Truth and Lies: Who Killed JFK

[John Corbett]

You are failing even the Pretend Lawyer bar exam, which is difficult to do. Russo is a highly respected researcher and author. The evidence for what he says comprises (1) his interviews with former G2 operatives and (2) his considerable investigation into JFK's and RFK's plans and the extent which they were known in the pro- and anti-Castro communities. You have such a flexible concept of "evidence" that I wish you'd find a different term. When Russo speculates, that is simply informed speculation - but it is evidence-based.

I'm starting to doubt you were ever a lawyer. You sure don't seem to have a concept of what evidence is?

Just what evidence has he presented to support his speculation. You don't seem to know.

[Lance Payette]

I'm starting to doubt you were ever a lawyer. You sure don't seem to have a concept of what evidence is?

Just what evidence has he presented to support his speculation. You don't seem to know.

No, you're not, Fluffy. My legal work, including reported appellate decisions, law review articles and legal fiction, is all over the internet. Here is my first victory in the Arizona Supreme Court some 35 years ago: https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1991/cv-90-0490-pr-2.html. You are earning your way into the A-Hole Pit of Fame, and I halfway suspect that is your purpose here. Your responses are brain dead.

I don't know what your used car salesman's understanding of evidence is, but the concept is quite simple. "Evidence is an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, photographs, videos, voice recordings, DNA testing, or other tangible objects." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/evidence. More generally, evidence is "anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true." You seem to have some peculiar notion that was perhaps unique to the employees of Buddy's Used Car Sales.

I thought you styled yourself as a JFKA researcher, yet you are unfamiliar with Gus Russo's work? Ben has posted some of it here, but all of Russo's work in amply footnoted.

Russo has documented his interviews with G2 operatives who claim to have knowledge of Oswald's statements about JFK and his dealings with G2. Those interviews are evidence; if we had access to the operatives themselves, and I don't know whether we do, that would be even better evidence. He undertook a great deal of investigative work regarding JFK's and RFK's imminent anti-Castro plans and the extent to which they were an open secret in segments of both the pro- and anti-Castro movements. What he discovered during his investigative work is evidence. The publication of Castro's warning to the Kennedys is a matter of historical fact. As previously stated, in both the law and everyday life, we are allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.

How credible Russo's evidence is, and what weight should be attached to it, are different questions from whether it is evidence at all. It is evidence.

In your confusion, you seem to waft between a strict courtroom standard of relevant and admissible evidence, which is pretty much irrelevant at this point (as Martin has pointed out) and a more general but seemingly muddled understanding of evidence that is not entirely clear to me. With all your tedious and tiresome posts, the bottom line seems to be "Evidence is whatever I decide it is in any particular post, and if it runs counter to anything in the LN narrative then it is, ipso facto, not evidence." It's quite bizarre that you are seemingly oblivious to the game you are so obviously playing, which is what makes me suspect that your actual purpose here is simply "being an a-hole." I enjoy playing the role of curmudgeonly contrarian myself, but I generally try to stop short of looking like fool.