JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on December 08, 2023, 11:16:20 PM
-
Of course as we well know, the legal standard is "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" so why do Conspiracy Theorists often demand that every single piece of evidence is proven beyond all doubt? Richard Smith has jokingly suggested that only a "time machine" where the CT can see the crime itself is often necessary but obviously this is impossible, therefore the Legal system uses the standard of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".
I have seen many instances of where CT's will individualize and argue against a list of evidence and suggest that since each and every piece of evidence doesn't satisfy them to their mythical standard of "beyond All doubt", so they discard the evidence and don't even consider the implications, and hence the insecure CT can go back to his/her Comfort Zone.
For instance, individually some of this evidence does not specifically lead to Guilt but should the totality of this evidence which leads to only one conclusion be considered as a method of evaluating Guilt Beyond a Reasonable doubt or should each and every piece of evidence be isolated and/or ignored.
Oswald against his usual procedure, goes home mid week.
Oswald tells Frazier that he was picking up curtain rods but tells the Police he only had his lunch.
Oswald tells the Police that he kept his lunch with him in the front seat yet Frazier questions Oswald about the long package on the back seat of his car.
No curtain rods are ever found.
A long empty package with Oswald's prints is recovered in the Sniper's nest.
The shells from Oswald's rifle are found on the floor of the Sniper's nest.
The recovered fragments recovered from the Limo are exclusively matched to Oswald's rifle.
There is still no evidence that Oswald's' rifle was planted.
Oswald uncharacteristically leaves behind his wedding ring.
Oswald leaves the majority of his money with Marina.
Oswald walks uncharacteristically 50 feet ahead of Frazier as the walk to the depository.
Oswald has no alibi at the time of the shots.
Oswald's relatively fresh prints are on the rifle rest and the box used as a seat in the snipers nest.
Oswald who was a political fanatic and supposedly liked Kennedy said he was in the lunchroom and didn't ask anyone what happened.
Outside there was screaming and commotion yet at that precise point in time, Oswald wants a coke?
Oswald flees the scene within a few minutes.
Instead of waiting at the bus stop at Houston and Elm, Oswald in his frenzied flight walks past the bus stop and bashes on a door of a bus stuck in traffic.
Oswald continues his panicked flight as gets on and off a bus stuck in traffic.
Oswald gets out of Whaley's cab way past his Rooming house.
Oswald's leaves his rooming house zipping up a jacket, Oswald is arrested without his zipper jacket?
A jacket which Marina says is Oswald's jacket is recovered from a car park which Oswald is seen entering.
Oswald who looks like he's been running and looks like he's scared to Shoe store Manager Johnny Brewer and appears to be hiding in the shoe store lobby as Police sirens can be heard and as the sirens grew fainter, Oswald looks over his shoulder and leaves.
Oswald enters the Texas Theatre without paying.
Oswald punches the Police Officer in the Texas Theatre.
Oswald for some reason is carrying his revolver in the middle of the day in the Texas Theatre and tries to pull the trigger.
Oswald the devout Marxist holds up his fist to reporters.
Oswald refuses a lie detector test.
Oswald lies about ownership of the Murder Weapon.
Oswald lies about holding the Murder weapon in the Neely Street backyard photos and says that someone put his head on someone else's body.
Oswald leaves out Neely street as a place he rented and alters the date of the previous rental to fit.
Oswald's handwriting is on the Money Order for an amount equalling the price of the rifle plus postage.
Kliens has completed internal paperwork for a rifle(C2766) being sent to Oswald's PO Box.
Oswald receiving a 40 inch Italian Carcano and being photographed with a 40 inch Italian Carcano not long after.
Marina sees the butt of a rifle wrapped in a blanket in the Paine garage which is not there when checked on the afternoon of the assassination.
Frazier in his testimony states numerous times that he never paid attention to a long package that Oswald took to work.
The same rifle that Kliens sent to Oswald's PO box was recovered from the 6th floor of his workplace.
