Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.  (Read 16962 times)

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1898
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #50 on: July 28, 2018, 08:06:47 PM »
So what you are saying is that a case based on circumstantial evidence can never be made out.  Unless you have multiple surviving eyewitnesses to a murder or a video of the murder, no one can ever determine who the murderer was.  That is not something reasonable people would ever agree on.

In this case, the circumstantial evidence against Oswald, which includes what he did after the assassination, is overwhelming.  Even without the evidence that Oswald attempted to kill General Walker (which would almost certainly be admitted as similar-fact evidence) the evidence leads to only one reasonable conclusion.

Mr. Oswald: I'm innocent
Mr. Iacoletti: Okay, you can go.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #50 on: July 28, 2018, 08:06:47 PM »


Offline Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
    • SPMLaw
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #51 on: July 30, 2018, 04:44:40 PM »
I didn't say never.  But not when there is just a small amount of circumstantial evidence that is all weak and tainted, no.
Well, there is a large amount of circumstantial evidence. Each piece of evidence may not be persuasive. But that does not mean much. It is the cumulative effect of all the evidence that you have to consider.  You seem to be looking at each piece individually and rejecting each piece because you don't consider it to establish guilt or you think it may be tainted somehow.  No court or investigative body would ever do that. 

Quote
All I can say is, you're easily overwhelmed.
You cannot deny that the evidence actually exists. There is evidence that:
  • the MC was the murder weapon;
  • that it was fired on 22-11-63;
  • that it was fired from the SN;
  • that Oswald owned the MC;
  • that he took a large longish package to work that day that he told Buell Frazier was curtain rods;
  • that Oswald's palm print was on the MC and the boxes in the SN;
  • that Oswald was last seen before the assassination on 6th floor of the TSBD;
  • that Oswald left the TSBD within minutes of the assassination without telling anyone and without permission;
  • that Oswald was the only employee to leave the TSBD before an attendance check was made;
  • that he was in such a hurry to get to his room that he took a taxi when the bus seemed to be taking too long;
  • that he asked the taxi driver to let him off well past his rooming house and he than walked back to the house;
  • that he seemed to be in a hurry and left quickly after getting his handgun and a jacket;
  • that he shot Officer Tippit for no apparent reason when stopped on the street;
  • that he went into the Texas Theater without paying;
  • that he said "Well, it's all over now" and reached for his gun out when being arrested;
  • that no curtain rods were ever found in the TSBD or in his room;
  • that fibres consistent with the green blanket in which Marina said that Oswald's rifle had been stored were found in the paper package found in the SN; and
  • that according to Marina and corroborated by the handwritten note left by Oswald for Marina on the evening of April 10, 1963, Oswald had used the MC to attempt to assassinate General Walker by hiding himself in
  • a place where he could shoot him in the head, then ditched the rifle and got away.
 
That is a lot of evidence.  You just think that it was all fabricated by persons unknown who conspired and arranged before hand to set up the "perfect" assassination and covered up by every FBI investigator and every member of the the WC and HSCA who looked into it.  It is either that, or the evidence is correct but it was set up as part of an elaborate plan by conspirators who wanted JFK dead and chose a buiilding next across from the Dallas police headquarters to do it.  Of course, the conspirators needed Oswald as a "patsy" to deflect the investigation into who really was behind it.  Oswald's murder was part of that plot to frame the patsy.  That murder, of course, was planned and executed flawlessly by Jack Ruby who on the morning of executing this flawless plan went down to the telegraph office at the time Oswald was supposed to be transferred, leaving his dog in the car, and sent $25 to one of his employees.  Then without any possibility of knowing that Oswald was going to be over an hour late in being moved, wandered down into the basement of the Dallas police building.

So let's not talk about the amount of circumstantial evidence being miniscule. What you really need to talk about is the theory that all the circumstantial evidence is either false because of an elaborate conspiracy involving Dallas police, FBI, doctors, ballistics experts, Parkland hospital staff, and the Warren Commission to fabricate and suppress evidence; or was part of an elaborate frame-up of their patsy Oswald, perfectly planned and executed by conspirators who then had Oswald silenced.  Where is the evidence of either?


