JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on April 19, 2019, 12:14:49 PM
-
On page 178 of ?Truth Withheld? by James T. Tague, he states that in a preliminary hearing to determine whether there were grounds to bring Clay Shaw to trial, that the defense tried to introduce the 26 volumes of the Warren Report in their defense. But it was denied as hearsay.
I am guessing that the reason for this has to do with the requirements of how evidence has to be introduced. But I would like to know what the legal scholars have to say about this. Do we have any knowledgeable legal eagles here that want to respond?
-
On page 178 of ?Truth Withheld? by James T. Teague, he states that in a preliminary hearing to determine whether there were grounds to bring Clay Shaw to trial, that the defense tried to introduce the 26 volumes of the Warren Report in their defense. But it was denied as hearsay.
I am guessing that the reason for this has to do with the requirements of how evidence has to be introduced. But I would like to know what the legal scholars have to say about this. Do we have any knowledgeable legal eagles here that want to respond?
The most obvious reason seems to me to be that the opinion of a commission, presented in the way of a conclusion, is by definition argumentative and thus not evidence related to the crime nor does it constitute proof.
-
The most obvious reason seems to me to be that the opinion of a commission, presented in the way of a conclusion, is by definition argumentative and thus not evidence related to the crime nor does it constitute proof.
The 26 volumes include more than an opinion. They catalog the physical evidence and include the sworn testimony of many witnesses.
-
The 26 volumes include more than an opinion. They catalog the physical evidence and include the sworn testimony of many witnesses.
And yet is was ruled hearsay!
There is no guarantee that the 26 volumes contain all the available evidence and it would express an opinion if only certain evidence was included.
But even if the 26 volumes themselves are not the issue, the report that is based on them is.
-
And yet is was ruled hearsay!
There is no guarantee that the 26 volumes contain all the available evidence and it would express an opinion if only certain evidence was included.
But even if the 26 volumes themselves are not the issue, the report that is based on them is.
I am happy that you distinguished the difference between the report and the 26 volumes. The claim in Teague?s book says the 26 volumes were ruled as hearsay and didn?t say anything about the report.
-
I am happy that you distinguished the difference between the report and the 26 volumes. The claim in Teague?s book says the 26 volumes were ruled as hearsay and didn?t say anything about the report.
Really?
the defense tried to introduce the 26 volumes of the Warren Report in their defense.
I guess it just depends how you interpret those words.
-
Really?
the defense tried to introduce the 26 volumes of the Warren Report in their defense.
I guess it just depends how you interpret those words.
Here is the sentence as written in the book:
?The Defense tried to introduce the 26 volumes of the Warren Report in their defense, but it was denied as hearsay.?
I certainly interpreted it that way. The 26 volumes were published separately and in support of the report.
-
Here is the sentence as written in the book:
?The Defense tried to introduce the 26 volumes of the Warren Report in their defense, but it was denied as hearsay.?
I certainly interpreted it that way. The 26 volumes were published separately and in support of the report.
To me the "26 volumes of the Warren Report" means the whole package, including the report itself, but I'm more than happy to simply agree to disagree on that.
Selectively gathered evidence published in 26 volumes is also an expression of an opinion.
-
This was a preliminary hearing, not a trial. But even so, I guess that the prosecution would object because they wouldn?t be able to examine the evidence and witnesses. Just wondering what the legal scholars have to say about this.
-
To me the "26 volumes of the Warren Report" means the whole package, including the report itself, nut I'm more than happy to simply agree to disagree on that.
Selectively gathered evidence published in 26 volumes is also an expression of an opinion.
From Mary Ferrell Foundation website:
Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits
The Warren Commission published 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits within a few months after issuing its report. Volumes 1 - 5 are hearings conducted by the Commission members in Washington DC. Volumes 6 - 15 are hearings conducted by staff attorneys on location in Dallas, New Orleans, and other places. Volume 15 also contains an index to names and exhibits. Volumes 16 - 26 contain photographed Commission Exhibits, usually abbreviated to CE (i.e., CE 399), plus other exhibits organized by name.
1. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume I
2. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II
3. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume III
4. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume IV
5. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume V
6. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume VI
7. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume VII
8. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume VIII
9. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume IX
10. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume X
11. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XI
12. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XII
13. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XIII
14. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XIV
15. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XV
16. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XVI
17. Warren Commission Hearings Volume XVII
18. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XVIII
19. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XIX
20. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XX
21. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XXI
22. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XXII
23. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XXIII
24. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XXIV
25. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XXV
26. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XXVI
-
This was a preliminary hearing, not a trial. But even so, I guess that the prosecution would object because they wouldn?t be able to examine the evidence and witnesses. Just wondering what the legal scholars have to say about this.
they wouldn?t be able to examine the evidence and witnesses
Why?
If you are really saying that accepting the 26 volumes would have precluded the prosecutor make his own case then you have just given the best reason ever for not letting the 26 volumes in.
-
they wouldn?t be able to examine the evidence and witnesses
Why?
If you are really saying that accepting the 26 volumes would have precluded the prosecutor make his own case then you have just given the best reason ever for not letting the 26 volumes in.
Why?
The actual evidence and witnesses would have to be in the courtroom in order for the prosecution to examine it.
If you are really saying that accepting the 26 volumes would have precluded the prosecutor make his own case then you have just given the best reason ever for not letting the 26 volumes in.
I am asking. Just guessing that that could have been a reason.
-
This was a preliminary hearing, not a trial. But even so, I guess that the prosecution would object because they wouldn?t be able to examine the evidence and witnesses. Just wondering what the legal scholars have to say about this.
I think you?re right. The Warren Report and Hearings/Exhibits could not be cross-examined.
-
I think you?re right. The Warren Report and Hearings/Exhibits could not be cross-examined.
Yes, but we are accustomed to the proceedings of actual trials. A preliminary hearing is somewhat different. And that might be why the defense even tried to introduce the 26 volumes. I am only guessing and asking whether or not this makes legal sense.
-
Yes, but we are accustomed to the proceedings of actual trials. A preliminary hearing is somewhat different. And that might be why the defense even tried to introduce the 26 volumes. I am only guessing and asking whether or not this makes legal sense.
The judge probably asked The NYTimes what they thought, so hearsay it would be
-
On page 178 of ?Truth Withheld? by James T. Tague, he states that in a preliminary hearing to determine whether there were grounds to bring Clay Shaw to trial, that the defense tried to introduce the 26 volumes of the Warren Report in their defense. But it was denied as hearsay.
I am guessing that the reason for this has to do with the requirements of how evidence has to be introduced. But I would like to know what the legal scholars have to say about this. Do we have any knowledgeable legal eagles here that want to respond?
The 26 volumes was correctly rejected as hearsay. It contains testimonies and statements of witnesses which can only be admitted by calling the witnesses themselves and allowing the opposing party to cross-examine them. Although at a preliminary inquiry the threshold for committal to stand trial is much less than is required for a conviction (the test is essentially whether there is some evidence on which a properly instructed jury could convict) the same rules of evidence that apply at a trial are followed.
-
The 26 volumes was correctly rejected as hearsay. It contains testimonies and statements of witnesses which can only be admitted by calling the witnesses themselves and allowing the opposing party to cross-examine them. Although at a preliminary inquiry the threshold for committal to stand trial is much less than is required for a conviction (the test is essentially whether there is some evidence on which a properly instructed jury could convict) the same rules of evidence that apply at a trial are followed.
Thanks, that explains it.