Howard Brennan's description in his affidavit on the day of the assassination is a close match to Oswald.
Lt. Day testifies that he removed Oswald's palm print from the Barrel of Oswald's rifle.
The FBI takes a print from the same section of Oswald's rifle and the area matches the same area that is on Day's palm print card.
A CT told me that because the fibres recovered from the rifle could not be matched with Oswald's shirt fibres to the exclusion of every other shirt with the same material and because he considers we need "100% certainty", he completely rejected this evidence! But is that how the Legal System works? Even up until this day the FBI routinely does fibre analysis while full knowing that an unrealistic 100% match is impossible, it comes down to evidence that connects a suspect "beyond a reasonable doubt" Bugliosi uses the term "prohibitive probability" as in the chances of someone else with the exact same shirt touches Oswald's rifle as being not impossible but extremely remote.
I'm sure that most of our Rabid CT's are even now, in their own minds, isolating each and every one of these pieces of evidence and saying to themselves that they think that this Mountain of Evidence doesn't lead to Oswald's Guilt but that isn't for them to decide, a Jury of our peers will look at the totality of this evidence without bias, what conclusion do you think that they would reach?
JohnM
-
So, now you want to discuss what is reasonable or not?
Let me guess what you think the starting point should be; what the LNs say is reasonable and anybody who disagrees with that is unreasonable, right?
OK, how about this; show me conclusive, presuasive evidence for the wild claims you make and I will accept Oswald's guilt. Reasonable enough for you?
I somehow doubt it :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
So, now you want to discuss what is reasonable or not?
Let me guess what you think the starting point should be; what the LNs say is reasonable and anybody who disagrees with that is unreasonable, right?
OK, how about this; show me conclusive, presuasive evidence for the wild claims you make and I will accept Oswald's guilt. Reasonable enough for you?
I somehow doubt it :D :D :D :D :D :D
I will accept Oswald's guilt.
(https://i.postimg.cc/BQrcX2tJ/laugh-at-Weidmann.gif)
Talk about Delusions of Grandeur!
It will never be up to you, because you are a proven Kook!
It's as I spelled out that even a child could understand, it's up to our unbiased peers to figure out if this Mountain of Evidence points to Oswald's guilt!
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/BQrcX2tJ/laugh-at-Weidmann.gif)
Talk about Delusions of Grandeur!
It will never be up to you, because you are a proven Kook!
It's as I spelled out that even a child could understand, it's up to our unbiased peers to figure out if this Mountain of Evidence points to Oswald's guilt!
JohnM
Exactly the response I expected for this "reasonable" propagandist. Even your pathetic gif is named "laugh-at-Weidmann! Says it all, really....
It will never be up to you, because you are a proven Kook!
Is this proven beyond a reasonable doubt or just your pathetic opinion? :D :D :D :D :D :D
But thank you for making clear that you have no interest in convincing the sceptical. You only want to preach to the already converted..... What's the matter, John? Could it be you understand that your arguments are too weak to convince anybody who isn't instantly convinced by your superficial propaganda?
It's as I spelled out that even a child could understand, it's up to our unbiased peers to figure out if this Mountain of Evidence points to Oswald's guilt!
As you spelled out?... Talk about delusions of grandeur. Who died and made you in charge?
-
Let's see if John can answer this;
If you tell 10 lies or half truths do they become true, to a standard of reasonable doubt, when combined?
-
Let's cut to the chase. Show us the evidence, here is the evidence, the evidence is fake. The end. We now have time for a musical interlude.
-
It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the evidence, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took before being accepted by the parties as jurors, and they have the right to expect nothing less.
A “reasonable doubt” is a doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in making the most important decisions of your own affairs.
https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf (https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf)
-
It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the evidence, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took before being accepted by the parties as jurors, and they have the right to expect nothing less.
A “reasonable doubt” is a doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in making the most important decisions of your own affairs.
https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf (https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf)
A “reasonable doubt” is a doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case.
