JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Iacoletti on June 09, 2022, 09:25:08 PM
-
David Von Pein, in another thread on a different subject, claimed that the following list of "evidence" proves that Oswald murdered Kennedy. Not only does it do nothing of the kind, but most of it is not evidence at all, but rather rhetoric. Let's take a look.
"1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, November 22, 1963."
This is a claim made about the evidence, not evidence itself. And the claim that he owned the C2766 rifle is merely an assumption, based on an argument that he ordered the weapon from Klein's. And this argument relies on unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of two block-written letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon (from microfilm that is now "missing").
"2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit."
See above. And the CE143 revolver was not shown to have been used in the murder of Tippit. The bullets removed from Tippit lacked sufficient characteristics to identify the weapon used.
"3.) Oswald was positively identified by witness Howard L. Brennan as the person firing a rifle at JFK on 11/22/63."
This is misleading. Brennan testified that he did not see the rifle discharge or recoil. He merely stated that he saw the person "taking aim" for the last shot. This person would necessarily have been crouched down and obscured by boxes, so it's rather remarkable that Brennan somehow managed to see him "from the belt up" and was able to estimate his height, weight, age, and clothing. It's also important to note that Brennan did not make a positive ID at the lineup he attended, despite already having seen Oswald's picture on TV. He came forward several days later after intense pressure from the FBI with a story that he didn't do so because he feared for his family's safety because Oswald might have confederates at large. However, he gave his name to reporters that day, he didn't bother to tell his wife about his fears, and this fear of possible confederates somehow disappeared after Oswald's death.
Meanwhile, witness Amos Euins told a reporter that day that the man he saw was "colored". He also described that the man he saw had a bald spot. Other witnesses including Arnold Rowland, Carolyn Walther, Ruby Henderson, Norman Similas, and Johnny Powell described seeing two men. So why is DVP cherry-picking Brennan? I think we all know the answer to that.
"4.) Marina Oswald admits to having taken pictures of Lee with these weapons on his person"
False. Marina wouldn't (and didn't) know that he had these particular weapons. Marina also said that she took her photos in late February with a camera that is held up to the face. She also initially said she only took one photo, then two. Her story is all over the map. In any case, these photos are not evidence of murder -- even if you could somehow uniquely identify the firearms in them, which you cannot.
"5.) Buell Wesley Frazier observed Oswald take a package into the Book Depository Building on the morning of November 22nd, 1963."
Frazier lated admitted to Tom Meros in an interview that he had been so far behind Oswald that he could no longer see the package at the time Oswald entered the door to the north annex (not the TSBD building itself, BTW). Jack Dougherty saw Oswald enter the TSBD and said he was empty-handed. Frazier also described the bag he saw as being 2-feet long, give or take, and made out of flimsy paper. According to the Anderton memo, Frazier was shown the alleged sniper's nest "bag" on the night of the assassination and said it was not the same package. The package that Frazier described would have been too short to hold the Carcano rifle. In fact there is no evidence whatsoever that either the CE142 bag or the package that Frazier described had a rifle inside it.
"6.) Oswald's claim of "curtain rods" within the package cannot be supported at all. His room needed no curtains, nor rods, and no such rods were ever found in the TSBD or at his residence at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff."
We don't know what Oswald claimed about the package. It's hearsay from Frazier. We also don't know they would have been for his room. Oswald was talking about renting an apartment for Marina the night before. Furthermore, a photo exists of Mrs. Johnson putting up a curtain rod in Oswald's room after the assassination.
"7.) Oswald was seen working on the Depository's sixth floor that morning."
Even DVP admits this isn't evidence of anything. So why is it even on the list? Givens' story about going back to get his cigarettes from his "jacket" (even though he testified to hanging up his coat in the domino room when he arrived) didn't emerge until April, 1964 -- after Lt. Revill told FBI agent Gemberling that Givens had been previously handled by the Special Services Bureau on a marijuana charge and he believes that Givens would change his story for money. Givens originally said that he saw Oswald at 11:50 in the domino room reading a paper. By noon, Givens was at Record and Main watching the motorcade with Edward Shields.
"8.) Oswald's palmprint [Warren Commission Exhibit #637] is found on his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination."
Correction: a partial palmprint turned up a week later on an index card. Carl Day didn't turn it over to the FBI with the other evidence that night, nor did he even tell FBI agent Drain of its existence. He didn't photograph it in place or cover it with cellophane. Furthermore, Sebastian Latona examined the rifle and said that area didn't look like it had been processed at all. He found no traces of ridges there.
"9.) Not ONE SPECK of any bullets/bullet fragments/bullet shells OTHER THAN THOSE COMING FROM OSWALD'S 6.5-MILLIMETER MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE were discovered anywhere in Dealey Plaza, the limousine, the TSBD, Parkland Hospital, or in the victims."
Highly misleading. Not only is this not evidence for who pulled the trigger, it ignores the fact that none of the identifiable fragments have a valid documented chain of custody. Nor is there any evidence that any of them came from any bullet that struck Kennedy or Connally.
"10.) The majority of Dealey Plaza witnesses said shots came from behind the President", in the direction of the School Book Depository Building.
This is not evidence for who did the shooting, or even exactly where the shots came from.
"11.) Oswald makes an unusual trip to Irving on Thursday, November 21, 1963, to retrieve his "curtain rods". His rifle is found missing from Ruth Paine's garage the following day."
There is no evidence whatsoever that any rifle, much less C2766, was in the Paine garage on November 21. As for this trip being unusual, he had only worked at the TSBD for 6 weeks. One of those weeks he came on a Saturday, and one week he didn't come at all.
Interestingly, the curtain rods that the WC "found" in the garage were somehow submitted into evidence via a CSSS form 8 days before they were found in the garage by the WC.
But, again, how is this evidence of murder?
"12.) Oswald left behind, presumably for wife Marina, his wedding ring and just about every dime he had to his name ($170), on the morning of 11/22/63. Logic dictates that he felt he may not return."
That's confirmation bias and rhetoric, not evidence of murder. And you don't know that was "just about every dime he had to his name".
"13.) Oswald was the only Depository employee known to have been INSIDE the Depository Building at the time of the assassination to leave work prematurely on Friday, November 22nd. Why do you suppose this was? The day was only half over."
ALL of the employees left work prematurely on Friday, November 22nd. Several never returned after the motorcade. We know that Shelley told his employees to go home. Just because he said he didn't tell Oswald that directly doesn't mean that Oswald didn't hear him saying it. Asking "why do you suppose" does not constitute evidence.
"14.) Oswald, in flight, shoots and kills Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippit on 10th Street in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff. Multiple witnesses confirm it was Oswald who shot Officer Tippit."
Impossible since only one witness, Helen Markham, saw Tippit being shot. The lineups were unfair and biased by any reasonable standard and hence unreliable. Besides, this is a separate claim which must be proven independently. It doesn't tell you anything about who killed Kennedy.
"15.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of another crime just 45 minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza?"
That's not evidence -- it's a hypothetical question. You haven't demonstrated that Oswald did kill Officer Tippit, but even if you could, that's not evidence for who killed Kennedy.
"16.) Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon, attempts to murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, on April 10, 1963. Marina Oswald herself testifies that "He [Lee]...told me that he had shot at General Walker.""
That's also not evidence, it's yet another unsubstantiated claim. Hearsay from Marina notwithstanding.
"17.) It was PROVEN, no matter what anybody wants to believe to the contrary, that three shots could be fired in the allotted timeframe from Oswald's rifle (and with good accuracy). The probability that Oswald had, in fact, approx. 8.4 seconds to accomplish the shooting further increases the likelihood that Lee could have performed the deed."
a) you don't know what the timespan of the shots were
b) what other people are able to do in experiments that don't exactly match the same situation don't tell you what Oswald could or could not do
c) "could be" doesn't mean "did"
"18.) Try as the conspiracy kooks might, the Single-Bullet Theory [SBT] has still not been proven to be an impossibility."
It also hasn't been proven to have happened. Regardless, that tells you nothing about who did the shooting.
19.) While viewing the Zapruder Film, I cannot see how anybody can say that the BACK of President Kennedy's head is blown away as a result of the head shot. It seems quite obvious while watching and freezing the film at various post-Z313 frames, that the entire rear portion of JFK's head remains intact throughout the shooting."
What is "obvious" to you is subjective and irrelevant. Regardless, this also tells you nothing about who did the shooting.
"20.) It was also proven that Oswald could have indeed travelled, in 90 seconds or less, the distance across the sixth floor of the TSBD and descended the four flights of stairs in time to have been seen by policeman Marrion L. Baker on the building's second floor."
Again, "could have" doesn't mean "did". If Oswald made such a trip in the required 75-90 second timeframe, he somehow managed to do it without being seen or heard by Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles who were in the same stairwell at the time, or by Dorothy Garner who heard Adams and Styles go down before Truly and Baker came up, or by any of the other 9 people who were on floors 4 and 5.
"21.) And then there are the several lies told by Lee Harvey Oswald during the two days he was being held in custody by the Dallas Police Department."
This one is particularly comical because some of your examples of his "lies" are that he said he didn't shoot the President and he said he didn't kill anybody. That's a blatantly circular argument that pre-assumes that the thing you're attempting to prove is true. But even if you could prove that these were lies, it's not evidence for who killed Kennedy.
To recap: out of 21 items, 19 are not evidence at all. Of the remaining two, one is the very questionable and tainted partial palmprint on an index card, and the other is Brennan's questionable and tainted change of heart "identification" several days later.
-
It's plainly obvious that John Iacoletti is in dire need of that calculator I was talking about in the other thread. Hopefully he'll get one for Christmas this year.
-
19 times 0 equals 0 on any properly working calculator.
It’s apparent that your entire case is smoke and mirrors (and arrogance).
-
It's plainly obvious that John Iacoletti is in dire need of that calculator I was talking about in the other thread. Hopefully he'll get one for Christmas this year.
Instead of this cop out, why don't you show us all where John is actually wrong and why?
You're all about evidence, right? Or are you just about condemning Oswald no matter what?
-
He’s all about spreading propaganda — just like his idol, Bugliosi.
David’s fatal flaw is that he doesn’t distinguish between assumption (biased assumption at that) and fact.
-
It's plainly obvious that John Iacoletti is in dire need of that calculator I was talking about in the other thread. Hopefully he'll get one for Christmas this year.
I agree with John on this one. Look at the evidence.
1. After the shots there was a crush of Oswald lookalikes on the stairs -- some trying to go up the stairs, some down the stairs – no-one could move for several minutes (all hushed up).
2. Minutes before the shots the paling fence on the knoll was pushed over by snipers jostling for the best position – some from the CIA – the mafia – Johnson – Cuba – a few free-lancers (all hushed up).
3. After the 300 or so shots from many directions some spectators had to be taken to hospital for smoke inhalation (all hushed up).
4. Oswald actually left Dealey Plaza in an ambulance – he had eaten 23 lunches in the Domino Room & in the staff lunch room, starting at 11:30am & he kept eating untill after the shots -- & he then emptied the Coke machine -- before passing out (all hushed up).
5. Tests showing that a brisk walk for 60 paces & then down 8 flights of 9 steps plus 8 paces tween flights on 3 levels taking a total of only 47 seconds were fraudulent – proper tests showed a little over 48 seconds.
-
David’s fatal flaw is that he doesn’t distinguish between assumption (biased assumption at that) and fact.
CTers suffer from the fatal flaw of not being able to properly and reasonably and logically assess the evidence and Oswald's actions. Almost all CTers immediately jump to the "It Was Faked" mantra, without having the slightest bit of PROOF to show that ANY of it was faked. They just assume it all was faked. And they have to assume that....because if it wasn't all faked, then their patsy is really a double-murderer. And no Internet CTer would stand for that. Right, John?
-
3) Brennan testified that he did not see the rifle discharge or recoil. It's also important to note that Brennan did not make a positive ID at the lineup he attended, despite already having seen Oswald's picture on TV
_ It's also important to note that Brennan said that the man in the window did not look messy(?). while Oswald-in-the-lineup did.
_ The Carcano has a small recoil
--------
BONUS
--------
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qd3CyJfJ/SEND-IN-THE-CLONES-FINAL.png)
billchapman
-
'Impossible since only one witness, Helen Markham, saw Tippit being shot. The lineups were unfair and biased by any reasonable standard and hence unreliable'
_Since when is only one witness insufficient to convict. Since when is a witness necessarily needed to see Oswald actually shoot Tippit. Since when is the murder weapon necessarily needed to convict.
Now lets see you post images that you deem suitable for a lineup
Oh, wait.. I'll do that for you
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qd3CyJfJ/SEND-IN-THE-CLONES-FINAL.png)
billchapman
-
CTers suffer from the fatal flaw of not being able to properly and reasonably and logically assess the evidence and Oswald's actions.
“Properly and reasonably and logically assess” defined as agreeing with the “Oswald did it” evangelists’ unfounded and unsubstantiated assumptions and pretending that they are facts.
There is no need to prove that anything is faked when 19 of your 21 items aren’t evidence at all. This is just a weak attempt to shift the burden of proof anyway. It’s your responsibility to prove that the evidence you are relying on is authentic (and even relevant). Even if it is all authentic, your incredibly weak rhetorical argument does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt who killed Kennedy.
-
Chapman’s contributions are irrelevant, as usual. David’s treatise claims that “multiple witnesses confirm it was Oswald who shot Officer Tippit”. That’s just flat out false.
-
And thank you for repeatedly showing your ignorance of such basic concepts known as "evidence" and "assumption".
And I suppose you're also silly enough to think that the late attorney Vincent T. Bugliosi (the former very successful trial lawyer that you, Otto Beck, obnoxiously referred to as a "whackjob" yesterday) was also "ignorant" and had no idea what the term "evidence" meant, right? Because Vince went even further than my 21-item list. He's got a list of 53 things in his 2007 book that he says point to the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald (on Pages 951-969 of "Reclaiming History").
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-674.html
And since most Internet CTers are firmly devoted to disregarding all the evidence against Oswald, I'm sure most of those conspiracists, just like they do with my 21-item list, are of the opinion that nothing on Bugliosi's 53-item list constitutes any "evidence" whatsoever. ~smh~
Some Bonus Bugliosi Gems (to get under the skin of CTers): ;D
"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence." -- Vincent Bugliosi
"It is remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- Vincent Bugliosi
"With respect to the Kennedy assassination, once you establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you also necessarily know that there is an answer (whether the answer is known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi
"There is a simple fact of life that Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists either don't realize or fail to take into consideration, something I learned from my experience as a prosecutor; namely, that you cannot be innocent and yet still have a prodigious amount of highly incriminating evidence against you. That's just not what happens in life. .... With Lee Harvey Oswald, everything, everything points towards his guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi
"It couldn't have been more obvious within hours after the assassination that Oswald had murdered Kennedy, and within no more than a day or so thereafter that he had acted alone. And this is precisely the conclusion that virtually all local (Dallas), state (Texas), and federal (FBI and Secret Service) law enforcement agencies came to shortly after the assassination. Nothing has ever changed their conclusion or proved it wrong." -- Vincent Bugliosi
"Very few people are more critical than I. And I expect incompetence wherever I turn, always pleasantly surprised to find its absence. Competence, of course, is all relative, and I find the Warren Commission operated at an appreciably higher level of competence than any investigative body I know of. It is my firm belief that anyone who feels the Warren Commission did not do a good job investigating the murder of Kennedy has never been a part of a murder investigation." -- Vincent Bugliosi
"Even if Ruby was at Parkland, to assume he was there to plant a bullet on Connally's stretcher to frame Oswald for Kennedy's murder, making Ruby a part of the conspiracy to murder Kennedy, is too ludicrous for words. The philosophy of the zany conspiracy theorists is that if something is theoretically possible (as most things are), then it's not only probable, it happened." -- Vincent Bugliosi
"No evidence plus no common sense equals go home, zipper your mouth up, take a walk, forget about it, get a life. Of course, the hard-core conspiracy theorists, who desperately want to cling to their illusions, are not going to do any of these things. .... If these conspiracy theorists were to accept the truth, not only would they be invalidating a major part of their past, but many would be forfeiting their future. That's why talking to them about logic and common sense is like talking to a man without ears. The bottom line is that they want there to be a conspiracy and are constitutionally allergic to anything that points away from it." -- Vincent Bugliosi
http://reclaiminghistory.blogspot.com/2010/12/reclaiming-history.html#Summary-Of-Oswald's-Guilt
-
You were trying to make a point?
Just to re-emphasize the fact that most CTers have a penchant for ignoring the obvious (i.e., the evidence against Oswald). You seem to reinforce that fact every time you open your mouth.
-
20) Again, "could have" doesn't mean "did". If Oswald made such a trip in the required 75-90 second timeframe, he somehow managed to do it without being seen or heard by Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles who were in the same stairwell at the time, or by Dorothy Garner who heard Adams and Styles go down before Truly and Baker came up, or by any of the other 9 people who were on floors 4 and 5.
_You must be claiming that all those mentioned were actually listening for people on the stairs.
-
It is pathetically sad that the lame attempts to shed doubt on the evidence are taken seriously and so readily accepted by the disbeliever crowd.
-
20) Again, "could have" doesn't mean "did". If Oswald made such a trip in the required 75-90 second timeframe, he somehow managed to do it without being seen or heard by Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles who were in the same stairwell at the time, or by Dorothy Garner who heard Adams and Styles go down before Truly and Baker came up, or by any of the other 9 people who were on floors 4 and 5.
_You must be claiming that all those mentioned were actually listening for people on the stairs.
Oswald gets to the 2nd floor after 48 sec. He stops. What to do next?
Should he continue down to the first floor?
Should he go to the first floor via the front stairs?
Should he lay low in the lunch room?
His jacket is in the Domino Room.
Uh Oh -- He hears Adams & Styles klomping down the stairs in a real hurry on a mission.
Best to visit the coke machine & hope that whoever it is goes clean past.
They pass. He comes back out. What to do next?
He can't decide. He will be less conspicuous if he takes the front stairs, but he would then have to walk back into & throo the storage area to get his jacket in the Domino Room.
He decides to continue down the back stairs.
He makes a start but then Truly hollers up the elevator shaft, so he goes back up.
Then he hears Baker & Truly galloping up the stairs, & he retreats to the coke machine a second time.
He walks slow & cool.
He would have been better off diving into the lunchroom in a hurry, & laying low, he knows there is no-one in there, but he knows that if seen rushing (by Truly & Co) it will be a sure sign that he is guilty of something.
He nearly makes it, another couple of slow steps & he will be out of sight.
But damn, Baker spots a bit of him throo the glass of the door & says to come back.
Truly says that Oswald works here, & Baker & Truly gallop off.
Oswald gets a coke to look less guilty & more cool if confronted again. And assassinations go better with coke.
The back stairs are now dangerous. He heads for the front stairs, either forgetting about his jacket or deciding that his jacket is a dead duck.
But just in case more dumb cops are entering along the corridor he goes via the office.
Damn, he meets Jeraldean Reid as she returns to her desk. She says something as they pass & he mumbles something back. Its not a good look. He has no business in the office, unless wanting change for the coke machine. Its not even a short cut to the stairs. Damn. Anyhow no big deal.
He goes down the front stairs & mixes with the growing throng in the lobby near the front door without raising any suspicion.
Someone asks him about a phone.
Ok, things aint so bad, praps he can take a chance & get his jacket from the Domino Room anyhow.
Hmmm – he can get his jacket by going out the front door & down the steps & around & entering via the Houston dock (like he does each morning), & walking 13 paces to the jacket.
Getting caught walking in shouldn’t result in getting bitten by a cop.
So, off he goes, but he gets a little ways up Houston & he sees Officer Barnett on sentry duty at the dock, & Barnett looks vicious.
So, a quick U-turn & back down Houston. Buell Frazier sees him walking south along Houston.
No, the jacket is a dead duck. He decides to get out of there asap, he crosses Houston & then crosses Elm.
Tippit is waiting
-
It is pathetically sad that the lame attempts to shed doubt on the evidence are taken seriously and so readily accepted by the disbeliever crowd.
Referring to some bit of conjecture as “evidence” does not, in fact, make it evidence.
-
And I suppose you're also silly enough to think that the late attorney Vincent T. Bugliosi (the former very successful trial lawyer that you, Otto Beck, obnoxiously referred to as a "whackjob" yesterday) was also "ignorant" and had no idea what the term "evidence" meant, right?
I believe that he actually did. But it’s not a “successful trial lawyer’s” job to honestly evaluate evidence. It’s his job to manipulate ignorant people into a particular conclusion with rhetoric.
Because Vince went even further than my 21-item list.
Yes, he did. Wherein we learn that these additional ridiculous things are evidence of murder:
- Not reading the newspaper in the domino room that morning.
- Going to the second floor to get a Coke when he supposedly preferred Dr. Pepper.
- Not being chatty with the cab driver.
- Showing reporters his handcuffed hands.
- Marina thinking his eyes looked guilty.
- Leaving his blue jacket in the domino room.
- Allegedly leaving a clipboard on the sixth floor.
-
Referring to some bit of conjecture as “evidence” does not, in fact, make it evidence.
It is pathetically sad that so many CTers apparently think otherwise.
-
Chapman’s contributions are irrelevant, as usual. David’s treatise claims that “multiple witnesses confirm it was Oswald who shot Officer Tippit”. That’s just flat out false.
Chapman is responding directly to what Iacoletti pulls out of his hat.
The line-up for instance.
-
It is pathetically sad that so many CTers apparently think otherwise.
Call them the forum's version of 'The Proud Boyz'
Btw, Bug said he wrote RH as if he was at trial, exaggerating on purpose
-
And I suppose you're also silly enough to think that the late attorney Vincent T. Bugliosi (the former very successful trial lawyer that you, Otto Beck, obnoxiously referred to as a "whackjob" yesterday) was also "ignorant" and had no idea what the term "evidence" meant, right? Because Vince went even further than my 21-item list. He's got a list of 53 things in his 2007 book that he says point to the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald (on Pages 951-969 of "Reclaiming History").
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-674.html
And since most Internet CTers are firmly devoted to disregarding all the evidence against Oswald, I'm sure most of those conspiracists, just like they do with my 21-item list, are of the opinion that nothing on Bugliosi's 53-item list constitutes any "evidence" whatsoever. ~smh~
Some Bonus Bugliosi Gems (to get under the skin of CTers): ;D
"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence." -- Vincent Bugliosi
"It is remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- Vincent Bugliosi
"With respect to the Kennedy assassination, once you establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you also necessarily know that there is an answer (whether the answer is known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi
"There is a simple fact of life that Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists either don't realize or fail to take into consideration, something I learned from my experience as a prosecutor; namely, that you cannot be innocent and yet still have a prodigious amount of highly incriminating evidence against you. That's just not what happens in life. .... With Lee Harvey Oswald, everything, everything points towards his guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi
"It couldn't have been more obvious within hours after the assassination that Oswald had murdered Kennedy, and within no more than a day or so thereafter that he had acted alone. And this is precisely the conclusion that virtually all local (Dallas), state (Texas), and federal (FBI and Secret Service) law enforcement agencies came to shortly after the assassination. Nothing has ever changed their conclusion or proved it wrong." -- Vincent Bugliosi
"Very few people are more critical than I. And I expect incompetence wherever I turn, always pleasantly surprised to find its absence. Competence, of course, is all relative, and I find the Warren Commission operated at an appreciably higher level of competence than any investigative body I know of. It is my firm belief that anyone who feels the Warren Commission did not do a good job investigating the murder of Kennedy has never been a part of a murder investigation." -- Vincent Bugliosi
"Even if Ruby was at Parkland, to assume he was there to plant a bullet on Connally's stretcher to frame Oswald for Kennedy's murder, making Ruby a part of the conspiracy to murder Kennedy, is too ludicrous for words. The philosophy of the zany conspiracy theorists is that if something is theoretically possible (as most things are), then it's not only probable, it happened." -- Vincent Bugliosi
"No evidence plus no common sense equals go home, zipper your mouth up, take a walk, forget about it, get a life. Of course, the hard-core conspiracy theorists, who desperately want to cling to their illusions, are not going to do any of these things. .... If these conspiracy theorists were to accept the truth, not only would they be invalidating a major part of their past, but many would be forfeiting their future. That's why talking to them about logic and common sense is like talking to a man without ears. The bottom line is that they want there to be a conspiracy and are constitutionally allergic to anything that points away from it." -- Vincent Bugliosi
http://reclaiminghistory.blogspot.com/2010/12/reclaiming-history.html#Summary-Of-Oswald's-Guilt
What a pathetic and meaningless appeal to authority. Bugliosi acted as prosecutor in much the same way as the WC did before him. Obviously he's going to agree with the WC. The problem is that this prosecutorial case was never tested and challenged in an a proper legal setting (*), so all we've got here is Bugliosi expressing his opinions.
(*) Before you go there; no, the mock trial wasn't such a setting!
-
Von P always seemed weak in the Tippit domain.
Specifically the evidence part.
ROFL
Using the contrarian logic, no one saw John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln. They just heard a gun shot and turned to see Booth holding a smoking gun at Lincoln's head. That doesn't rule out the possibility in the contrarian mind that Lincoln committed suicide and Booth was just unlucky enough to pick up the gun. He then said to himself "this doesn't look good" and made a run for it. It's possible. Right? Just like it is possible to nitpick the claim that multiple witnesses saw Oswald shoot Tippit because they only saw him at the crime scene a moment after the crime was committed with a gun in his hand. Maybe Old Ozzie rabbit was hunting for the real killer just like OJ. It's possible. Right? It's so silly that ordinary people would be embarrassed to make these arguments. Multiple witnesses place Oswald at the scene of the Tippit murder with a gun in his hand at the moment the crime occurred. None of these witnesses indicate that anyone else shot Tippit. If you want to take issue with characterizing these witnesses as confirming that Oswald was the shooter, then knock yourself out. That is a laughable distinction in this context.
-
What a pathetic appeal to authority. Bugliosi acted as prosecutor in much the same way as the WC did before him. Obviously he's going to agree with the WC. The problem is that this prosecutorial case was never tested and challenged in an a proper legal setting. And, before you go there; no, the mock trial wasn't such a setting!
The problem is that this prosecutorial case was never tested and challenged in an a proper legal setting.
What do you consider to be a “proper legal setting” for this particular case?
-
The problem is that this prosecutorial case was never tested and challenged in an a proper legal setting.
What do you consider to be a “proper legal setting” for this particular case?
In a proper legal setting the prosecutorial case would be challenged by counter arguments and additional evidence presented by a defense counsel.
Obviously that will never happen in this case, which makes Bugliosi's prosecutorial case merely an unproven opinion.
-
In a proper legal setting the prosecutorial case would be challenged by counter arguments and additional evidence presented by a defense counsel.
Obviously that will never happen in this case, which makes Bugliosi's prosecutorial case merely an unproven opinion.
Obviously that will never happen in this case,
Once Jack Ruby had murdered LHO, there were no legal provisions for having a trial for a dead man. Which makes your “proper legal setting” completely false and irrelevant.
-
Obviously that will never happen in this case,
Once Jack Ruby had murdered LHO, there were no legal provisions for having a trial for a dead man. Which makes your “proper legal setting” completely false and irrelevant.
There is nothing false about a proper legal setting.
What is false is to condemn a man based on a one sided prosecutorial narrative of which the veracity can never be verified.
And what is truly irrelevant is your biased opinion based upon that same prosecutorial narrative.
-
There is nothing false about a proper legal setting.
What is false is to condemn a man based on a one sided prosecutorial narrative of which the veracity can never be verified.
In this particular case (which is what my earlier question to you is based on) there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man. Therefore, your idea of a proper legal setting is improper and not legal. This makes your claim false and irrelevant.
-
In this particular case (which is what my earlier question to you is based on) there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man. Therefore, your idea of a proper legal setting is improper and not legal. This makes your claim false and irrelevant.
In this particular case (which is what my earlier question to you is based on) there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man.
Indeed, so why did the WC not only build a biased prosecutorial case against a dead man but also convict him?
-
In this particular case (which is what my earlier question to you is based on) there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man. Therefore, your idea of a proper legal setting is improper and not legal. This makes your claim false and irrelevant.
Yes and yes. But you have to repeat this several times for it to be understood. If you're lucky.
But let me play lawyer and point out that even this proposed "legal setting" doesn't necessarily find the truth since, after all, it's not designed to. The court/legal standard or adversarial process is designed to find, based on the decision of a jury of the defendant's peers, whether the government has proven, using the law, beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has committed a crime. It's not designed to discover the truth. As we know, lots of innocent people have been convicted; lots of guilty people have been found not guilty. It's the best system we can come up with; but it's not perfect and finding the "truth" is not the goal.
The Oswald defenders, for some unknown reason, want to use this legalistic standard - "chain of custody" and other legal rules - to throw out the evidence against him. If they were interested in the truth, in what really happened, they wouldn't engage in these defense lawyer like tactics. But here we are. And here they are.
-
In this particular case (which is what my earlier question to you is based on) there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man.
Indeed, so why did the WC not only build a biased prosecutorial case against a dead man but also convict him?
The Warren Commission had no authority to either prosecute or convict anyone, dead or alive. Take a look in the mirror if you want to see a biased person. Your opinions are just that…opinions.
-
OK....
Correct.
Absolutely!
Any claim from witnesses must be nitpicked.
No, because the claim is false AND it's questionable if it was Oswald, based on the inconsistency of the witness accounts.
Not likely...
Possible, but not probable.
You just did, so does that make you extraordinary?
Define "multiple" when you've decided on how long a moment is.
Right, so we're now down to Markham and Scoggins who didn't see Markham; not good for your case.
Um, this can't fix any of the inconsistant testimonies...
Not sure what this means, but it all sounds like another of your reruns.
So you believe there is doubt that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln because we can't eliminate the possibility of suicide! Why am I not surprised? There were multiple different witnesses who identified LHO as the person at the Tippit scene with a drawn gun at the time of his murder. Oswald was arrested a short distance away with the gun and in possession of the SAME two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit. Instead of waiting for the DPD to explain what they wanted, Oswald instead pulled his gun and engaged in a struggle. It's a slam dunk.
-
The Warren Commission had no authority to either prosecute or convict anyone, dead or alive. Take a look in the mirror if you want to see a biased person. Your opinions are just that…opinions.
The Warren Commission had no authority to either prosecute or convict anyone, dead or alive.
And still, they did exactly that when they concluded that Oswald was guilty. Go figure!
Btw, if the WC, for lack of authority, did not prosecute or convict Oswald and he never had his day in court, do you think the presumption of innocence should still apply for Oswald?
-
Yes and yes. But you have to repeat this several times for it to be understood. If you're lucky.
But let me play lawyer and point out that even this proposed "legal setting" doesn't necessarily find the truth since, after all, it's not designed to. The court/legal standard or adversarial process is designed to find, based on the decision of a jury of the defendant's peers, whether the government has proven, using the law, beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has committed a crime. It's not designed to discover the truth. As we know, lots of innocent people have been convicted; lots of guilty people have been found not guilty. It's the best system we can come up with; but it's not perfect and finding the "truth" is not the goal.
The Oswald defenders, for some unknown reason, want to use this legalistic standard - "chain of custody" and other legal rules - to throw out the evidence against him. If they were interested in the truth, in what really happened, they wouldn't engage in these defense lawyer like tactics. But here we are. And here they are.
But let me play lawyer and point out that even this proposed "legal setting" doesn't necessarily find the truth since, after all, it's not designed to. The court/legal standard or adversarial process is designed to find, based on the decision of a jury of the defendant's peers, whether the government has proven, using the law, beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has committed a crime. It's not designed to discover the truth. As we know, lots of innocent people have been convicted; lots of guilty people have been found not guilty. It's the best system we can come up with; but it's not perfect and finding the "truth" is not the goal.
100% correct. It surely isn't a perfect system, but it beats hands down a commission operating in secret, using selective evidence, not asking the hard questions that need answers, publishing a report and locking away the evidence for years to come.
The Oswald defenders, for some unknown reason, want to use this legalistic standard - "chain of custody" and other legal rules - to throw out the evidence against him. If they were interested in the truth, in what really happened, they wouldn't engage in these defense lawyer like tactics. But here we are. And here they are.
Why are you so defensive and generalizing?
