Lack Of Damage To CE-399

[Denis Pointing]

Yes. If there is enough independent evidence for the trier of fact to be satisfied that it could not reasonably fit together, as it does, without the ultimate conclusion advanced by the prosecution being correct, then the prosecution has proven the case. 

It is not so much the absolute quantity of evidence but the fact that there are many independent pieces of evidence that fit together that makes the case.  The more such pieces one has, and the more unlikely it is that each piece would fit by chance, the easier it is to dispel all reasonable doubt about the overall conclusion.  It is the way that evidence fits together that ultimately gives one the assurance that the sources of evidence are reliable (eg. the fact that multiple witnesses made similar observations and this fit with the accused's description upon arrest and with the connection to the accused) that dispels all reasonable doubt about the overall conclusion (which, in the example I gave, was the identity of the killer).

The key is the independence of the evidence.  The nature and quantity of evidence may help dispel doubt about the independence of the pieces of evidence (for example: if the only other conclusion is that there would have to have been an elaborate scheme of collusion between a large number of people, all of whom lied under oath, and that the scheme was perfectly planned and executed - a conclusion rejected as being unreasonable).35 years as a criminal defence lawyer (Canada).

Thanks for replying Andrew, and making your argument so clearly. What makes this so relevant to the JfK assassination is that any reasonable CT (not the kooks) can't deny the huge amount of individual pieces of evidence against Oswald. Of course, he/she may not accept that evidence on the grounds it mostly circumstantial but even so, in a court of law, that wouldn't necessarily be enough for an acquittal. It would be good to know if the same rule is applied in the US. If it did/does, then I can see no-way Oswald could have failed to have been found guilty.
Thanks again, fascinating post. 
 

[Bill Chapman]

This is getting a bit [out there for me]
Are we still discussing a bullet that appears to have no visible damage?

Are we still discussing a bullet that appears to have no visible damage?

Oh, so you were discussing a bullet that had no visible damage.
My bad, all along I thought the discussion was about CE 399

@Newbies: You'll never see any CTer post this image

[Tom Scully]

The bullet that Tomlinson found was on an unrelated stretcher and had a pointed tip.

How is this a "well established principle of law"?

If each piece of evidence individually doesn't meet a reasonable doubt standard, then how could they possibly meet it when combined?

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/B%20Disk/Bullet%20CE-399/Item%2006.pdf

[Steve Howsley]

Unfortunately many of the loons and kooks have gotten their impression of how a trial would have played out from the 1992 fantasy book by Walt Brown "The People Vs. Lee Harvey Oswald"    .......   Evidence and proof are casually thrown out like the Big Mac wrappers at a Trump state dinner.

Jerry, That is Champagne Comedy!!     

[Royell Storing]

Are we still discussing a bullet that appears to have no visible damage?

Oh, so you were discussing a bullet that had no visible damage.
My bad, all along I thought the discussion was about CE 399

@Newbies: You'll never see any CTer post this image

        That photo of CE 399 does Not display roughly 90% of the bullet. This is right in line with the JFK Autopsy Photo where a Dr is pulling JFK's hair Up & Over the Entire Back of his Head. Like the audience viewing a David Copperfield performance, this chicanery prompts everyone to ask themselves, "Just What is this guy trying to hide?"

[Walt Cakebread]

        That photo of CE 399 does Not display roughly 90% of the bullet. This is right in line with the JFK Autopsy Photo where a Dr is pulling JFK's hair Up & Over the Entire Back of his Head. Like the audience viewing a David Copperfield performance, this chicanery prompts everyone to ask themselves, "Just What is this guy trying to hide?"

Hi Royell.... It's funny that it never registered with my reasoning that there are probably some folks who wouldn't know that the photo is the END VIEW of a projectile and therefore they might believe that the photo shows a badly damaged bullet....

It seems bizarre to me .....But after reading the posts of some members of the forum......I guess it's possible.

[Jerry Freeman]

Are we still discussing a bullet that appears to have no visible damage?Oh, so you were discussing a bullet that had no visible damage. My bad, all along I thought the discussion was about CE 399@Newbies: You'll never see any CTer post this image

 
 If you fire a bullet [even though it is through the vacant head of the strawman that made reply #204] it will certainly cause explosive damage to the base. Something called a PRIMER  If you fire it through a real live body it will be seriously damaged. Go find a bullet that wasn't. I guess Chappo assumes that [newbies] are automatically idiots and do not know this.