This is absolutely true, but the careful and impartial consideration has to be of all the evidence after it has been scrutinized by the prosecution and defense.
In this case that didn't happen. We were told a fairytale, with evidence being locked away for years and no possibility of examination by the defense.
-
A “reasonable doubt” is a doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case.
This is absolutely true, but the careful and impartial consideration has to be of all the evidence after it has been scrutinized by the prosecution and defense.
In this case that didn't happen. We were told a fairytale, with evidence being locked away for years and no possibility of examination by the defense.
The Warren Commission did not have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was guilty of murdering JFK and that he acted alone. This was a inquiry. They just had to be satisfied as to what happened. Proof beyond reasonable doubt only applies in a criminal trial in which the accused faces criminal sanctions - e.g. loss of liberty or death - if convicted. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is there to protect the rest of the population from false convictions. It does not apply to a public inquiry. OJ Simpson, despite his acquittal, was held to be responsible by a civil jury. Most people who followed the evidence had no difficulty accepting the jury's verdict in the civil case.
Although all seven members signed off on the final report, three did not agree with the Single Bullet Theory. But they concluded, as stated in the WC report, that the SBT was not necessary to reach the conclusion that the SBT was not needed to conclude that Oswald fired all three shots and that he acted alone.
-
The Warren Commission did not have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was guilty of murdering JFK and that he acted alone. This was a inquiry. They just had to be satisfied as to what happened. Proof beyond reasonable doubt only applies in a criminal trial in which the accused faces criminal sanctions - e.g. loss of liberty or death - if convicted. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is there to protect the rest of the population from false convictions. It does not apply to a public inquiry. OJ Simpson, despite his acquittal, was held to be responsible by a civil jury. Most people who followed the evidence had no difficulty accepting the jury's verdict in the civil case.
Although all seven members signed off on the final report, three did not agree with the Single Bullet Theory. But they concluded, as stated in the WC report, that the SBT was not necessary to reach the conclusion that the SBT was not needed to conclude that Oswald fired all three shots and that he acted alone.
The Warren Commission did not have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was guilty of murdering JFK and that he acted alone. This was a inquiry. They just had to be satisfied as to what happened.
Sure it was. That was the point. Perfectly in accordance with the Katzenbach memo. To convince the people that Oswald was the lone gunman was more important than finding out what really happened.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt only applies in a criminal trial in which the accused faces criminal sanctions - e.g. loss of liberty or death - if convicted. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is there to protect the rest of the population from false convictions. It does not apply to a public inquiry.
True, and we can agree, can't we, that the outcome of a public inquiry can never be considered the same as the outcome of a criminal trial, where reasonable doubt does apply.
How understandable the intention of the inquiry was, given the political situation of the day, it was tainted from day one and there was nothing reasonable about it. Anybody who claims Oswald is actually guilty based on the findings of the WC denies reality.
-
The Warren Commission did not have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was guilty of murdering JFK and that he acted alone. This was a inquiry. They just had to be satisfied as to what happened.
Sure it was. That was the point. Perfectly in accordance with the Katzenbach memo. To convince the people that Oswald was the lone gunman was more important than finding out what really happened.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt only applies in a criminal trial in which the accused faces criminal sanctions - e.g. loss of liberty or death - if convicted. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is there to protect the rest of the population from false convictions. It does not apply to a public inquiry.
True, and we can agree, can't we, that the outcome of a public inquiry can never be considered the same as the outcome of a criminal trial, where reasonable doubt does apply.
How understandable the intention of the inquiry was, given the political situation of the day, it was tainted from day one and there was nothing reasonable about it. Anybody who claims Oswald is actually guilty based on the findings of the WC denies reality.
The purpose of a criminal trial is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what happened. Do you really think that OJ Simpson's acquittal by a jury means that OJ did not commit murder?
-
The purpose of a criminal trial is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what happened. Do you really think that OJ Simpson's acquittal by a jury means that OJ did not commit murder?