Quote
Let's talk about that evidence.  You have a secondhand report of something he supposedly told Marina, some photos of Walker's house, and an unsigned undated note in Russian that doesn't even mention General Walker.  What else?
What is your explanation of the "note" left by Oswald for Marina?


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4738
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #52 on: July 30, 2018, 06:12:00 PM »
Mr. Oswald: I'm innocent
Mr. Iacoletti: Okay, you can go.

That was BS the first hundred times you made that lame joke, and still is.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #52 on: July 30, 2018, 06:12:00 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4738
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #53 on: July 30, 2018, 07:16:50 PM »
Well, there is a large amount of circumstantial evidence. Each piece of evidence may not be persuasive. But that does not mean much. It is the cumulative effect of all the evidence that you have to consider.  You seem to be looking at each piece individually and rejecting each piece because you don't consider it to establish guilt or you think it may be tainted somehow.

Evidence that is weak or tainted when combined is still weak and tainted.

 
Quote
the MC was the murder weapon

This is an assumption based solely on two mutilated fragments allegedly found in the limo, and the marks on them being lined up in Robert Frazier's mind, because they didn't line up under the microscope.  There's no evidence that these fragments ever caused a person's death or indeed ever went through any human being.

Quote
that it was fired on 22-11-63

No evidence of that.

Quote
that it was fired from the SN

Weak evidence of that.  The claim that any rifle was fired from the SN relies completely on Euins' claim to have seen a rifle being fired, and Norman's assumption that shots were not only above, but directly above.

Quote
that Oswald owned the MC

No evidence of that whatsoever.  At best you have unscientific handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order blank that offers the opinion that he filled out the coupon.

Quote
that he took a large longish package to work that day that he told Buell Frazier was curtain rods

That's not evidence of murder or indeed of any crime.  Furthermore, the only the people who saw the "longish package" said it was a length that would have been too short to contain the alleged murder weapon.  So this is a complete bust as far as evidence is concerned.

Quote
that Oswald's palm print was on the MC and the boxes in the SN

You mean a partial palm print attributed to Oswald was found on an index card a week later.  And fingerprints on boxes is unremarkable given that his job was to get books out of boxes.

Quote
that Oswald was last seen before the assassination on 6th floor of the TSBD

That's not even true.  Carolyn Arnold said she saw him at either 12:15 or 12:25 in the second floor lunchroom.

Quote
that Oswald left the TSBD within minutes of the assassination without telling anyone and without permission

That's not evidence of murder.  It's not even evidence that he left without permission if he overheard Shelley saying something about there being no more work that day.

Quote
that Oswald was the only employee to leave the TSBD before an attendance check was made
that he was in such a hurry to get to his room that he took a taxi when the bus seemed to be taking too long

All these things dealing with Oswald's "behavior" are highly speculative, and not evidence of anything.  He also offered his cab to another person, which could be interpreted as not being in a hurry.

Quote
that he asked the taxi driver to let him off well past his rooming house and he than walked back to the house

Any conclusion based on this is speculative, and not evidence of anything.

Quote
that he seemed to be in a hurry and left quickly after getting his handgun and a jacket

There's no evidence that he "got his handgun" -- that's another one of many assumptions.  As for being in a "hurry", Earlene Roberts said she looked out the window and saw him just standing there at the bus stop.

Quote
that he shot Officer Tippit for no apparent reason when stopped on the street

Well now you're using your assumption that he shot someone as "evidence" that he shot someone else.

Quote
that he went into the Texas Theater without paying

Another assumption.  Julia Postal said that she wasn't sure if he bought a ticket or not.  I'm not sure how that's evidence of murder though.

Quote
that he said "Well, it's all over now"

Nobody else present at the theater heard him say that.

Quote
and reached for his gun out when being arrested

"Reaching" for a gun is a subjective assessment of one's hand movements.  Furthermore, they had no legal grounds for searching him or arresting him when they approached him in the theater.