As far as I am concerned, I'm not defending anybody. I just want to know what really happened and the best way to do so is to look at the evidence. I don't want to throw out any evidence. Instead all I want to do is make sure the evidence is authenticated and valid. Why is that a problem for you?
What's the big deal? If the evidence against Oswald is so conclusive and overwhelming as the LNs claim, than why are they whining about people wanting to scrutinize that evidence?
-
But let me play lawyer and point out that even this proposed "legal setting" doesn't necessarily find the truth since, after all, it's not designed to. The court/legal standard or adversarial process is designed to find, based on the decision of a jury of the defendant's peers, whether the government has proven, using the law, beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has committed a crime. It's not designed to discover the truth. As we know, lots of innocent people have been convicted; lots of guilty people have been found not guilty. It's the best system we can come up with; but it's not perfect and finding the "truth" is not the goal.
100% correct. It surely isn't a perfect system, but it beats hands down a commission operating in secret, using selective evidence, not asking the hard questions that need answers, publishing a report and locking away the evidence for years to come.
The Oswald defenders, for some unknown reason, want to use this legalistic standard - "chain of custody" and other legal rules - to throw out the evidence against him. If they were interested in the truth, in what really happened, they wouldn't engage in these defense lawyer like tactics. But here we are. And here they are.
Why are you so defensive and generalizing?
As far as I am concerned, I'm not defending anybody. I just want to know what really happened and the best way to do so is to look at the evidence. I don't want to throw out any evidence. Instead all I want to do is make sure the evidence is authenticated and valid. Why is that a problem for you?
What's the big deal? If the evidence against Oswald is so conclusive and overwhelming as the LNs claim, than why are they whining about people wanting to scrutinize that evidence?
It surely isn't a perfect system, but it beats hands down a commission operating in secret, using selective evidence, not asking the hard questions that need answers, publishing a report and locking away the evidence for years to come.
Two misconceptions about the Warren Commission hearing need to be clarified...hearings were closed to the public unless the witness appearing before the Commission requested an open hearing. No witness except one...requested an open hearing... Second, although the hearings (except one) were conducted in private, they were not secret. In a secret hearing, the witness is instructed not to disclose his testimony to any third party, and the hearing testimony is not published for public consumption. The witnesses who appeared before the Commission were free to repeat what they said to anyone they pleased, and all of their testimony was subsequently published in the first fifteen volumes put out by the Warren Commission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission)
-
Iacoletti has a mental disorder. We all have a mental disorder of some kind, ie where our brains don’t recognise reality, with all due respect to the limitations of the available evidence.
But a good brain will recognise the need for better evidence -- it hinges around the ability to judge evidence -- the ability to see the need to find additional evidence.
The ability to find new evidence must help (when i say new i mean mainly secondhand, but not well known).
Iacoletti i think believes that Oswald is a patsy, ie that Oswald didn’t shoot anyone that day. Or any other day.
Iacoletti might make some good comments re the shortfalls in some of them there 21 points, but to have decided that Oswald is a patsy shows a mental disorder.
What to call this kind of mental disorder? Oswaldism? Patsyism? CTer (JFK conspiracy theorest).
There can be no doubt that there was at least one kind of conspiracy on that day, or after that day, we can all agree on that. But, what kind of conspiracies?
We see the same kind of mental disorder re Godism. FlatEarthism. Einsteinism. UFOism. BigBangism. USAism. Republicanism. Trumpism. Communism. Democratism.
Me myself i was in the hands of Christian Brothers for a couple of years, & then Nuns for a few years, which has scarred my brain for life (including limiting my intelligence for life).
I suppose that mental illness is a matter of degree. Physcosis -- disorder – phobia -- intelligence.
However, i suspect that phsychiatrists fail to recognise the last one – intelligence -- lack of intelligence (of some kind) is i think a disorder (we could call this moronism).
WIKILEAKS….. In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) redefined mental disorders in the DSM-5 as "a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning."[16] The final draft of ICD-11 contains a very similar definition.[17]
WIKILEAKS………. A mental disorder, also called a mental illness[3] or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning.[4] Such features may be persistent, relapsing and remitting, or occur as single episodes. Many disorders have been described, with signs and symptoms that vary widely between specific disorders.[5][6] Such disorders may be diagnosed by a mental health professional, usually a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist.
The causes of mental disorders are often unclear. Theories may incorporate findings from a range of fields. Mental disorders are usually defined by a combination of how a person behaves, feels, perceives, or thinks.[7] This may be associated with particular regions or functions of the brain, often in a social context. A mental disorder is one aspect of mental health. Cultural and religious beliefs, as well as social norms, should be taken into account when making a diagnosis.[8]
LNers (lone nutters) are the enemy of the CTers. LNers believe tha Oswald fired 3 shots, including Z313 the headshot.
Hickeyists or Hickeyians say that Hickey fired Z313, & that Oswald fired 2 shots.
Hickeyists are quasi-LNers, in that they believe that Oswald acted alone.
Hickeyists are quasi-CTers, in that they believe that there were lots of conspiracies, but pre-eminently the conspiracy to hide that JFK had been accidentally shot by a SSA.
But back to the main topic, me.
I appear to be the only active Hickeyist on this forum today.
That makes me the only sane person on this forum today.
Lemmeeseenow – i am an atheist (good) – an aetherist (good)(ie anti Einstein stuff) – a socialist (good).
Hmmmm – technically i am an alcoholic (red wine) -- & a genius (which probly qualifies as a mental disorder). Ok – that makes me and Iacoletti even i guess.
-
The Warren Commission had no authority to either prosecute or convict anyone, dead or alive.
And still, they did exactly that when they concluded that Oswald was guilty. Go figure!
Btw, if the WC, for lack of authority, did not prosecute or convict Oswald and he never had his day in court, do you think the presumption of innocence should still apply for Oswald?
And still, they did exactly that when they concluded that Oswald was guilty.
No, the WC did it’s duty in accordance to Executive Order 11130.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11130 (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11130)
Nothing in that Executive Order relates to any kind of prosecution or conviction. Once LHO was murdered on 11/24/63, those anticipated legal proceedings became null and void and never happened because, as I said earlier, there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man.
-
And still, they did exactly that when they concluded that Oswald was guilty.
No, the WC did it’s duty in accordance to Executive Order 11130.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11130 (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11130)
Nothing in that Executive Order relates to any kind of prosecution or conviction. Once LHO was murdered on 11/24/63, those anticipated legal proceedings became null and void and never happened because, as I said earlier, there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man.
Evasive and non responsive.
No, the WC did it’s duty in accordance to Executive Order 11130.
Semantics! Are you clueless to how these things work in real life or are you just pretending to be? Do you really think that the President is going to put down in writing that he wants an already dead Oswald to be prosecuted and convicted? Of course not.... Ever heard of plausible deniability?
The purposes of the Commission are to examine the evidence developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and any additional evidence that may hereafter come to light or be uncovered by Federal or State authorities; to make such further investigation as the Commission finds desirable; to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding such assassination, including the subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination, and to report to me its findings and conclusions.
The Commission is empowered to prescribe its own procedures and to employ such assistants as it deems necessary.
Translation; "investigate" this case in any way you want and report to me (so, not the American people, right?) your conclusion.
BS. Word salad does not cover up the fact that the WC de facto determined and announced to the whole world that Lee Harvey Oswald alone was responsible for both killings, exactly in accordance with the Katzenbach memo.
But I'll ask you again;
If the WC, for lack of authority, did not prosecute or convict Oswald (they just concluded he did it, right? and he never had his day in court, do you think the presumption of innocence should still apply for Oswald?
-
Evasive and non responsive.
No, the WC did it’s duty in accordance to Executive Order 11130.
Semantics! Are you clueless to how these things work in real life or are you just pretending to be? Do you really think that the President is going to put down in writing that he wants an already dead Oswald to be prosecuted and convicted? Of course not.... Ever heard of plausible deniability?
The purposes of the Commission are to examine the evidence developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and any additional evidence that may hereafter come to light or be uncovered by Federal or State authorities; to make such further investigation as the Commission finds desirable; to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding such assassination, including the subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination, and to report to me its findings and conclusions.
The Commission is empowered to prescribe its own procedures and to employ such assistants as it deems necessary.
Translation; "investigate" this case in any way you want and report to me (so, not the American people, right?) your conclusion.
BS. Word salad does not cover up the fact that the WC de facto determined and announced to the whole world that Lee Harvey Oswald alone was responsible for both killings, exactly in accordance with the Katzenbach memo.
But I'll ask you again;
If the WC, for lack of authority, did not prosecute or convict Oswald (they just concluded he did it, right? and he never had his day in court, do you think the presumption of innocence should still apply for Oswald?
A presumption of innocence applies to an adversarial criminal trial with prosecution and defense cases being presented. That presumption is designed to place the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It effectively protects the accused against having to prove non-guilt.
In this particular circumstance LHO was not on trial. Therefore, technically, your question isn’t applicable to this case. An investigation is not a trial. The WC drew it’s conclusions based on the results of the investigation and stated their reasoning in the report. Contrary to your earlier claim, this was a proper legal setting for this particular circumstance. A trial, and all of its procedures, would not have been a proper legal setting.
-
It is pathetically sad that so many CTers apparently think otherwise.
It is pathetically sad that LN-cultists think that they are not doing that.
-
Another thing that’s pathetically sad is that “Richard Smith” thinks his rants about Lincoln somehow make his misinformation about the JFK evidence any more true.
-
A presumption of innocence applies to an adversarial criminal trial with prosecution and defense cases being presented. That presumption is designed to place the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It effectively protects the accused against having to prove non-guilt.
In this particular circumstance LHO was not on trial. Therefore, technically, your question isn’t applicable to this case. An investigation is not a trial. The WC drew it’s conclusions based on the results of the investigation and stated their reasoning in the report. Contrary to your earlier claim, this was a proper legal setting for this particular circumstance. A trial, and all of its procedures, would not have been a proper legal setting.
So many words and still not an answer to my question.
A presumption of innocence applies to an adversarial criminal trial with prosecution and defense cases being presented.
No, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies always. Even outside a court, when you accuse me of doing something wrong, you need to prove it either to law enforcement or just people around you. You can not go around accusing somebody of doing something wrong without proving it! If that wasn't the case, I could accuse you right now of robbing a bank, rape and whatever else comes to mind without consequence. Your reply would be - quite rightly so - that you didn't do any of it and that there is no evidence to support the claims. So, don't give me any of this theoretical crap!
In this particular circumstance LHO was not on trial. Therefore, technically, your question isn’t applicable to this case. An investigation is not a trial. The WC drew it’s conclusions based on the results of the investigation and stated their reasoning in the report.
So, basically what you are saying is that the WC could find an already dead Oswald guilty, without there ever having been a trial and that somehow means you can argue that he is guilty, despite the fact that he never had his day in court. Do you understand how insane that is?
It's in fact pathethic beyond belief. Oswald is being declared guilty by a commission, without ever having been on trial and despite the fact that the commission's opinion is in no way a legal finding of guilt, we, according to you and your ilk, still have to consider Oswald to somehow be proven guilty... Is that what you are really saying? When did this country become a third world banana republic?
An investigation is not a trial. The WC drew it’s conclusions based on the results of the investigation and stated their reasoning in the report.
It is true that an investigation is not a trial. But, as a trial is the only setting where somebody can be found guilty or innocent by a jury of his peers, the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, right? So. why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?
-
The Oswald defenders, for some unknown reason, want to use this legalistic standard - "chain of custody" and other legal rules - to throw out the evidence against him.
Wrong. WC skeptics want you to authenticate the evidence that you are basing your conclusions on (or more often demonstrate the relevance of what you call “evidence”). And you cannot do it.
If you were interested in the truth you would admit that instead of engaging in prosecuting lawyer-like tactics.
-
Btw, Bug said he wrote RH as if he was at trial, exaggerating on purpose
When did Vince ever say that?
Maybe he did say it. But I can't recall it. Can you point me to where he says that within his RH book? Or in one of his dozens of 2007 book tour interviews that I have archived?....
http://Vincent-Bugliosi.blogspot.com
-
There were multiple different witnesses who identified LHO as the person at the Tippit scene
Eyewitness identification is unreliable under the best of circumstances. The ones that were done in this case were so egregiously unfair and biased that they are utterly worthless.
Oswald was arrested a short distance away with the gun and in possession of the SAME two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit.
Still false. No matter how many times you parrot it.
Oswald instead pulled his gun and engaged in a struggle.
Still false. No matter how many times you parrot it.
It's a slam dunk.
Still false. No matter how many times you parrot it.
-
Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon in his possession when he was arrested (which was a mere 35 minutes after Tippit was shot). We know Oswald had "The Tippit Murder Weapon" because all 4 bullet shell casings that littered 10th Street and Patton Avenue were matched conclusively to the revolver Oswald had on him in the Texas Theater. (CTer whining and moaning about this notwithstanding, of course.)
So, it's time to post my favorite graphic/logo again:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xpEpHmcfwCU/YPnmE4x3zEI/AAAAAAABZCI/_-fE_QfbBhkGj9qEwO7wFfYvQsVKgSQ8gCLcBGAsYHQ/s677/DVP-Quote-Regarding-Tippit-Murder.png) (http://quoting-common-sense.blogspot.com)
-
When did Vince ever say that?
Maybe he did say it. But I can't recall it. Can you point me to where he says that within his RH book? Or in one of his dozens of 2007 book tour interviews that I have archived?....
http://Vincent-Bugliosi.blogspot.com
I didn't see it in his book. It's not from your material. I recall reading it from an article, but I don't recall if I took a screen shot.
-
I didn't see it in his book. It's not from your material. I recall reading it from an article, but I don't recall if I took a screen shot.
If you find it, let me know. I'd like to see it. I have my own doubts about whether Vince would have ever said something like that. Because a blatant comment like that would just give the CTers another reason to criticize him (for not being totally unbiased).
-
Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon in his possession when he was arrested
Says you. That’s yet another thing you cannot demonstrate is actually true because the police (either out of malice or sheer incompetence — and it doesn’t matter which) completely mishandled the evidence. By the way, when Oswald was (illegally and without probable cause) arrested, the alleged revolver was allegedly in the alleged possession of the alleged Bob Carroll.
We know Oswald had "The Tippit Murder Weapon" because all 4 bullet shell casings that littered 10th Street and Patton Avenue were matched conclusively to the revolver Oswald had on him in the Texas Theater.
Shells don’t kill people. You don’t know what the “Tippit murder weapon” was because the bullets removed from Tippit did not have sufficient characteristics to identify a specific weapon.
And correction: the shells that you cannot demonstrate were ever at Tenth and Patton or related to Tippit’s murder were matched conclusively to a revolver that you cannot demonstrate was ever in Oswald’s possession.
-
Eyewitness identification is unreliable under the best of circumstances. The ones that were done in this case were so egregiously unfair and biased that they are utterly worthless.
DVP: Oswald instead pulled his gun and engaged in a struggle
IACOLETTI: Still false. No matter how many times you parrot it
PAUL BENTLEY: Just as I entered the lower floor [from the balcony] I saw Patrolman McDonald fighting with this suspect. I saw this suspect pull a pistol from his shirt, so I went to Patrolman McDonald's aid immediately.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3NMswPsn/PAUL-BENTLEY-PISTOL-SHIRT.png)
-
Says you. That’s yet another thing you cannot demonstrate is actually true because the police (either out of malice or sheer incompetence — and it doesn’t matter which) completely mishandled the evidence. By the way, when Oswald was (illegally and without probable cause) arrested, the alleged revolver was allegedly in the alleged possession of the alleged Bob Carroll.
Shells don’t kill people. You don’t know what the “Tippit murder weapon” was because the bullets removed from Tippit did not have sufficient characteristics to identify a specific weapon.
And correction: the shells that you cannot demonstrate were ever at Tenth and Patton or related to Tippit’s murder were matched conclusively to a revolver that you cannot demonstrate was ever in Oswald’s possession.
Good God, what a bunch of horses**t this is. Every single word of it.
And Iacoletti doesn't even have the decency to blush. Incredible.
-
DVP: Oswald instead pulled his gun and engaged in a struggle
IACOLETTI: Still false. No matter how many times you parrot it
PAUL BENTLEY: Just as I entered the lower floor [from the balcony] I saw Patrolman McDonald fighting with this suspect. I saw this suspect pull a pistol from his shirt, so I went to Patrolman McDonald's aid immediately.
Bentley didn’t come downstairs from the balcony until after the struggle started. If this is true then McDonald’s account was wrong.
-
Good God, what a bunch of horses**t this is. Every single word of it.
Cool rebuttal, bro. Point to a single specific thing I said that was incorrect. I guess when you run out of arguments you resort to personal attacks. Did you learn that from Bugliosi too?
-
Point to a single specific thing I said that was incorrect.
As I said, every single thing in your last ultra-stupid post was horse-hockey. Without a doubt. ....
You said:
"The police completely mishandled the evidence."
That's utter B.S.
Maybe a few things could have been "handled" better (such as Oswald himself when he was killed by Ruby on Sunday in the DPD basement, but that's another discussion), but overall the DPD gathered the pertinent evidence (including the Tippit evidence you referred to) and by Friday midnight the DPD had the correct assassin charged with the two murders he committed. Pretty good police work (until Sunday rolled around), I'd say.
You foolishingly uttered:
"Oswald was (illegally and without probable cause) arrested."
Yeah, sure, John. Why would the cops have any reason at all to want to arrest sweet lil' Lee? All he was doing in the theater is trying to shoot some policemen with a gun. That's all. They should have pinned a medal on him instead.
(If Iacoletti would just blush ONCE, it would at least be something. But no.)
You said:
"You don’t know what the “Tippit murder weapon” was because the bullets removed from Tippit did not have sufficient characteristics to identify a specific weapon."
Another very stupid comment given the known actions of Tippit's killer (Oswald, of course). CTers love to pretend that ALL THAT MATTERS is whether the BULLETS themselves could be matched up with the gun (which, of course, firearms expert Joe Nicol DID do with one of the four Tippit bullets). The CTers will always completely disregard and throw in the trash the bullet SHELLS, which were definitively tied to Oswald's V510210 revolver by several firearms experts, which the CT crowd just ignores (or totally misrepresents, as demonstrated in Iacoletti's next hunk of silliness).
You said:
"The shells that you cannot demonstrate were ever at Tenth and Patton or related to Tippit’s murder were matched conclusively to a revolver that you cannot demonstrate was ever in Oswald’s possession."
In order for the above batch of claptrap to be true, you'd have to believe the Dallas Police lied their eyes out concerning the origins of the 4 bullet shells found by Benavides and the two Davis girls on Nov. 22. And you'd have to believe the DPD also lied about the gun that Oswald had in his possession when he was arrested. Many CTers believe that Oswald had NO GUN at all in the theater, and they believe the DPD merely "planted" the Smith & Wesson V510210 revolver into the evidence pile connected with Tippit's murder. Which would mean that somebody also had to fake the whole Seaport Traders paper trail that shows that Oswald was the owner of said gun.
Whew (and Pfffttt!).
-
Shells from an automatic are ejected, not dumped on the ground.
So what? Since no automatic was involved in shooting Tippit, your comment is useless and irrelevant.
Or would you like to pretend that an automatic WAS fired at Tippit? If so, why weren't those shells found RIGHT NEXT to Tippit's police car?
And if an automatic really was used, that means you have no choice but to call various witnesses liars who said the killer was manually dumping shells on the ground as he fled.
-
If you find it, let me know. I'd like to see it. I have my own doubts about whether Vince would have ever said something like that. Because a blatant comment like that would just give the CTers another reason to criticize him (for not being totally unbiased).
https://www.c-span.org/video/?198568-1/reclaiming-history-assassination-jfk
00:10:41
FOR PERJURY AND IT SHOWED THE STATE OF MIND TO THE PEOPLE. AND EVERYONE TOOK IT VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY AND THE JUDGE SAID THIS WAS IT. I MEAN, AS CLOSE TO A TRIAL AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. "TIME" MAGAZINE SAID IT WAS THE CLOSEST TO A REAL TRIAL THAT THE ACCUSED ASASSIN OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY WOULD EVER HAVE. IT WAS WHILE I WAS PREPARING FOR THAT TRIAL AND DURING THE TRIAL THAT I LEARNED ABOUT TWO THINGS. NO. 1, I LEARNED THAT THE VERY THINGS THAT THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS WERE ACCUSING THE WARREN COMMISSION OF, I.E. , SUPPRESSING THE EVIDENCE, DISTORTING THE EVIDENCE, IT WAS THEY WHO WERE GUILTY OF THESE PRECISE THINGS. THE SECOND THING I LEARNED IS THAT THESE CONSPIRACY THEORIES OF THEIRS AT FIRST BLUSH SOME OF THEM MAY BE INTELLECTUALLY PALLETABLE BUT THEY DID NOT WITHSTAND SCRUTINY AND I JUST DETERMINED THERE WAS JUST NO SUBSTANCE TO ALL THESE CHARGES, AND YET THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, EVEN TODAY, BELIEVE IN A CONSPIRACY THEORY. THEY HAVE REJECTED THE FINDINGS OF THE WARREN COMMISSION SO IT WAS AT THAT POINT THAT I DECIDED TO WRITE A BOOK, WAY BACK IN 1986 AND I STARTED WORKING ON IT IN '86. FINALLY FINISHED. IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SPEAK CANDIDLY ABOUT RECLAIMING HISTORY. PAUL WAS SAYING I HAD THREE BOOKS NO. 1 IN THE "NEW YORK TIMES" AND I NEVER BRAGGED ABOUT THOSE BOOKS. I JUST DIDN'T DO IT. THE PROBLEM I HAVE HERE IN SPEAKING CANDIDLY ABOUT RECLAIMING HISTORY IS THAT IF I'M CANDID IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M VERY IMMODEST WHICH IS NOT GOOD, ALTHOUGH CHURCHILL TAUGHT US THAT MODESTY IS NOT ALWAYS A VIRTUE AND HE WAS RUNNING FOR ELECTION AND ONE OF THE REPORTERS SAID MR. SIR WINSTON YOU HAVE TO AGREE MR. ATLY WAS MORE MODEST AND HE SAID YES BUT HE HAS MUCH MORE TO BE MODEST
00:13:17
ABOUT. [LAUGHTER] >> IN ANY EVENT, IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SPEAK CANDIDLY ABOUT IT BECAUSE I SOUND LIKE I'M BOASTING, BUT THE ALTERNATIVE IS EVEN WORSE. WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE? WELL, IF I DON'T SPEAK CANDIDLY ABOUT IT, PEOPLE COULD BELIEVE THAT THIS IS JUST ANOTHER BOOK ON THE ASSASSINATION OUT OF THE CLOSE TO 1,000. BUT I'M SORRY IT'S NOT JUST ANOTHER BOOK. THE "LOS ANGELES TIMES" SAID THAT FINALLY SOMEONE HAS PUT ALL THE PIECES TOGETHER. RECLAIMING HISTORY, I THINK, THEIR WORDS WERE, IS A BOOK FOR THE AGES. AND I FOUND THAT INTERESTING BECAUSE WHEN I WAS WRITING THIS BOOK, WHATEVER I DO, WHETHER IT'S A SUMMATION TO THE JURY OR WRITING A BOOK, I ALWAYS ASPIRE TO A MASTERPIECE, WHETHER I ACHIEVE IT OR NOT IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE. BUT I AT LEAST ASPIRE TO IT AND I WANTED TO WRITE A BOOK FOR THE AGING, MEANING, THAT AS LONG AS PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION AND THEY'VE BEEN INTERESTED IN THIS CASE MORE THAN ANY OTHER MURDER CASE IN WORLD HISTORY, WHETHER IT'S 100 YEARS FROM NOW OR 1,000 YEARS FROM NOW THIS IS A BOOK RECLAIMING HISTORY THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO READ SO I WAS INTERESTED WHEN THE "L.A. TIMES" USED THE SAME WORDS. "WALL STREET JOURNAL" SAID RECLAIMING HISTORY IS UNLIKE ANY OTHER BOOK EVER WRITTEN ON THE ASSASSINATION SO TONIGHT I'M GOING TO SOUND A LITTLE BIT LIKE I'M BOASTING HERE AND THERE BUT THE ALTERNATIVE IS, YOU KNOW -- THIS IS JUST ANOTHER BOOK. IT'S NOT JUST ANOTHER BOOK FOR ALL TYPES OF REASONS. VERY BRIEFLY, "RECLAIMING HISTORY" IS THE FIRST BOOK -- THIS IS NOT A BOAST, THE FIRST BOOK ON THE ASSASSINATION EVER TO COVER THE ENTIRE CASE, NO BOOK HAS EVER EVEN ATTEMPTED TO COVER THE ENTIRE ASSASSINATION. I'VE GOT STUFF IN THE BOOK, IRRELEVANT STUFF THAT'S NOT EVEN IN THE WARREN REPORT OR THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ASSASSINATION REPORT. SECONDLY, IT HAD ALWAYS BEEN THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM THAT THERE WOULD NEVER -- EVEN BY PEOPLE BY MYSELF WHO BELIEVED OSWALD KILLED KENNEDY AND ABANDONING ALONE. IT'S BEEN THE ULTIMATE WISDOM THAT THERE WOULD NEVER BE A SATISFACTORY RESOLUTION TO THIS CASE. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOME DOUBT. I BELIEVE, AND MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE READ THE BOOK BELIEVE THAT "RECLAIMING HISTORY" SETTLES ALL THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION ONCE AND FOR ALL. THE "L.A. TIMES" REVIEW SAYS WITH "RECLAIMING HISTORY" FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, NO REASONABLE PERSON, LET'S UNDERLINE THE WORD REASONABLE, THAT LEE HARVEY OSWALD OR SANE PERSON THAT KENNEDY WAS KILLED BIT CIAS CASTRO, THE MOB, THE SOVIETS TEXAS OIL MEN OR HIS VICE-PRESIDENT. EACH MAY BE GUILTY OF CRIMES BUT NOT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH KENNEDY'S ASSASSINATION. "RECLAIMING HISTORY" MAY FINALLY MOVE THOSE ACCUSATIONS BEYOND CIVILIZED DEBATE. THE THIRD THING ABOUT "RECLAIMING HISTORY", IT'S THE FIRST BOOK SURPRISINGLY EVER TO TAKE ON ALL THESE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS AND DESTROY THEIR THEORIES. THERE'S BEEN NO OTHER BOOK THAT'S DONE THAT. THERE'S BEEN BOOKS THAT HAVE TAKEN ON A COUPLE OF THEORIES BUT THIS TAKES ON EVERY ONE OF THE THEORIES AND I THINK I'M SUCCESSFUL IN DESTROYING THOSE THEORIES. MY EDITOR IN NEW YORK STARLING LAWRENCE SAID IT TOOK A BOOK OF THIS MAGNITUDE TO FINALLY PUT A STAKE IN THE HEART OF THE CONSPIRACY MOVEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY. THE BOOK IS 1 1/2 MILLION WORDS. IT'S QUITE LONG, OBVIOUSLY. IF WE ASSUME THAT THE AVERAGE BOOK IS ABOUT 400 PAGES AND THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF WORDS PER PAGE IS 300, THEN THIS TRANSLATES INTO 13 VOLUMES, WHICH WE -- I AND THE PUBLISHER, WHICH WE SHOE HORNED INTO ONE BOOK OF ABOUT 1600 AND SOME PAGES AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A CD WITH ANOTHER 1125 PAGES. THERE'S ALSO OVER 10,000 CITATIONS. I THINK IT'S THE MOST SOURCED OR CERTAINLY IT'S THE MOST SOURCED KENNEDY ASSASSINATION BOOK EVER. AND SOMEONE SAID IT MAY BE THE MOST SOURCED NONFICTION BOOK EVER, WITH OVER 10,000 CITATIONS. IF THERE'S ONE THING ABOUT ME THAT I TAKE PRIDE IN, I NEVER, EVER, EVER MAKE A CHARGE WITHOUT SUPPORTING IT. YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH ME, BUT I JUST DON'T MAKE A CHARGE AND JUST GO ON. HOW OFTEN DO YOU READ IN THE NEWSPAPER YOU SAID A VERY ASSERTIVE CAPTIVE AND YOU SEARCH IN VEIN FOR THE ARTICLE OF THE PROOF AND EITHER YOU FIND NOTHING AT ALL OR SOMETHING VERY A-ANEMIC. THAT'S NOT MY STYLE. IF I SAY SOMETHING, I SUPPORT IT. YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH ME AND I OFFER SUPPORT AND THAT'S THOSE OVER 10,000 CITATIONS. WHY IS THIS BOOK SO LONG? MY EDITOR SAID HE HAS A NIGHTMARE OF THIS ELDERLY WOMAN AND SHE'S LYING DOWN IN BED AT NIGHT, SHE'S READING THE BOOK. SHE FALLS ASLEEP WHILE SHE'S READING THE BOOK AND SHE DOESN'T WAKE UP. APPARENTLY, IT CRUSHES HER. [LAUGHTER] >> CINDY ADAMS, SHE'S THE COLUMNIST
-
Bentley didn’t come downstairs from the balcony until after the struggle started. If this is true then McDonald’s account was wrong.
Bentley didn’t come downstairs from the balcony until after the struggle started.
_ He saw the struggle just as he entered the lower floor
If this is true then McDonald’s account was wrong.
_Just declaring that is insufficient. You need to at least provide a cite.
-
Says you. That’s yet another thing you cannot demonstrate is actually true because the police (either out of malice or sheer incompetence — and it doesn’t matter which) completely mishandled the evidence. By the way, when Oswald was (illegally and without probable cause) arrested, the alleged revolver was allegedly in the alleged possession of the alleged Bob Carroll.
Shells don’t kill people. You don’t know what the “Tippit murder weapon” was because the bullets removed from Tippit did not have sufficient characteristics to identify a specific weapon.
And correction: the shells that you cannot demonstrate were ever at Tenth and Patton or related to Tippit’s murder were matched conclusively to a revolver that you cannot demonstrate was ever in Oswald’s possession.
Two interviews of Nick McDonald, 40 years apart.
In this first excerpt, recorded in 2003, McDonald names three others who surrounded Oswald during his apprehension but does not mention Det. Paul Bentley. He does recount disarming Oswald and passing the revolver to Bob Carroll, after describing in depth grabbing the revolver as the trigger was pulled and attempting to stop the cylinder before getting pinched in the fleshy area between his index finger and thumb by the firing pin, saving his own life.
In the second, recorded on 11/23/63, McDonald is interviewed alongside and alternately with Bentley but the video begins with an excerpt of Bentley the day before, in which Bentley's description of a hand cushioning the fire pin gives the impression it was his hand, not McDonald's making it even odder that McDonald does not mention at all the firing pin injury his 2003 interview emphasizes! This 12 min. video conducted over two days ends with a second appearance by McDonald in that video. McDonald barely mentions how Oswald had come to the attention of a Theatre employee but does admit to arriving with only a minimal description of a suspect.
2003 @ Sixth Flr Museum :
https://jfk.emuseum.com/objects/24693/m-nick-mcdonald-oral-history
11/22 & 11/23/63 :
-
Bentley didn’t come downstairs from the balcony until after the struggle started.
_ He saw the struggle just as he entered the lower floor
If this is true then McDonald’s account was wrong.
_Just declaring that is insufficient. You need to at least provide a cite.
Watch the youtube video because that isn't the way Bentley recounts it, on the same day and on the next day, unless
he is using "we," in a misleading way, and McDonald does not contradict Bentley on 11/23/63 by mentioning his hand getting pinched by the revolver's firing pin, at all. Yet in 2003, that was the point in his under 3 min. recount that he emphasizes most prominently!
In favor of your argument, though, is that in 2003 McDonald names officers who almost immediately surround Oswald on both sides and to his rear that assisted in subduing him and none was Bentley.
-
@Tom Scully....
In the lengthy Bugliosi excerpt you provided from 5/24/07, where's the relevant remark that Bill Chapman alluded to earlier? I sure don't see anything of the kind in there.
-
"The police completely mishandled the evidence."
That's utter B.S.
Not BS at all. Sham lineups. Shells with missing initials, no documented chains of custody, bags missing from crime scene photos, a partial palmprint that shows up a week later on an index card, a gun that sits in a cops pocket for two hours and is left sitting on a desk before anybody initials it. Civilians tampering with and taking evidence from unsecured crime scenes, Evidence sitting on tables on top of other evidence contaminating each other. The question should be, is there anything they actually handled appropriately?