No, just like the findings of the WC inquiry does not mean that Oswald actually commited the murders.
-
No, just like the findings of the WC inquiry does not mean that Oswald actually commited the murders.
I agree that the WC findings were not made beyond a reasonable doubt. That can only occur in a criminal trial with full cross-examination and scrutiny by parties having an interest in the outcome. As it is, however, it does mean that based on the evidence (all of which is documented) Oswald very probably committed the murders and that they found no evidence of a conspiracy and very small possibility that anyone else participated.
-
I agree that the WC findings were not made beyond a reasonable doubt. That can only occur in a criminal trial with full cross-examination and scrutiny by parties having an interest in the outcome. As it is, however, it does mean that based on the evidence (all of which is documented) Oswald very probably committed the murders and that they found no evidence of a conspiracy and very small possibility that anyone else participated.
As it is, however, it does mean that based on the evidence (all of which is documented) Oswald very probably committed the murders and that they found no evidence of a conspiracy and very small possibility that anyone else participated.
That's a bold statement. We don't even know if we have seen all the evidence, neither do we know if the context in which that evidence is placed is in fact correct. Any attempt to scrutinize the evidence is being blocked and the evidence (as it was) is locked away for decades. A lack of finding evidence of a conspiracy doesn't mean there wasn't one. It can just as easily mean that they didn't look hard enough or were highly selective in what they wanted to find.
Is it possible that Oswald committed the murders and did it alone? Sure it is. But it's equally possible that the lone gunman scenario was the desired outcome and the actual truth was never found and/or told.
To conclude, under these conditions, that Oswald "very probably committed the murders", is passing to a belief system that in no way can be considered reasonable.
-
Of course as we well know, the legal standard is "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" so why do Conspiracy Theorists often demand that every single piece of evidence is proven beyond all doubt?
They don't. LN kooks assume a priori that no doubt pertaining to their faith-based belief system is "reasonable".
LN kooks try to argue that things that are not evidence of anything (like "going home mid-week") somehow constitute evidence, because of their lack of actual evidence.
LN kooks think that silly presumptive rhetoric (like "frenzied flight" and "Oswald's rifle") somehow makes a weak, conjecture-based argument stronger.
-
They don't. LN kooks assume a priori that no doubt pertaining to their faith-based belief system is "reasonable".
LN kooks try to argue that things that are not evidence of anything (like "going home mid-week") somehow constitute evidence, because of their lack of actual evidence.
LN kooks think that silly presumptive rhetoric (like "frenzied flight" and "Oswald's rifle") somehow makes a weak, conjecture-based argument stronger.
Wow so much hysterical anger, calm down for a moment, John, and let's examine why the rifle is actually in fact Oswald's rifle.
Oswald ordered the rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/prxf5rJg/ce-773.jpg)
Oswald paid for the rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/VN6H5Gkj/Oswald-money-order.jpg)
Oswald received the rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Z5JQzKks/Oswald-s-Backyard-photo-a.jpg)
The HSCA expert confirmed the rifle Oswald was holding in the backyard of his rented home on Neely street was indeed the same rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/2yfwd2r9/Photo-hsca-ex-206.jpg)
Oswald touched the rifle and the FBI confirmed that Lt. Days print came from C2766.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6p1g0Djz/fbi-palm-rifle-match.gif)
C2766 was discovered on the 6th floor of Oswald's work place.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7ZLNNCr4/Rifle-Found-In-TSBDFrom-Alyea-Film.jpg)
Oswald's prints were on the rifle carry bag found in the Sniper's Nest
(https://i.postimg.cc/3J2wb97C/Oswald-s-prints-on-the-bag.jpg)
The FBI confirmed that the 3 types of fibers found on Oswald's rifle were a match to the 3 types of fibers found in Oswald's arrest shirt. The FBI's web site confirms that fibers coming from a different source is "extremely remote."
