three evenly spaced shots, or "bang . . . . . . . . bang - bang"?
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on April 24, 2026, 05:43:11 PM ---That little film clip demonstrates just how unreliable eye and ear witness testimony is. All those witnesses observed the same event and yet their accounts varied greatly. There was no consensus whatsoever. If all we had to go on was those accounts, we could conclude that most of them got it wrong. We wouldn't know which ones got it wrong and it's possible they could all be wrong but it is not possible they could all be right.
--- End quote ---
And yet, if the LNs are to be believed, all the witnesses in the Tippit shooting who identified Oswald were spot on. Go figure!
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on April 24, 2026, 06:02:17 PM ---And yet, if the LNs are to be believed, all the witnesses in the Tippit shooting who identified Oswald were spot on. Go figure!
--- End quote ---
There's a big difference between identifying a person seen at and/or leaving a crime scene and trying to say from which direction and at what frequency three (or more???) shots were fired in a large echo chamber like Dealey Plaza.
D'oh!
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on April 24, 2026, 05:43:11 PM ---That little film clip demonstrates just how unreliable eye and ear witness testimony is. All those witnesses observed the same event and yet their accounts varied greatly. There was no consensus whatsoever. If all we had to go on was those accounts, we could conclude that most of them got it wrong. We wouldn't know which ones got it wrong and it's possible they could all be wrong but it is not possible they could all be right.
--- End quote ---
If you think that is a representative sample of the witnesses, you haven't read the evidence. What it doesn't show is that of the many witnesses who, without prompting of any kind, recalled a pattern to the shots, the vast majority distinctly stated that the last two were closer together.
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: Tom Graves on April 24, 2026, 10:13:44 PM ---There's a big difference between identifying a person seen at and/or or leaving from a crime scene and trying to say from which direction and at what frequency three (or more???) shots were fired in a large echo chamber like Dealey Plaza.
D'oh!
--- End quote ---
Yes there is. Eyewitness IDENTIFICATION evidence is prone to error and much less reliable than observation of the number and pattern of three shots. This is because it is not just about witness observation. It is about forming an opinion that the person you saw was the same person seen in the line-up. The famous case of Adolph Beck in England where several people misidentified Beck as the thief in an offence that occurred 17 years earlier. After serving his lengthy prison sentence, five women wrongly identified Beck again as the culprit in another fraud case and he was found guilty. However, before sentencing, the real thief was found and, as it turns out, was the same person who had committed the first offence as well. This led to a public inquiry that established strict rules for admitting this kind of evidence.
On the other hand, simple witness observation of salient details (those recalled without prompting by most witnesses) is highly accurate as shown by the studies compiled by Eliz. Loftus in her book Eyewitness Testimony (1979), Harvard Press.
Having said all that, the eyewitness identification evidence that Oswald was the person who shot Officer Tippit is supported by a great deal of other evidence and, therefore, the conclusion that Oswald shot Tippit is reliable.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on April 24, 2026, 11:27:48 PM ---Yes there is. Eyewitness IDENTIFICATION evidence is prone to error and much less reliable than observation of the number and pattern of three shots. This is because it is not just about witness observation. It is about forming an opinion that the person you saw was the same person seen in the line-up. The famous case of Adolph Beck in England where several people misidentified Beck as the thief in an offence that occurred 17 years earlier. After serving his lengthy prison sentence, five women wrongly identified Beck again as the culprit in another fraud case and he was found guilty. However, before sentencing, the real thief was found and, as it turns out, was the same person who had committed the first offence as well. This led to a public inquiry that established strict rules for admitting this kind of evidence.
On the other hand, simple witness observation of salient details (those recalled without prompting by most witnesses) is highly accurate as shown by the studies compiled by Eliz. Loftus in her book Eyewitness Testimony (1979), Harvard Press.
Having said all that, the eyewitness identification evidence that Oswald was the person who shot Officer Tippit is supported by a great deal of other evidence and, therefore, the conclusion that Oswald shot Tippit is reliable.
--- End quote ---
You've got it backwards.
The ten or so eyewitness' identification of the person who murdered Tippit and/or fled the scene was much easier than the hundred or so earwitnesses' trying to remember how many shots were fired at JFK in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza, not to mention how those (two? three? four? five? fifteen?) shots were distributed.
D'oh!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version