Yeah, sure, John. Why would the cops have any reason at all to want to arrest sweet lil' Lee? All he was doing in the theater is trying to shoot some policemen with a gun. That's all. They should have pinned a medal on him instead.
I guess you learned sarcasm as a substitute for a valid argument from Vince too. First of all, you don’t know that Lee “tried to shoot some policeman with a gun” in the theater. Once again, you are mistaking assumption for fact. How many is this now? Second of all, he wasn’t arrested for that. The arrest report clearly states that he was arrested for murder. There was zero probable cause at the time of his arrest for that. Or even for searching him. He looked funny to a shoe salesman.
CTers love to pretend that ALL THAT MATTERS is whether the BULLETS themselves could be matched up with the gun (which, of course, firearms expert Joe Nicol DID do with one of the four Tippit bullets).
WC evangelists love to ignore the 7 other firearms experts who said that it couldn’t be uniquely matched.
The CTers will always completely disregard and throw in the trash the bullet SHELLS
And what is your basis for assuming (there you go again) that the shells in evidence (you know, like the ones Poe told the FBI he marked JMP, but it wasn’t there) contained the bullets that killed Tippit? Just because you want to believe that?
which were definitively tied to Oswald's V510210 revolver
“Oswald’s V510210 revolver“. LOL.
In order for the above batch of claptrap to be true, you'd have to believe the Dallas Police lied their eyes out concerning the origins of the 4 bullet shells found by Benavides and the two Davis girls on Nov. 22.
How would the Dallas police even know the origins of shells handed to them by civilians? Or even that the shells that the FBI examined were the same shells? Especially the supposed “Benavides shells”.
And you'd have to believe the DPD also lied about the gun that Oswald had in his possession when he was arrested.
How would McDonald know that the gun he initialed hours later in the personnel office was the same gun he said he grabbed from Oswald? And no other cop had any first hand knowledge of any gun being in Oswald’s belt. There’s that pesky evidence mishandling and chain of custody problems again.
Many CTers believe that Oswald had NO GUN at all in the theater, and they believe the DPD merely "planted" the Smith & Wesson V510210 revolver into the evidence pile connected with Tippit's murder. Which would mean that somebody also had to fake the whole Seaport Traders paper trail that shows that Oswald was the owner of said gun.
BS. There no “paper trail” showing any ownership or even possession. There’s a document showing an alleged order by a Hidell and an address of a box that Oswald had access to.
-
To quote from some of Richard Smith's recent posts....
Wow!
John Iacoletti is now running neck-and-neck with James R. Gordon of The Education Forum for first place in the "CTers In Total Denial" race.
At the rate Iacoletti is charging forward, he'll be in first place by himself by noon tomorrow.
Stay tuned!
-
@Tom Scully....
In the lengthy Bugliosi excerpt you provided from 5/24/07, where's the relevant remark that Bill Chapman alluded to earlier? I sure don't see anything of the kind in there.
Hey, David!
Sorry if it turns out to be irrelevant but I thought there was at least a 50/50 chance that is where Chapman got his impression and mistook what Vince was saying, for exaggeration.
I hope I can help with this. I've only been into this with any depth since the year before I joined the Ed Forum on 01/01/08. Before that, I was too busy living to dwell on my most traumatic sixth grade memory.
I didn't view "JFK: The Movie," until the 50th, in 2013... maybe that is what is "wrong" with me!
I think you know from our shared experience on the Money Order with Lance in 2015 that I am not wedded to Oswald's innocence.
I do find the revolver rounds and the bus transfer still in Oswald's pocket a couple of hours after his arrest quite odd, as well as the delay in DPD sending all of the empty revolver hulls to the FBI, but most of all it intrigues the s**t out of me that I was able to prove both Virginia Davis and taxi driver Whaley lied about their age, along with Gladys Johnson's excuse for why she let Earline Roberts go, at least twice, and Roberts and the Johnson couple being so off in their perceptions of when Det. Potts arrived at their N. Beckley rooming house.
Virginia's sister-in-law, Barbara Davis, emphasized that unlike Virginia, she saw almost nothing supporting Virginia's
observations of the alleged revolver wielding suspect in their yard. Her husband's (Troy) brother, 27 year old Charlie Davis,
had married 15 year old Virginia that spring and brought her from Paris, TX to Dallas.
BTW, here is the reply I got from the digital "keeper" of Whaley's grave site, when I requested, with the proof I provided,
that he correct Whaley's birth year from 1905 to 1908.:
on 13 Sep 2021
William Whaley (13730776) https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/13730776/william-wayne-whaley
"I added a note about birth year.
It's tricky when there is an error on the marker itself. If I change the DOB, then everyone will start sending in a correction because the marker says 1905.
--Bob"
My comment to you, David = LOL !
-
Bentley didn’t come downstairs from the balcony until after the struggle started.
_ He saw the struggle just as he entered the lower floor
The struggle was over the gun after McDonald grabbed Oswald’s hand over the gun and yanked it out (according to scripture). If the struggle had already started then the gun was out. That’s what McDonald and every other cop on the main floor said.
-
The struggle was over the gun after McDonald grabbed Oswald’s hand over the gun and yanked it out (according to scripture). If the struggle had already started then the gun was out. That’s what McDonald and every other cop on the main floor said.
Hey, John! Doesn't anybody sleep working man's hours?
Watch the beginning of the youtube video I posted and share whether you got a similar impression as mine, that Bentley claimed it was his hand that interrupted a revolver shot discharging, especially since McDonald does not mention it at all.
40 years later, in his Sixth Floor oral history video, as you posted, McDonald is definitely "reciting scripture".
-
To quote from some of Richard Smith's recent posts....
Wow!
John Iacoletti is now running neck-and-neck with James R. Gordon of The Education Forum for first place in the "CTers In Total Denial" race.
Wow. Yet another empty “rebuttal”. Make a complete faith and assumption-based argument instead of an evidence-based one, declare yourself correct and then respond to every substantive objection not by actually addressing the objection, but by bleating “denial”. And people wonder why the LN “Oswald did it” position is likened to a religious cult. It operates exactly like one.
-
Watch the beginning of the youtube video I posted and share whether you got a similar impression as mine, that Bentley claimed it was his hand that interrupted a revolver shot discharging,
Yes, all I can figure is that Bentley and McDonald were holding hands.
-
And people wonder why the LN “Oswald did it” position is likened to a religious cult. It operates exactly like one.
Pot/Kettle time (again).
-
Pot/Kettle time (again).
David, in the youtube video, the interviewer asks Bentley what happened in the backseat of "the squad" after Oswald
refused to provide his name. Bentley replied that he got Oswald's (3rd or possibly his 4th?) wallet out of his pocket and got his name from a library card. The interviewer then describes the address street name, Elsbeth, seeming to confirm it was the library card in the image I include below....
My past research indicates there was no public disclosure of the fabricated Selective Service document with the name, Hidell until the following spring.
Don't you find it odd that the DPD had knowledge of Oswald's link to Bowen-Corsi so soon, but neither the DPD or FBI ever publicly connected Bowen-Corsi to his ex-brother-in-law Dial Ryder? Or, that Bowen-Corsi was associated with Dial's sister's
(Lucille Fleta Ryder) (Bowen-Corsi's ex-wife) next husband, Roy Mantooth (convicted of burglary of a post office and theft of blank old style money orders and a printer) and Mantooth's brother?
I notice John Kowalski on the Ed Forum is posting as if this Dial Ryder / Bowen-Corsi is his discovery. Dial was 12 years younger than his sister, Lucille Fleta Ryder Bowen Mantooth.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenLibraryCard.jpg)
-
David...
Don't you find it odd that the DPD had knowledge of Oswald's link to Bowen-Corsi so soon, but neither the DPD or FBI ever publicly connected Bowen-Corsi to his ex-brother-in-law Dial Ryder? Or, that Bowen-Corsi was associated with Dial's sister's (Lucille Fleta Ryder) (Bowen-Corsi's ex-wife) next husband, Roy Mantooth (convicted of burglary of a post office and theft of blank old style money orders and a printer) and Mantooth's brother?
That sounds like a bunch of insignificant six-degrees-of-separation nonsense to me, Tom.
I'm almost inclined to think you're kidding and poking a little fun at over-zealous CTers with this above post of yours. (But you aren't poking fun, are you?)
Anyway, the one thing I'm still waiting for the police to investigate is the connection between Wilma Tice's future mother-in-law and Bonnie Ray Williams' ex-mailman in the year 1952! Seems to me that connection can't be overlooked when discussing the subject of conspiracy in the Kennedy case.
Obligatory --- (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ySOGdNq8hLA/UUzqFTe6gvI/AAAAAAAAt9I/Wu_MjFy6RIs/s1600/SMILE-ICON.gif)
-
Sorry if it turns out to be irrelevant but I thought there was at least a 50/50 chance that is where Chapman got his impression and mistook what Vince was saying, for exaggeration.
But what portion of that very long excerpt from Vincent's Sixth Floor Museum talk do you think is relevant at all? Care to elaborate? I'm just a little curious is all.
-
But what portion of that very long excerpt from Vincent's Sixth Floor Museum talk do you think is relevant at all? Care to elaborate? I'm just a little curious is all.
I didn't post that it was a 100% match to Chapman's description and I posted it on a hunch Chapman may have
misinterpreted Vince's point, excerpted below.
...
Btw, Bug said he wrote RH as if he was at trial, exaggerating on purpose
https://www.c-span.org/video/?198568-1/reclaiming-history-assassination-jfk
00:10:41
...THEY HAVE REJECTED THE FINDINGS OF THE WARREN COMMISSION SO IT WAS AT THAT POINT THAT I DECIDED TO WRITE A BOOK, WAY BACK IN 1986 AND I STARTED WORKING ON IT IN '86. FINALLY FINISHED. IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SPEAK CANDIDLY ABOUT RECLAIMING HISTORY. PAUL WAS SAYING I HAD THREE BOOKS NO. 1 IN THE "NEW YORK TIMES" AND I NEVER BRAGGED ABOUT THOSE BOOKS. I JUST DIDN'T DO IT. THE PROBLEM I HAVE HERE IN SPEAKING CANDIDLY ABOUT RECLAIMING HISTORY IS THAT IF I'M CANDID IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M VERY IMMODEST WHICH IS NOT GOOD, ALTHOUGH CHURCHILL TAUGHT US THAT MODESTY IS NOT ALWAYS A VIRTUE AND HE WAS RUNNING FOR ELECTION AND ONE OF THE REPORTERS SAID MR. SIR WINSTON YOU HAVE TO AGREE MR. ATLY WAS MORE MODEST AND HE SAID YES BUT HE HAS MUCH MORE TO BE MODEST
00:13:17
ABOUT. [LAUGHTER] >> IN ANY EVENT, IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SPEAK CANDIDLY ABOUT IT BECAUSE I SOUND LIKE I'M BOASTING, BUT THE ALTERNATIVE IS EVEN WORSE. WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE? WELL, IF I DON'T SPEAK CANDIDLY ABOUT IT, PEOPLE COULD BELIEVE THAT THIS IS JUST ANOTHER BOOK ON THE ASSASSINATION OUT OF THE CLOSE TO 1,000. BUT I'M SORRY IT'S NOT JUST ANOTHER BOOK. ...
-
That sounds like a bunch of insignificant six-degrees-of-separation nonsense to me, Tom.
I'm almost inclined to think you're kidding and poking a little fun at over-zealous CTers with this above post of yours. (But you aren't poking fun, are you?)
Anyway, the one thing I'm still waiting for the police to investigate is the connection between Wilma Tice's future mother-in-law and Bonnie Ray Williams' ex-mailman in the year 1952! Seems to me that connection can't be overlooked when discussing the subject of conspiracy in the Kennedy case.
Obligatory --- (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ySOGdNq8hLA/UUzqFTe6gvI/AAAAAAAAt9I/Wu_MjFy6RIs/s1600/SMILE-ICON.gif)
David, my theory is that there were so many claims of finding Oswald wallets in that particular time frame, Oswald's
I.D.'s, parceled out amongst them resorted to him carrying a library card obtained through Bowen-Corsi's girlfriend employed by the DP Library and that rather vague USMC I.D. and the yet to be disclosed, altered or entirely fabricated Selective Service I.D., in Hidell's name.
It has been my experience with the onions I've managed to entirely peel back, like the Klein's postal money order, that insufficient knowledge is the breeding ground of too many CT suspicions. Imagine my disappointment when my Lisa Pease influenced theory about Freeport Sulphur V.P. "Dick White," strongly suspected to be Charles Wright of Yale's Scroll & Key, secret society brother of Godfrey S. Rockefeller and his fellow Freeport board member, Jock Whitney, turned out to merely be the president of a Gretna, LA bank, a detail easily confirmed by Garrison, if he wanted to learn it.
This recently found knowledge blew up most of my sinister suspicions about Freeport. Jock Whitney did pen the odd editorial on 11/23 in his Herald Tribune dismissing Oswald as a lone wolf and his paper's reporter, Breslin, as was Jerry O'Leary of the DC Star and Aynsworth were seemingly everywhere in Dallas that fateful weekend, and Whitney did rent his estate's bungalow to Jinx Falkenberg from 1946 until his widow, Betsy evicted her, and Jinx was the first cousin of Priscilla's best friend, Ms. Macatee Davison, and Godfrey Rockefeller's spokesperson, 38 year Cranston Dye Works executive, Dwight Owen, who served in the same WWII Pacific War PT squadron with this fellow, George O. Walbridge, whose boss happened to be JFK's best friend,
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CogswellBillingsWalbridge.jpg)
who (Walbridge) happened to be the best man in the Texas wedding of James K Cogswell and Stephen Farish's daughter, Joan, and Cogswell happened to be a close friend in Scarsdale of Richard Ober, suspected REAL Deep Throat of Watergate journalism,
and Dwight Owen's son, Rob, happened to be Oliver North's contra's "courier," BWDIK ?
I accept I can't control what comes to my attention. Recently, I accidentally happened to acquire awareness that someone I met 50 years ago and felt like I knew all my life when we were introduced and instantly felt like I was staring into the soul of when we locked into eye contact that lasted long past when it should have seemed uncomfortably long to at least one of us, 900 miles from where I currently live, recently moved just 30 miles from me. She returned a week later (in 1971) to surprise me, found that I was with someone else, refused my request for a raincheck, and this recent knowledge brought those repressed memories back, and has me wondering if I found a soulmate back then and screwed up our destiny.
I've consulted my Indian born female G.P. physician and my Indian born female dermatologist about this and both believe in reincarnation.
So, no, David, I'm not laughing or taunting. I wrestle with what should feel like a gift but too often distracts like a curse.
The three homicide detectives I've known don't believe there are mere coincidences.
-
Shells from an automatic are ejected, not dumped on the ground.
So what? Since no automatic was involved in shooting Tippit, your comment is useless and irrelevant.
Or would you like to pretend that an automatic WAS fired at Tippit? If so, why weren't those shells found RIGHT NEXT to Tippit's police car?
And if an automatic really was used, that means you have no choice but to call various witnesses liars who said the killer was manually dumping shells on the ground as he fled.
Highly relevant, unless you can produce an affidavit (or similar) by Gerald Hill that states the police tape transcript is in error:
"Shells at the scene indicate the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol."
Take your time!
But we know from the various witnesses who were at the scene WHEN THE SHOOTING WAS OCCURRING that the killer was NOT armed with an automatic, because the killer was emptying his shells on the ground. If the killer had had an automatic weapon, there would have been no need for him to manually empty his shells.
Do you think both Davis girls just made up their testimony about the killer "unloading the gun" in their yard as he ran?
And was Benavides also wrong when he saw the killer dumping shells too?
Take your time.
P.S., Sergeant Gerald Hill, who initially (incorrectly) thought the Tippit shells were from an automatic weapon, tried to clear up the confusion when he said this in 1986:
"I assumed that it was an automatic simply because we had found all the hulls in one little general area. If you find a cluster of shells, you have to assume that they were fired from an automatic." -- Quote by Gerald Hill (Taken from Dale Myers' book, "With Malice" [1998 Edition]; Pages 260-261)
-
But we know from the various witnesses who were at the scene WHEN THE SHOOTING WAS OCCURRING that the killer was NOT armed with an automatic, because the killer was emptying his shells on the ground. If the killer had had an automatic weapon, there would have been no need for him to manually empty his shells. Right?
Do you think both Davis girls just made up their testimony about the killer "unloading the gun" in their yard as he ran?
And was Benavides also wrong when he saw the killer dumping shells too?
Take your time.
Barbara Davis seemed to emphasize she didn't see much and I proved Virginia lied to DPD and under oath to the
WC, as to her age. This was the "gem": in Virginia's WC testimony...
Virginia, AKA Mrs. Charlie Davis,
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/davis_vc.htm
"...Mr. BELIN. How old are you?
Mrs. DAVIS. Sixteen. (my comment; her testimony was taken on April 2, 1964, she was born in June, 1948)
....
...Mr. BELIN. In other words, to your---to the best of your recollection, you heard the shots, you ran outside, you saw Mrs. Markham---did you see anything else when you saw Mrs. Markham?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; we just saw a police car sitting on the side of the road.
Mr. BELIN. Where was the police car parked?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was parked between the hedge that marks the apartment house where he lives in and the house next door..."
Virginia was describing Tippit's girlfriend's temporary residence. (Her estranged spouse at the time was suspected
of shooting Tippit after he found out Tippit had impregnated her.) (see Gary Mack's description of Larry Harris's research
into Johnnie Maxie Witherspoon and her ex-husband and her suspected Tippit fathered daughter;
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/Mack%20Gary%20Cover-up/Item%2027.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/Mack%20Gary%20Cover-up/Item%2027.pdf) )
Barbara : (In fairness, her earlier affidavit (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm) is much more definitive)
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/davis_b.htm
"...Mr. BALL. Did you see him throw anything away?
Mrs. DAVIS. No.
Mr. BALL. You didn't?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What did you do next?
Mrs. DAVIS. He looked at her first and looked at me and then smiled and went around the corner.
Mr. BALL. Was he running or walking?
Mrs. DAVIS. He was walking at his normal pace.
........
Mr. BALL. Put an "X" there. That "X" is a mark to locate your position and we will give a symbol to it. "D." Now, the line you have drawn from the sidewalk through the bushes is the course the man took. Where was he when you saw him emptying his gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. He was right here on the other side of this bush.
Mr. BALL. Draw a line through the course there.
Mrs. DAVIS. Just about along in here.
Mr. DULLES. Did you know at the time he was emptying his gun?
344
Mrs. DAVIS. That is what I presumed because he had it open and was shaking it.
Mr. DULLES. I see. Just right there..."
-
I proved Virginia [Davis] lied to DPD and under oath to the WC, as to her age.
And even if she did lie about her age, how could that possibly matter? Or do you think her white lie about her age was just one of many lies she told to the authorities? (But why would you think that?)
Plus, I can see why the very young Virginia Davis just might want to fudge on her age a little bit (in the direction of being older than she really was). If you're right and she was born in June of 1948, that means she was only 15 years old on 11/22/63 (and when she gave her WC testimony too). And she was married at the time. So she might just have wanted people to think she was a little older, so she wouldn't be criticized or shunned as much for getting married at such a very young age. So she said she was 16.
If she was going to fudge her age (due to her marital status), I would think she would have wanted to tack on two years to her age, to make people think she was really 17, which would be a bit more "acceptable" (shall we say) to people reading her Warren Commission testimony and her affidavit.
BTW, in Virginia's affidavit, evidently it wasn't just her age that was a bone of contention, but also her gender. Because it would appear, based on what we find typed on the affidavit itself, that Dallas County notary public Patsy Collins thought Virginia Davis' gender was "male". (Maybe this error can spark yet another conspiracy theory surrounding the Davis girls.)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-k6zdEOe907c/Tvw_eTV_DWI/AAAAAAAAByg/gYDLYd2qXFA/s1045/Virginia-Davis-Affidavit.gif)
-
And even if she did lie about her age, how could that possibly matter? Or do you think her white lie about her age was just one of many lies she told to the authorities? (But why would you think that?)
Plus, I can see why the very young Virginia Davis just might want to fudge on her age a little bit (in the direction of being older than she really was). If you're right and she was born in June of 1948, that means she was only 15 years old on 11/22/63 (and when she gave her WC testimony too). And she was married at the time. So she might just have wanted people to think she was a little older, so she wouldn't be criticized or shunned as much for getting married at such a very young age. So she said she was 16.
If she was going to fudge her age (due to her marital status), I would think she would have wanted to tack on two years to her age, to make people think she was really 17, which would be a bit more "acceptable" (shall we say) to people reading her Warren Commission testimony and her affidavit.
BTW, in Virginia's affidavit, evidently it wasn't just her age that was a bone of contention, but also her gender. Because it would appear, based on what we find typed on the affidavit itself, that Dallas County notary public Patsy Collins thought Virginia Davis' gender was "male". (Maybe this error can spark yet another conspiracy theory surrounding the Davis girls.)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-k6zdEOe907c/Tvw_eTV_DWI/AAAAAAAAByg/gYDLYd2qXFA/s1045/Virginia-Davis-Affidavit.gif)
The only point in your post I think is mildly unreasonable is you discount that if a judge presiding over a criminal trial Virginia testified as a witness in was presented with persuasive evidence she had lied about any detail of her testimony and I'm not disagreeing at all with your sympathetic portrayal of her motivation, it was a daunting enough experience if she witnessed what she testified to, without the added humiliation of admitting she was 15 and had just married a man nearly twice her age, but the trial judge would likely agree with a request from a defense attorney to instruct the jury that any lie by a witness gives the jury the option to ignore or diminish the weight of the entirety of that witness's testimony.
Name: Charley Davis
Gender: Male
Death Age: 83
Birth Date: 2 Aug 1935
Marriage Date: 7 Aug 1963
Death Date: 3 Aug 2018
Burial Date: 7 Aug 2018
Parents: Lewis Davis; Anna Mae Davis
Spouse:
Virginia Ruth Wilbanks
Virginia is alive, but a photo available at this link displays their joint headstone engraved with her full 1948 D.O.B.
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/191965658/
Link to Barbara's grave and obit to "cement" the link to her brother-in-law, Charley Davis
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/42544464/barbara-jeanette-davis
"..brother-in-law Charles and wife Virginia, Tulia;.."
-
So many words and still not an answer to my question.
A presumption of innocence applies to an adversarial criminal trial with prosecution and defense cases being presented.
No, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies always. Even outside a court, when you accuse me of doing something wrong, you need to prove it either to law enforcement or just people around you. You can not go around accusing somebody of doing something wrong without proving it! If that wasn't the case, I could accuse you right now of robbing a bank, rape and whatever else comes to mind without consequence. Your reply would be - quite rightly so - that you didn't do any of it and that there is no evidence to support the claims. So, don't give me any of this theoretical crap!
In this particular circumstance LHO was not on trial. Therefore, technically, your question isn’t applicable to this case. An investigation is not a trial. The WC drew it’s conclusions based on the results of the investigation and stated their reasoning in the report.
So, basically what you are saying is that the WC could find an already dead Oswald guilty, without there ever having been a trial and that somehow means you can argue that he is guilty, despite the fact that he never had his day in court. Do you understand how insane that is?
It's in fact pathethic beyond belief. Oswald is being declared guilty by a commission, without ever having been on trial and despite the fact that the commission's opinion is in no way a legal finding of guilt, we, according to you and your ilk, still have to consider Oswald to somehow be proven guilty... Is that what you are really saying? When did this country become a third world banana republic?
An investigation is not a trial. The WC drew it’s conclusions based on the results of the investigation and stated their reasoning in the report.
It is true that an investigation is not a trial. But, as a trial is the only setting where somebody can be found guilty or innocent by a jury of his peers, the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, right? So. why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?
No, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies always.
You are mistaking your opinion as fact. But your opinion is wrong, again.
There is no presumption of innocence in a civil court (like there is in a criminal court). Also, in a civil court, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, however a preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof (not the same as the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in a criminal court).
BTW, now that I consider this, it is probably one of the main reasons that there are so many lawsuits that end up being settled (by negotiation) out of court.
So, basically what you are saying is that the WC could find an already dead Oswald guilty, without there ever having been a trial and that somehow means you can argue that he is guilty, despite the fact that he never had his day in court. Do you understand how insane that is?
It's in fact pathethic beyond belief. Oswald is being declared guilty by a commission, without ever having been on trial and despite the fact that the commission's opinion is in no way a legal finding of guilt, we, according to you and your ilk, still have to consider Oswald to somehow be proven guilty... Is that what you are really saying? When did this country become a third world banana republic?
There is nothing insane about it. There are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. No one is arguing that LHO was technically convicted by a jury. People are arguing about whether or not they think the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The WC reported that they believed that it does. That is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.
There are numerous cases where people are murdered and then the accused either takes his own life or is killed by police, etc. None of them can have trials either. Subsequent investigations bring out the evidence and a determination of what is believed to have happened is produced based on that evidence. But, here again, this is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.
It is true that an investigation is not a trial. But, as a trial is the only setting where somebody can be found guilty or innocent by a jury of his peers, the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, right? So. why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?
Trials do not always end up with the correct verdict. Hypothetically, if LHO had lived to stand trial, we would most likely have only a small portion of the evidence (that is available to us in the WC documents, etc) presented in court. And we probably would not have any information about how the jury deliberated, except what some of them might have chosen to share.
Again, no one is arguing that LHO was technically convicted in a court of law. The argument is about whether or not one believes that the evidence shows his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. None of us sat on a jury that was charged with determining the legal answer to that question. Therefore, none of our individual determinations have any legal consequences regarding a dead man who cannot be put on trial.
-
No, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies always.
You are mistaking your opinion as fact. But your opinion is wrong, again.
There is no presumption of innocence in a civil court (like there is in a criminal court). Also, in a civil court, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, however a preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof (not the same as the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in a criminal court).
BTW, now that I consider this, it is probably one of the main reasons that there are so many lawsuits that end up being settled (by negotiation) out of court.
So, basically what you are saying is that the WC could find an already dead Oswald guilty, without there ever having been a trial and that somehow means you can argue that he is guilty, despite the fact that he never had his day in court. Do you understand how insane that is?
It's in fact pathethic beyond belief. Oswald is being declared guilty by a commission, without ever having been on trial and despite the fact that the commission's opinion is in no way a legal finding of guilt, we, according to you and your ilk, still have to consider Oswald to somehow be proven guilty... Is that what you are really saying? When did this country become a third world banana republic?
There is nothing insane about it. There are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. No one is arguing that LHO was technically convicted by a jury. People are arguing about whether or not they think the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The WC reported that they believed that it does. That is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.
There are numerous cases where people are murdered and then the accused either takes his own life or is killed by police, etc. None of them can have trials either. Subsequent investigations bring out the evidence and a determination of what is believed to have happened is produced based on that evidence. But, here again, this is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.
It is true that an investigation is not a trial. But, as a trial is the only setting where somebody can be found guilty or innocent by a jury of his peers, the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, right? So. why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?
Trials do not always end up with the correct verdict. Hypothetically, if LHO had lived to stand trial, we would most likely have only a small portion of the evidence (that is available to us in the WC documents, etc) presented in court. And we probably would not have any information about how the jury deliberated, except what some of them might have chosen to share.
Again, no one is arguing that LHO was technically convicted in a court of law. The argument is about whether or not one believes that the evidence shows his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. None of us sat on a jury that was charged with determining the legal answer to that question. Therefore, none of our individual determinations have any legal consequences regarding a dead man who cannot be put on trial.
That's an excellent post but wasted on Martin. This has been explained to him a thousand times. It is common sense. He is vested, however, in applying the standards of a criminal trial to the JFK assassination because that allows him the best opportunity to suggest there is doubt as to Oswald's responsibility for this crime (i.e. he doesn't have to prove anything or make any sense) when all the evidence is against him. Martin won't even confess to being a CTer. He simply applies an impossible standard of proof to any evidence of Oswald's guilt while entertaining all manner of completely baseless and even inconsistent counter possibilities that could lend themselves to doubt. Then goes into a song and dance that he isn't suggesting a conspiracy (strawman) - just that all the evidence could, maybe, possibly be suspect for some reason that he never explains. Repeat endlessly. But you know all this. He can't be convinced by facts, logic, or reason or he would not take this silly defense attorney approach in the first place. Tiresome in its endless repetition.
The only interesting question is whether Martin actually believes his own nonsense or is this just a hobby to pass the time. You can take a contrarian approach to any topic and infuriate people by simply dismissing all the evidence as an "assumption" and string out any discussion endlessly. Rational people are tempted to think that by discussing the issue using facts and evidence that such people can't help but be convinced of the obvious truth. They are wrong. That is exactly what a contrarian wants. To entice others into using facts and logic so they can dismiss it on some false premise and keep the conversation going in circles endlessly. Every single topic that involves Martin follows this exact pattern. Is it an "attention seeking" motivation? Who knows? Maybe Otto or Roger Collins.
-
No, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies always.
You are mistaking your opinion as fact. But your opinion is wrong, again.
There is no presumption of innocence in a civil court (like there is in a criminal court). Also, in a civil court, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, however a preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof (not the same as the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in a criminal court).
BTW, now that I consider this, it is probably one of the main reasons that there are so many lawsuits that end up being settled (by negotiation) out of court.
Thank you for sharing your flawed opinion. It's good to know that you feel I can accuse you of anything you like without you having the benefit of the presumption of innocence.
And btw, who - except you - is talking about a civil court?
So, basically what you are saying is that the WC could find an already dead Oswald guilty, without there ever having been a trial and that somehow means you can argue that he is guilty, despite the fact that he never had his day in court. Do you understand how insane that is?
It's in fact pathethic beyond belief. Oswald is being declared guilty by a commission, without ever having been on trial and despite the fact that the commission's opinion is in no way a legal finding of guilt, we, according to you and your ilk, still have to consider Oswald to somehow be proven guilty... Is that what you are really saying? When did this country become a third world banana republic?
There is nothing insane about it. There are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. No one is arguing that LHO was technically convicted by a jury. People are arguing about whether or not they think the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The WC reported that they believed that it does. That is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.
There are numerous cases where people are murdered and then the accused either takes his own life or is killed by police, etc. None of them can have trials either. Subsequent investigations bring out the evidence and a determination of what is believed to have happened is produced based on that evidence. But, here again, this is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.
Of course there are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. In fact, when a suspect or accused dies the investigation or prosecution instantly dies with him. Everything stops that very moment and the case remains unresolved and you can not declare that the dead man is guilty of anything. In every normal case that is, which of course does not include this one, because here they kept on investigating and ultimately declared their opinion that the already dead Oswald was the lone gunman. It was of course not a verdict, in a legal sense, but it most certainly was presented like one to the American public.
People are arguing about whether or not they think the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The WC reported that they believed that it does. That is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.
Indeed. So when a LN claims that Oswald is the lone gun man, because the WC proved it, he is merely expressing his opinion and all the history books that claim as a fact that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit are wrong, right?
It is true that an investigation is not a trial. But, as a trial is the only setting where somebody can be found guilty or innocent by a jury of his peers, the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, right? So. why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?
Trials do not always end up with the correct verdict. Hypothetically, if LHO had lived to stand trial, we would most likely have only a small portion of the evidence (that is available to us in the WC documents, etc) presented in court. And we probably would not have any information about how the jury deliberated, except what some of them might have chosen to share.
Again, no one is arguing that LHO was technically convicted in a court of law. The argument is about whether or not one believes that the evidence shows his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. None of us sat on a jury that was charged with determining the legal answer to that question. Therefore, none of our individual determinations have any legal consequences regarding a dead man who cannot be put on trial.
Evasive and not the answer to my question, which was;
As the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?
I find it some what ironic that a die hard LN, who claims that Oswald is guilty, is now arguing that he was never convicted by any court (including the court of public opinion) which in consequence makes him, in the eyes of the law, an innocent man.
-
You can take a contrarian approach to any topic and infuriate people by simply dismissing all the evidence as an "assumption"
If this infuriates you then you should stop pretending that assumptions are evidence.
-
And btw, who - except you - is talking about a civil court?