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm#Fiber%20Evidence:%20Assigning%20Significance
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pqgzh2pf/brownshirtfibers-zpsrgyy13mq.jpg)
The rifle in evidence is the exact same rifle that Kleins sent to Oswald's PO box.
(https://i.postimg.cc/X7bH97vN/C2766isinevidence.jpg)
CASE CLOSED!
JohnM
-
Of course as we well know, the legal standard is "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" so why do Conspiracy Theorists often demand that every single piece of evidence is proven beyond all doubt? Richard Smith has jokingly suggested that only a "time machine" where the CT can see the crime itself is often necessary but obviously this is impossible, therefore the Legal system uses the standard of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".
I have seen many instances of where CT's will individualize and argue against a list of evidence and suggest that since each and every piece of evidence doesn't satisfy them to their mythical standard of "beyond All doubt", so they discard the evidence and don't even consider the implications, and hence the insecure CT can go back to his/her Comfort Zone.
For instance, individually some of this evidence does not specifically lead to Guilt but should the totality of this evidence which leads to only one conclusion be considered as a method of evaluating Guilt Beyond a Reasonable doubt or should each and every piece of evidence be isolated and/or ignored.
You raise an important point that is fundamental to fact finding. It is especially important where the case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is very rare that a single item of evidence can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
An item of evidence may be probative of a fact if its existence would be somewhat improbable if the alleged fact was not true. It doesn't really matter how one quantifies that improbability of each piece if there are enough independent pieces of probative evidence. Example: if that improbability was as high as 1/3 for each item, the chance that 10 such pieces could exist independently if the fact was not true is the product of these ten improbabilities ie. 1/3^10 or 1 in 59,049.
I would suggest that each of the items you list would have an improbability of less than 1/3.
-
You raise an important point that is fundamental to fact finding. It is especially important where the case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is very rare that a single item of evidence can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
An item of evidence may be probative of a fact if its existence would be somewhat improbable if the alleged fact was not true. It doesn't really matter how one quantifies that improbability of each piece if there are enough independent pieces of probative evidence. Example: if that improbability was as high as 1/3 for each item, the chance that 10 such pieces could exist independently if the fact was not true is the product of these ten improbabilities ie. 1/3^10 or 1 in 59,049.
I would suggest that each of the items you list would have an improbability of less than 1/3.
Thanks Andrew, I have previously contemplated creating a thread assigning probability for each piece of evidence and I was going to use a percentage number and let the Forum debate the odds of each individual piece of evidence but with the rabid CT defenders that are members here, I decided that coming to a fair conclusion would not be possible. Perhaps in the future?
Btw you say that each item would be less than 1/3 which could be true of some, but specific pieces of evidence like Oswald's rifle, the murder weapon, IMO would be a heck of a lot more.
JohnM
-
Thanks Andrew, I have previously contemplated creating a thread assigning probability for each piece of evidence and I was going to use a percentage number and let the Forum debate the odds of each individual piece of evidence but with the rabid CT defenders that are members here, I decided that coming to a fair conclusion would not be possible. Perhaps in the future?
Btw you say that each item would be less than 1/3 which could be true of some, but specific pieces of evidence like Oswald's rifle, the murder weapon, IMO would be a heck of a lot more.
JohnM
I simplified it a bit. The 1/3 figure is the probability that the fact is not true if there was just that one piece of evidence. In other words 66.7% of the time with such a piece of evidence alone, the posited fact could be expected to be true.
This takes into account the various ways that the fact may not be true, including the possibility that the evidence was fabricated by parties unknown or was the result of a deliberate lie, as well as the possibility that the person may have had poor observational skills etc.
Obviously this will vary from piece to piece and, as you point out, the items of evidence against Oswald would be considerably greater.
If the probability of probative evidence being false is close to 1/2 it is not probative at all so I used 1/3 as the highest probability that probative evidence is wrong.