Quote
that no curtain rods were ever found in the TSBD or in his room

That's not evidence of murder.

Quote
that fibres consistent with the green blanket in which Marina said that Oswald's rifle had been stored were found in the paper package found in the SN;

All "consistent with" means is that they could have come from that blanket.  Equally true is that they could not have come from that blanket.  Marina peeked in the end of that rolled up and tied up blanket and saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle about 6 weeks earlier.

Quote
and that according to Marina and corroborated by the handwritten note left by Oswald for Marina on the evening of April 10, 1963, Oswald had used the MC to attempt to assassinate General Walker by hiding himself in a place where he could shoot him in the head, then ditched the rifle and got away.

This is all speculative.  The unsigned undated note in Russian that doesn't mention Walker doesn't corroborate anything.  The bullet retrieved from Walker's house was described by the police as steel-jacketed, and Walker himself said that the mutilated fragment they later purported to be from his house was not the same one.  Also, Michael Paine testified that the Oswalds were having dinner at his house on the evening of April 10.

Quote
That is a lot of evidence.

It's a big list of things.  That doesn't make the things evidence of murder, or in many cases even true statements.

Quote
  You just think that it was all fabricated by persons unknown who conspired and arranged before hand to set up the "perfect" assassination and covered up by every FBI investigator and every member of the the WC and HSCA who looked into it.

When did I claim that anything on your list was "fabricated by persons unknown who conspired and arranged before hand to set up the "perfect" assassination and covered up by every FBI investigator and every member of the the WC and HSCA who looked into it"?

Quote
It is either that, or the evidence is correct but it was set up as part of an elaborate plan by conspirators who wanted JFK dead and chose a buiilding next across from the Dallas police headquarters to do it.

No, it's not either that or the other thing.  The evidence either conclusively shows that Oswald committed the crime in question or it does not.  And it does not.  One does not have to appeal to any kind of "elaborate plan" in order to point out that your evidence is weak, circumstantial and tainted.

Quote
  Of course, the conspirators needed Oswald as a "patsy" to deflect the investigation into who really was behind it.  Oswald's murder was part of that plot to frame the patsy.  That murder, of course, was planned and executed flawlessly by Jack Ruby who on the morning of executing this flawless plan went down to the telegraph office at the time Oswald was supposed to be transferred, leaving his dog in the car, and sent $25 to one of his employees.  Then without any possibility of knowing that Oswald was going to be over an hour late in being moved, wandered down into the basement of the Dallas police building.

I'm not sure how making up a story and putting "of course" in front of it somehow makes a different story actually true.

Quote
So let's not talk about the amount of circumstantial evidence being miniscule.

No, actually let's do talk about that, because that's what you are basing your entire argument upon.

Quote
What you really need to talk about is the theory that all the circumstantial evidence is either false because of an elaborate conspiracy involving Dallas police, FBI, doctors, ballistics experts, Parkland hospital staff, and the Warren Commission to fabricate and suppress evidence; or was part of an elaborate frame-up of their patsy Oswald, perfectly planned and executed by conspirators who then had Oswald silenced.  Where is the evidence of either?

Why do I have to talk about a theory that I never postulated or claimed was true?  Just so you can avoid talking about how weak your case is?

Quote
What is your explanation of the "note" left by Oswald for Marina?

My explanation?  I don't think an unsigned, undated note that doesn't mention Walker explains much of anything at all.  Nor do I think that unscientific handwriting "analysis"  -- particularly done by examiners who aren't familiar with the Russian language or the Cyrillic alphabet -- is particularly meaningful in the first place.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2018, 07:22:59 PM by John Iacoletti »

Offline Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
    • SPMLaw
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #54 on: July 31, 2018, 01:36:51 AM »
Ignorant claims do not constitute evidence, like
  • that he took a large longish package to work that day that he told Buell Frazier was curtain rods;
Frazier's testimony is evidence whether you or not you agree with it. It does not cease to be evidence because you think he was fabricating it. In any event, what evidence is there that he was lying?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #54 on: July 31, 2018, 01:36:51 AM »


Offline Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
    • SPMLaw
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #55 on: July 31, 2018, 03:57:09 PM »
OK, I thought you had actual evidence of what Oswald said.