Of course there are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. In fact, when a suspect or accused dies the investigation or prosecution instantly dies with him. Everything stops that very moment and the case remains unresolved and you can not declare that the dead man is guilty of anything.
So I guess that means that the Uvalde school shooting is unresolved because we can't figure out who did the shooting because the shooter can't have a trial?
-
So I guess that means that the Uvalde school shooting is unresolved because we can't figure out who did the shooting because the shooter can't have a trial?
It's an absurd comparison and an even absurder question.
In Uvalde the killer was found dead at the scene and a multitude of people saw him shooting. He had the weapons that were used in the killing with him. There is no question whatsoever who the killer was in that case, but nevertheless in legal terms the case will officially remain unresolved in much the same way that a legal execution is still classified as a homicide.
In the Kennedy case, Oswald was not found at the scene, not a single credible witness saw him on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shooting took place, he did not have the murder weapon with him and the case against him is, at best, highly circumstantial based on very questionable and mostly unauthicated evidence.
If you don't understand the clear difference between the two cases, then I don't know what to tell you.
-
Thank you for sharing your flawed opinion. It's good to know that you feel I can accuse you of anything you like without you having the benefit of the presumption of innocence.
And btw, who - except you - is talking about a civil court?
Of course there are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. In fact, when a suspect or accused dies the investigation or prosecution instantly dies with him. Everything stops that very moment and the case remains unresolved and you can not declare that the dead man is guilty of anything. In every normal case that is, which of course does not include this one, because here they kept on investigating and ultimately declared their opinion that the already dead Oswald was the lone gunman. It was of course not a verdict, in a legal sense, but it most certainly was presented like one to the American public.
People are arguing about whether or not they think the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The WC reported that they believed that it does. That is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.
Indeed. So when a LN claims that Oswald is the lone gun man, because the WC proved it, he is merely expressing his opinion and all the history books that claim as a fact that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit are wrong, right?
Evasive and not the answer to my question, which was;
As the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?
I find it some what ironic that a die hard LN, who claims that Oswald is guilty, is now arguing that he was never convicted by any court (including the court of public opinion) which in consequence makes him, in the eyes of the law, an innocent man.
Thank you for sharing your flawed opinion. It's good to know that you feel I can accuse you of anything you like without you having the benefit of the presumption of innocence.
It isn’t my opinion, it’s the law. Look it up. People quite often sue other people in civil court for all kinds of reasons. There is no presumption of innocence and the defendant is forced to provide evidence of non guilt. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, but all he has to do is provide enough evidence to tip the scales on his side. (Not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that is required in a criminal case.)
And btw, who - except you - is talking about a civil court?
Your claim was that essentially that a presumption of innocence always applies. I brought up the fact that your claim is false because “always” would by definition include civil courts (where by law it does not apply). This is just one example, like I said earlier, criminal courts are where the presumption of innocence applies.
In fact, when a suspect or accused dies the investigation or prosecution instantly dies with him. Everything stops that very moment and the case remains unresolved….
No, everything does not stop. There is typically an investigation to determine what is believed to have happened. The prosecution would stop (if one had begun). But not the investigation. The public deserves answers as best as can be determined by that investigation. And that is what happened in this case.
Indeed. So when a LN claims that Oswald is the lone gun man, because the WC proved it, he is merely expressing his opinion…
Yes.
…and all the history books that claim as a fact that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit are wrong, right?
Technically, in today’s world (where political correctness appears to be more important than it was in years past) we would be inclined to say that LHO is the accused killer. This is because there can be no trial for a dead man. I would want to individually review any instances where a “history book” makes such a claim instead of offering a blanket statement like you are asking for in your question.
As the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?
I can only speak for myself. There is a difference between proven guilty, and proven legally guilty. A dead man cannot be put on trial.
For a hypothetical example, I could be wrong, but I would think that if a man who possessed property, but died, was later indicated to be guilty of murder by an investigation, that the family of the murdered victim would need to sue the estate of the murderer before getting any potential compensation. If I remember correctly, OJ Simpson was subjected to a civil lawsuit even after he was declared not guilty by a “jury”.
-
That's an excellent post but wasted on Martin. This has been explained to him a thousand times. It is common sense. He is vested, however, in applying the standards of a criminal trial to the JFK assassination because that allows him the best opportunity to suggest there is doubt as to Oswald's responsibility for this crime (i.e. he doesn't have to prove anything or make any sense) when all the evidence is against him. Martin won't even confess to being a CTer. He simply applies an impossible standard of proof to any evidence of Oswald's guilt while entertaining all manner of completely baseless and even inconsistent counter possibilities that could lend themselves to doubt. Then goes into a song and dance that he isn't suggesting a conspiracy (strawman) - just that all the evidence could, maybe, possibly be suspect for some reason that he never explains. Repeat endlessly. But you know all this. He can't be convinced by facts, logic, or reason or he would not take this silly defense attorney approach in the first place. Tiresome in its endless repetition.
The only interesting question is whether Martin actually believes his own nonsense or is this just a hobby to pass the time. You can take a contrarian approach to any topic and infuriate people by simply dismissing all the evidence as an "assumption" and string out any discussion endlessly. Rational people are tempted to think that by discussing the issue using facts and evidence that such people can't help but be convinced of the obvious truth. They are wrong. That is exactly what a contrarian wants. To entice others into using facts and logic so they can dismiss it on some false premise and keep the conversation going in circles endlessly. Every single topic that involves Martin follows this exact pattern. Is it an "attention seeking" motivation? Who knows? Maybe Otto or Roger Collins.
You are spot on. Certain Oswald arse kissers attempt to get around being called a CTer (thus not having prove anything, yet still able to make outrageous 'suggestions') by simply playing the 'just asking questions' card. Otherwise known as 'JAQ-ing o**' in Internet Troll lingo.
'Trollface' is their calling card
(https://i.postimg.cc/HWwFz2fF/TROLLFACE.png)
"Trollface shows a troll, someone who annoys others on the internet for their own amusement.[2] The original comic by Ramirez mocked trolls;[3] however, the image is widely used by trolls.[10] Trollface has been described as the internet equivalent of the children's taunt "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah" or sticking one's tongue out.[10] The image is often accompanied by phrases such as "Problem?" or "You mad, bro?".[11] -Wikipedia
-
Thank you for sharing your flawed opinion. It's good to know that you feel I can accuse you of anything you like without you having the benefit of the presumption of innocence.
It isn’t my opinion, it’s the law. Look it up. People quite often sue other people in civil court for all kinds of reasons. There is no presumption of innocence and the defendant is forced to provide evidence of non guilt. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, but all he has to do is provide enough evidence to tip the scales on his side. (Not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that is required in a criminal case.)
Again, who - except you - is talking about a civil case? We are talking about a criminal case.
And btw, who - except you - is talking about a civil court?
Your claim was that essentially that a presumption of innocence always applies. I brought up the fact that your claim is false because “always” would by definition include civil courts (where by law it does not apply). This is just one example, like I said earlier, criminal courts are where the presumption of innocence applies.
Ah, you're playing word games by pretending it wasn't obvious to you that I was talking about criminal cases, where the presumption of innocence does indeed always apply.
In fact, when a suspect or accused dies the investigation or prosecution instantly dies with him. Everything stops that very moment and the case remains unresolved….
No, everything does not stop. There is typically an investigation to determine what is believed to have happened. The prosecution would stop (if one had begun). But not the investigation. The public deserves answers as best as can be determined by that investigation. And that is what happened in this case.
Says you... Okay, mr wise guy, show me one case, other than the Kennedy case, where the police continued to spend money and resources on an investigation that would never result in a prosecution because of the suspect's death
Indeed. So when a LN claims that Oswald is the lone gun man, because the WC proved it, he is merely expressing his opinion…
Yes.
Good... I know a few LNs who will disagree, but at least you're being honest about it.
…and all the history books that claim as a fact that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit are wrong, right?
Technically, in today’s world (where political correctness appears to be more important than it was in years past) we would be inclined to say that LHO is the accused killer. This is because there can be no trial for a dead man. I would want to individually review any instances where a “history book” makes such a claim instead of offering a blanket statement like you are asking for in your question.
I would want to individually review any instances where a “history book” makes such a claim instead of offering a blanket statement like you are asking for in your question.
Ask your fellow LNs, as they are frequently claiming that Oswald has gone down in history as the murderer of Kennedy and Tippit, as that is what is in the history books. Even the Texas Historical Commission states on the J.D. Tippit Commemorative Plaque that Tippit was murdered by Oswald. Go figure....
As the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?
I can only speak for myself. There is a difference between proven guilty, and proven legally guilty. A dead man cannot be put on trial.
If you really make that distiction then you are likely to be one of the few people that do that. In most cases LNs will claim that the WC has proven Oswald to be guilty, without realizing or understanding that they in fact are expressing their own opinion based on the evidence provided by the WC. Which, in fact, makes them no different from anybody who doesn't find the WC evidence compelling or persuasive. I gave up a long time ago to try and explain this to them.
For a hypothetical example, I could be wrong, but I would think that if a man who possessed property, but died, was later indicated to be guilty of murder by an investigation, that the family of the murdered victim would need to sue the estate of the murderer before getting any potential compensation. If I remember correctly, OJ Simpson was subjected to a civil lawsuit even after he was declared not guilty by a “jury”.
Yes. Simpson lost that civil case, but not because he was considered to be guilty of murder. And Simpson was of course still alive. It would be nearly impossible IMO to sue in civil court an estate of a dead man who was never tried or found guilty of murder in a criminal court. The responsibility for an alleged murder is not hereditary.
-
But what portion of that very long excerpt from Vincent's Sixth Floor Museum talk do you think is relevant at all? Care to elaborate? I'm just a little curious is all.
Bug saying in his story (in the video) about hardly anyone raising their hands when he asked who has read the Warren Report, links back to what I remember in the article I read (but cannot recover). I think he talked about the massive difference between the numbers of conspiracy-monger books, articles etc on the market as opposed to the relatively few WC books out there.. he might have included pro-WCR books with that; but again, I cannot be sure.
-
No, everything does not stop. There is typically an investigation to determine what is believed to have happened. The prosecution would stop (if one had begun). But not the investigation.
The WC wasn’t an investigation—it was a prosecution.
-
Like the propagandist and coward that he is, David has already posted some of this conversation on his website without the consent of the authors, selectively editing out replies that expose his fallacies, refute his claims, or make him look bad — thus creating a false narrative. Then he posted a link to the page as click-bait in his Facebook “JFK VIDEO, AUDIO, PHOTOS AND DISCUSSION” group. And now he’s deleting comments made in response to his dishonesty.
-
Again, who - except you - is talking about a civil case? We are talking about a criminal case.
Ah, you're playing word games by pretending it wasn't obvious to you that I was talking about criminal cases, where the presumption of innocence does indeed always apply.
Says you... Okay, mr wise guy, show me one case, other than the Kennedy case, where the police continued to spend money and resources on an investigation that would never result in a prosecution because of the suspect's death
Good... I know a few LNs who will disagree, but at least you're being honest about it.
I would want to individually review any instances where a “history book” makes such a claim instead of offering a blanket statement like you are asking for in your question.
Ask your fellow LNs, as they are frequently claiming that Oswald has gone down in history as the murderer of Kennedy and Tippit, as that is what is in the history books. Even the Texas Historical Commission states on the J.D. Tippit Commemorative Plaque that Tippit was murdered by Oswald. Go figure....
If you really make that distiction then you are likely to be one of the few people that do that. In most cases LNs will claim that the WC has proven Oswald to be guilty, without realizing or understanding that they in fact are expressing their own opinion based on the evidence provided by the WC. Which, in fact, makes them no different from anybody who doesn't find the WC evidence compelling or persuasive. I gave up a long time ago to try and explain this to them.
Yes. Simpson lost that civil case, but not because he was considered to be guilty of murder. And Simpson was of course still alive. It would be nearly impossible IMO to sue in civil court an estate of a dead man who was never tried or found guilty of murder in a criminal court. The responsibility for an alleged murder is not hereditary.
Again, who - except you - is talking about a civil case? We are talking about a criminal case.
Ah, you're playing word games by pretending it wasn't obvious to you that I was talking about criminal cases, where the presumption of innocence does indeed always apply.
There was no criminal case for LHO (after he was murdered) it ended when LHO was declared dead at Parkland Hospital. We are discussing the investigation that followed. You asked whether the presumption of innocence still applied to LHO. My answer is that that presumption applies to criminal courts. You said: No, the presumption always applies. You didn’t qualify your question as pertaining only to criminal courts. Instead you simply said that the presumption always applies and began a silly tirade about if it didn’t that you would be able to accuse me of anything. Yes, you can. But then the burden in upon you to show evidence that your claim is true.
Says you... Okay, mr wise guy, show me one case, other than the Kennedy case, where the police continued to spend money and resources on an investigation that would never result in a prosecution because of the suspect's death
Show me one where they didn’t.
Ask your fellow LNs, as they are frequently claiming that Oswald has gone down in history as the murderer of Kennedy and Tippit, as that is what is in the history books. Even the Texas Historical Commission states on the J.D. Tippit Commemorative Plaque that Tippit was murdered by Oswald. Go figure....
These politically correct days, we would most likely distinguish the difference between a convicted murderer and an accused murderer. However, there have been numerous convicted murderers who have been later proven innocent. Therefore, just because a conviction was obtained, it does not always mean that the truth has been uncovered and that justice has taken place.
Yes. Simpson lost that civil case, but not because he was considered to be guilty of murder.
Because a mere 50.001% chance of guilt was all that was needed, they found him “responsible” for the two deaths.
It would be nearly impossible IMO to sue in civil court an estate of a dead man who was never tried or found guilty of murder in a criminal court. The responsibility for an alleged murder is not hereditary.
Any property in an estate has to go through the courts to be sure there are no claims against it before any possible heirs get their share. Attorneys for the estate would probably be able to defend against any claims. In other words, if OJ had died before the civil trial, the families of the murder victims could have still sued the estate. Provided that it was done before the courts made transfer to any legal heirs to his estate.
-
The WC wasn’t an investigation—it was a prosecution.
A prosecution is the institution and carrying on of legal proceedings against a person. You cannot prosecute a dead man. There are no provisions for it in the law.
-
The WC wasn’t an investigation—it was a prosecution.
Which, in turn, would morph into an electrocution... giving the small fry exactly what he deserved
(https://i.postimg.cc/rpSGHWbs/195-SMALL-FRY.png)
billchapman
-
Again, who - except you - is talking about a civil case? We are talking about a criminal case.
Ah, you're playing word games by pretending it wasn't obvious to you that I was talking about criminal cases, where the presumption of innocence does indeed always apply.
There was no criminal case for LHO (after he was murdered) it ended when LHO was declared dead at Parkland Hospital. We are discussing the investigation that followed. You asked whether the presumption of innocence still applied to LHO. My answer is that that presumption applies to criminal courts. You said: No, the presumption always applies. You didn’t qualify your question as pertaining only to criminal courts. Instead you simply said that the presumption always applies and began a silly tirade about if it didn’t that you would be able to accuse me of anything. Yes, you can. But then the burden in upon you to show evidence that your claim is true.
You are not making any sense. There was indeed no criminal case for LHO after he died and but there most certainly wasn't a civil case either. In a criminal case you are accused of committing a crime and you are pressumed to be innocent until proven guilty. In a civil case no criminal charges are or can be brought against anybody and claims and counter-claims are filed for consideration by a jury. There does not need to be a pressumption of innocence because nobody is being charged with a crime and there most certainly doesn't have to be a criminal investigation.
The only "investigations" that sometimes happen in civil cases is the work done by private investigators. Only in criminal cases there is an official investigation and that stops instantly when a suspect dies, because it would be pointless to continue an investigation that will never result in a criminal prosecution. Now, unless you are telling me that the FBI and WC conducted an investigation as some sort of private investigator, your argument goes absolutely nowhere.
Instead you simply said that the presumption always applies and began a silly tirade about if it didn’t that you would be able to accuse me of anything. Yes, you can. But then the burden in upon you to show evidence that your claim is true.
You do understand that you've just agreed with me that the presumption of innocence always applies, right? If I accuse you of rape or of stealing my car (which are of course crimes) then it is up to me to provide the evidence to back up my claim. Without that evidence you are considered to be innocent. If I accuse you of owing me money, you don't need to be presumed to be innocent, because I am not accusing you of committing a crime.
Says you... Okay, mr wise guy, show me one case, other than the Kennedy case, where the police continued to spend money and resources on an investigation that would never result in a prosecution because of the suspect's death
Show me one where they didn’t.
You previously claimed that after a suspect dies, there would still be an investigation. This is what you said;
There is typically an investigation to determine what is believed to have happened. The prosecution would stop (if one had begun). But not the investigation. The public deserves answers as best as can be determined by that investigation. And that is what happened in this case.
So, I asked you to give me one example - other than the Kennedy case - where such an investigation after the suspect's death happened and it seems you can't name one. Instead you ask me to prove a negative? Really?
Your claim that investigations typically continue after a suspect's death is bogus.
Ask your fellow LNs, as they are frequently claiming that Oswald has gone down in history as the murderer of Kennedy and Tippit, as that is what is in the history books. Even the Texas Historical Commission states on the J.D. Tippit Commemorative Plaque that Tippit was murdered by Oswald. Go figure....
These politically correct days, we would most likely distinguish the difference between a convicted murderer and an accused murderer. However, there have been numerous convicted murderers who have been later proven innocent. Therefore, just because a conviction was obtained, it does not always mean that the truth has been uncovered and that justice has taken place.
Wow, now there's an open door you've just kicked in. And it is a completely pointless statement that you made. It has nothing to do with history books and even the Texas Historical Commission stating without any kind of reservation that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. Oswald was never convicted and can (at best) only be referred to as the alleged killer. As heir to Oswald's estate, Marina could in theory sue the Texas Historical Commission and anybody else who claims that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit for defamation of character.
Yes. Simpson lost that civil case, but not because he was considered to be guilty of murder.
Because a mere 50.001% chance of guilt was all that was needed, they found him “responsible” for the two deaths.
No need for the quotation marks. In a civil court Simpson was found to be responsible for the two deaths. That's a major difference from being found guilty of murder in a criminal court. You can not infer from a verdict of a jury in civil court that somebody is guilty of a crime of which he has already been aquitted in a criminal court.
It would be nearly impossible IMO to sue in civil court an estate of a dead man who was never tried or found guilty of murder in a criminal court. The responsibility for an alleged murder is not hereditary.
Any property in an estate has to go through the courts to be sure there are no claims against it before any possible heirs get their share. Attorneys for the estate would probably be able to defend against any claims. In other words, if OJ had died before the civil trial, the families of the murder victims could have still sued the estate. Provided that it was done before the courts made transfer to any legal heirs to his estate.
None of this has anything to do with Oswald or the Kennedy case. I'm not wasting my time discussing this topic any further.
-
You are not making any sense. There was indeed no criminal case for LHO after he died and but there most certainly wasn't a civil case either. In a criminal case you are accused of committing a crime and you are pressumed to be innocent until proven guilty. In a civil case no charges are brought against anybody and claims and counter-claims are filed. There does not need to be a pressumption of innocence because nobody is being charged with a crime.
The only "investigations" that sometimes happen in civil court is the work done by private investigators. Only in criminal cases there is an official investigation and that stops instantly when a suspect dies, because it would be pointless to continue an investigation that will never result in a criminal prosecution.
Instead you simply said that the presumption always applies and began a silly tirade about if it didn’t that you would be able to accuse me of anything. Yes, you can. But then the burden in upon you to show evidence that your claim is true.
You do understand that you've just agreed with me that the presumption of innocence always applies, right? If I accuse you of rape or of stealing my car (which are of course crimes) then it is up to me to provide the evidence to back up my claim. Without that evidence you are considered to be innocent. If I accuse you of owing me money, you don't need to be presumed to be innocent, because I am not accusing you of committing a crime.
You previously claimed that after a suspect dies, there would still be an investigation. This is what you said;
There is typically an investigation to determine what is believed to have happened. The prosecution would stop (if one had begun). But not the investigation. The public deserves answers as best as can be determined by that investigation. And that is what happened in this case.
So, I asked you to give me one example - other than the Kennedy case - where such an investigation after the suspect's death happened and it seems you can't name one. Instead you ask me to prove a negative? Really?
Your claim that investigations typically continue after a suspect's death is bogus.
Wow, now there's an open door you've just kicked in. And it is a completely pointless statement that you made. It has nothing to do with history books and even the Texas Historical Commission stating without any kind of reservation that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. Oswald was never convicted and can (at best) only be referred to as the alleged killer
No need for the quotation marks. In a civil court Simpson was found to be responsible for the two deaths. That's a major difference from being found guilty in a criminal court. You can not infer from a verdict of a jury in civil court that somebody is guilty of a crime of which he has already been aquitted in a criminal court.
None of this has anything to do with Oswald or the Kennedy case. I'm not wasting my time discussing this topic any further.
Here is your original question (which ties this discussion to the JFK assassination case):
Btw, if the WC, for lack of authority, did not prosecute or convict Oswald and he never had his day in court, do you think the presumption of innocence should still apply for Oswald?
Your above original question ties this discussion to the JFK assassination case.
And here is my response and the beginning of your silly tirade in which you specifically take the discussion outside the courtroom :
A presumption of innocence applies to an adversarial criminal trial with prosecution and defense cases being presented.
No, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies always. Even outside a court, when you accuse me of doing something wrong, you need to prove it either to law enforcement or just people around you. You can not go around accusing somebody of doing something wrong without proving it! If that wasn't the case, I could accuse you right now of robbing a bank, rape and whatever else comes to mind without consequence. Your reply would be - quite rightly so - that you didn't do any of it and that there is no evidence to support the claims. So, don't give me any of this theoretical crap!
In a civil case no charges are brought against anybody and claims and counter-claims are filed. There does not need to be a pressumption of innocence because nobody is being charged with a crime.
It might not be a crime, but the defendant is charged with wrongdoing that resulted in harming the plaintiff. And the plaintiff is seeking to recover the damages.
Only in criminal cases there is an official investigation and that stops instantly when a suspect dies, because it would be pointless to continue an investigation that will never result in a criminal prosecution.
No the investigation continues until the evidence is gathered and analyzed to try to determine what happened. One example would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771). Another example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Lee_Smith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Lee_Smith). There was no one to prosecute in either one of these cases, yet the investigation continued in order to try to determine what happened. This is standard operating procedure for all cases, they don't just stop investigating without trying to determine what happened just because there is no one to prosecute as you so wrongly claim.
You do understand that you've just agreed with me that the presumption of innocence always applies, right?
No, I didn't. It is a part of the criminal justice system for the protection of the rights of individuals. A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty. As such, a prosecutor is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime if that person is to be convicted. Outside a criminal court process, that requirement does not legally exist. That is one reason that OJ lost his civil case.
If I accuse you of owing me money, you don't need to be presumed to be innocent, because I am not accusing you of committing a crime. Yes, the presumption of innocence protects us against false or self incrimination. If no crime is alleged, then it doesn't apply. (You do understand that you've just agreed with my stance on this matter.) Now, if you want to have your case against me heard in court or collect any compensation, then you must present credible evidence, that outweighs evidence that I present in rebuttal, that I owe you money.
So, I asked you to give me one example - other than the Kennedy case - where such an investigation after the suspect's death happened and it seems you can't name one. Instead you ask me to prove a negative? Really?
Your claim that investigations typically continue after a suspect's death is bogus.
I listed two cases above where they did continue the investigation. You only asked for one. I didn't ask you to prove a negative. Again, show us a case where they didn't continue the investigation until the evidence was collected and analyzed and they had tried to determine what had happened.
No need for the quotation marks. In a civil court Simpson was found to be responsible for the two deaths. That's a major difference from being found guilty in a criminal court. You can not infer from a verdict of a jury in civil court that somebody is guilty of a crime of which he has already been aquitted in a criminal court
You cannot infer that he is legally guilty. However, if the jury did not believe that the evidence of guilt outweighed the evidence of not guilty, then, legally, they could not have found that OJ was responsible for the deaths.
None of this has anything to do with Oswald or the Kennedy case. I'm not wasting my time discussing this topic any further.
I have seen you make similar statements before, but I have never seen you do what you said.
-
Here is your original question (which ties this discussion to the JFK assassination case):
The Warren Commission had no authority to either prosecute or convict anyone, dead or alive.
And still, they did exactly that when they concluded that Oswald was guilty. Go figure!
Btw, if the WC, for lack of authority, did not prosecute or convict Oswald and he never had his day in court, do you think the presumption of innocence should still apply for Oswald?
Your above original question ties this discussion to the JFK assassination case.
Indeed it does and you still haven't answered the question.
The WC used the resources of the FBI to investigate this case, and that by itself makes it a criminal investigation. So, my question is just as valid as your answer is elusive.
In a civil case no charges are brought against anybody and claims and counter-claims are filed. There does not need to be a pressumption of innocence because nobody is being charged with a crime.
It might not be a crime, but the defendant is charged with wrongdoing that resulted in harming the plaintiff. And the plaintiff is seeking to recover the damages.
Utter BS. As soon as a criminal allegation is made in a civil case, the judge will have no other remedy but to refer the matter to law enforcement and prosecutors. It then becomes a criminal case. "Wrongdoing" (whatever than means) is not a crime. When I renege on a contract, I am doing something wrong and I violate the terms of that contract but I do not violate a criminal law.
Only in criminal cases there is an official investigation and that stops instantly when a suspect dies, because it would be pointless to continue an investigation that will never result in a criminal prosecution.
No the investigation continues until the evidence is gathered and analyzed to try to determine what happened. One example would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771). Another example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Lee_Smith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Lee_Smith). There was no one to prosecute in either one of these cases, yet the investigation continued in order to try to determine what happened. This is standard operating procedure for all cases, they don't just stop investigating without trying to determine what happened just because there is no one to prosecute as you so wrongly claim.
One example would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771).
Wrong example. This investigation was conducted by investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board. They are by law obliged to investigate all plane crashes and they use the resources of the F.B.I. to do it. The purpose of their investigation was to determine what caused the crash. It was not a criminal investigation, even though, at the end, they concluded that a lone gunman caused the crash.
Another example is url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Lee_Smith]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Lee_Smith[/url].
I could be missing something here, but I see nothing about a criminal investigation after the suspect's death on this page.
You do understand that you've just agreed with me that the presumption of innocence always applies, right?
No, I didn't. It is a part of the criminal justice system for the protection of the rights of individuals. A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty. As such, a prosecutor is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime if that person is to be convicted. Outside a criminal court process, that requirement does not legally exist. That is one reason that OJ lost his civil case.
Oh yes you did. You are saying exactly what I have been telling you all along. You brought civil cases into this, when I was talking about Kennedy's and Tippit's murder, which is and always has been a criminal case. And in every criminal case the persumption of innocence applies, except of course, it would seem for Oswald.
If I accuse you of owing me money, you don't need to be presumed to be innocent, because I am not accusing you of committing a crime.
Yes, the presumption of innocence protects us against false or self incrimination. If no crime is alleged, then it doesn't apply. (You do understand that you've just agreed with my stance on this matter.) Now, if you want to have your case against me heard in court or collect any compensation, then you must present credible evidence, that outweighs evidence that I present in rebuttal, that I owe you money.
Again, exactly what I have been telling you all along. Don't you feel silly now, bringing civil cases into this conversation?
So, I asked you to give me one example - other than the Kennedy case - where such an investigation after the suspect's death happened and it seems you can't name one. Instead you ask me to prove a negative? Really?
Your claim that investigations typically continue after a suspect's death is bogus.
I listed two cases above where they did continue the investigation. You only asked for one. I didn't ask you to prove a negative. Again, show us a case where they didn't continue the investigation until the evidence was collected and analyzed and they had tried to determine what had happened.
Already debunked. See above.
I didn't ask you to prove a negative. Again, show us a case where they didn't continue the investigation until the evidence was collected and analyzed and they had tried to determine what had happened.
Hilarious. You deny asking me to prove a negative and then proceed to ask me to prove a negative. :D
No need for the quotation marks. In a civil court Simpson was found to be responsible for the two deaths. That's a major difference from being found guilty in a criminal court. You can not infer from a verdict of a jury in civil court that somebody is guilty of a crime of which he has already been aquitted in a criminal court
You cannot infer that he is legally guilty. However, if the jury did not believe that the evidence of guilt outweighed the evidence of not guilty, then, legally, they could not have found that OJ was responsible for the deaths.
I am beginning to understand why you are a LN. In the civil case the burden of proof was much lower and Simpson wasn't tried for or even charged with murder. All the plaintiffs in the civil case needed to do was convince the jury that it was plausible that Simpson had something to do with the murders. Many factors come it to play in such a case, such as, for instance, likability, as we have seen recently in the Depp vs Heard case. By the time the civil case against Simpson played out he had no likability left.
Many people believed he was actually guilty but his clever lawyers had gotten him off. I don't agree with that. It was in fact the prosecution that failed to meet it's burden of proof. So, although I do think that Simpson did commit the two murders, the verdict of the jury in the criminal trial was IMO the correct one.
Having said that, the dynamics in a jury in a civil case are completely different from those in a criminal case. And at the end of the day, Simpson was not found guilty of a crime at the civil case.
Now, how can I best explain this so you will understand. Let's say I challenge a youngster to throw a brick to a window and he does it. He's the one committing the criminal act of willful destruction of property, because he decided to throw the brick. However, in civil court (provided there is sufficient evidence) I could be held responsible for the damage cause by the crime. Get it now?
The bottom line is that in a criminal case the prosecution failed to prove that Simpson was guilty. No ruling by a civil court changes that one bit.
None of this has anything to do with Oswald or the Kennedy case. I'm not wasting my time discussing this topic any further.
I have seen you make similar statements before, but I have never seen you do what you said.
...........
-
It's an absurd comparison and an even absurder question.
In Uvalde the killer was found dead at the scene and a multitude of people saw him shooting. He had the weapons that were used in the killing with him. There is no question whatsoever who the killer was in that case, but nevertheless in legal terms the case will officially remain unresolved in much the same way that a legal execution is still classified as a homicide.
In the Kennedy case, Oswald was not found at the scene, not a single credible witness saw him on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shooting took place, he did not have the murder weapon with him and the case against him is, at best, highly circumstantial based on very questionable and mostly unauthicated evidence.
If you don't understand the clear difference between the two cases, then I don't know what to tell you.
I wasn't saying that they were the same. I was suggesting that your statement is not correct ie:
"Of course there are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. In fact, when a suspect or accused dies the investigation or prosecution instantly dies with him. Everything stops that very moment and the case remains unresolved and you can not declare that the dead man is guilty of anything."
I take it that you would agree that your statement is not correct.
-
I wasn't saying that they were the same. I was suggesting that your statement is not correct ie:
"Of course there are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. In fact, when a suspect or accused dies the investigation or prosecution instantly dies with him. Everything stops that very moment and the case remains unresolved and you can not declare that the dead man is guilty of anything."
I take it that you would agree that your statement is not correct.
I wasn't saying that they were the same.
Really? Then why bring it up in the first place?
I take it that you would agree that your statement is not correct.
Not sure on which planet you live or what you have been smoking, but my statement was and still is absolutely correct.
I'm sorry that you seem to not understand what I said.
-
Your above original question ties this discussion to the JFK assassination case.
Indeed it does and you still haven't answered the question.
The WC used the resources of the FBI to investigate this case, and that by itself makes it a criminal investigation. So, my question is just as valid as your answer is elusive.
Utter BS. As soon as a criminal allegation is made in a civil case, the judge will have no other remedy but to refer the matter to law enforcement and prosecutors. It then becomes a criminal case. "Wrongdoing" (whatever than means) is not a crime. When I renege on a contract, I am doing something wrong and I violate the terms of that contract but I do not violate a criminal law.
One example would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771).
Wrong example. This investigation was conducted by investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board. They are by law obliged to investigate all plane crashes and they use the resources of the F.B.I. to do it. The purpose of their investigation was to determine what caused the crash. It was not a criminal investigation, even though, at the end, they concluded that a lone gunman caused the crash.
Another example is url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Lee_Smith]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Lee_Smith[/url].
I could be missing something here, but I see nothing about a criminal investigation after the suspect's death on this page.