The point is not to quantify the probability but to show that no matter how large the improbability of a false conclusion from an individual piece of probative evidence is if you have enough pieces and they are all independent of each other, you can remove all reasonable doubt. I set 1/3 as the highest level of improbability you could have and still consider the evidence as probative.
If one has ten such pieces of evidence that are completely independent of each other, and you assume a probability of a false positive of p for each item, the probability that the posited fact is true is (1-p^10) (ie. 1 minus the probability of all ten items being false: p to the 10th power). Even assuming a high chance of 1/3 that each individual piece is false, there would be only one chance in 59,049 that all 10 pieces could exist and the fact not be true: 1-(1/3)^10=1-1/59,049. Obviously, then, the chance that each item leads to a correct conclusion is much greater than the initial assumption of 2/3. It approaches 100%.
Even if a few of the items are not reliable (e.g. the witness did not actually make the observation claimed), the number of ways of the remaining items existing and the fact is not true is still small compared to the number of ways of having the number of ways of having 8 of the 10 being true.
Where it becomes more of a mathematical exercise is when you are analyzing pieces of evidence that are probative of an event that has a finite number ways of occurring and you have evidence that does not completely agree.
For example: the fact to be determined is whether a person wore a specific colour of hat and there are 20 witness statements about the colour, not all of which agree e.g. 15 say black, 2 say blue, 1 says brown, 1 says green and 1 says yellow. This is an either/or question so the evidence can be analysed using a binomial distribution. The binomial distribution is explained here. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution)
-
I simplified it a bit. The 1/3 figure is the probability that the fact is not true if there was just that one piece of evidence. In other words 66.7% of the time with such a piece of evidence alone, the posited fact could be expected to be true.
This takes into account the various ways that the fact may not be true, including the possibility that the evidence was fabricated by parties unknown or was the result of a deliberate lie, as well as the possibility that the person may have had poor observational skills etc.
Obviously this will vary from piece to piece and, as you point out, the items of evidence against Oswald would be considerably greater.
If the probability of probative evidence being false is close to 1/2 it is not probative at all so I used 1/3 as the highest probability that probative evidence is wrong.
The point is not to quantify the probability but to show that no matter how large the improbability of a false conclusion from an individual piece of probative evidence is if you have enough pieces and they are all independent of each other, you can remove all reasonable doubt. I set 1/3 as the highest level of improbability you could have and still consider the evidence as probative.
If one has ten such pieces of evidence that are completely independent of each other, and you assume the highest probability of a false positive, the probability that the all ten pieces would exist if the posited fact is true is 1-(probability all 10 pieces exist if the fact is not true). There is only one way for all 10 pieces to exist out of the 59,048 other possible ways and the fact not be true. Obviously, then, the chance that each item leads to a correct conclusion is much greater than the initial assumption of 2/3. It approaches100%.
Even if a few of the items are not reliable (e.g. the witness did not actually make the observation claimed), the number of ways of the remaining items existing and the fact is not true is still small compared to the number of ways of having the number of ways of having 8 of the 10 being true.
Where it becomes more of a mathematical exercise is when you are analyzing pieces of evidence that are probative of an event that has a finite number ways of occurring and you have evidence that does not completely agree.
For example: the fact to be determined is whether a person wore a specific colour of hat and there are 20 witness statements about the colour. This is an either/or question so the evidence can be analysed amusing a binomial distribution. The binomial distribution is explained here. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution)
Yes, but the problem - as you know - is that the conspiracists reject this evidence, they say it's manufactured or faked. Doesn't matter how many different sources, how many parties, how many different lines that produce the evidence, they insist it's corrupt. Not false or wrong or erroneous; but manufactured.
So the concept of consilience, the one made famous by the biologist Edward Wilson, is meaningless to them. It doesn't matter that we have a variety of sources for this evidence, different lines pointing towards Oswald; they are all manufactured and can be dismissed. Whether it's a waitress or steam fitter or the FBI or the WC, it's all, to borrow the phrase, fruit from the same poisonous tree.
