New: "Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald"

[Michael T. Griffith]

Again, MTG accepts VSA solely because it supports his narrative.

Nope, not at all. I accept VSA technology because of the strong scientific and experiential evidence of its reliability. I accept it partly from my knowledge of VSA usage in intelligence operations from my many years in U.S. intelligence.

You, on the other hand, reject VSA technology solely and only because it refutes your narrative.

There is a reason neither VSA nor traditional polygraphs have been widely accepted by the courts.

Uh-huh, so never mind the numerous studies published in scientific journals that validate the reliability of VSA technology, right? Never mind the numerous tests and experiential cases that have established that VSA lie detection has a very high rate of accuracy, right? Never mind that hundreds of security and intel agencies, and thousands of law enforcement departments, around the world use VSA technology because of its proven reliability, right?

There are several kinds of perfectly valid evidence that courts won't allow to be presented to juries.

Unlike fingerprints and ballistic matching, there has never been widespread consensus that either is a reliable form of evidence.

Uh, says who? You? If there's no "widespread consensus" that VSA technology is reliable, why do thousands of police departments and hundreds of security and intel entities around the world use it for lie detection? Why have numerous scientists published studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals that present evidence that VSA lie detection is reliable, and that VSA devices are actually more reliable than the standard polygraph?

Ballistic matching?! I have personally documented for you the fact that over the last 20 years ballistic matching has come under increasing and powerful attack from the scientific community, and that it continues to have restrictions or bans placed on its use as evidence in court. It is revealing that you would cite ballistic matching in the same breath with fingerprint evidence, given the information you've been given about the scientific objections to ballistic matching.   

The fact that it finds Oswald's declaration of innocence to be truthful when there are so many well established and acceptable forms of evidence that clearly indicates his guilt is reason enough not to accept VSA as a credible evidentiary tool.

LOL! Ah-ha! So, your bottom-line reason for rejecting VSA technology is that it contradicts other "well established and acceptable forms of evidence," i.e., forms of evidence that you find "acceptable"! This is the same lame, uneducated excuse you've given for rejecting the results of other scientific testing, such as the JFKA SBT and headshot wound-ballistics tests, the most sophisticated SBT trajectory analysis ever done, the HSCA's acoustical analysis that found scientific evidence of four shots and a grassy knoll gunman, and the NAA testing of Oswald's right-cheek paraffin cast that proved he did not fire a rifle on 11/22/1963, etc., etc. -- you reject these results from those scientific fields because they refute your version of the shooting.

Indeed, you've even rejected (1) the entire field of wound-ballistics testing with the juvenile strawman argument that no two gunshot wounds are exactly alike in every single aspect, (2) the entire field of trajectory analysis because, according to you, even a 2-4-inch difference in the locations of bullet wounds makes no difference in the trajectory of the bullets that caused those wounds!

[Tom Graves]

Only in your poorly educated mind. For starters, the WC's scenario is hardly "complete." Good grief, the HSCA blew that myth out of the water.

Second, you're in no position to be saying whether a plausible alternative scenario has been presented (in fact, several such scenarios have been presented), because you've done so little reading on the JFK case that you don't even know what the WC said about key issues, nor do you know what leading WC defenders have said on key issues, much less what WC critics have documented.

Dear Comrade Griffith,

When did you become so impervious to common sense and facts?

When you watched Comrade Stone's "JFK," or the abomination called "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"?

-- Tom

[John Corbett]

Nope, not at all. I accept VSA technology because of the strong scientific and experiential evidence of its reliability. I accept it partly from my knowledge of VSA usage in intelligence operations from my many years in U.S. intelligence.

You, on the other hand, reject VSA technology solely and only because it refutes your narrative.

Uh-huh, so never mind the numerous studies published in scientific journals that validate the reliability of VSA technology, right? Never mind the numerous tests and experiential cases that have established that VSA lie detection has a very high rate of accuracy, right? Never mind that hundreds of security and intel agencies, and thousands of law enforcement departments, around the world use VSA technology because of its proven reliability, right?

There are several kinds of perfectly valid evidence that courts won't allow to be presented to juries.

Uh, says who? You? If there's no "widespread consensus" that VSA technology is reliable, why do thousands of police departments and hundreds of security and intel entities around the world use it for lie detection? Why have numerous scientists published studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals that present evidence that VSA lie detection is reliable, and that VSA devices are actually more reliable than the standard polygraph?

Ballistic matching?! I have personally documented for you the fact that over the last 20 years ballistic matching has come under increasing and powerful attack from the scientific community, and that it continues to have restrictions or bans placed on its use as evidence in court. It is revealing that you would cite ballistic matching in the same breath with fingerprint evidence, given the information you've been given about the scientific objections to ballistic matching.   

You have identified skeptics but that doesn't invalidate the concept. There have been a few cases where human error falsely claimed a shell casing came from a particular firearm. Other experts in the field identified the error, but that does not invalidate the science behind it. The WC took the step of having the FBI's findings validated by the Illinois state crime lab to ensure that the FBI findings were valid. The FBI has very strict standards for identifying a positive match between bullets and a firearm. That is why they did not conclude the bullets recovered from Tippit's body matched Oswald's revolver. They could not conclude that because the bore of Oswald's revolver was .004 of an inch larger than the diameter of the .38 Special bullets. It could only determine they were the same types of bullets with the same twist characteristics but that did not allow them to determine there was a positive match. Ballistic matching is still accepted as a valid science by our courts. Most of the cases of false positive matching has involved shell casings and not bullets. The odds that both the shells and the recovered bullets would produce a false positive match to Oswald's rifle, especially when both were examined independently by the FBI and the Illinois crime lab, are astronomical.

LOL! Ah-ha! So, your bottom-line reason for rejecting VSA technology is that it contradicts other "well established and acceptable forms of evidence," i.e., forms of evidence that you find "acceptable"! This is the same lame, uneducated excuse you've given for rejecting the results of other scientific testing, such as the JFKA SBT and headshot wound-ballistics tests, the most sophisticated SBT trajectory analysis ever done, the HSCA's acoustical analysis that found scientific evidence of four shots and a grassy knoll gunman, and the NAA testing of Oswald's right-cheek paraffin cast that proved he did not fire a rifle on 11/22/1963, etc., etc. -- you reject these results from those scientific fields because they refute your version of the shooting.

On the contrary, I reject VSA evidence for the same reason our courts do. It has not been proven to be reliable. The Justice Department found it to be little better than a coin flip in identifying deceit. On the other hand, our courts have long accepted fingerprint and ballistic matching as acceptable forms of evidence because they have been determined to highly reliable. They even accept fiber evidence matching even though it isn't proof positive. It can determine if fibers match even though the possibility exists that matching fibers could come from a different identical source. It still has probative value and it is left to the judgement of juries as to what weight it should be given.

Indeed, you've even rejected (1) the entire field of wound-ballistics testing with the juvenile strawman argument that no two gunshot wounds are exactly alike in every single aspect, (2) the entire field of trajectory analysis because, according to you, even a 2-4-inch difference in the locations of bullet wounds makes no difference in the trajectory of the bullets that caused those wounds!

That is an outright lie. I have never rejected wound ballistics testing. I don't recall a specific incidence, but I wouldn't doubt I have rejected your FUBAR analysis of it. I never said it wasn't a valid form of evidence.