Oh yes you did. You are saying exactly what I have been telling you all along. You brought civil cases into this, when I was talking about Kennedy's and Tippit's murder, which is and always has been a criminal case. And in every criminal case the persumption of innocence applies, except of course, it would seem for Oswald.
Again, exactly what I have been telling you all along. Don't you feel silly now, bringing civil cases into this conversation?
Already debunked. See above.
I didn't ask you to prove a negative. Again, show us a case where they didn't continue the investigation until the evidence was collected and analyzed and they had tried to determine what had happened.
Hilarious. You deny asking me to prove a negative and then proceed to ask me to prove a negative. :D
I am beginning to understand why you are a LN. In the civil case the burden of proof was much lower and Simpson wasn't tried for or even charged with murder. All the plaintiffs in the civil case needed to do was convince the jury that it was plausible that Simpson had something to do with the murders. Many factors come it to play in such a case, such as, for instance, likability, as we have seen recently in the Depp vs Heard case. By the time the civil case against Simpson played out he had no likability left.
Many people believed he was actually guilty but his clever lawyers had gotten him off. I don't agree with that. It was in fact the prosecution that failed to meet it's burden of proof. So, although I do think that Simpson did commit the two murders, the verdict of the jury in the criminal trial was IMO the correct one.
Having said that, the dynamics in a jury in a civil case are completely different from those in a criminal case. And at the end of the day, Simpson was not found guilty of a crime at the civil case.
Now, how can I best explain this so you will understand. Let's say I challenge a youngster to throw a brick to a window and he does it. He's the one committing the criminal act of willful destruction of property, because he decided to throw the brick. However, in civil court (provided there is sufficient evidence) I could be held responsible for the damage cause by the crime. Get it now?
The bottom line is that in a criminal case the prosecution failed to prove that Simpson was guilty. No ruling by a civil court changes that one bit.
...........
Indeed it does and you still haven't answered the question.
I am discussing the law. You appear to be discussing a general philosophical way of thinking about justice. You need to clarify whether or not you are asking about the law. If you are discussing the law, then I have already answered your question.
The WC used the resources of the FBI to investigate this case, and that by itself makes it a criminal investigation. So, my question is just as valid as your answer is elusive.
The FBI investigated the criminal (and other aspects of this case). However, there were no criminal charges ever brought to trial (due to the murder of LHO). If you are asking about the law, then my original answer (A presumption of innocence applies to an adversarial criminal trial with prosecution and defense cases being presented.) still stands.
Utter BS. As soon as a criminal allegation is made in a civil case, the judge will have no other remedy but to refer the matter to law enforcement and prosecutors.
I said nothing about any criminal allegation.
"Wrongdoing" (whatever than means) is not a crime.
I didn't say that it is.
When I renege on a contract, I am doing something wrong and I violate the terms of that contract but I do not violate a criminal law.
Agreed. However you are being charged in civil court with violating the terms of the contract. That is a "wrongdoing" but not a crime. I think that we both agree on this.
Wrong example. This investigation was conducted by investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board. They are by law obliged to investigate all plane crashes and they use the resources of the F.B.I. to do it. The purpose of their investigation was to determine what caused the crash. It was not a criminal investigation, even though, at the end, they concluded that a lone gunman caused the crash.
You are completely wrong (again). It is a prime example, and the FBI has jurisdiction whenever it appears that a crime may have taken place in an aviation incident. Once it became known that a crime had likely occurred, the FBI was called into the investigation, took control, and the NTSB worked under the direction of the FBI in this case, not the other way around as you falsely claim. In a aviation incident where no apparent crime was committed, the NTSB does conduct the investigation. The FBI didn't drop it's investigation when it became apparent that the gunman was dead. They continued their investigation to try to find out how it happened and why (motive, etc.).
I could be missing something here, but I see nothing about a criminal investigation after the suspect's death on this page.
How do you propose that the authorities know the details of what happened in that case? Read the newspaper article linked to that page. The police gave the newspaper some details and said that they are still trying to piece it all together. That is an investigation that did not stop the instant the MF died. If your claim that the criminal investigation stops immediately after the death of the accused, then the police would have said: This MF is dead, no need to investigate how all of this happened, called the morgue and closed their investigation. Then I suppose you think that the tooth fairy appeared and told everyone what happened. Yes, I believe you are missing "something".
Oh yes you did. You are saying exactly what I have been telling you all along.
Please clarify specifically what it is that you have been trying to tell me all along. Are you talking about how the law is applied to criminal cases (which is my interpretation of your original question) or are you talking about general philosophical ways of thinking about justice?
And in every criminal case the persumption of innocence applies, except of course, it would seem for Oswald
You are wrong again, it did apply for LHO (until the upcoming criminal trial(s) were made impossible by his death). An investigation is not the same as a trial.
Already debunked. See above.
It is pathetically sad that you think you have debunked anything. See above.
Hilarious. You deny asking me to prove a negative and then proceed to ask me to prove a negative. :D
If your claim that all criminal investigations are immediately dropped when a suspect dies is correct, then you should be able to provide an example. There is no request for you to prove a negative. Just show us an example. I don't believe that you can.
I am beginning to understand why you are a LN. In the civil case the burden of proof was much lower and Simpson wasn't tried for or even charged with murder. All the plaintiffs in the civil case needed to do was convince the jury that it was plausible that Simpson had something to do with the murders. Many factors come it to play in such a case, such as, for instance, likability, as we have seen recently in the Depp vs Heard case. By the time the civil case against Simpson played out he had no likability left.
You are wrong again. They had to present evidence that outweighed the defense's evidence pertaining to whether or not OJ was responsible for the murders.
Having said that, the dynamics in a jury in a civil case are completely different from those in a criminal case. And at the end of the day, Simpson was not found guilty of a crime at the civil case.
Correct, he wasn't charged with a crime. However, he was found to be responsible for the murders.
Now, how can I best explain this so you will understand. Let's say I challenge a youngster to throw a brick to a window and he does it. He's the one committing the criminal act of willful destruction of property, because he decided to throw the brick. However, in civil court (provided there is sufficient evidence) I could be held responsible for the damage cause by the crime. Get it now?
If it went to criminal court (where crimes must go) then you could also be convicted of conspiring to commit the crime. However, the standard of proof would be much higher than in civil court. Also, in the criminal court you could not be required to testify (the 5th amendment), this is part of the protections afforded to us in the presumption of innocence concept. In a civil court you would not be charged with a crime and therefore the protections would not apply. Get it now?
The bottom line is that in a criminal case the prosecution failed to prove that Simpson was guilty. No ruling by a civil court changes that one bit.
I would revise that statement a little bit. The bottom line is that in a criminal case the prosecution failed to prove [to that jury] that Simpson was [legally] guilty. No ruling by a civil court changes that one bit.
-
Indeed it does and you still haven't answered the question.
I am discussing the law. You appear to be discussing a general philosophical way of thinking about justice. You need to clarify whether or not you are asking about the law. If you are discussing the law, then I have already answered your question.
The WC used the resources of the FBI to investigate this case, and that by itself makes it a criminal investigation. So, my question is just as valid as your answer is elusive.
The FBI investigated the criminal (and other aspects of this case). However, there were no criminal charges ever brought to trial (due to the murder of LHO). If you are asking about the law, then my original answer (A presumption of innocence applies to an adversarial criminal trial with prosecution and defense cases being presented.) still stands.
Utter BS. As soon as a criminal allegation is made in a civil case, the judge will have no other remedy but to refer the matter to law enforcement and prosecutors.
I said nothing about any criminal allegation.
"Wrongdoing" (whatever than means) is not a crime.
I didn't say that it is.
When I renege on a contract, I am doing something wrong and I violate the terms of that contract but I do not violate a criminal law.
Agreed. However you are being charged in civil court with violating the terms of the contract. That is a "wrongdoing" but not a crime. I think that we both agree on this.
Wrong example. This investigation was conducted by investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board. They are by law obliged to investigate all plane crashes and they use the resources of the F.B.I. to do it. The purpose of their investigation was to determine what caused the crash. It was not a criminal investigation, even though, at the end, they concluded that a lone gunman caused the crash.
You are completely wrong (again). It is a prime example, and the FBI has jurisdiction whenever it appears that a crime may have taken place in an aviation incident. Once it became known that a crime had likely occurred, the FBI was called into the investigation, took control, and the NTSB worked under the direction of the FBI in this case, not the other way around as you falsely claim. In a aviation incident where no apparent crime was committed, the NTSB does conduct the investigation. The FBI didn't drop it's investigation when it became apparent that the gunman was dead. They continued their investigation to try to find out how it happened and why (motive, etc.).
I could be missing something here, but I see nothing about a criminal investigation after the suspect's death on this page.
How do you propose that the authorities know the details of what happened in that case? Read the newspaper article linked to that page. The police gave the newspaper some details and said that they are still trying to piece it all together. That is an investigation that did not stop the instant the MF died. If your claim that the criminal investigation stops immediately after the death of the accused, then the police would have said: This MF is dead, no need to investigate how all of this happened, called the morgue and closed their investigation. Then I suppose you think that the tooth fairy appeared and told everyone what happened. Yes, I believe you are missing "something".
Oh yes you did. You are saying exactly what I have been telling you all along.
Please clarify specifically what it is that you have been trying to tell me all along. Are you talking about how the law is applied to criminal cases (which is my interpretation of your original question) or are you talking about general philosophical ways of thinking about justice?
And in every criminal case the persumption of innocence applies, except of course, it would seem for Oswald
You are wrong again, it did apply for LHO (until the upcoming criminal trial(s) were made impossible by his death). An investigation is not the same as a trial.
Already debunked. See above.
It is pathetically sad that you think you have debunked anything. See above.
Hilarious. You deny asking me to prove a negative and then proceed to ask me to prove a negative. :D
If your claim that all criminal investigations are immediately dropped when a suspect dies is correct, then you should be able to provide an example. There is no request for you to prove a negative. Just show us an example. I don't believe that you can.
I am beginning to understand why you are a LN. In the civil case the burden of proof was much lower and Simpson wasn't tried for or even charged with murder. All the plaintiffs in the civil case needed to do was convince the jury that it was plausible that Simpson had something to do with the murders. Many factors come it to play in such a case, such as, for instance, likability, as we have seen recently in the Depp vs Heard case. By the time the civil case against Simpson played out he had no likability left.
You are wrong again. They had to present evidence that outweighed the defense's evidence pertaining to whether or not OJ was responsible for the murders.
Having said that, the dynamics in a jury in a civil case are completely different from those in a criminal case. And at the end of the day, Simpson was not found guilty of a crime at the civil case.
Correct, he wasn't charged with a crime. However, he was found to be responsible for the murders.
Now, how can I best explain this so you will understand. Let's say I challenge a youngster to throw a brick to a window and he does it. He's the one committing the criminal act of willful destruction of property, because he decided to throw the brick. However, in civil court (provided there is sufficient evidence) I could be held responsible for the damage cause by the crime. Get it now?
If it went to criminal court (where crimes must go) then you could also be convicted of conspiring to commit the crime. However, the standard of proof would be much higher than in civil court. Also, in the criminal court you could not be required to testify (the 5th amendment), this is part of the protections afforded to us in the presumption of innocence concept. In a civil court you would not be charged with a crime and therefore the protections would not apply. Get it now?
The bottom line is that in a criminal case the prosecution failed to prove that Simpson was guilty. No ruling by a civil court changes that one bit.
I would revise that statement a little bit. The bottom line is that in a criminal case the prosecution failed to prove [to that jury] that Simpson was [legally] guilty. No ruling by a civil court changes that one bit.
When I renege on a contract, I am doing something wrong and I violate the terms of that contract but I do not violate a criminal law.
Agreed. However you are being charged in civil court with violating the terms of the contract. That is a "wrongdoing" but not a crime. I think that we both agree on this.
BS. In a civil court claims are filed. Nobody is being charged of anything.
Wrong example. This investigation was conducted by investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board. They are by law obliged to investigate all plane crashes and they use the resources of the F.B.I. to do it. The purpose of their investigation was to determine what caused the crash. It was not a criminal investigation, even though, at the end, they concluded that a lone gunman caused the crash.
You are completely wrong (again). It is a prime example, and the FBI has jurisdiction whenever it appears that a crime may have taken place in an aviation incident. Once it became known that a crime had likely occurred, the FBI was called into the investigation, took control, and the NTSB worked under the direction of the FBI in this case, not the other way around as you falsely claim. In a aviation incident where no apparent crime was committed, the NTSB does conduct the investigation. The FBI didn't drop it's investigation when it became apparent that the gunman was dead. They continued their investigation to try to find out how it happened and why (motive, etc.).
You should read the page that you linked to;
After the crash site was located by a CBS News helicopter piloted by Zoey Tur, investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board were joined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The FBI did not take over the investigation but instead worked jointly with the NTSB, as they always do!
And then you should really find out what the task of the National Transportation Safety Board actually is;
The NTSB originated in the Air Commerce Act of 1926, in which the U.S. Congress charged the U.S. Department of Commerce with investigating the causes of aircraft accidents. Later, that responsibility was given to the Civil Aeronautics Board's Bureau of Aviation Safety, when it was created in 1940.
In 1967, Congress consolidated all transportation agencies into a new U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and established the NTSB as an independent agency placed within the DOT for administrative purposes. In creating the NTSB, Congress envisioned that a single organization with a clearly defined mission could more effectively promote a higher level of safety in the transportation system than the individual modal agencies working separately. Since 1967, the NTSB has investigated accidents in the aviation, highway, marine, pipeline, and railroad modes, as well as accidents related to the transportation of hazardous materials.
In 1974, Congress reestablished the NTSB as a completely separate entity, outside the DOT, reasoning that " ...No federal agency can properly perform such (investigatory) functions unless it is totally separate and independent from any other ... agency of the United States. "
https://www.ntsb.gov/about/history/Pages/default.aspx
I could be missing something here, but I see nothing about a criminal investigation after the suspect's death on this page.
How do you propose that the authorities know the details of what happened in that case? Read the newspaper article linked to that page. The police gave the newspaper some details and said that they are still trying to piece it all together. That is an investigation that did not stop the instant the MF died. If your claim that the criminal investigation stops immediately after the death of the accused, then the police would have said: This MF is dead, no need to investigate how all of this happened, called the morgue and closed their investigation. Then I suppose you think that the tooth fairy appeared and told everyone what happened. Yes, I believe you are missing "something".
So, it's merely conjecture on your part, based on a newspaper article. Got it!
I am beginning to understand why you are a LN. In the civil case the burden of proof was much lower and Simpson wasn't tried for or even charged with murder. All the plaintiffs in the civil case needed to do was convince the jury that it was plausible that Simpson had something to do with the murders. Many factors come it to play in such a case, such as, for instance, likability, as we have seen recently in the Depp vs Heard case. By the time the civil case against Simpson played out he had no likability left.
You are wrong again. They had to present evidence that outweighed the defense's evidence pertaining to whether or not OJ was responsible for the murders.
Being a contrarian who argues for the sake of argument is one thing, but this level of stupidity makes any further discussion a complete waste of time. You can twist and turn as much as you like, but Simpson was not tried for murder in the civil case. Period!
I've now lost all interest in your ramblings. Post a reply if you must (and most likely will) but don't expect me to respond, unless you come up with something far better than the BS you have been posting so far.
-
Like the propagandist and coward that he is, David has already posted some of this conversation on his website without the consent of the authors, selectively editing out replies that expose his fallacies, refute his claims, or make him look bad — thus creating a false narrative. Then he posted a link to the page as click-bait in his Facebook “JFK VIDEO, AUDIO, PHOTOS AND DISCUSSION” group. And now he’s deleting comments made in response to his dishonesty.
Looks like we'll have to take your word for it since you haven't provided a link to either of what sound like plagiary-soaked locations. I personally don't think you'd BS about that; you're smart enough to know you'd eventually get caught out.
But I also think DVP would know that as well.
-
There is no such thing as proof. Not in a court, not in science. But its a matter of degree of proof or standard of proof, as usual. 97.5% is good.
Re Simpson, he was 100% innocent, well 95% if u deduct 5% for his actions after. The murderer was Simpson. It looks like once again i am the only one around here that knows that (ie in addition to being the only one to know about the jfk accidental homicide)(i mean many know that Hickey did it, but i mean know that Hickey fired a multi-shot burst).
Re Oswald, they say that JFK would probly have died from Oswald's shot. But Hickey beat Oswald to it. Hence Oswald was 100% innocent. But 100% guilty re Tippit.
Getting back to the Simpson criminal case, the cops planted faux-evidence, but the chain of ownership for that there faux-evidence was probly perfect (i forget what it was, blood or something)(i dont think it was the glove).
Nah -- there aint no such thing as proof. And i can prove it.
-
BS. In a civil court claims are filed. Nobody is being charged of anything.
You should read the page that you linked to;
After the crash site was located by a CBS News helicopter piloted by Zoey Tur, investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board were joined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The FBI did not take over the investigation but instead worked jointly with the NTSB, as they always do!
And then you should really find out what the task of the National Transportation Safety Board actually is;
The NTSB originated in the Air Commerce Act of 1926, in which the U.S. Congress charged the U.S. Department of Commerce with investigating the causes of aircraft accidents. Later, that responsibility was given to the Civil Aeronautics Board's Bureau of Aviation Safety, when it was created in 1940.
In 1967, Congress consolidated all transportation agencies into a new U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and established the NTSB as an independent agency placed within the DOT for administrative purposes. In creating the NTSB, Congress envisioned that a single organization with a clearly defined mission could more effectively promote a higher level of safety in the transportation system than the individual modal agencies working separately. Since 1967, the NTSB has investigated accidents in the aviation, highway, marine, pipeline, and railroad modes, as well as accidents related to the transportation of hazardous materials.
In 1974, Congress reestablished the NTSB as a completely separate entity, outside the DOT, reasoning that " ...No federal agency can properly perform such (investigatory) functions unless it is totally separate and independent from any other ... agency of the United States. "
https://www.ntsb.gov/about/history/Pages/default.aspx
So, it's merely conjecture on your part, based on a newspaper article. Got it!
Being a contrarian who argues for the sake of argument is one thing, but this level of stupidity makes any further discussion a complete waste of time. You can twist and turn as much as you like, but Simpson was not tried for murder in the civil case. Period!
I've now lost all interest in your ramblings. Post a reply if you must (and most likely will) but don't expect me to respond, unless you come up with something far better than the BS you have been posting so far.
BS. In a civil court claims are filed. Nobody is being charged of anything.
Technically, it is called a complaint, not a claim. Litigation begins when the plaintiff files a complaint with the court and formally delivers a copy to the defendant. The complaint describes what the defendant did (or failed to do) that caused harm to the plaintiff and the legal basis for holding the defendant responsible for that harm.
The description of what the complaint alleges you did or failed to do is what I was referring to as a charge. Get it now?
The FBI did not take over the investigation but instead worked jointly with the NTSB, as they always do!
You are wrong again! There is a TV show series on the Smithsonian channel called "Mayday: Air Disasters" that I watch regularly. Usually, each incident makes up an entire 1-hour episode of the show. There are numerous incidents where criminal activity is indicated. And whenever that is the case the narrator typically spells out that the FBI is called in and takes the lead in the case. Once the criminal investigation is over, the NTSB resumes their investigation (some of which last several years). If you look up the FBI records for this incident, you might find the document dated 5/27/88 (about six and a half months after the accident) where the NTSB is asking the FBI to do further testing on and retain custody of the flight recorder and tapes because this was clearly a criminal act as opposed to an accident. Now, this clearly is indicative that the FBI took the lead (the TV show narrator was correct), and that your claim that criminal investigations immediately end when the suspect dies is false. And you still have not provided an example that supports this ridiculous claim of yours.
So, it's merely conjecture on your part, based on a newspaper article. Got it!
No conjecture needed. The article specifically cites the authorities as the source, and the police were quoted as saying they are still trying to piece it all together. This is typical standard operating procedure for these types of incidents. I really cannot understand why you refuse to accept the evidence.
Being a contrarian who argues for the sake of argument is one thing, but this level of stupidity makes any further discussion a complete waste of time. You can twist and turn as much as you like, but Simpson was not tried for murder in the civil case. Period!
No one has claimed that he was tried for murder in the civil case.
-
BS. In a civil court claims are filed. Nobody is being charged of anything.
Technically, it is called a complaint, not a claim. Litigation begins when the plaintiff files a complaint with the court and formally delivers a copy to the defendant. The complaint describes what the defendant did (or failed to do) that caused harm to the plaintiff and the legal basis for holding the defendant responsible for that harm.
The description of what the complaint alleges you did or failed to do is what I was referring to as a charge. Get it now?
I don't care what it is technically called, mr wise guy. All that matters is that you were wrong to say that somebody was charged with anything in civil court.
The FBI did not take over the investigation but instead worked jointly with the NTSB, as they always do!
You are wrong again! There is a TV show series on the Smithsonian channel called "Mayday: Air Disasters" that I watch regularly. Usually, each incident makes up an entire 1-hour episode of the show. There are numerous incidents where criminal activity is indicated. And whenever that is the case the narrator typically spells out that the FBI is called in and takes the lead in the case. Once the criminal investigation is over, the NTSB resumes their investigation (some of which last several years). If you look up the FBI records for this incident, you might find the document dated 5/27/88 (about six and a half months after the accident) where the NTSB is asking the FBI to do further testing on and retain custody of the flight recorder and tapes because this was clearly a criminal act as opposed to an accident. Now, this clearly is indicative that the FBI took the lead (the TV show narrator was correct), and that your claim that criminal investigations immediately end when the suspect dies is false. And you still have not provided an example that supports this ridiculous claim of yours.
So, now that the Wikipedia page doesn't support your argument, you look for support at a TV show? Wow...
If you look up the FBI records for this incident, you might find the document dated 5/27/88 (about six and a half months after the accident) where the NTSB is asking the FBI to do further testing on and retain custody of the flight recorder and tapes because this was clearly a criminal act as opposed to an accident.
When the NTSB asks the FBI to do further testing, it is clear that it is the NTSB that's conducting the investigation being supported by the FBI and not the other way around. You seem to have shot yourself in the foot with this one!
Now, this clearly is indicative that the FBI took the lead (the TV show narrator was correct), and that your claim that criminal investigations immediately end when the suspect dies is false.
Requesting the FBI to do further testing is not the same as conducting a full blown criminal investigation.
So, it's merely conjecture on your part, based on a newspaper article. Got it!
No conjecture needed. The article specifically cites the authorities as the source, and the police were quoted as saying they are still trying to piece it all together. This is typical standard operating procedure for these types of incidents. I really cannot understand why you refuse to accept the evidence.
I refuse to accept the word of a guy who relies on TV shows to make a bogus argument. If it is "typical standard operating procedure" as you claim then there should at least be a manual or some similar document that outlines the procedures to follow etc. Show me that document and you might convince me.
Why don't you
Being a contrarian who argues for the sake of argument is one thing, but this level of stupidity makes any further discussion a complete waste of time. You can twist and turn as much as you like, but Simpson was not tried for murder in the civil case. Period!
No one has claimed that he was tried for murder in the civil case.
You clearly implied it.
-
I don't care what it is technically called, mr wise guy. All that matters is that you were wrong to say that somebody was charged with anything in civil court.
So, now that the Wikipedia page doesn't support your argument, you look for support at a TV show? Wow...
If you look up the FBI records for this incident, you might find the document dated 5/27/88 (about six and a half months after the accident) where the NTSB is asking the FBI to do further testing on and retain custody of the flight recorder and tapes because this was clearly a criminal act as opposed to an accident.
When the NTSB asks the FBI to do further testing, it is clear that it is the NTSB that's conducting the investigation being supported by the FBI and not the other way around. You seem to have shot yourself in the foot with this one!
Now, this clearly is indicative that the FBI took the lead (the TV show narrator was correct), and that your claim that criminal investigations immediately end when the suspect dies is false.
Requesting the FBI to do further testing is not the same as conducting a full blown criminal investigation.
I refuse to accept the word of a guy who relies on TV shows to make a bogus argument. If it is "typical standard operating procedure" as you claim then there should at least be a manual or some similar document that outlines the procedures to follow etc. Show me that document and you might convince me.
Why don't you
You clearly implied it.
I don't care what it is technically called, mr wise guy. All that matters is that you were wrong to say that somebody was charged with anything in civil court.
No I wasn't wrong. The (non-criminal) charge is indicated in the complaint. It would not be a criminal charge if it was in a civil court. But it is a charge. To be charged with something does not mean that the charge is criminal.
So, now that the Wikipedia page doesn't support your argument, you look for support at a TV show? Wow...
No, I saw that particular documentary show some time ago. That is the reason I brought this particular incident up.
When the NTSB asks the FBI to do further testing, it is clear that it is the NTSB that's conducting the investigation being supported by the FBI and not the other way around. You seem to have shot yourself in the foot with this one!
You are wrong again. If the NTSB was still leading the investigation they would not state that the FBI should "retain control of the tape, since this was clearly a criminal act as opposed to an accident." The NTSB was asking for further metal examination of the box for crash evaluation purposes.
Requesting the FBI to do further testing is not the same as conducting a full blown criminal investigation.
The NTSB conducted the crash evaluation portion of the investigation, that is where their expertise lies. The FBI had jurisdiction in this case because, as the above referenced document states, this was clearly a criminal act, as opposed to an accident.
You are wrong again, and (as usual) refuse to admit it.
I refuse to accept the word of a guy who relies on TV shows to make a bogus argument. If it is "typical standard operating procedure" as you claim then there should at least be a manual or some similar document that outlines the procedures to follow etc. Show me that document and you might convince me.
Why don't you
You can go on believing your ridiculous claim that criminal investigations end immediately with the death of the suspect. I have shown plenty of evidence that indicates otherwise. You still have not shown even one example that supports your ridiculous claim.
-
I don't care what it is technically called, mr wise guy. All that matters is that you were wrong to say that somebody was charged with anything in civil court.
No I wasn't wrong. The (non-criminal) charge is indicated in the complaint. It would not be a criminal charge if it was in a civil court. But it is a charge. To be charged with something does not mean that the charge is criminal.
So, now that the Wikipedia page doesn't support your argument, you look for support at a TV show? Wow...
No, I saw that particular documentary show some time ago. That is the reason I brought this particular incident up.
When the NTSB asks the FBI to do further testing, it is clear that it is the NTSB that's conducting the investigation being supported by the FBI and not the other way around. You seem to have shot yourself in the foot with this one!
You are wrong again. If the NTSB was still leading the investigation they would not state that the FBI should "retain control of the tape, since this was clearly a criminal act as opposed to an accident." The NTSB was asking for further metal examination of the box for crash evaluation purposes.
Requesting the FBI to do further testing is not the same as conducting a full blown criminal investigation.
The NTSB conducted the crash evaluation portion of the investigation, that is where their expertise lies. The FBI had jurisdiction in this case because, as the above referenced document states, this was clearly a criminal act, as opposed to an accident.
You are wrong again, and (as usual) refuse to admit it.
I refuse to accept the word of a guy who relies on TV shows to make a bogus argument. If it is "typical standard operating procedure" as you claim then there should at least be a manual or some similar document that outlines the procedures to follow etc. Show me that document and you might convince me.
Why don't you
You can go on believing your ridiculous claim that criminal investigations end immediately with the death of the suspect. I have shown plenty of evidence that indicates otherwise. You still have not shown even one example that supports your ridiculous claim.
OK, one more response, just because this is getting beyond hilarious.
When the NTSB asks the FBI to do further testing, it is clear that it is the NTSB that's conducting the investigation being supported by the FBI and not the other way around. You seem to have shot yourself in the foot with this one!
You are wrong again. If the NTSB was still leading the investigation they would not state that the FBI should "retain control of the tape, since this was clearly a criminal act as opposed to an accident." The NTSB was asking for further metal examination of the box for crash evaluation purposes.
Do you think before you write? If the FBI was leading the investigation, the NTSB would not have to request that the FBI retains control of the black box. They would do it by themselves without needing permission or a request from the NTSB.
Requesting the FBI to do further testing is not the same as conducting a full blown criminal investigation.
The NTSB conducted the crash evaluation portion of the investigation, that is where their expertise lies. The FBI had jurisdiction in this case because, as the above referenced document states, this was clearly a criminal act, as opposed to an accident.
You are wrong again, and (as usual) refuse to admit it.
Of course does the FBI have jurisdiction when a federal crime is involved. What you seem to be missing is that the investigation conducted by the NTSB revealed there might have been a crime involved in the crash, which is when the FBI joined the investigation and had jurisdiction for the criminal aspect of the case. That's entirely different from a full blown investigation, like they conducted after Oswald died.
And the only thing I was wrong about, which I now freely admit, is giving you way more credit than you deserve.
-
OK, one more response, just because this is getting beyond hilarious.
Do you think before you write? If the FBI was leading the investigation, the NTSB would not have to request that the FBI retains control of the black box. They would do it by themselves without needing permission or a request from the NTSB.
Of course does the FBI have jurisdiction when a federal crime is involved. What you seem to be missing is that the investigation conducted by the NTSB revealed there might have been a crime involved in the crash, which is when the FBI joined the investigation and had jurisdiction for the criminal aspect of the case. That's entirely different from a full blown investigation, like they conducted after Oswald died.
And the only thing I was wrong about, which I now freely admit, is giving you way more credit than you deserve.
Do you think before you write? If the FBI was leading the investigation, the NTSB would not have to request that the FBI retains control of the black box. They would do it by themselves without needing permission or a request from the NTSB.
My apologies, upon reading the document again, it appears that I interpreted it incorrectly earlier. It appears that the NTSB requested the flight recorder box from the FBI so that the NTSB could do the further testing of the metal. And it appears that the FBI, for unknown reasons, gave them the complete package including the tapes, etc. The document states that the NTSB returned the tapes, etc back to the FBI for custody because this was clearly a criminal act as opposed to an accident. It is apparently basically a record of the chain of custody.
It appears that you are wrong (again).
Of course does the FBI have jurisdiction when a federal crime is involved. What you seem to be missing is that the investigation conducted by the NTSB revealed there might have been a crime involved in the crash, which is when the FBI joined the investigation and had jurisdiction for the criminal aspect of the case. That's entirely different from a full blown investigation, like they conducted after Oswald died.
It appears that we are making a little progress from your earlier position:
Wrong example. This investigation was conducted by investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board. They are by law obliged to investigate all plane crashes and they use the resources of the F.B.I. to do it. The purpose of their investigation was to determine what caused the crash. It was not a criminal investigation, even though, at the end, they concluded that a lone gunman caused the crash.
At least it appears that you acknowledge that there was a criminal investigation. And it clearly did not end when the suspect died.
And the only thing I was wrong about, which I now freely admit, is giving you way more credit than you deserve
:'( ::)
-
Like the propagandist and coward that he is, David has already posted some of this conversation on his website without the consent of the authors, selectively editing out replies that expose his fallacies, refute his claims, or make him look bad — thus creating a false narrative. Then he posted a link to the page as click-bait in his Facebook “JFK VIDEO, AUDIO, PHOTOS AND DISCUSSION” group. And now he’s deleting comments made in response to his dishonesty.
Yep, that's pretty much how he does things. Always sanitizes things on his site to make it one-sided and then links it to his YouTube channel to bring views and cash in. Funnily enough, if you look at his channel it's very neutral - not a single pro Warren Report video over there. If you didn't know better you'd think he was a devoted loyalist to Kennedy [wink-wink].
There's really no use arguing with him about the case. He's got a nice little money-making schtick going here so why rock the boat.
-
Yep, that's pretty much how he does things. Always sanitizes things on his site to make it one-sided and then links it to his YouTube channel to bring views and cash in. Funnily enough, if you look at his channel it's very neutral - not a single pro Warren Report video over there. If you didn't know better you'd think he was a devoted loyalist to Kennedy [wink-wink].
There's really no use arguing with him about the case. He's got a nice little money-making schtick going here so why rock the boat.
Michael Walton doesn't know what he's talking about.
-
I believe that his YouTube channel is not currently monetized. And honestly, I wouldn’t care if it was because he performs a valuable service collecting and making these recordings and videos available.
-
I wasn't saying that they were the same.
Really? Then why bring it up in the first place?
Because you made an unqualified statement that you cannot declare a dead man guilty of anything.
I take it that you would agree that your statement is not correct.