-
Yes, but the problem - as you know - is that the conspiracists reject this evidence, they say it's manufactured or faked. Doesn't matter how many different sources, how many parties, how many different lines that produce the evidence, they insist it's corrupt. Not false or wrong or erroneous; but manufactured.
So the concept of consilience, the one made famous by the biologist Edward Wilson, is meaningless to them. It doesn't matter that we have a variety of sources for this evidence, different lines pointing towards Oswald; they are all manufactured and can be dismissed. Whether it's a waitress or steam fitter or the FBI or the WC, it's all, to borrow the phrase, fruit from the same poisonous tree.
If each piece of evidence is false, the evidence cannot be independent. They cannot all be false by random chance.
So the falsity has to have a common cause. This means there must be a huge conspiracy involving all levels of officials engaged in evidence planting, evidence gathering, evidence preservation and witness tampering If there was evidence of widespread falsification and some coherent reason so many people would not only agree to be involved but would agree to remain silent for 60 years, one would be inclined to have a look at that. But there is not. Nothing. Zero.
-
If each piece of evidence is false, the evidence cannot be independent. They cannot all be false by random chance.
So the falsity has to have a common cause. This means there must be a huge conspiracy involving all levels of officials engaged in evidence planting, evidence gathering, evidence preservation and witness tampering If there was evidence of widespread falsification and some coherent reason so many people would not only agree to be involved but would agree to remain silent for 60 years, one would be inclined to have a look at that. But there is not. Nothing. Zero.
I would agree that in any random run of mill conspiracy it's unlikely that people remain silent. There are all sorts of reasons why the individuals involved in such a conspiracy, at some point in time under certain circumstances, would be prepared to talk.
However, if this was a conspiracy, it's hardly a run of the mill case. All sorts of special circumstances come in to play, especially if high ranking powerful people were indeed involved. Take for instance the military service personal who were present at the autopsy, who were given an order not to discuss what they had seen and knew with anybody on punishment of a court martial. They all kept quie for some fifteen years, until they were given special permission to talk to the HSCA investigators and some of them still were hesitant to talk and not without cause as those who did talk were instantly attacked and ridiculed by WC defenders. It happens nearly every day that witnesses don't want to come forward because they simply do not want to be involved in a criminal matter and/or they fear for the possible consequences. Then of course there were people who performed a minor task without even realizing they were part of a conspiracy, who simply never came forward because of fear or a simple lack of understanding of their involvement. Imagine being a private individual with a story to tell, but that would mean going up against the US Government. Would you tell your story nevertheless? Others were given orders by their superiors to perform a task and not mention it to anybody, like, for instance, Hosty who was told by Shanklin to destroy a note written by Oswald which obviously is destruction of evidence. And let's not forget individuals like Tomlinson who received a phonecall from an FBI agent who told him to keep his mouth shut.
So, it's simply too easy to say that there was no conspiracy because somebody would have come forward after all this time.
-
I would agree that in any random run of mill conspiracy it's unlikely that people remain silent. There are all sorts of reasons why the individuals involved in such a conspiracy, at some point in time under certain circumstances, would be prepared to talk.
However, if this was a conspiracy, it's hardly a run of the mill case. All sorts of special circumstances come in to play, especially if high ranking powerful people were indeed involved. Take for instance the military service personal who were present at the autopsy, who were given an order not to discuss what they had seen and knew with anybody on punishment of a court martial. They all kept quie for some fifteen years, until they were given special permission to talk to the HSCA investigators and some of them still were hesitant to talk and not without cause as those who did talk were instantly attacked and ridiculed by WC defenders. It happens nearly every day that witnesses don't want to come forward because they simply do not want to be involved in a criminal matter and/or they fear for the possible consequences. Then of course there were people who performed a minor task without even realizing they were part of a conspiracy, who simply never came forward because of fear or a simple lack of understanding of their involvement. Imagine being a private individual with a story to tell, but that would mean going up against the US Government. Would you tell your story nevertheless? Others were given orders by their superiors to perform a task and not mention it to anybody, like, for instance, Hosty who was told by Shanklin to destroy a note written by Oswald which obviously is destruction of evidence. And let's not forget individuals like Tomlinson who received a phonecall from an FBI agent who told him to keep his mouth shut.
