JFK Assassination Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd say the shoulder position of JBC is reasonably close to what it would have been when the single bullet struck. The problem with using those dolls is the shoulders can't turn independently of the hips. JBC's trunk would have rotated more than his hips which probably turned some but not as much as the shoulders. The legs would have turned even less. There's no way I could believe JBC would have rotate to his right while his left leg flare way out to the left. That's just one of the numerous problems with his goofy theory.

It's an easy proposition that anyone can test for themselves. Sit in a chair and try to look over your right shoulder. I think you will find that your legs will turn in the same general direction as the shoulders. They won't turn as much, but they will turn. It would be completely unnatural to rotate your shoulders while at the same time your left leg flared to the left. It just didn't happen.

Andrew has been stuck with this scenario for at least 18 years going back to when he was peddling it on McAdams' forum. It made no sense then and it still doesn't. He keeps trying to force as square peg in a round hole.

 

Oh, dear God, this man has lost it. Folksy H. B. was not testifying at all. He was sitting in his office chair humoring some characters who had asked to interview him 25 years after the JFKA. Obviously - DUH - he would not have been permitted to offer opinions such as he was asked to offer in an informal interview. That was my point: You said he had "offered no evidence, only speculation." I responded that his speculation had been invited by the interviewers. DUH.

Because I try to be helpful, I might suggest that you (1) stop assuming the role of Pretend Lawyer with someone who spent 40 years in the practice of law, because you aren't going to accomplish ANYTHING but making yourself look silly, and (2) stop peppering the forum with inane knee-jerk posts that rather strongly suggest you have no other life.

You were the one that suggested McLain would have made a great witness and now you want to retreat to saying he was not testifying. You can't have it both ways. McLain's statement which wasn't taken under oath is not in any way evidence of a second shooter. Not only that, he would never be allowed to speculate about a second gunman if he was placed on the witness stand because he would be offering an opinion about something he had not observed. Even a layman like myself could figure that out. It seems like that should be obvious to a lawyer of 40 years. If you think McLain would have been a lawyer's dream, just what do you think he would have been allowed to testify to that would have helped make the case for a conspiracy? Why do you think a lawyer would want him?

I believe the evidence for Oswald's supposed statement is Gus Russo's G2 sources, about which Ben Cole knows more than I. Russo's work also makes clear that JFK's and RFK's imminent anti-Castro plans were an open secret within both anti-Castro and pro-Castro communities to which Oswald would have had acess. Moreover, Castro's warnings against U. S. assassination attempts and possible retaliation by him had been published just days before (September 9). Oswald would not have known that Fate would hand him a golden opportunity less than two months later, but the statement is not implausible. Russo makes a very solid case that all this was in fact Oswald's motivation regardless of whether he was part of anything that might technically qualify as a conspiracy. To quote dear old Ronnie, "There you go again" with your assertions of "no evidence" when what you really mean is "no evidence I will consider because I will not consider anything that might counter my LN dogma."

So you think Russo's speculation constitutes evidence. That's a strange position for an attorney of 40 years to take.

Anybody who claims to know Oswald's motivation is speculating. IOW guessing. Does Russo offer any real evidence that was Oswald's motive? Does that even matter to you? Or is the fact that it makes for an interesting story a good enough reason to believe it?