Not sure on which planet you live or what you have been smoking, but my statement was and still is absolutely correct.
I'm sorry that you seem to not understand what I said.
So, just let me get this straight: you ARE saying that the Uvalde shooting "remains unresolved and you can not declare that the dead man is guilty of anything."
-
If Hill actually knew about a cluster of shells, it would have come from Poe who in turn got it from Benavides.
Exactly right. What’s with Hill’s “we found the shells” nonsense?
-
Because you made an unqualified statement that you cannot declare a dead man guilty of anything.
So, just let me get this straight: you ARE saying that the Uvalde shooting "remains unresolved and you can not declare that the dead man is guilty of anything."
It's not clear to me what he is claiming but the 9/11 Commission declared that Mohammed Atta and the other hijackers were guilty of mass murder in the attacks. None of the hijackers had defense counsel or representatives defending their innocence during that investigation.
More closely related to the assassination, in his opening statements in the Clay Shaw trial Jim Garrison declared Oswald guilty of conspiracy in the murder of JFK. He also said this repeatedly, of course, out of it. He also declared in court in the same trial and out of it that David Ferrie, who was also dead at the time, was also guilty as well. He also said Ruby, who was also dead, was involved in the assassination (and not just in the murder of Oswald).
I'm sure there are other examples.
-
So what kind of pea-brain would THEN post the 1990 [sic] load of BS coming from Gerald Hill claiming the clustering of shells made him jump to the wrong conclusion even though they were NOWHERE near the car?
There was certainly some confusion amongst the police officers about what kind of gun Tippit's killer was carrying (automatic vs. revolver), there's no denying that fact. But why do CTers insist on focusing on the wrong (i.e., the worst) information that's out there?
Sergeant Gerald Hill simply made a mistake about the killer possessing an "automatic" weapon.
How can we know for a fact it was just a "mistake"?
Because of the various witnesses (Benavides, B. Davis, and V. Davis) who clearly stated that Tippit's one and only killer (who was carrying only ONE single gun) was manually unloading spent shell casings out of that same gun that was just used to shoot Officer Tippit.
There is nowhere for the conspiracists to go on this issue. Given the statements made by the people who were there at the time Tippit was being killed, we know that Tippit's killer was not (and could not have been) using an automatic gun on Tenth Street. That fact is as ironclad as can be---despite Gerald Hill's confusion.
Or would you like to start saying that all three of the aforementioned witnesses were either lying or mistaken when they each said they saw Tippit's murderer emptying shells from his gun (by hand)?
-
I believe that his YouTube channel is not currently monetized. And honestly, I wouldn’t care if it was because he performs a valuable service collecting and making these recordings and videos available.
I beg to differ:
https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/davidvonpeinjfk
And some are copyrighted stuff, like the CNN one. But who cares, right? Everything on the inter-webs is "free" now, right?
-
That "Social Blade" site proves nothing. It's merely displaying what the "estimated" revenue would be (with wildly varying high and low numbers) IF a certain channel is monetized by YouTube.
But my JFK channel is not monetized at the present time. (I wish it were, but it's not.) So all of those 2022 "estimated earnings" that website is displaying certainly does not mean that I've actually seen any of that cash. I haven't made a cent from my YouTube videos during this whole calendar year. (Not that it's any of Michael Walton's damn business to begin with, of course.)
(Now you're not going to call me a falsehood teller in this regard, are you Mr. Walton?) :)
-
Because you made an unqualified statement that you cannot declare a dead man guilty of anything.
So, just let me get this straight: you ARE saying that the Uvalde shooting "remains unresolved and you can not declare that the dead man is guilty of anything."
It really isn't my problem that you don't (want to) understand what I said. I have no intention to repeat myself.
-
There was certainly some confusion amongst the police officers about what kind of gun Tippit's killer was carrying (automatic vs. revolver), there's no denying that fact. But why do CTers insist on focusing on the wrong (i.e., the worst) information that's out there?
When "wrong" is defined merely as "doesn't fit the narrative", there is every reason to be concerned.
Because of the various witnesses (Benavides, B. Davis, and V. Davis) who clearly stated that Tippit's one and only killer (who was carrying only ONE single gun) was manually unloading spent shell casings out of that same gun that was just used to shoot Officer Tippit.
None of those various witnesses saw Tippit's killer kill Tippit.
-
None of those various witnesses saw Tippit's killer kill Tippit.
You don't think Domingo Benavides qualifies as a "Tippit murder witness", eh?
That's about as silly as the CTers who insist William Scoggins shouldn't be classified as a "Tippit murder witness" either.
::)
-
BTW, my earlier "one and only killer" remark is derived from knowing what the eyewitnesses (in total) said about the question of "HOW MANY PEOPLE SHOT TIPPIT?"
The answer to that is, of course, one.
-
You don't think Domingo Benavides qualifies as a "Tippit murder witness", eh?
That's about as silly as the CTers who insist William Scoggins shouldn't be classified as a "Tippit murder witness" either.
::)
They either saw somebody shoot somebody or they did not. I realize you want to manufacture more witnesses than you actually have.
-
BTW, my earlier "one and only killer" remark is derived from knowing what the eyewitnesses (in total) said about the question of "HOW MANY PEOPLE SHOT TIPPIT?"
The answer to that is, of course, one.
Sure, if you ignore the ones that saw two people.
-
It hasn't escaped my notice that WC-cultists always make broad claims about the JFK assassination, and invariably always revert to discussing the Tippit case instead.
-
It hasn't escaped my notice that WC-cultists always make broad claims about the JFK assassination, and invariably always revert to discussing the Tippit case instead.
It's not possible to fully and properly discuss the JFK assassination without also discussing the Tippit murder. Can't be done. Because the two murders (just 45 minutes apart) are inexorably linked.
Are you actually implying, John, that the Tippit case should never be brought up when discussing the murder of John Kennedy? You don't think the two crimes are in any way related?
-
It's not possible to fully and properly discuss the JFK assassination without also discussing the Tippit murder. Can't be done. Because the two murders (just 45 minutes apart) are inexorably linked.
The only thing that links them is your belief that the same person committed both crimes. That’s it.
Are you actually implying, John, that the Tippit case should never be brought up when discussing the murder of John Kennedy? You don't think the two crimes are in any way related?
You can bring up what you like, but Tippit evidence is not JFK evidence.
-
It's not possible to fully and properly discuss the JFK assassination without also discussing the Tippit murder. Can't be done. Because the two murders (just 45 minutes apart) are inexorably linked.
Are you actually implying, John, that the Tippit case should never be brought up when discussing the murder of John Kennedy? You don't think the two crimes are in any way related?
I agree completely. This case might have been a bit more of a "whodunnit" if Oswald had remained in the TSBD. But he didn't. He left in a hurry, got his revolver and shot the first person who tried to stop him. The firing pin marks on the shells establish conclusively that they were fired from Oswald's revolver.
Then, in the Texas Theatre, he assaulted his arresting officer and pulled his gun from his waist band, said "Well, it's all over now" and pressed the trigger. Not the actions of someone who had no reason to fear arrest.
It turns out that upon the arrest of Oswald in the Texas Theatre for the murder of Officer Tippit it is learned that he is the same person identified as a suspect in the JFK assassination. Hmmm.... Now the shooting of Officer Tippit begins to make some sense. Then you have the link of Oswald to the rifle in the TSBD, the taking of a long package to work that morning, the previous use of that rifle to attempt a similar assassination corroborated by photographs and a letter, etc. etc. The murder of JFK and of Officer Tippit tied to the same person in these circumstances become inextricably linked.
All of these things just happened independently and coincidentally? That is the only other possibility. Most would say that is not a reasonable possibility.
-
The only thing that links them is your belief that the same person committed both crimes. That’s it.
And the fact that more than half-a-dozen witnesses positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as either the man who shot J.D. Tippit or as the man they saw leaving the immediate area of the shooting with a gun in his hand doesn't mean anything to you, does it John?
And the fact that this same man named Lee Harvey Oswald was also the Book Depository employee whose rifle was found in the Depository on 11/22/63, which was proven to be the rifle that murdered President Kennedy, also means zilch to you, correct John?
A kindergarten student with massive learning disabilities could easily tie these two crimes together. But, for some reason known only to a higher power, conspiracy theorists can never manage to do it.
A final thought (a reprise from Page 6):
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xpEpHmcfwCU/YPnmE4x3zEI/AAAAAAABZCI/_-fE_QfbBhkGj9qEwO7wFfYvQsVKgSQ8gCLcBGAsYHQ/s6000/DVP-Quote-Regarding-Tippit-Murder.png)
-
I agree completely. This case might have been a bit more of a "whodunnit" if Oswald had remained in the TSBD. But he didn't. He left in a hurry, got his revolver and shot the first person who tried to stop him. The firing pin marks on the shells establish conclusively that they were fired from Oswald's revolver.
Then, in the Texas Theatre, he assaulted his arresting officer and pulled his gun from his waist band, said "Well, it's all over now" and pressed the trigger. Not the actions of someone who had no reason to fear arrest.
It turns out that upon the arrest of Oswald in the Texas Theatre for the murder of Officer Tippit it is learned that he is the same person identified as a suspect in the JFK assassination. Hmmm.... Now the shooting of Officer Tippit begins to make some sense. Then you have the link of Oswald to the rifle in the TSBD, the taking of a long package to work that morning, the previous use of that rifle to attempt a similar assassination corroborated by photographs and a letter, etc. etc. The murder of JFK and of Officer Tippit tied to the same person in these circumstances become inextricably linked.
All of these things just happened independently and coincidentally? That is the only other possibility. Most would say that is not a reasonable possibility.
Thumb1:
-
And the fact that more than half-a-dozen witnesses positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as either the man who shot J.D. Tippit or as the man they saw leaving the immediate area of the shooting with a gun in his hand doesn't mean anything to you, does it John?
And the fact that this same man named Lee Harvey Oswald was also the Book Depository employee whose rifle was found in the Depository on 11/22/63, which was proven to be the rifle that murdered President Kennedy, also means zilch to you, correct John?
A kindergarten student with massive learning disabilities could easily tie these two crimes together. But, for some reason known only to a higher power, conspiracy theorists can never manage to do it.
John was right when he said that the only thing that links the two murders is your belief that the same person committed both crimes. You have just demonstrated that it is.
It doesn't matter what your belief is based on, it's still only your belief.
And the fact that more than half-a-dozen witnesses positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as either the man who shot J.D. Tippit or as the man they saw leaving the immediate area of the shooting with a gun in his hand doesn't mean anything to you, does it John?
Don't know about John, but those witness identifications during a pathetically conducted line up mean very little. The biggest give away is that normally when 5 people watch the same car accident, you will get five different versions of what actually happened. Here, in this case, we are supposed to believe that all the witnesses made the exact same identification. If you believe that for a second then I have a bridge in London to sell you.
I once watched a robbery happening before my eyes. I saw the guy walking behind a girl and instantly knew something was up. He then ran up to her and pulled her phone out of her hands. It all happened very quickly and when the police asked me if I would be able to positively identify the man, I said no simply because it all happened so quickly. Yet, in this case, the Davis sisters who only saw the killer run past their front door for no more than two or three seconds made a positive identification? Give me a break!
And the fact that this same man named Lee Harvey Oswald was also the Book Depository employee whose rifle was found in the Depository on 11/22/63, which was proven to be the rifle that murdered President Kennedy, also means zilch to you, correct John?
Assumes facts that have in no way been conclusively proven. There is no conclusive evidence that proves that the rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald, nor has it ever been proven that this particular rifle was ever fired on 11/22/63.
It's easy to build a fairytale narrative based on assumptions and unproven evidence. Trump is proving that every single day since he lost the election but that doesn't mean it's true or that it will withstand scrutiny.
-
There is no conclusive evidence that proves that the rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald, nor has it ever been proven that this particular rifle was ever fired on 11/22/63.
Above we have two of the most ridiculous (and provably false) statements ever made by a JFK conspiracy believer.
-
'
Weidmann
'Don't know about John, but those witness identifications during a pathetically conducted line up mean very little.
_Either Oswald looked like the guy they saw or he didn't. And nothing short of a set of Oswald clones would get you guys to finally stop p*ssing yourselves
The biggest give away is that normally when 5 people watch the same car accident, you will get five different version of what actually happened.
_Are you ever going to say something original?
Here, in this case, we are supposed to believe that all the witnesses made the exact same identification.
_We already know what you lot believe.. that nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.
I once watched a robbery happening before my eyes. I saw the guy walking behind a girl and instantly knew something was up. He then ran up to her and pulled her phone out of her hands. It all happened very quickly and when the police asked me if I would be able to positively identify the man, I said no simply because it all happened so quickly. Yet, in this case, the Davis sisters who only saw the killer run past their front door for no more than two or three seconds made a positive identification? Give me a break!
_You are pitting your reactions/observations against two other individuals. Are you some sort of comic-book hero to be measured against? Besides, others said that he was trotting away, not running.. and had to scale a hedge to vacate that yard, iirc.
-
I agree completely. This case might have been a bit more of a "whodunnit" if Oswald had remained in the TSBD. But he didn't. He left in a hurry, got his revolver and shot the first person who tried to stop him. The firing pin marks on the shells establish conclusively that they were fired from Oswald's revolver.
Then, in the Texas Theatre, he assaulted his arresting officer and pulled his gun from his waist band, said "Well, it's all over now" and pressed the trigger. Not the actions of someone who had no reason to fear arrest.
Well, you’ve done a good job parroting the narrative. Demonstrating that it’s actually true…not so much.
-
And the fact that more than half-a-dozen witnesses positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as either the man who shot J.D. Tippit or as the man they saw leaving the immediate area of the shooting with a gun in his hand doesn't mean anything to you, does it John?
It doesn’t mean much, given how egregiously unfair and biased the lineups were.
And the fact that this same man named Lee Harvey Oswald was also the Book Depository employee whose rifle was found in the Depository on 11/22/63, which was proven to be the rifle that murdered President Kennedy, also means zilch to you, correct John?
That means absolutely nothing because you’re wrong about any weapon being proven to have murdered Kennedy. And you have no evidence whatsoever that C2766 was ever in Oswald’s possession.
A kindergarten student with massive learning disabilities could easily tie these two crimes together.
Only if they’re naive enough to believe the stuff you make up.
-
Above we have two of the most ridiculous (and provably false) statements ever made by a JFK conspiracy believer.
Then let’s see your proof. Not your assumptions— PROOF.
-
Above we have two of the most ridiculous (and provably false) statements ever made by a JFK conspiracy believer.
First of all, I don't believe in the fairytale you call the WC report. Secondly, I don't have a conspiracy theory, nor do I care if it was a conspiracy or not. I just want to know what really happened.
And don't be a coward by just ridiculously claiming that my statements are "provably false". Prove them to be false, if you can.
But you won't, because you can't, and you know it. Hence the ridiculous claim.
-
Oh, it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen.
My father, he was Orange and me mother, she was green.
My father was an Ulster man, proud Protestant was he.
My mother was a Catholic girl, from county Cork was she.
They were married in two churches, lived happily enough,
Until the day that I was born and things got rather tough.
Oh, it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen.
My father, he was Orange and me mother, she was green.
Baptized by Father Riley, I was rushed away by car,
To be made a little Orangeman, me father's shining star.
I was christened "David Anthony, " but still, inspite of that,
To me father, I was William, while my mother called me Pat.
Oh, it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen.
My father, he was Orange and me mother, she was green.
With Mother every Sunday, to Mass I'd proudly stroll.
Then after that, the Orange lodge would try to save my soul.
For both sides tried to claim me, but i was smart because
I'd play the flute or play the harp, depending where I was.
Oh, it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen.
My father, he was Orange and me mother, she was green.
One day me Ma's relations came round to visit me.
Just as my father's kinfolk were all sitting down to tea.
We tried to smooth things over, but they all began to fight.
And me, being strictly neutral, I bashed everyone in sight.
Oh, it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen.
My father, he was Orange and me mother, she was green.
My parents never could agree about my type of school.
My learning was all done at home, that's why I'm such a fool.
They've both passed on, God rest 'em, but left me caught between
That awful color problem of the Orange and the Green.
Oh it is the biggest mix up that you have ever seen
My father, he was Orange and me mother, she was green.
Yes it is the biggest mix up that you have ever seen
My father, he was Orange and me mother, she was green.
-
First of all, I don't believe in the fairytale you call the WC report. Secondly, I don't have a conspiracy theory, nor do I care if it was a conspiracy or not. I just want to know what really happened.
Dave refers to anybody who doesn’t accept his assumptions and speculations as a “conspiracy theorist”.
-
Some interesting things that are never mentioned by Dave and the LN team:
The House Committee from the 70s said there was a conspiracy. They didn't go all out but they DID say that. So who is right - the blue-ribbon WC team, or the blue-ribbon House Committee team? And I guess all of those folks on the House team were nutty conspiracy folks too, right?
Johnson knew others were involved. So I guess Johnson was a conspiracy nut too?
Nixon knew. So I guess what...another conspiracy kook?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/05/nixon-helms-cia-jfk-assassination-00037232
And yet, Dave and others have absolutely no ability to just question things, to apply a little bit of critical thinking. Amazing.
-
Don't know about John, but those witness identifications during a pathetically conducted line up mean very little. The biggest give away is that normally when 5 people watch the same car accident, you will get five different versions of what actually happened. Here, in this case, we are supposed to believe that all the witnesses made the exact same identification. If you believe that for a second then I have a bridge in London to sell you.
I once watched a robbery happening before my eyes. I saw the guy walking behind a girl and instantly knew something was up. He then ran up to her and pulled her phone out of her hands. It all happened very quickly and when the police asked me if I would be able to positively identify the man, I said no simply because it all happened so quickly. Yet, in this case, the Davis sisters who only saw the killer run past their front door for no more than two or three seconds made a positive identification? Give me a break!
Positive ID is not needed if the person fit the general description AND the suspect was immediately followed into a general area, then as he was approached by police he punched an officer in the face, pulled out his the victim's phone out of his waistband and said "Well, its all over now", and was carrying ID that was identical to the ID he left at the scene of a robbery committed an hour earlier. Or would that crime with those facts still be unsolveable for you?
-
It would have been an enormous coincidence if the murders of JFK and Tippit were unrelated. JFK is the only president to ever be murdered in Dallas. Tippit was the only DPD officer to be murdered in a several year span before and after 1963. Both were murdered in broad daylight within a short time and distance of one another. Individuals such as Hugh Aynesworth left the TSBD upon learning of the Tippit murder in Oak Cliff because he thought the events were related. That doesn't alone mean that they had to related, but there was a high probability of being related given the proximity in time and distance and extreme rarity of these events. Now we know with absolute certainty that they were related based upon the evidence and investigation. To suggest otherwise is another contrarian absurdity.
-
Positive ID is not needed if the person fit the general description AND the suspect was immediately followed into a general area, then as he was approached by police he punched an officer in the face, pulled out his the victim's phone out of his waistband and said "Well, its all over now", and was carrying ID that was identical to the ID he left at the scene of a robbery committed an hour earlier. Or would that crime with those facts still be unsolveable for you?
Positive ID is not needed if the person fit the general description
Contact the innocence project. They probably will disagree with you.
pulled out his the victim's phone out of his waistband and said "Well, its all over now", and was carrying ID that was identical to the ID he left at the scene of a robbery committed an hour earlier.
What in the world are you rambling on about?
-
It would have been an enormous coincidence if the murders of JFK and Tippit were unrelated. JFK is the only president to ever be murdered in Dallas. Tippit was the only DPD officer to be murdered in a several year span before and after 1963. Both were murdered in broad daylight within a short time and distance of one another. Individuals such as Hugh Aynesworth left the TSBD upon learning of the Tippit murder in Oak Cliff because he thought the events were related. That doesn't alone mean that they had to related, but there was a high probability of being related given the proximity in time and distance and extreme rarity of these events. Now we know with absolute certainty that they were related based upon the evidence and investigation. To suggest otherwise is another contrarian absurdity.
I have absolutely no idea what your point is here.
-
Positive ID is not needed if the person fit the general description
Contact the innocence project. They probably will disagree with you.
Eyewitness identification of someone not recognized at the scene as someone known to the witness is one of the most unreliable kinds of evidence. But not the general description. The general description is what the witness saw. The identification of someone not known to the witness is an opinion, and a highly unreliable one at that. That kind of evidence should never be sufficient as the basis of a legal conclusion. But in Oswald's case it was not the basis of the conclusion that Oswald shot Officer Tippit.
pulled out his the victim's phone out of his waistband and said "Well, its all over now", and was carrying ID that was identical to the ID he left at the scene of a robbery committed an hour earlier.
What in the world are you rambling on about?
Ok, this time in crayon for you: In Oswald's case, the ID card for "Alek Hidell" with Oswald's photo was on his person and the murder weapon left in the TSBD carried the same ID.
-
I have absolutely no idea what your point is here.
It's pretty simple. Both the murder of a President and DPD officer were extremely rare events. No DPD officer was murdered in a several years span before or after Tippit. As in several years. That both events would occur within an hour of each other just a short distance away in broad daylight on Nov. 22, 1963 and not be related would be extremely unlikely. People like Hugh Aynesworth understood that from the moment he learned of Tippit's murder and left the TSBD because he believed it was related to the JFK assassination. Which, of course, it was.
-
It's pretty simple. Both the murder of a President and DPD officer were extremely rare events. No DPD officer was murdered in a several years span before or after Tippit. As in several years. That both events would occur within an hour of each other just a short distance away in broad daylight on Nov. 22, 1963 and not be related would be extremely unlikely. People like Hugh Aynesworth understood that from the moment he learned of Tippit's murder and left the TSBD because he believed it was related to the JFK assassination. Which, of course, it was.
The coincidence of time, location and kind of act would raise a high level of suspicion of being connected but without an evidentiary link (ie. the same person conclusively linked to each murder weapon) would not be evidence that they were connected.
-
Eyewitness identification of someone not recognized at the scene as someone known to the witness is one of the most unreliable kinds of evidence. But not the general description. The general description is what the witness saw. The identification of someone not known to the witness is an opinion, and a highly unreliable one at that. That kind of evidence should never be sufficient as the basis of a legal conclusion. But in Oswald's case it was not the basis of the conclusion that Oswald shot Officer Tippit.
Ok, this time in crayon for you: In Oswald's case, the ID card for "Alek Hidell" with Oswald's photo was on his person and the murder weapon left in the TSBD carried the same ID.
Eyewitness identification of someone not recognized at the scene as someone known to the witness is one of the most unreliable kinds of evidence.
Indeed. Thumb1:
That kind of evidence should never be sufficient as the basis of a legal conclusion. But in Oswald's case it was not the basis of the conclusion that Oswald shot Officer Tippit.
Like hell it wasn't! You just tell any LN about the evidentiary problems with the physical evidence and they all fall back on "Oswald was identified my several witnesses".
Ok, this time in crayon for you: In Oswald's case, the ID card for "Alek Hidell" with Oswald's photo was on his person and the murder weapon left in the TSBD carried the same ID.
What in the world makes you think for even one second that the Hidell ID card was on Oswald's person? Paul Bentley was the cop who took Oswald's wallet from him in the car. The next day, during in interview on TV, Bentley was asked what was in the wallet and he answered something along the lines of "the usual things". He in fact mentioned a driver's license and a credit card. What he most certainly didn't mention was an Hidell ID card. In fact, none of the officers who were in the car mention a Hidell ID in their reports.
The first time the Hidell ID pops up is when Gus Rose (who just started work) talked to Oswald at the station. There, an unidentified person, gave him a wallet and said it belonged to Oswald. It was in that wallet the Hidell ID was found. There is not a shred of evidence this was the same wallet that Bentley took from Oswald.
And as far as the murder weapon is concerned; there is no evidence that the revolver now in evidence is in fact that one that was taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater. Detective Carroll said he pulled a revolver out of somebody's hand, but he didn't know whose hand it was. He then give the revolver to Detective Hill who subsequently walked around with it for at least two hours, showing it to the media and even giving it to Bentley (if I remember correctly) before he had a bunch of officers in the personnel room initial the revolver after telling them it was Oswald's revolver.
-
Positive ID is not needed if the person fit the general description AND the suspect was immediately followed into a general area, then as he was approached by police he punched an officer in the face, pulled out his the victim's phone out of his waistband and said "Well, its all over now", and was carrying ID that was identical to the ID he left at the scene of a robbery committed an hour earlier. Or would that crime with those facts still be unsolveable for you?
What makes you think those things are facts?
(Also, “victim’s phone”?)
-
What in the world makes you think for even one second that the Hidell ID card was on Oswald's person? Paul Bentley was the cop who took Oswald's wallet from him in the car. The next day, during in interview on TV, Bentley was asked what was in the wallet and he answered something along the lines of "the usual things". He in fact mentioned a driver's license and a credit card. What he most certainly didn't mention was an Hidell ID card. In fact, none of the officers who were in the car mention a Hidell ID in their reports.
So they didn't read all the things in the wallet.
The first time the Hidell ID pops up is when Gus Rose (who just started work) talked to Oswald at the station. There, an unidentified person, gave him a wallet and said it belonged to Oswald. It was in that wallet the Hidell ID was found. There is not a shred of evidence this was the same wallet that Bentley took from Oswald.
You seem to be overlooking the testimony of Rose (7H228):
Mr. ROSE. Well, the first thing I asked him was what his name was and he told me it was Hidell.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you it was Hidell?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; he did.
Mr. BALL. He didn’t tell you it was Oswald?
Mr. ROSE. No; he didn’t, not right then-he did later. In a minute-1 found two cards-I found a card that said “A. Hidell.” And I found another card that said “Lee Oswald’ on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn’t tell me at the time, he just said, “You find nut.” And then in just a few minutes Captain Fritz came in and he told me to get two men and go to Irving and search his house.
Mr. BALL. Now, when he first Came in there you said that he said his name was “Hidell”?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was that before you saw the two cards?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it was.
Mr. BALL. Before you saw the cards?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it was."
And as far as the murder weapon is concerned; there is no evidence that the revolver now in evidence is in fact that one that was taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater. Detective Carroll said he pulled a revolver out of somebody's hand, but he didn't know whose hand it was. He then give the revolver to Detective Hill who subsequently walked around with it for at least two hours, showing it to the media and even giving it to Bentley (if I remember correctly) before he had a bunch of officers in the personnel room initial the revolver after telling them it was Oswald's revolver.
Well, Caroll said he took it from someone's hand in the Texas Theatre and kept it in his possession and put his initials on it before turning it over to Hill. It was not a police weapon and all but one of the people in the melee in the Texas Theatre were police officers.
There is also evidence that the revolver is indistinguishable from the revolver shown in the back-yard photos. There is also evidence that this was the gun that killed Officer Tippit.
-
So they didn't read all the things in the wallet.
I can't decide if this is a hilarious or a pathetic answer.
It most certainly isn't worthy of a reply.
You seem to be overlooking the testimony of Rose (7H228):
Mr. ROSE. Well, the first thing I asked him was what his name was and he told me it was Hidell.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you it was Hidell?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; he did.
Mr. BALL. He didn’t tell you it was Oswald?
Mr. ROSE. No; he didn’t, not right then-he did later. In a minute-1 found two cards-I found a card that said “A. Hidell.” And I found another card that said “Lee Oswald’ on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn’t tell me at the time, he just said, “You find nut.” And then in just a few minutes Captain Fritz came in and he told me to get two men and go to Irving and search his house.
Mr. BALL. Now, when he first Came in there you said that he said his name was “Hidell”?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was that before you saw the two cards?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it was.
Mr. BALL. Before you saw the cards?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it was."
That's just Guy Rose's recollection. And it simply doesn't make sense, because Bentley had already identified him in the car as Oswald and he knew they had his wallet. So, why in the world would Oswald say his name was Hidell.
Well, Caroll said he took it from someone's hand in the Texas Theatre and kept it in his possession and put his initials on it before turning it over to Hill. It was not a police weapon and all but one of the people in the melee in the Texas Theatre were police officers.
Yes, Carroll did take it from someone's hand. He just didn't know who that was. And you are wrong about Carroll keeping the revolver in his possession and putting his initials on before turning it over to Hill.
He gave the revolver to Hill in the car as they were driving to the station;
Mr. CARROLL. After leaving the theatre and getting into the car, I released the pistol to Sgt. Jerry Hill.
Mr. BELIN. Sgt. G. L. Hill?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Who drove the car down to the station?
Mr. CARROLL. I drove the car.
Mr. BELIN. Did you give it to him before you started up the car, or after you started up the car, if you remember?
Mr. CARROLL. After.
Mr. BELIN. How far had you driven when you gave it to him?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't recall exactly how far I had driven.
He initialed the revolver at the DPD personnel office, several hours later.
Mr. BELIN. Where did you put the initials?
Mr. CARROLL. Where was I, or where did I put the initials on the pistol?
Mr. BELIN. Where were you?
Mr. CARROLL. I was in the personnel office of the city of Dallas police department.
Mr. BELIN. With Sergeant Hill?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, and others who were present.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see Sergeant Hill take it out of his pocket or wherever he had it, or not?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What day did you put your initials on it?
Mr. CARROLL. November 22, 1963.
There is also evidence that the revolver is indistinguishable from the revolver shown in the back-yard photos. There is also evidence that this was the gun that killed Officer Tippit.
Show me that evidence, please.
It would be interesting to see how you they can identify a revolver in a photo when it is in a holster.
As for linking the revolver to the murder of Tippit, try again. They could not ballistically match the shells found at the Tippit scene to the revolver and only Joseph Nicol claimed he could match one of the bullets taken from Tippit's body to the revolver. All other experts disagreed. Having said that, I may very well be that the revolver now in evidence was the one used to kill Tippit, but there is no chain of custody linking it to Oswald.
Now, unless you got your law degree at some supermarket where they gave it away as some special offer, you will know and understand that the chain of custody is required to ensure that the authenticity and validity of a piece of evidence can be maintained. When a chain of custody doesn't exist or is broken there is a possibility of manipulation of the evidence. When that happens the evidence can no longer be validated or relied upon. Do you agree?
-
"Just having Lee Oswald in the general area of the [Tippit] crime, with a gun, and acting "funny" and obviously avoiding the police is a good hunk of circumstantial evidence leading to his guilt right there. Where does the road of common sense take a reasonable person when JUST the above after-the-shooting activity of Lee Harvey Oswald is examined objectively? It sure doesn't lead to total innocence, I'll tell ya that right now. (Especially when the stuff that went on inside the movie theater is factored in as well.) In a nutshell, this murder boils down to the following concrete fact (based on the overall weight of the evidence that surrounds the crime): If Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill J.D. Tippit -- then J.D. Tippit wasn't killed at all. Maybe it was all some kind of "Bobby Was In The Shower" type of dream or something instead." -- David Von Pein; October 2006
-
Well, Caroll said he took it from someone's hand in the Texas Theatre and kept it in his possession and put his initials on it before turning it over to Hill.
Carroll didn't say that, and in fact it's false. Nobody initialed a revolver until a couple of hours later in the personnel office.
There is also evidence that the revolver is indistinguishable from the revolver shown in the back-yard photos. There is also evidence that this was the gun that killed Officer Tippit.
That's also false. There's nothing distinguishable about the handgun in the backyard photos. And the gun that killed Officer Tippit cannot be determined because there were insufficient characteristics on the bullets removed from Tippit to identify one.
-
"Just having Lee Oswald in the general area of the [Tippit] crime, with a gun, and acting "funny" and obviously avoiding the police is a good hunk of circumstantial evidence leading to his guilt right there. Where does the road of common sense take a reasonable person when JUST the above after-the-shooting activity of Lee Harvey Oswald is examined objectively? It sure doesn't lead to total innocence, I'll tell ya that right now. (Especially when the stuff that went on inside the movie theater is factored in as well.) In a nutshell, this murder boils down to the following concrete fact (based on the overall weight of the evidence that surrounds the crime): If Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill J.D. Tippit -- then J.D. Tippit wasn't killed at all. Maybe it was all some kind of "Bobby Was In The Shower" type of dream or something instead." -- David Von Pein; October 2006
Oh boy, somebody is freakin' out
-
They could not ballistically match the shells found at the Tippit scene to the revolver
They did ballistically match the 4 shells that are in evidence to the revolver Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket. They just can't demonstrate with any confidence that those 4 shells were found at the Tippit scene or had anything to do with Oswald or with Tippit's murder.