So, it's simply too easy to say that there was no conspiracy because somebody would have come forward after all this time.
It happens nearly every day that witnesses don't want to come forward because they simply do not want to be involved in a criminal matter and/or they fear for the possible consequences.
What? Like Howard Brennan?
"And then I felt that my family could be in danger, and I, myself, might in danger. And since they already had the man for murder, that he wasn't going to be set free to escape and get out of the country immediately, and I could very easily sooner than the FBI or the Secret Service wanted me, my testimony in, I could very easily get in touch with them, if they didn't get in touch with me and to see that the man didn't get loose." "... "Because I had already more or less give a detailed description of the man, and I talked to the Secret Service and gave them my statement, and the had convinced me that it would be strictly confidential and all that. But still I felt like if I was the only eye witness, that anything could happen to me or my family."
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan4.htm
JohnM
-
What? Like Howard Brennan?
"And then I felt that my family could be in danger, and I, myself, might in danger. And since they already had the man for murder, that he wasn't going to be set free to escape and get out of the country immediately, and I could very easily sooner than the FBI or the Secret Service wanted me, my testimony in, I could very easily get in touch with them, if they didn't get in touch with me and to see that the man didn't get loose." "... "Because I had already more or less give a detailed description of the man, and I talked to the Secret Service and gave them my statement, and the had convinced me that it would be strictly confidential and all that. But still I felt like if I was the only eye witness, that anything could happen to me or my family."
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan4.htm
JohnM
JohnM
Give it up, Mytton. You're still fighting a battle that was already lost decades ago.
You're like Ho Van Lang, the Vietnamese soldier who they pulled out of the jungle in 2013 still believing the war was going on.
You really need to improve on your little game.... Thumb1:
-
Give it up, Mytton. You're still fighting a battle that was already lost decades ago.
You're like Ho Van Lang, the Vietnamese soldier who they pulled out of the jungle in 2013 still believing the war was going on.
You really need to improve on your little game.... Thumb1:
No, I keep firing off a Howitzer, POW BANG WALLOP! and you return with a pea-shooter. Pew, pew pew.
JohnM
-
No, I keep firing off a Howitzer, POW BANG WALLOP! and you return with a pea-shooter. Pew, pew pew.
JohnM
Is this a 5 year old responding?
It really is very amusing when you get worked up like this.... :D
-
Is this a 5 year old responding?
I only respond to a post with the appropriate comprehension level of the recipient!
JohnM
-
I only respond to a post with the appropriate comprehension level of the recipient!
JohnM
So, your are truly clueless as well as obnoxious....
-
So, it's simply too easy to say that there was no conspiracy because somebody would have come forward after all this time.
I was referring to a particular kind of conspiracy in which all the evidence against Oswald have been falsified ie. that Oswald was not involved.
I was not referring to a possibility that Oswald conspired with someone to assassinate JFK. That is still a possibility that the available evidence does not completely eliminate, although it appears to be very unlikely given the evidence that we do have. Marina certainly thought it was unlikely based her knowledge of his behaviour and character.
A conspiracy to falsify evidence not only of the assassination itself and all of the evidence linking him to the rifle and to the SN but also the evidence linking him to the murder of Officer Tippit and the attempted murder of General Walker is a totally different matter. That is an enormous amount of evidence that would have to have involved hundreds of officials who were duty bound not to participate in falsification of evidence.
So, either you accept the evidence as being genuine and subject only to unintentional random errors or inaccuracies, in which case Oswald is still guilty (but may have conspired with someone) OR you must accept a huge multi-level organized conspiracy involving hundreds of officials, none of whom have come forward with evidence of such a conspiracy in 60 years.