Truth and Lies: Who Killed JFK

[John Corbett]

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.

[Lance Payette]

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.

[Lance Payette]

I ask for evidence and you give me a big fat IF. Since when do unsworn hearsay statements become evidence. Do you even understand what constitutes evidence? You sure haven't given any indication that you do.

I just noticed this on the other thread in which I referenced mob lawyer Ragano's claims. It illustrates your confusion, or possibly your feigned confusion. I got news for ya: As Martin pointed out, we are w-a-y past the point of trying to apply the Criminal Rules of Evidence to the JFKA. There ain't ever gonna be a trial. There never was a trial. The WC was not a trial. The WC operated according to some wacky Pretend Rules of Evidence where they sorta-kinda went through the motions, but there was no one to object to anything. It was more like an administrative hearing where the Rules of Evidence are relaxed to the point of nonexistence (kind of like Buddy's Used Car Sales, I would guess, where the odometer reading on that 1974 Maverick was only marginally evidential). Even in an administrative hearing, however, there are two opposing sides to keep things honest.

Suddenly your definition of evidence would exclude "unsworn hearsay statements" (whatever that is supposed to mean) as though we were in some JFKA trial in 2026. You may or may not know from your rapt attention to Episode #47 of Perry Mason, but Rule 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence contains 24 exceptions to the prohibition against hearsay, while Rule 807 contains an exception so wide as to almost swallow the prohibition. In any event, Ragano was in fact the lawyer for Hoffa, Trafficante and Marcello. He told a pretty consistent story, including under oath. Much as you might disagree because you don't know what you're talking about, what he said is evidence out here in the real world. We are entitled to attach such credibility and weight to Ragano's story as we wish and to draw such inferences as seem reasonable to us, and you are free to disagree. It's as simple as that.

[John Corbett]

I just noticed this on the other thread in which I referenced mob lawyer Ragano's claims. It illustrates your confusion, or possibly your feigned confusion. I got news for ya: As Martin pointed out, we are w-a-y past the point of trying to apply the Criminal Rules of Evidence to the JFKA.

I guess we're in the let's-just-throw=crap=against-the wall-and-see-what-sticks phase. The Cts have been stuck in that phase for decades. While there are no rules of evidence governing what can be introduced, if you want to make a compelling argument, you need offer compelling evidence for your arguments. So far you have struck out in that department. All you can give us is speculaiton.

There ain't ever gonna be a trial. There never was a trial. The WC was not a trial.

No it wasn't. It was a fact finding body that did it's job extremely well. But that doesn't stop the CTs from using the inadmissable excuse when it suits them, arguing that damning evidence against Oswald would have been inadmissable at trial. It seems like they are trying get Oswald off on a technicality.

The WC operated according to some wacky Pretend Rules of Evidence where they sorta-kinda went through the motions, but there was no one to object to anything.

Thank you for illustrating the point I just made. You want to object to the evidence against Oswald on imaginary grounds yet you are more than willing to introduce things that wouldn't remotely be considered by any court in the land. As I pointed out, the WC was not conducting a trial. It was a fact finding body, not an adversarial proceeding. If you know a lawyer, maybe he can explain the difference to you.

It was more like an administrative hearing where the Rules of Evidence are relaxed to the point of nonexistence (kind of like Buddy's Used Car Sales, I would guess, where the odometer reading on that 1974 Maverick was only marginally evidential). Even in an administrative hearing, however, there are two opposing sides to keep things honest.

So here's where you get to throw out accusations without any evidence to support it. Give us one example where the WC tampered with or falsified evidence. Can't do it? Didn't think so.

Suddenly your definition of evidence would exclude "unsworn hearsay statements" (whatever that is supposed to mean)

If you have a lawyer friend, ask him to explain those terms to you.

as though we were in some JFKA trial in 2026. You may or may not know from your rapt attention to Episode #47 of Perry Mason, but Rule 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence contains 24 exceptions to the prohibition against hearsay, while Rule 807 contains an exception so wide as to almost swallow the prohibition. In any event, Ragano was in fact the lawyer for Hoffa, Trafficante and Marcello. He told a pretty consistent story, including under oath. Much as you might disagree because you don't know what you're talking about, what he said is evidence out here in the real world. We are entitled to attach such credibility and weight to Ragano's story as we wish and to draw such inferences as seem reasonable to us, and you are free to disagree. It's as simple as that.

So tell us specifically what he said that is evidence any of these organized crime figures conspired with Oswald to kill JFK.

[John Corbett]

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.

So tell us what evidence he based his speculation on.