-
"Just having Lee Oswald in the general area of the [Tippit] crime, with a gun, and acting "funny" and obviously avoiding the police is a good hunk of circumstantial evidence leading to his guilt right there. Where does the road of common sense take a reasonable person when JUST the above after-the-shooting activity of Lee Harvey Oswald is examined objectively? It sure doesn't lead to total innocence, I'll tell ya that right now. (Especially when the stuff that went on inside the movie theater is factored in as well.) In a nutshell, this murder boils down to the following concrete fact (based on the overall weight of the evidence that surrounds the crime): If Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill J.D. Tippit -- then J.D. Tippit wasn't killed at all. Maybe it was all some kind of "Bobby Was In The Shower" type of dream or something instead." -- David Von Pein; October 2006
This goes both ways, Dave:
"Just having [a creaky gun that was snuck into the building, reassembled but not test fired, with a telescope on it that was not properly aligned, fired three times - scoring two perfect shots but a middle shot being so far off that it went downwind to strike up concrete and hit a spectator - all within 6 seconds] is a good hunk of circumstantial evidence leading to [the claimed evidence being doubtful] right there."
I could on with many other items but you get the idea. This goes both ways, Dave.
-
Carroll didn't say that, and in fact it's false. Nobody initialed a revolver until a couple of hours later in the personnel office.
That's also false. There's nothing distinguishable about the handgun in the backyard photos. And the gun that killed Officer Tippit cannot be determined because there were insufficient characteristics on the bullets removed from Tippit to identify one.
Caroll said he initialled the gun in the presence of Hill in the personnel office. So I take it that your point is that Hill was part of a giant conspiracy to fabricate evidence and to plant a gun that fired the shells found at the Tippit murder scene and then trick several officers into identifying it as the gun that Oswald admitted he was carrying.
-
They did ballistically match the 4 shells that are in evidence to the revolver Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket. They just can't demonstrate with any confidence that those 4 shells were found at the Tippit scene or had anything to do with Oswald or with Tippit's murder.
No one has to prove each fact beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. They just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the offence: that Oswald caused the death of JFK and that he intended to do so. That can be proven on many pieces of evidence, none of which need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
No one has to prove each fact beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. They just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the offence: that Oswald caused the death of JFK and that he intended to do so. That can be proven on many pieces of evidence, none of which need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am guessing that you will be asked to explain this in more detail, because each time the naysayers try to shed doubt on any of the evidence they appear to believe that they have completely destroyed the case…
-
Caroll said he initialled the gun in the presence of Hill in the personnel office. So I take it that your point is that Hill was part of a giant conspiracy to fabricate evidence and to plant a gun that fired the shells found at the Tippit murder scene and then trick several officers into identifying it as the gun that Oswald admitted he was carrying.
The problem with LNs in general is that they instantly go into drama mode when they are asked a simple question, like the one we are discussing.
Nobody is accusing Hill or Carroll to be part of the dramatic "giant conspiracy". The question is about the chain of custody and evidence authentification. If you can not autheticate a piece of evidence you also can not rely upon it. In this case, Carroll not initialling the revolver before giving it to Hill and then initialling it several hours later is a violation of basic chain of custody rules. The same goes for initialling the revolved based upon something another officer said.
You can not argue, as you seem to be doing, that it doesn't matter that Carroll and/or Hill did not know where the revolver came from and that they initialled it based upon somebody else telling them it was Oswald's revolver. You also can not argue that you can rely on the revolver being authentic nevertheless, because the alternative might be that there was a massive conspiracy. And you most certainly can not argue that Oswald admitted he was carrying the revolver now in evidence, because he never did any such thing. He was never shown the revolver now in evidence and only confirmed that he had indeed a revolver on him which he said he had bought in Fort Worth several months later. So, to claim that Oswald confirmed that he ever had the revolver now in evidence is a lie, plain and simple.
-
I am guessing that you will be asked to explain this in more detail, because each time the naysayers try to shed doubt on any of the evidence they appear to believe that they have completely destroyed the case…
Yes. They've convinced themselves that raising doubt on one piece of evidence ("Chain of custody!" or "The lineups were unfair") means the cases, plural, against Oswald can be dismissed. They insist on stripping each single piece of evidence, pieces that they consider "invalid", out of any larger context and then afterwards conclude that that larger context can be similarly considered "invalid" or "deconstructed". Oswald is essentially made to disappear from what happened that day. He is nowhere to be found since all of these claims about him are invalid or supposition or conjecture. Poof, he's gone.
If you apply this method or approach to any other event you can essentially render what happened impossible to explain (or you can substitute any other explanation instead). The event is reduced to a series of disjointed claims and accounts. When this is pointed out they insist otherwise.
You'll also notice that they - these so-called non-conspiracy posters - don't use this method against the conspiracy claims. This is most notable in the recent allegations that Ruth Paine was involved, was working for the CIA. In that case, these "I'm not a conspiracist" are nowhere to be found. Again and again and again they do this; raising doubt about the claims against Oswald but silence about the claims against others. But think they can pretend to be "non conspiracists." Sorry, at this point no one is buying this anymore.
-
Yes. They've convinced themselves that raising doubt on one piece of evidence ("Chain of custody!" or "The lineups were unfair") means the cases, plural, against Oswald can be dismissed. They insist on stripping each single piece of evidence, pieces that they consider "invalid", out of any larger context and then afterwards conclude that that larger context can be similarly considered "invalid" or "deconstructed". Oswald is essentially made to disappear from what happened that day. He is nowhere to be found since all of these claims about him are invalid or supposition or conjecture. Poof, he's gone.
If you apply this method or approach to any other event you can essentially render what happened impossible to explain (or you can substitute any other explanation instead). The event is reduced to a series of disjointed claims and accounts. When this is pointed out they insist otherwise.
You'll also notice that they - these so-called non-conspiracy posters - don't use this method against the conspiracy claims. This is most notable in the recent allegations that Ruth Paine was involved, was working for the CIA. In that case, these "I'm not a conspiracist" are nowhere to be found. Again and again and again they do this; raising doubt about the claims against Oswald but silence about the claims against others. But think they can pretend to be "non conspiracists." Sorry, at this point no one is buying this anymore.
What it appears to boil down to, in just about every discussion, is a distrust of anyone in authority and anyone who believes that the authorities are capable of telling the truth. Their minds appear to be closed to any possible chance of that being the case.
-
Yes. They've convinced themselves that raising doubt on one piece of evidence ("Chain of custody!" or "The lineups were unfair") means the cases, plural, against Oswald can be dismissed. They insist on stripping each single piece of evidence, pieces that they consider "invalid", out of any larger context and then afterwards conclude that that larger context can be similarly considered "invalid" or "deconstructed". Oswald is essentially made to disappear from what happened that day. He is nowhere to be found since all of these claims about him are invalid or supposition or conjecture. Poof, he's gone.
If you apply this method or approach to any other event you can essentially render what happened impossible to explain (or you can substitute any other explanation instead). The event is reduced to a series of disjointed claims and accounts. When this is pointed out they insist otherwise.
You'll also notice that they - these so-called non-conspiracy posters - don't use this method against the conspiracy claims. This is most notable in the recent allegations that Ruth Paine was involved, was working for the CIA. In that case, these "I'm not a conspiracist" are nowhere to be found. Again and again and again they do this; raising doubt about the claims against Oswald but silence about the claims against others. But think they can pretend to be "non conspiracists." Sorry, at this point no one is buying this anymore.
They've convinced themselves that raising doubt on one piece of evidence ("Chain of custody!" or "The lineups were unfair") means the cases, plural, against Oswald can be dismissed.
I am truly sorry that your reading comprehension is so bad that it leaves you completely clueless. If there was only one piece of evidence that is doubtful, you might be right to say that would not be enough to dismiss the case against Oswald, but in this case just about all the physical evidence is highly questionable. It is truly appalling with how much ease you and your ilk are willing to overlook or play down the need for evidence to be authenticated.
They insist on stripping each single piece of evidence, pieces that they consider "invalid", out of any larger context and then afterwards conclude that that larger context can be similarly considered "invalid" or "deconstructed".
Those pieces of evidence that are being stripped away, would they happen to be the exact same ones you use to create your "larger context"? I'm actually not sure what you are trying to say here, but it seems to be something like; it doesn't matter if the individual pieces of evidence are not persuasive or authentic, as long as we can combine them in a "larger context" we still have a case against Oswald. I truly hope that's not what you are saying, because if it is, it is a pretty stupid comment to make.
This is most notable in the recent allegations that Ruth Paine was involved, was working for the CIA. In that case, these "I'm not a conspiracist" are nowhere to be found.
I seem to be one of those non-corspiracist guys you are talking about and I am not really sure what you want from me. First of all, I have never claimed that Ruth Paine was working for the CIA. Secondly, I don't know if she was working for the CIA or not and neither do you. So what exactly would you like me to say? I haven't got a clue, which I stay out of those kinds of discussions, but perhaps you can enlighten me....
-
Caroll said he initialled the gun in the presence of Hill in the personnel office. So I take it that your point is that Hill was part of a giant conspiracy to fabricate evidence and to plant a gun that fired the shells found at the Tippit murder scene and then trick several officers into identifying it as the gun that Oswald admitted he was carrying.
You claimed that Carroll "put his initials on it before turning it over to Hill". Are you at least going to admit you were wrong before moving the goalposts?
Who said anything about a "giant conspiracy"? Who knows where Hill got the gun he carried around in his pocket for 2 hours? What "trick"? How would they know it was the same gun? Just because Hill said so?
-
No one has to prove each fact beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. They just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the offence: that Oswald caused the death of JFK and that he intended to do so. That can be proven on many pieces of evidence, none of which need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Many things that are individually not evidence of anything do not magically combine to become evidence of something.
-
If you apply this method or approach to any other event you can essentially render what happened impossible to explain (or you can substitute any other explanation instead).
Some things are impossible to explain. Deal with it. Making up an unsubstantiated "explanation" may be comforting, but that doesn't make it a fact.
-
What it appears to boil down to, in just about every discussion, is a distrust of anyone in authority and anyone who believes that the authorities are capable of telling the truth. Their minds appear to be closed to any possible chance of that being the case.
"Authorities" need to be verified as much as anybody else. What it appears to boil down to on your side is a blind trust of anyone in authority as unassailable (as long as it fits the predetermined narrative), whether it's verifiable or not.
-
The problem with LNs in general is that they instantly go into drama mode when they are asked a simple question, like the one we are discussing.
Nobody is accusing Hill or Carroll to be part of the dramatic "giant conspiracy". The question is about the chain of custody and evidence authentification. If you can not autheticate a piece of evidence you also can not rely upon it. In this case, Carroll not initialling the revolver before giving it to Hill and then initialling it several hours later is a violation of basic chain of custody rules. The same goes for initialling the revolved based upon something another officer said.
It just goes to weight. There is no way that you can conclude that the gun with the officers' initials was anything other than Oswald's revolver. Even if you think that there is a scintilla of doubt about it, the only other conclusion would be that there was an enormous conspiracy to falsify evidence. The possibility that it was not the gun retrieved from Oswald and was innocently and unintentionally replaced by another gun that just so happened to have fired shells that other officers said they picked up at the Tippit murder scene is a non-starter.
He was never shown the revolver now in evidence and only confirmed that he had indeed a revolver on him which he said he had bought in Fort Worth several months later. So, to claim that Oswald confirmed that he ever had the revolver now in evidence is a lie, plain and simple.
I did not say that Oswald identified the revolver CE143 as belonging to him. The officers did that.
I said that Oswald admitted to carrying a revolver and I was suggesting that you were proposing that there was a conspiracy to "then trick several officers into identifying it as the gun that Oswald admitted he was carrying."
-
What it appears to boil down to, in just about every discussion, is a distrust of anyone in authority and anyone who believes that the authorities are capable of telling the truth. Their minds appear to be closed to any possible chance of that being the case.
Have you ever wondered why the chain of custody for evidence actually exists?
-
Have you ever wondered why the chain of custody for evidence actually exists?
It is to demonstrate to the court that the evidence that purports to be taken from a scene was, in fact, so. But the court doesn't have to determine that beyond all doubt. No one monitors each exhibit 24 hours a day. If there is a serious breach, the court may be asked to have it declared inadmissible. But not all breaches result in the evidence being declared inadmissible.
If law enforcement is unable to demonstrate who had custody of the evidence for some period, the accused can apply to the court to have the evidence excluded. But if the application is rejected and, therefore, admitted on the basis of credible testimony to establish the chain of custody, the evidence is heard by the jury. Discrepancies can be relevant in assessing the weight to be given to it, but the evidence is still admitted.
-
It just goes to weight. There is no way that you can conclude that the gun with the officers' initials was anything other than Oswald's revolver. Even if you think that there is a scintilla of doubt about it, the only other conclusion would be that there was an enormous conspiracy to falsify evidence. The possibility that it was not the gun retrieved from Oswald and was innocently and unintentionally replaced by another gun that just so happened to have fired shells that other officers said they picked up at the Tippit murder scene is a non-starter.
I did not say that Oswald identified the revolver CE143 as belonging to him. The officers did that.
I said that Oswald admitted to carrying a revolver and I was suggesting that you were proposing that there was a conspiracy to "then trick several officers into identifying it as the gun that Oswald admitted he was carrying."
There is no way that you can conclude that the gun with the officers' initials was anything other than Oswald's revolver.
I would agree with you if the chain of custody was solid.
Even if you think that there is a scintilla of doubt about it, the only other conclusion would be that there was an enormous conspiracy to falsify evidence.
You watch too many movies, I think.. All it would have taken was one person to replace the revolver they took from Oswald with the one that was used to kill Tippit.
The possibility that it was not the gun retrieved from Oswald and was innocently and unintentionally replaced by another gun that just so happened to have fired shells that other officers said they picked up at the Tippit murder scene is a non-starter.
If the revolver was indeed replaced, it was not done innocently or unintentionally.
I did not say that Oswald identified the revolver CE143 as belonging to him. The officers did that.
No they didn't. Carroll could not say who he took the revolver from and Hill testified that Carroll had told him it was Oswald's gun. Neither Carroll or Hill knew if it was Oswald's revolver or not!
I said that Oswald admitted to carrying a revolver and I was suggesting that you were proposing that there was a conspiracy to "then trick several officers into identifying it as the gun that Oswald admitted he was carrying."
You can call it whatever you want, but the bottom line is that no officer actually saw and initialed that revolver until several hours after Oswald's arrest when Hill showed up at the personnel room with a revolver and told the officers that it was Oswald's. Hill may well have believed that what he said was true, but he really had no way of knowing that for sure, as he merely accepted Carroll's word for it.
None of those officers had to have been part of a conspiracy, if there was one. They were merely acting in good faith but that doesn't mean they were doing the right thing.
-
It is to demonstrate to the court that the evidence that purports to be taken from a scene was, in fact, so. But the court doesn't have to determine that beyond all doubt. No one monitors each exhibit 24 hours a day. If there is a serious breach, the court may be asked to have it declared inadmissible. But not all breaches result in the evidence being declared inadmissible.
If law enforcement is unable to demonstrate who had custody of the evidence for some period, the accused can apply to the court to have the evidence excluded. But if the application is rejected and, therefore, admitted on the basis of credible testimony to establish the chain of custody, the evidence is heard by the jury. Discrepancies can be relevant in assessing the weight to be given to it, but the evidence is still admitted.
It is to demonstrate to the court that the evidence that purports to be taken from a scene was, in fact, so.
Indeed.
If there is a serious breach, the court may be asked to have it declared inadmissible. But not all breaches result in the evidence being declared inadmissible.
True. And judges normally are pretty hesitant to declare a piece of evidence inadmissible.
If law enforcement is unable to demonstrate who had custody of the evidence for some period, the accused can apply to the court to have the evidence excluded.
Or the defense let's it come in to destroy it in front of the jury. Like what happened to Mark Fuhrman and the bloody glove found near Simpson's home.
Discrepancies can be relevant in assessing the weight to be given to it, but the evidence is still admitted.
That's true, but not all the evidence that is admitted at trial is actually proof of anything. In this particular case it could have been a strategy of the defense to let the prosecutor first make the claim that this absolutely was the revolver that was used to kill Tippit before questioning the chain of custody and thus suggesting to the jury that this may not be the revolver that was taken from Oswald.
-
I did not say that Oswald identified the revolver CE143 as belonging to him. The officers did that.
No they didn't. Carroll could not say who he took the revolver from and Hill testified that Carroll had told him it was Oswald's gun. Neither Carroll or Hill knew if it was Oswald's revolver or not!
But that is not a chain of custody issue. They all establish that the gun came from the scene of the arrest. It is a question of whether it was Oswald's gun or whether it belonged to someone else at the scene. Then the questions would be: what happened to the gun that Oswald admitted having? Was this a gun that a police officer was carrying? If it was a police officer, why was it drawn pointing away from the officers who were wrestling with Oswald? etc. A jury can easily figure that out.
I said that Oswald admitted to carrying a revolver and I was suggesting that you were proposing that there was a conspiracy to "then trick several officers into identifying it as the gun that Oswald admitted he was carrying."
You can call it whatever you want, but the bottom line is that no officer actually saw and initialed that revolver until several hours after Oswald's arrest when Hill showed up at the personnel room with a revolver and told the officers that it was Oswald's. Hill may well have believed that what he said was true, but he really had no way of knowing that for sure, as he merely accepted Carroll's word for it.
But Hill vouches for it being the gun that Carroll handed him. That's all you need. There is no period when it was not in Carroll or Hill's possession and control until Carroll initialed it.
-
But that is not a chain of custody issue. They all establish that the gun came from the scene of the arrest. It is a question of whether it was Oswald's gun or whether it belonged to someone else at the scene. Then the questions would be: what happened to the gun that Oswald admitted having? Was this a gun that a police officer was carrying? If it was a police officer, why was it drawn pointing away from the officers who were wrestling with Oswald? etc. A jury can easily figure that out.
But Hill vouches for it being the gun that Carroll handed him. That's all you need. There is no period when it was not in Carroll or Hill's possession and control until Carroll initialed it.
But that is not a chain of custody issue. They all establish that the gun came from the scene of the arrest.
No. It is a chain of custody issue, because you do not get to assume that the revolver now in evidence is in fact that one that came from the scene of the arrest.
Then the questions would be: what happened to the gun that Oswald admitted having?
Well, let's see. If the revolver now in evidence isn't the one they took from Oswald, the most logical answer would have to be that the actual revolver was disappeared.
Was this a gun that a police officer was carrying? If it was a police officer, why was it drawn pointing away from the officers who were wrestling with Oswald? etc. A jury can easily figure that out.
You are now arguing that the evidence is somehow credible, not because the evidence itself is conclusive but simply because you say so.
But Hill vouches for it being the gun that Carroll handed him. That's all you need.
That's the classic "it's true because the cop said so" argument. When you go with that, you can just as easily do away with the chain of custody requirement all together.
There is no period when it was not in Carroll or Hill's possession and control until Carroll initialed it.
Actually, we don't know that. And it seems that Hill gave the revolver to Paul Bentley as well.
The bottom line is that Hill handed in a revolver to the evidence room which was initialed by some officers in the personnel room because Hill told them it was Oswald's revolver. You can argue about it all day long, but there simply is no way to know where that revolver came from, other than believing the word of a cop who himself admits that he doesn't know first hand either.
-
It just goes to weight. There is no way that you can conclude that the gun with the officers' initials was anything other than Oswald's revolver. Even if you think that there is a scintilla of doubt about it, the only other conclusion would be that there was an enormous conspiracy to falsify evidence.
False dictotomy. It only takes one person to say "hey, this is Oswald's revolver. Initial it".
The possibility that it was not the gun retrieved from Oswald and was innocently and unintentionally replaced by another gun that just so happened to have fired shells that other officers said they picked up at the Tippit murder scene is a non-starter.
Wrong. No officer said he picked up a shell at the Tippit murder scene.
-
Have you ever wondered why the chain of custody for evidence actually exists?
Thumb1:
If "cop said so" was good enough, there would be no need for it.
-
But Hill vouches for it being the gun that Carroll handed him. That's all you need. There is no period when it was not in Carroll or Hill's possession and control until Carroll initialed it.
This is BS too. Carroll didn't have any first hand knowledge of where the gun he grabbed came from or even who was holding it. I doubt McDonald even knew who grabbed it until he heard Carroll's story. This is why cops should be separated and interviewed immediately, just like witnesses and suspect are. Carroll also didn't know what happened to the gun he gave Hill after he gave it to Hill. And why are cops passing this piece of evidence around like a hot potato. The first cop to get it should have bagged and tagged it.
Also, Westbrook testified that at one point he just saw the gun in his office laying on Mr. McGee’s desk with the shells taken out of it. Who put it there and when? And how long was it there? It had to be before the initial-fest because as soon as everybody (including Bentley who never even handled it) initialed the gun, Hill said he turned it over to Baker. So, no, its whereabouts cannot be accounted for at all times.
-
This is BS too. Carroll didn't have any first hand knowledge of where the gun he grabbed came from or even who was holding it. I doubt McDonald even knew who grabbed it until he heard Carroll's story. This is why cops should be separated and interviewed immediately, just like witnesses and suspect are. Carroll also didn't know what happened to the gun he gave Hill after he gave it to Hill. And why are cops passing this piece of evidence around like a hot potato. The first cop to get it should have bagged and tagged it.
Also, Westbrook testified that at one point he just saw the gun in his office laying on Mr. McGee’s desk with the shells taken out of it. Who put it there and when? And how long was it there? It had to be before the initial-fest because as soon as everybody (including Bentley who never even handled it) initialed the gun, Hill said he turned it over to Baker. So, no, its whereabouts cannot be accounted for at all times.
At what point in time and under what conditions did these officers make the statements that you are basing your claims on?
-
At what point in time and under what conditions did these officers make the statements that you are basing your claims on?
He's going to try and "deconstruct" the evidence and make the revolver disappear. But he won't give an alternate explanation for the existence of this revolver; he won't explain how it came to be in the possession of the police; he won't explain how the police got the actual revolver that was used to shoot Tippit. The shells recovered by eyewitnesses as the scene (from places AWAY from the direct location of the shooting (by Tippit's car); that dismisses the "gun was an automatic" argument) - many of whom say the gunman was Oswald - were fired from that revolver. If it wasn't Oswald then how did the police acquire that revolver?
Again: how did they get that revolver?
He won't answer any of this. He can't. He's trapped himself in his defense of Oswald so that he cannot offer any alternative explanations. Because his approach in defending Oswald - making the evidence disappear - makes him unable with any intellectual consistency to argue for an alternative. Because the evidence for that too must disappear. He's made the revolver and rifle and other evidence disappear and he can't without being exposed for being a conspiracy believer (which he denies) provide one.
Meanwhile, he'll be silent about all sorts of bizarre conspiracy claims like the recent ones involving Ruth Paine. He critically challenges Tracy's examination of the claims but NOT the actual claims. The person making the claims about Paine being some sort of CIA asset or conspirator goes unchallenged.
Lots of other people have tried reasoning with him. They all failed. It's best to move on from this type of conspiracy mindset. You cannot reason with it. I don't know what these people are doing; but it's a big internet and you come across all sorts of things. This is an example of it.
At least the conspiracy believers - who say they are such people - are consistent. Their explanations are absurd, they involve planning and coordination of dozens of people -including civilians. There is no evidence for such planning. It's all supposition and fantasies. But they make them anyway. They don't run when asked for an explanation.
-
He's going to try and "deconstruct" the evidence and make the revolver disappear. But he won't give an alternate explanation for the existence of this revolver; he won't explain how it came to be in the possession of the police; he won't explain how the police got the actual revolver that was used to shoot Tippit. The shells recovered by eyewitnesses as the scene (from places AWAY from the direct location of the shooting (by Tippit's car); that dismisses the "gun was an automatic" argument) - many of whom say the gunman was Oswald - were fired from that revolver. If it wasn't Oswald then how did the police acquire that revolver?
Again: how did they get that revolver?
He won't answer any of this. He can't. He's trapped himself in his defense of Oswald so that he cannot offer any alternative explanations. Because his approach in defending Oswald - making the evidence disappear - makes him unable with any intellectual consistency to argue for an alternative. Because the evidence for that too must disappear. He's made the revolver and rifle and other evidence disappear and he can't without being exposed for being a conspiracy believer (which he denies) provide one.
Meanwhile, he'll be silent about all sorts of bizarre conspiracy claims like the recent ones involving Ruth Paine. He critically challenges Tracy's examination of the claims but NOT the actual claims. The person making the claims about Paine being some sort of CIA asset or conspirator goes unchallenged.
Lots of other people have tried reasoning with him. They all failed. It's best to move on from this type of conspiracy mindset. You cannot reason with it. I don't know what these people are doing; but it's a big internet and you come across all sorts of things. This is an example of it.
At least the conspiracy believers - who say they are such people - are consistent. Their explanations are absurd, they involve planning and coordination of dozens of people -including civilians. There is no evidence for such planning. It's all supposition and fantasies. But they make them anyway. They don't run when asked for an explanation.
One would think that if he is going to make these claims, then he should be able to answer a couple of basic questions about the basis for his claims. He should be given some time to look up the information if needed. But if he simply decides to not answer my questions then I have to assume that I “stumped” him…
-
One would think that if he is going to make these claims, then he should be able to answer a couple of basic questions about the basis for his claims. He should be given some time to look up the information if needed. But if he simply decides to not answer my questions then I have to assume that I “stumped” him…
Just notice the claim about Carroll: He didn't know where the gun he grabbed came from. He just grabbed it. From Oswald? No. It was just there. So where did it come from? What is the evidence that it came from someone else? What is the alternative explanation? The revolver was the one used to shoot Tippit. How did the police get that revolver from the real shooter of Tippit? What's the explanation.
He won't give one. He can't. So he's going to make the revolver disappear as evidence. It exists but it doesn't; it was recovered but it wasn't; it's there but it's not. This is a defense lawyer tactic, an attempt to find one juror who would let his client walk. It's not how people work out what happened in an event.
This is far too much time on these silly arguments. They are silly and worthless and solely intended for some odd reason to clear Oswald. It's Oswald as Alfred Dreyfus but he won't admit that that's what he is doing.
-
He's going to try and "deconstruct" the evidence and make the revolver disappear. But he won't give an alternate explanation for the existence of this revolver; he won't explain how it came to be in the possession of the police; he won't explain how the police got the actual revolver that was used to shoot Tippit. The shells recovered by eyewitnesses as the scene (from places AWAY from the direct location of the shooting (by Tippit's car); that dismisses the "gun was an automatic" argument) - many of whom say the gunman was Oswald - were fired from that revolver. If it wasn't Oswald then how did the police acquire that revolver?
I don't have to explain anything. You can either authenticate your evidence or you cannot. And you cannot.
And you don't know what revolver was used to shoot Tippit. That's an assumption too. The bullets did not have sufficient characteristics to determine that. And your shells cannot be authenticated either. Blame the cops, not me.
He won't answer any of this. He can't. He's trapped himself in his defense of Oswald so that he cannot offer any alternative explanations.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that your made-up story is automatically correct unless I prove Oswald didn't do it. Your claim, your burden.
Meanwhile, he'll be silent about all sorts of bizarre conspiracy claims like the recent ones involving Ruth Paine. He critically challenges Tracy's examination of the claims but NOT the actual claims.
Oh, please. The film was just released 2 days ago. I didn't have the benefit of Tracy's "perfectly legal copy, I assure you".
Lots of other people have tried reasoning with him. They all failed.
That's because "reason" (or what you think is reason) does not constitute evidence. Evidence does.
-
Just notice the claim about Carroll: He didn't know where the gun he grabbed came from. He just grabbed it. From Oswald? No. It was just there. So where did it come from?
That's a good question. McDonald thought Carroll grabbed it from his hand, not Oswald's. What is your basis for thinking he grabbed it from Oswald?
He won't give one. He can't. So he's going to make the revolver disappear as evidence. It exists but it doesn't; it was recovered but it wasn't; it's there but it's not. This is a defense lawyer tactic, an attempt to find one juror who would let his client walk. It's not how people work out what happened in an event.
Oh, CE 143 definitely exists. You just can't show that it was used to kill Tippit or that it was ever in the possession of Oswald. It's a prosecution lawyer tactic to just made statements of fact like "the revolver was the one used to shoot Tippit" without demonstrating that it's actually true.
-
There is no way that you can conclude that the gun with the officers' initials was anything other than Oswald's revolver.
I would agree with you if the chain of custody was solid.
Even if you think that there is a scintilla of doubt about it, the only other conclusion would be that there was an enormous conspiracy to falsify evidence.
You watch too many movies, I think.. All it would have taken was one person to replace the revolver they took from Oswald with the one that was used to kill Tippit.
What a blizzard of contrarian nonsense. So the revolver in evidence is the one used to kill Tippit? You have previously indicated that it was and then argued it was not. But now it is again. And it has the same serial number as the pistol sent to Oswald's PO Box (as confirmed by third party documentation that preexisted the murder). What an astounding coincidence. The real murderer somehow used Oswald's revolver, Oswald had some different revolver when arrested, and the someone was able to find the revolver used to kill Tippit (Oswald's revolver) and then switch it. Simple. HA HA HA. No one can believe such nonsense.
-
That's a good question. McDonald thought Carroll grabbed it from his hand, not Oswald's. What is your basis for thinking he grabbed it from Oswald?
Oh, CE 143 definitely exists. You just can't show that it was used to kill Tippit or that it was ever in the possession of Oswald. It's a prosecution lawyer tactic to just made statements of fact like "the revolver was the one used to shoot Tippit" without demonstrating that it's actually true.
It has been shown that Oswald purchased a revolver with the same description and serial no. The bullets used to kill Tippit were the same kind of bullet and the four .38 calibre shells found at the scene of his murder had firing pin marks that exactly matched the highly irregular profile of the gun's firing pin. FBI ballistics officers noted that the bullets from Tippit and those known to have been fired by CE143 had the same class characteristics - five lands and five grooves twisting to the right. This was not conclusive because the bullets were a tad smaller than the barrel and the bullet did not rifle properly. But the bullets recovered from Tippit did carry evidence of erosion resulting from barrel gases escaping through the space between the bullet and the barrel.
So it was the gun used to kill Officer Tippit. The only thing then is that it was not absolutely conclusively shown to be in Oswald's possession. So, I guess, if it had been found under a theatre seat near Oswald that you would be saying that there was no connection whatsoever.
I need 12 people like you as jurors on a murder case.
-
It has been shown that Oswald purchased a revolver with the same description and serial no. The bullets used to kill Tippit were the same kind of bullet and the four .38 calibre shells found at the scene of his murder had firing pin marks that exactly matched the highly irregular profile of the gun's firing pin. FBI ballistics officers noted that the bullets from Tippit and those known to have been fired by CE143 had the same class characteristics - five lands and five grooves twisting to the right. This was not conclusive because the bullets were a tad smaller than the barrel and the bullet did not rifle properly. But the bullets recovered from Tippit did carry evidence of erosion resulting from barrel gases escaping through the space between the bullet and the barrel.
So it was the gun used to kill Officer Tippit. The only thing then is that it was not absolutely conclusively shown to be in Oswald's possession. So, I guess, if it had been found under a theatre seat near Oswald that you would be saying that there was no connection whatsoever.
I need 12 people like you as jurors on a murder case.
I think you just need one? <g>. Right, mistrial.
In any case, how did this revolver that was used to shoot Tippit come into the possession of the police? Did they get it from the real shooter? Who they let go? Did they find it? How did they know it was the one used to shoot Tippit?
So they acquire it somehow and then go to the theater and know the person there was the shooter? Was Oswald specifically? Or someone? What exactly? And they, who Carroll? Hill?, just decided to plant it on this person in the theater? Knowing absolutely nothing about him? He could be anyone, he could have an alibi. The witnesses at the scene could all say: "No, that's not the man I saw." But they just planted it on this unknown person seen sneaking (supposedly) into the theater? Meanwhile the real shooter is out there? Why didn't they plant it on the first suspect they grabbed? The person who worked at the library? On and on and on....
None of this, not a lick of it, makes sense on any level. But this is JFK conspiracy land where nonsense is all around.
