JFK Assassination Forum

Opinions of non-expert testimony is only allowable if it can reasonably concluded from what a witness observed. McLain did not observe the shooting.

Federal Rule of Evidence 701 (Lay Opinion Testimony)
Under FRE 701, a non‑expert witness (a “lay witness”) may give an opinion if it is:

Rationally based on the witness’s perception (what they personally saw, heard, or experienced) LII / Legal Information Institute+1.

Helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue LII / Legal Information Institute.

Not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge — that type of opinion must be given by an expert under FRE 702 LII / Legal Information Institute+2.

For example, a witness might say, “The man looked angry when he saw the victim” or “The car seemed to be going too fast for the wet road” — these are admissible because they are grounded in firsthand observation and helpful to the jury uslawexplained.com.

What’s Not Allowed
Opinions that rely on specialized training, technical methods, or professional standards (e.g., “This handwriting is forged” without expert analysis) are not lay opinions and must be given by an expert www.forensisgroup.com+1.

Special Caution: “Human Lie Detector” Testimony
In criminal trials, courts are especially wary of testimony that functions as a human lie detector — for example, a witness saying, “I think the defendant is lying” about a specific statement. Such testimony is generally inadmissible because it undermines the jury’s role in assessing credibility United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

State Law
Most states follow a version of FRE 701 in their own rules of evidence. Ohio’s rules mirror this framework, so the same principles apply in state criminal trials.

Bottom line: Lay witness opinions are allowed in criminal trials if they are rationally based on firsthand perception, helpful to the jury, and not disguised as expert analysis. However, certain types of opinion — especially those implying truthfulness or falsity about specific statements — are excluded to protect the jury’s role in credibility determinations

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.

The only honest answer would be: we don't know!

Anybody who is interested in this case is working on second hand information and a story put together by talented lawyers. Some of us believe it, some of us have doubts about it and others simply don't believe it at all.

But no matter in which group you are, one thing is for sure; you have never been able to investigate the case with full access to all the evidence (so, not only what the WC published), so all you have is an opinion.

That, by itself is no problem. People have opinions about all sorts of things. There are still some idiots who think Trump is good for the country (yes, that's my opinion), but it gets tricky when opinions are being presented as fact, when the person doing that really hasn't got a clue about his opinion being right or wrong.

Is it possible that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit? Yes, of course that's possible!. Is it possible that Oswald was indeed a patsy as he said? Again, yes, that's possible! Is it possible there was a conspiracy prior to the fact? Sure, despite the absence of evidence, it's still possible! And is it possible that there was a conspiracy after the fact, to wrap the case around an already dead Oswald? Yes, given the track record of the DPD and Henry Wade in the sixties, that's possible also.

And all this, in my opinion, makes the question asked in the opening post obsolete.

You can keep saying "zero evidence" to everyone who disagrees with you, but your opinion that the evidence is inadequate does not equate to zero evidence. {/quote]

It should be easy to prove me wrong. Just present evidence that somebody other than Oswald was complicit in the JFKA. Got any?

The case against Oswald is highly circumstantial with very few dots of physical evidence, interpreted in one particular way, to connect.

You most surely won't agree with this, but by using the same physical evidence and applying a different interpretation a circumstantial case can also be made for some kind of conspiracy.

Now before you ask, I am not going to spend a great deal of time to explain the details of that case as your fanatical approach to this case would automatically make that a waste of time.

I will say this; there are so many anomalies and things that simply don't make any sense and/or add up, that the mere number of those arguments would not only create reasonable doubt about the case against Oswald but also strongly point into the direction of some sort of set up and thus conspiracy.

The problem with these types of shows - which I believe are targeted to people who know little or nothing about the case - is that they feel the need to be balanced.  If you were airing a show on whether the Earth was flat or round, you really don't promote knowledge by giving equal time to those peddling flat Earth nonsense.  In addition, to get viewers, they need to spice up these programs.  If they just came out and said the obvious that Oswald did it, there was no conspiracy, good night, the ratings would be low.  So they have to entertain all the nutty theories to make it more interesting. Cuba, the Mob, CIA etc. The net result is that anyone who casually views this kind of program walks away with the impression that there may be doubt about Oswald's guilt.

On the 40th anniversary, ABC did a similar program hosted by Peter Jennings who passed away a few years later. It was very much a pro-LN presentation. They looked much more extensively at Dale Meyers' computer animation and addressed some of the objections the CTs had about the WC conclusion.

The program I watched last night allowed some questionable statements to be made by some of the CT participants. The one that almost got me to jump out of my seat was when one of them claimed that Oswald threatened to kill JFK while in Mexico City. There is no evidence I am aware of that Oswald made any such statement. How would Oswald even know that a few months later fate would hand him a golden opportunity to achieve infamy?

    I agree. That was Not Lovelady & Shelley that were back by the freight elevator when Truly and Baker were back there. There is Nothing to support that claim.
   

That’s right because Adams /Stiles got to the ground floor by 60 secs and if they saw Lovelady / Shelley then it’s an amazing teleportation trick.