-
All this bullet crap is non sense. Fact of the matter is Oswald didn't have the time with witnesses placing him in the theatre when Tippit was shot. Whether it's a 38 revolver or 38 automatic is just nothing more than SQUIRELL!
-
I think you just need one? <g>. Right, mistrial.
You need enough to persuade 12 to acquit.
None of this, not a lick of it, makes sense on any level. But this is JFK conspiracy land where nonsense is all around.
I agree. If the victim had been someone other than the President, there would be no issue. The idea that a nobody like Oswald could change history does not sit well with some people.
-
What a blizzard of contrarian nonsense. So the revolver in evidence is the one used to kill Tippit? You have previously indicated that it was and then argued it was not. But now it is again. And it has the same serial number as the pistol sent to Oswald's PO Box (as confirmed by third party documentation that preexisted the murder). What an astounding coincidence. The real murderer somehow used Oswald's revolver, Oswald had some different revolver when arrested, and the someone was able to find the revolver used to kill Tippit (Oswald's revolver) and then switch it. Simple. HA HA HA. No one can believe such nonsense.
So the revolver in evidence is the one used to kill Tippit? You have previously indicated that it was and then argued it was not. But now it is again.
Hey fool, the thing you keep on misunderstanding is that I am merely discussing possibilities. I'm not making, nor have I ever made, any claims. It's not my problem that you don't understand this.
And it has the same serial number as the pistol sent to Oswald's PO Box (as confirmed by third party documentation that preexisted the murder). What an astounding coincidence. The real murderer somehow used Oswald's revolver, Oswald had some different revolver when arrested, and the someone was able to find the revolver used to kill Tippit (Oswald's revolver) and then switch it. Simple. HA HA HA. No one can believe such nonsense.
Another example of your complete ignorance. If Oswald was set up, then it may well have been part of the plan to have him meet somebody at the Texas Theater after Kennedy's murder and bring his revolver. Knowing that he would be there, Tippit would subsequently be killed and the two revolvers were switched just after Oswald's arrest. All it would take was one dirty cop. The fact that you can't figure something like this out as a possibility shows us just how naive you really are.
And before you go of an another pathetic rant, this was hypothetical to offer a possible explanation of what could have happened and thus not a claim about what actually happened. because unlike you I don't pretend to know what happened. I'm just merely trying to find out what likely did happen.
-
You need enough to persuade 12 to acquit.
I agree. If the victim had been someone other than the President, there would be no issue. The idea that a nobody like Oswald could change history does not sit well with some people.
I agree. If the victim had been someone other than the President, there would be no issue. The idea that a nobody like Oswald could change history does not sit well with some people.
Not everybody is that shallow. I don't care either way. Oswald either killed Kennedy or there was a conspiracy (in which Oswald must have played some part) to kill the President. It's water under the bridge. If Oswald was indeed the lone killer, then so be it, but I want to see the conclusive evidence that confirms it and I don't see it. There are way too many unanswered questions, too many "mistakes" by investigators, too many problems with physical evidence that are ignored and too many assumptions not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
So, don't give me any crap about being an Oswald defender, just because I can't believe he could have changed history. That's complete BS. I frequently play devil's advocate to scrutinize the evidence and the silly claims made by LNs and what I get back is just as frequently disappointing and unconvincing.
If I remember correctly, it was Former Deputy Chief Counsel of the HSCA, Robert Tanenbaum, who once said that if you had taken this evidence into court, Oswald would never have been convicted. Based on what I know now, I think he was right.
Btw, I could just as easily argue that some can't handle the possibility that, in America, there could be a conspiracy to murder a President. I can practically hear them say it; something like that happens in third world countries but never in America.
-
So the revolver in evidence is the one used to kill Tippit? You have previously indicated that it was and then argued it was not. But now it is again.
Hey fool, the thing you keep on misunderstanding is that I am merely discussing possibilities. I'm not making, nor have I ever made, any claims. It's not my problem that you don't understand this.
And it has the same serial number as the pistol sent to Oswald's PO Box (as confirmed by third party documentation that preexisted the murder). What an astounding coincidence. The real murderer somehow used Oswald's revolver, Oswald had some different revolver when arrested, and the someone was able to find the revolver used to kill Tippit (Oswald's revolver) and then switch it. Simple. HA HA HA. No one can believe such nonsense.
Another example of your complete ignorance. If Oswald was set up, then it may well have been part of the plan to have him meet somebody at the Texas Theater after Kennedy's murder and bring his revolver. Knowing that he would be there, Tippit would subsequently be killed and the two revolvers were switched just after Oswald's arrest. All it would take was one dirty cop. The fact that you can't figure something like this out as a possibility shows us just how naive you really are.
And before you go of an another pathetic rant, this was hypothetical to offer a possible explanation of what could have happened and thus not a claim about what actually happened. because unlike you I don't pretend to know what happened. I'm just merely trying to find out what likely did happen.
What is with the endless hostility and calling folks "fool"? It a real shame that is allowed to go on. Get a grip on your emotions. Now it's just a "possibility" again that the revolver in evidence is the gun used to kill Tippit. You are all over the place. Why would someone plant another revolver on him that had nothing to do with the Tippit murder if the intent was to frame him for that crime? This fantasy makes even less sense. You are twisting like a pretzel.
-
And it has the same serial number as the pistol sent to Oswald's PO Box (as confirmed by third party documentation that preexisted the murder).
BS: There’s no documentation showing that any pistol was sent to Oswald’s PO box.
-
It has been shown that Oswald purchased a revolver with the same description and serial no.
Bull. What’s actually been shown is that unscientific and biased handwriting “analysis” of a few letters on a copy of an order coupon purports that he filled out the coupon.
The bullets used to kill Tippit were the same kind of bullet
There were literally millions of .38 special bullets. These particular ones did not have sufficient characteristics to identify the weapon.
and the four .38 calibre shells found at the scene of his murder had firing pin marks that exactly matched the highly irregular profile of the gun's firing pin.
Too bad the evidence was so mishandled that you cannot demonstrate those particular shells were found at the crime scene or had anything to do with Tippit.
FBI ballistics officers noted that the bullets from Tippit and those known to have been fired by CE143 had the same class characteristics - five lands and five grooves twisting to the right.
All .38 bullets have 5 lands and grooves with a right twist.
This was not conclusive because the bullets were a tad smaller than the barrel and the bullet did not rifle properly. But the bullets recovered from Tippit did carry evidence of erosion resulting from barrel gases escaping through the space between the bullet and the barrel.
This was a very commonly done modification.
Here’s where the giant leap occurs:
So it was the gun used to kill Officer Tippit.
Sorry, no. That doesn’t just follow.
-
So they acquire it somehow and then go to the theater and know the person there was the shooter? Was Oswald specifically? Or someone? What exactly? And they, who Carroll? Hill?, just decided to plant it on this person in the theater? Knowing absolutely nothing about him? He could be anyone, he could have an alibi. The witnesses at the scene could all say: "No, that's not the man I saw." But they just planted it on this unknown person seen sneaking (supposedly) into the theater? Meanwhile the real shooter is out there? Why didn't they plant it on the first suspect they grabbed? The person who worked at the library? On and on and on....
None of this, not a lick of it, makes sense on any level.
There’s a good reason for that. It’s a ridiculous strawman that no real person has ever suggested.
-
You need enough to persuade 12 to acquit.
I agree. If the victim had been someone other than the President, there would be no issue. The idea that a nobody like Oswald could change history does not sit well with some people.
Jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions doesn’t sit well with people who are interested in the truth.
-
And before you go of an another pathetic rant, this was hypothetical to offer a possible explanation of what could have happened and thus not a claim about what actually happened. because unlike you I don't pretend to know what happened. I'm just merely trying to find out what likely did happen.
One thing I’ve learned about WC-cultists is that they don’t make a distinction between a possible explanation and a claim about what actually happened.
-
What is with the endless hostility and calling folks "fool"? It a real shame that is allowed to go on. Get a grip on your emotions. Now it's just a "possibility" again that the revolver in evidence is the gun used to kill Tippit. You are all over the place. Why would someone plant another revolver on him that had nothing to do with the Tippit murder if the intent was to frame him for that crime? This fantasy makes even less sense. You are twisting like a pretzel.
What is with the endless hostility and calling folks "fool"?
There is no hostility there. It's just a statement of fact.
If you don't want to be called a fool, just stop behaving like one.
And btw, the next time Bill Brown calls somebody foolish, I trust you will jump in and complain about that, right?
-
What a blizzard of contrarian nonsense. So the revolver in evidence is the one used to kill Tippit? You have previously indicated that it was and then argued it was not. But now it is again. And it has the same serial number as the pistol sent to Oswald's PO Box (as confirmed by third party documentation that preexisted the murder). What an astounding coincidence. The real murderer somehow used Oswald's revolver, Oswald had some different revolver when arrested, and the someone was able to find the revolver used to kill Tippit (Oswald's revolver) and then switch it. Simple. HA HA HA. No one can believe such nonsense.
You have previously indicated that it was and then argued it was not. But now it is again.
:D
Because the hardcore CT knows that whatever alternative narrative that is presented will conflict with other evidence and thus will be instantly dismissed and the inevitable humiliation will follow, so they avoid presenting a story that fits. But hilariously Weidmann has exposed a partial narrative which when examined closely is illogical and only reinforces the actual historical events. The back pedalling on display is great fun to watch!
JohnM
-
:D
Because the hardcore CT knows that whatever alternative narrative that is presented will conflict with other evidence and thus will be instantly dismissed and the inevitable humiliation will follow, so they avoid presenting a story that fits. But hilariously Weidmann has exposed a partial narrative which when examined closely is illogical and only reinforces the actual historical events. The back pedalling on display is great fun to watch!
JohnM
Still living in your own little fictional and imaginary world, I see.
Putting your inability to actually discuss the evidence on full display, yet again. Sad.
-
Still living in your own little fictional and imaginary world, I see.
Putting your inability to actually discuss the evidence on full display, yet again. Sad.
Wow, are you still posting here?
I don't post for ages and again you respond almost instantly.
Martin, you desperately need to get a life. Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Wow, are you still posting here?
I don't post for ages and again you respond almost instantly.
Martin, you desperately need to get a life. Thumb1:
JohnM
Just happened to check in when I noticed your BS post.
Two hours is "almost instantly" to you? Wow
-
Just happened to check in when I noticed your BS post.
Two hours is "almost instantly" to you? Wow
(https://i.postimg.cc/44MPdm5j/Capture.jpg)
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/44MPdm5j/Capture.jpg)
JohnM
Stop posting photos of yourself. It's embarrassing.
-
The only reason that WC-cultists are always demanding an “alternative narrative” is to shift the burden of proof and draw attention away from their own inability to substantiate their own narrative.
-
The only reason that WC-cultists are always demanding an “alternative narrative” is to shift the burden of proof and draw attention away from their own inability to substantiate their own narrative.
No. I think the WC defenders want to know what the alternative to the LN conclusion is. The only alternative seems to be one that considers all of the evidence to either be faked or the result of some miracle that not only allowed this huge body of mutually consistent evidence to exist by random chance. Fakery requires an enormous number of people all working together to deceive the public and to keep completely silent for 58+ years. The coincidence argument is statistically as likely as heat flow occurring spontaneously from cold to hot.
-
No. I think the WC defenders want to know what the alternative to the LN conclusion is.
The alternative to the LN faith-based conclusion is:
Indeterminate
The only alternative seems to be one that considers all of the evidence to either be faked or the result of some miracle that not only allowed this huge body of mutually consistent evidence to exist by random chance.
I don’t consider all of the evidence to either be faked or the result of some miracle. What little evidence there is (real evidence, not nonsense like a ring in a cup) is weak, unreliable, circumstantial, contradictory, and tainted. It simply doesn’t lend itself to any solid conclusion.
-
Chauncey Holt said it best in the long interview he gave to his daughter which has been taken down on Youtube. He said something that has stuck with me about the JFK case and just because you find yourself around the events doesn't mean you knew what was going on. Holt was identified by Lois Gibson (loisgibson.com) as one of the three tramps and Holt said he was there and was arrested. He received instructions but thought the situation in Dallas was to scare Kennedy. He had no idea and he followed his instructions. That's what people did in the Kennedy Assassination they followed instructions but that doesn't mean they were all in on it.
No. I think the WC defenders want to know what the alternative to the LN conclusion is. The only alternative seems to be one that considers all of the evidence to either be faked or the result of some miracle that not only allowed this huge body of mutually consistent evidence to exist by random chance. Fakery requires an enormous number of people all working together to deceive the public and to keep completely silent for 58+ years. The coincidence argument is statistically as likely as heat flow occurring spontaneously from cold to hot.
-
The alternative to the LN faith-based conclusion is:
Indeterminate
I don’t consider all of the evidence to either be faked or the result of some miracle. What little evidence there is (real evidence, not nonsense like a ring in a cup) is weak, unreliable, circumstantial, contradictory, and tainted. It simply doesn’t lend itself to any solid conclusion.
Even if each piece of evidence could be considered weak or unreliable on its own, the sheer amount of it makes it reliable and strong. Matching one point of a fingerprint doesn't mean much. But matching 12 is conclusive.
In this case, each piece of evidence forms a few pixels but when you put them together they display a high resolution picture that is unmistakably Oswald.
-
Even if each piece of evidence could be considered weak or unreliable on its own, the sheer amount of it makes it reliable and strong. Matching one point of a fingerprint doesn't mean much. But matching 12 is conclusive.
In this case, each piece of evidence forms a few pixels but when you put them together they display a high resolution picture that is unmistakably Oswald.
Known formally as: consilience of evidence.
But one has to be able to consider the totality of evidence and not isolate one piece while ignoring the rest. Which is what the Oswald defenders do, consciously or not.
It's also why, for me, the alternative idea of this being planned and carried out - in secret - with some larger force directing it is simply not plausible. Too many parts, too many people, too many aspects to control or direct. Read some of the millions of pages of documents that the government has released. Other than seeing the astonishing amount of paperwork that government generates (good lord, memos and cables and cables and memos about other cables and memo ad infinitum) one can see the confusion and disarray of the people inside government. Even people like a Hoover or McCone were unable to keep on top of this.
-
Even if each piece of evidence could be considered weak or unreliable on its own, the sheer amount of it makes it reliable and strong.
What “sheer amount”?
The idea that a few things that aren’t evidence somehow combine to form evidence is frankly silly.
-
But one has to be able to consider the totality of evidence and not isolate one piece while ignoring the rest. Which is what the Oswald defenders do, consciously or not.
The WC narrative is the poster child for ignoring whatever doesn’t fit.
-
What “sheer amount”?
The idea that a few things that aren’t evidence somehow combine to form evidence is frankly silly.
Not only is it not silly, it is legally required. Judges and juries are prohibited from applying the standard of proof to individual pieces of evidence. They must apply that standard only to the whole of the evidence.
-
Not only is it not silly, it is legally required. Judges and juries are prohibited from applying the standard of proof to individual pieces of evidence. They must apply that standard only to the whole of the evidence.
Which doesn't preclude that they can't look at the authenticity, validity and credibility of those individual pieces of evidence.
Nobody is saying that each individual piece of evidence has to be conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt, but when much of the evidence isn't credible or non-persuasive the whole of the evidence will not meet the standard of proof.
-
And the things that aren’t evidence at all don’t “combine” in any way.
-
Except this isn't a case of Judge or Jury hearing the case.
Not only is it not silly, it is legally required. Judges and juries are prohibited from applying the standard of proof to individual pieces of evidence. They must apply that standard only to the whole of the evidence.
-
Except this isn't a case of Judge or Jury hearing the case.
This is true. But are you trying to imply something with your statement? If so, please spell it out for us.
-
Who told you it's legally required to combine nonevidence?
Comedy Gold!
Thumb1:
Who told you there is such a thing as nonevidence? Have you been watching the Dumb and Dumber movie again?
-
nonevidence noun
non·ev·i·dence | \ ˌnän-ˈe-və-dən(t)s , -və-ˌden(t)s \
Definition of nonevidence
: something that is not evidence
Nonevidence is property that does not appear to have evidentiary value and is not the personal property of an arrestee.
— Joseph C. DeLadurantey and Daniel R. Sullivan
nonevidence
in British English
(ˌnɒnˈɛvɪdəns IPA Pronunciation Guide )
NOUN
a lack of evidence
Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers
Dictionary.com:
No results found for nonevidence
-
Dictionary.com:
No results found for nonevidence
Let's analyze this;
You've just been shown information from two dictionaries. You then fail to do your own research, beyond a clearly inadequate source and are apparently sufficiently happy with that, to post an argument for argument's sake (yet again)!
Must be a LN :D
-
Let's analyze this;
You've just been shown information from two dictionaries. You then fail to do your own research, beyond a clearly inadequate source and are apparently sufficiently happy with that, to post an argument for argument's sake (yet again)!
Must be a LN :D
Just providing information. No argument intended.
-
The WC narrative is the poster child for ignoring whatever doesn’t fit.
What does fit is the photo of you happily taking a knee at Oswald's grave
-
People need to understand the WC wasn't set up as Judge and Jury commission. It's apples and oranges of what a Judge and Jury decide in court versus the WC. Hell Oswald had no legal representation with the WC.
This is true. But are you trying to imply something with your statement? If so, please spell it out for us.
-
People need to understand the WC wasn't set up as Judge and Jury commission. It's apples and oranges of what a Judge and Jury decide in court versus the WC. Hell Oswald had no legal representation with the WC.
Yes it is “apples and oranges”, however, Walter E. Craig, then president of the American bar association, represented LHO. He was given access to ALL of the WC’s records, hearings, etc.
-
Yes it is “apples and oranges”, however, Walter E. Craig, then president of the American bar association, represented LHO. He was given access to ALL of the WC’s records, hearings, etc.
"represented Oswald"... What does that mean exactly?
For what purpose exactly did he have access to all WC files etc?
Was he allowed to cross examine witnesses?
-
The man y’all love to hate tells it like it is. Again, I am providing information. No argument intended. Just correcting the claim by Paul J Cummings.
“Rather belatedly, on February 25, 1964, the Commission, wanting to ensure the fairness of its inquiry to the alleged assassin and his family, requested Walter E. Craig, president of the American Bar Association, to participate in the hearings and investigation and advise the Commission whether the proceedings “conformed to the basic principles of American justice.” In effect, he was to look after Oswald’s interests and was even authorized to question witnesses if he desired. Marina Oswald agreed with the arrangement. Craig accepted the appointment but he (and two associates of his who attended the hearings whenever he was absent) was virtually a nonexistent presence at the hearings, asking very few questions (and those innocuous and non-adversarial) of very few witnesses. In no way could they be considered conventional cross-examination. He could have performed the function of a responsible devil’s advocate, asking key Warren Commission witnesses questions that a competent defense attorney would have, but he failed abysmally in this effort and, through no fault of the Warren Commission, turned out to be mere window dressing for the expressed goal of helping to guarantee that a deceased accused be treated fairly and objectively.” Vince Bugliosi - Reclaiming History
-
So basically he didn’t “represent” Oswald at all…
-
So basically he didn’t “represent” Oswald at all…
As Paul J Cummings said, this wasn’t a trial.
-
He didn't have representation. period. Why would provide him or his family representation when they started off with Oswald being the perpetrator?
-
I guess because all people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. I mean, you people here are all over the place with this. You claim the WC wasn't a trial, yet you want to have this Cummings guy fairly representing Oswald. And Cummings, by the way, is a joke - he sure did put up a vigorous fight on behalf of Lee didn't he? Where the hell was this guy when they came up with the ridiculous single bullet theory, ranting and raving? Why the hell have I never even heard of him? And many others either? But of course, you people will throw it up on here like, "Sure, sure...Lee had someone there to make sure things were fair...yet, this was not even a trial."
The WC was a sham. Testimony was given in secret. How many times gas that happened in a court of law? But, but, but - it wasn't a court of law. Uh huh.
Four of the seven members - the people you people hold in such high esteem and in your mind are unimpeachable - disagreed with the conclusions. The HSCA said there was a conspiracy. So which esteemed body was right - the WC or the HSCA? You people can't have it both ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission#Skepticism
-
I guess because all people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. I mean, you people here are all over the place with this. You claim the WC wasn't a trial, yet you want to have this Cummings guy fairly representing Oswald. And Cummings, by the way, is a joke - he sure did put up a vigorous fight on behalf of Lee didn't he? Where the hell was this guy when they came up with the ridiculous single bullet theory, ranting and raving? Why the hell have I never even heard of him? And many others either? But of course, you people will throw it up on here like, "Sure, sure...Lee had someone there to make sure things were fair...yet, this was not even a trial."
The WC was a sham. Testimony was given in secret. How many times gas that happened in a court of law? But, but, but - it wasn't a court of law. Uh huh.
Four of the seven members - the people you people hold in such high esteem and in your mind are unimpeachable - disagreed with the conclusions. The HSCA said there was a conspiracy. So which esteemed body was right - the WC or the HSCA? You people can't have it both ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission#Skepticism
LOL. :D
I think that the only thing that you got right is that Cummings is a joke.
However, Walter E. Craig was the man involved with the Warren Commission proceedings. Not Cummings.
-
What were you drinking when you wrote this. Be honest.
I guess because all people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. I mean, you people here are all over the place with this. You claim the WC wasn't a trial, yet you want to have this Cummings guy fairly representing Oswald. And Cummings, by the way, is a joke - he sure did put up a vigorous fight on behalf of Lee didn't he? Where the hell was this guy when they came up with the ridiculous single bullet theory, ranting and raving? Why the hell have I never even heard of him? And many others either? But of course, you people will throw it up on here like, "Sure, sure...Lee had someone there to make sure things were fair...yet, this was not even a trial."
The WC was a sham. Testimony was given in secret. How many times gas that happened in a court of law? But, but, but - it wasn't a court of law. Uh huh.
Four of the seven members - the people you people hold in such high esteem and in your mind are unimpeachable - disagreed with the conclusions. The HSCA said there was a conspiracy. So which esteemed body was right - the WC or the HSCA? You people can't have it both ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission#Skepticism
-
I guess because all people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. I mean, you people here are all over the place with this. You claim the WC wasn't a trial, yet you want to have this Cummings guy fairly representing Oswald. And Cummings, by the way, is a joke - he sure did put up a vigorous fight on behalf of Lee didn't he? Where the hell was this guy when they came up with the ridiculous single bullet theory, ranting and raving? Why the hell have I never even heard of him? And many others either? But of course, you people will throw it up on here like, "Sure, sure...Lee had someone there to make sure things were fair...yet, this was not even a trial."
The WC was a sham. Testimony was given in secret. How many times gas that happened in a court of law? But, but, but - it wasn't a court of law. Uh huh.
Four of the seven members - the people you people hold in such high esteem and in your mind are unimpeachable - disagreed with the conclusions. The HSCA said there was a conspiracy. So which esteemed body was right - the WC or the HSCA? You people can't have it both ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission#Skepticism
Words of wisdom, Mr. Walton, thanks for sharing them.
The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.
-
David Von Pein, in another thread on a different subject, claimed that the following list of "evidence" proves that Oswald murdered Kennedy. Not only does it do nothing of the kind, but most of it is not evidence at all, but rather rhetoric. Let's take a look.
"1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, November 22, 1963."
This is a claim made about the evidence, not evidence itself. And the claim that he owned the C2766 rifle is merely an assumption, based on an argument that he ordered the weapon from Klein's. And this argument relies on unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of two block-written letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon (from microfilm that is now "missing").
"2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit."
See above. And the CE143 revolver was not shown to have been used in the murder of Tippit. The bullets removed from Tippit lacked sufficient characteristics to identify the weapon used.
"3.) Oswald was positively identified by witness Howard L. Brennan as the person firing a rifle at JFK on 11/22/63."
This is misleading. Brennan testified that he did not see the rifle discharge or recoil. He merely stated that he saw the person "taking aim" for the last shot. This person would necessarily have been crouched down and obscured by boxes, so it's rather remarkable that Brennan somehow managed to see him "from the belt up" and was able to estimate his height, weight, age, and clothing. It's also important to note that Brennan did not make a positive ID at the lineup he attended, despite already having seen Oswald's picture on TV. He came forward several days later after intense pressure from the FBI with a story that he didn't do so because he feared for his family's safety because Oswald might have confederates at large. However, he gave his name to reporters that day, he didn't bother to tell his wife about his fears, and this fear of possible confederates somehow disappeared after Oswald's death.
Meanwhile, witness Amos Euins told a reporter that day that the man he saw was "colored". He also described that the man he saw had a bald spot. Other witnesses including Arnold Rowland, Carolyn Walther, Ruby Henderson, Norman Similas, and Johnny Powell described seeing two men. So why is DVP cherry-picking Brennan? I think we all know the answer to that.
"4.) Marina Oswald admits to having taken pictures of Lee with these weapons on his person"
False. Marina wouldn't (and didn't) know that he had these particular weapons. Marina also said that she took her photos in late February with a camera that is held up to the face. She also initially said she only took one photo, then two. Her story is all over the map. In any case, these photos are not evidence of murder -- even if you could somehow uniquely identify the firearms in them, which you cannot.
"5.) Buell Wesley Frazier observed Oswald take a package into the Book Depository Building on the morning of November 22nd, 1963."
Frazier lated admitted to Tom Meros in an interview that he had been so far behind Oswald that he could no longer see the package at the time Oswald entered the door to the north annex (not the TSBD building itself, BTW). Jack Dougherty saw Oswald enter the TSBD and said he was empty-handed. Frazier also described the bag he saw as being 2-feet long, give or take, and made out of flimsy paper. According to the Anderton memo, Frazier was shown the alleged sniper's nest "bag" on the night of the assassination and said it was not the same package. The package that Frazier described would have been too short to hold the Carcano rifle. In fact there is no evidence whatsoever that either the CE142 bag or the package that Frazier described had a rifle inside it.
"6.) Oswald's claim of "curtain rods" within the package cannot be supported at all. His room needed no curtains, nor rods, and no such rods were ever found in the TSBD or at his residence at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff."
We don't know what Oswald claimed about the package. It's hearsay from Frazier. We also don't know they would have been for his room. Oswald was talking about renting an apartment for Marina the night before. Furthermore, a photo exists of Mrs. Johnson putting up a curtain rod in Oswald's room after the assassination.
"7.) Oswald was seen working on the Depository's sixth floor that morning."
Even DVP admits this isn't evidence of anything. So why is it even on the list? Givens' story about going back to get his cigarettes from his "jacket" (even though he testified to hanging up his coat in the domino room when he arrived) didn't emerge until April, 1964 -- after Lt. Revill told FBI agent Gemberling that Givens had been previously handled by the Special Services Bureau on a marijuana charge and he believes that Givens would change his story for money. Givens originally said that he saw Oswald at 11:50 in the domino room reading a paper. By noon, Givens was at Record and Main watching the motorcade with Edward Shields.
"8.) Oswald's palmprint [Warren Commission Exhibit #637] is found on his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination."
Correction: a partial palmprint turned up a week later on an index card. Carl Day didn't turn it over to the FBI with the other evidence that night, nor did he even tell FBI agent Drain of its existence. He didn't photograph it in place or cover it with cellophane. Furthermore, Sebastian Latona examined the rifle and said that area didn't look like it had been processed at all. He found no traces of ridges there.
"9.) Not ONE SPECK of any bullets/bullet fragments/bullet shells OTHER THAN THOSE COMING FROM OSWALD'S 6.5-MILLIMETER MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE were discovered anywhere in Dealey Plaza, the limousine, the TSBD, Parkland Hospital, or in the victims."
Highly misleading. Not only is this not evidence for who pulled the trigger, it ignores the fact that none of the identifiable fragments have a valid documented chain of custody. Nor is there any evidence that any of them came from any bullet that struck Kennedy or Connally.
"10.) The majority of Dealey Plaza witnesses said shots came from behind the President", in the direction of the School Book Depository Building.
This is not evidence for who did the shooting, or even exactly where the shots came from.
"11.) Oswald makes an unusual trip to Irving on Thursday, November 21, 1963, to retrieve his "curtain rods". His rifle is found missing from Ruth Paine's garage the following day."
There is no evidence whatsoever that any rifle, much less C2766, was in the Paine garage on November 21. As for this trip being unusual, he had only worked at the TSBD for 6 weeks. One of those weeks he came on a Saturday, and one week he didn't come at all.
Interestingly, the curtain rods that the WC "found" in the garage were somehow submitted into evidence via a CSSS form 8 days before they were found in the garage by the WC.
But, again, how is this evidence of murder?
"12.) Oswald left behind, presumably for wife Marina, his wedding ring and just about every dime he had to his name ($170), on the morning of 11/22/63. Logic dictates that he felt he may not return."
That's confirmation bias and rhetoric, not evidence of murder. And you don't know that was "just about every dime he had to his name".
"13.) Oswald was the only Depository employee known to have been INSIDE the Depository Building at the time of the assassination to leave work prematurely on Friday, November 22nd. Why do you suppose this was? The day was only half over."
ALL of the employees left work prematurely on Friday, November 22nd. Several never returned after the motorcade. We know that Shelley told his employees to go home. Just because he said he didn't tell Oswald that directly doesn't mean that Oswald didn't hear him saying it. Asking "why do you suppose" does not constitute evidence.
"14.) Oswald, in flight, shoots and kills Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippit on 10th Street in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff. Multiple witnesses confirm it was Oswald who shot Officer Tippit."
Impossible since only one witness, Helen Markham, saw Tippit being shot. The lineups were unfair and biased by any reasonable standard and hence unreliable. Besides, this is a separate claim which must be proven independently. It doesn't tell you anything about who killed Kennedy.
"15.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of another crime just 45 minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza?"
That's not evidence -- it's a hypothetical question. You haven't demonstrated that Oswald did kill Officer Tippit, but even if you could, that's not evidence for who killed Kennedy.
"16.) Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon, attempts to murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, on April 10, 1963. Marina Oswald herself testifies that "He [Lee]...told me that he had shot at General Walker.""
That's also not evidence, it's yet another unsubstantiated claim. Hearsay from Marina notwithstanding.
"17.) It was PROVEN, no matter what anybody wants to believe to the contrary, that three shots could be fired in the allotted timeframe from Oswald's rifle (and with good accuracy). The probability that Oswald had, in fact, approx. 8.4 seconds to accomplish the shooting further increases the likelihood that Lee could have performed the deed."
a) you don't know what the timespan of the shots were
b) what other people are able to do in experiments that don't exactly match the same situation don't tell you what Oswald could or could not do
c) "could be" doesn't mean "did"
"18.) Try as the conspiracy kooks might, the Single-Bullet Theory [SBT] has still not been proven to be an impossibility."
It also hasn't been proven to have happened. Regardless, that tells you nothing about who did the shooting.
19.) While viewing the Zapruder Film, I cannot see how anybody can say that the BACK of President Kennedy's head is blown away as a result of the head shot. It seems quite obvious while watching and freezing the film at various post-Z313 frames, that the entire rear portion of JFK's head remains intact throughout the shooting."
What is "obvious" to you is subjective and irrelevant. Regardless, this also tells you nothing about who did the shooting.
"20.) It was also proven that Oswald could have indeed travelled, in 90 seconds or less, the distance across the sixth floor of the TSBD and descended the four flights of stairs in time to have been seen by policeman Marrion L. Baker on the building's second floor."
Again, "could have" doesn't mean "did". If Oswald made such a trip in the required 75-90 second timeframe, he somehow managed to do it without being seen or heard by Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles who were in the same stairwell at the time, or by Dorothy Garner who heard Adams and Styles go down before Truly and Baker came up, or by any of the other 9 people who were on floors 4 and 5.
"21.) And then there are the several lies told by Lee Harvey Oswald during the two days he was being held in custody by the Dallas Police Department."
This one is particularly comical because some of your examples of his "lies" are that he said he didn't shoot the President and he said he didn't kill anybody. That's a blatantly circular argument that pre-assumes that the thing you're attempting to prove is true. But even if you could prove that these were lies, it's not evidence for who killed Kennedy.
To recap: out of 21 items, 19 are not evidence at all. Of the remaining two, one is the very questionable and tainted partial palmprint on an index card, and the other is Brennan's questionable and tainted change of heart "identification" several days later.
An excellent summation, Mr. Iacoletti, encouraging to see astute researchers on the side of truth, light and justice expose the big lie for what it is.
The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.