People lie to get out of trouble, you didn't know that?

$o all you have is an uncorroborated claim by Frazier who was in big trouble. Got it.
Well, the fact that Oswald carried a long wide package is corroborated by Linnie Mae Randle (LMR) and by the package itself found in the SN.  I suppose you are going to say that LMR was told that there was 3' x 6" package found in the TSBD before she made up her story of seeing Oswald with a 3' x 6" package in order to protect her brother??!!   I don't think the evidence supports such speculative finding or that it was even possible, given that LMR was questioned by the FBI on 22-Nov-63 a few hours after the assassination.

LMR also said that she asked Frazier why he was bringing Oswald home on a week night and she told the FBI that Frazier said it was because Oswald was fixing up his place and needed curtain rods. How does that help Frazier get out of the "big trouble" he was in. No one thought Frazier was in "big trouble" on 22-Nov-63 when her statement was taken.  It was only afterward when the FBI accused Frazier of having been an accomplice of Oswald's that he would have had any sense of being in trouble.

In any event, how does Frazier's evidence help him get out of "trouble" ie. being accused of helping Oswald?  If he is just making up a story and there really was no package, his story makes it worse because he was aware that Oswald took a large package to the TSBD.  Besides, Frazier was only "in trouble" if he thought he was guilty of something and the only thing he could be guilty of was helping Oswald murder JFK - which would only be the case if Oswald himself was guilty.  So this "consciousness of guilt" argument only works if Oswald was guilty.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2018, 05:23:20 PM by Andrew Mason »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4738
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #56 on: July 31, 2018, 04:41:50 PM »
Well, it is corroborated by Linnie Mae Randle (LMR) and by the package itself found in the SN.

What makes you think that the bag that Frazier and Randle saw is the same bag as CE 142?  They both specifically said it was not.  Besides, there isn't any good reason to think that CE 142 was even in the "SN" when the "SN" was first discovered.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #56 on: July 31, 2018, 04:41:50 PM »


Offline Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
    • SPMLaw
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #57 on: July 31, 2018, 05:46:48 PM »
Evidence that is weak or tainted when combined is still weak and tainted.
Being weak and/or tainted gives it a less than 100% chance of being accurate. Let's suppose there was a 50-50 chance that each piece of evidence might not be accurate.  There are over 50 individual facts that point to Oswald.  The chance that all of them are wrong is 250. Even if 50% of the evidence was wrong, that still leaves 25 pieces of evidence that point to Oswald. How is even that possible if Oswald was not guilty?  The only way that could be reasonably possible is if there was a broad conspiracy either to fabricate and suppress evidence or a conspiracy of the perpetrators to frame Oswald.  It is simply not possible for that much evidence to randomly point to an innocent Oswald

 
Quote
This is an assumption based solely on two mutilated fragments allegedly found in the limo, and the marks on them being lined up in Robert Frazier's mind, because they didn't line up under the microscope.  There's no evidence that these fragments ever caused a person's death or indeed ever went through any human being.

No evidence of that.

Weak evidence of that.  The claim that any rifle was fired from the SN relies completely on Euins' claim to have seen a rifle being fired, and Norman's assumption that shots were not only above, but directly above.

No evidence of that whatsoever.  At best you have unscientific handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order blank that offers the opinion that he filled out the coupon.

That's not evidence of murder or indeed of any crime.  Furthermore, the only the people who saw the "longish package" said it was a length that would have been too short to contain the alleged murder weapon.  So this is a complete bust as far as evidence is concerned.

You mean a partial palm print attributed to Oswald was found on an index card a week later.  And fingerprints on boxes is unremarkable given that his job was to get books out of boxes.

That's not even true.  Carolyn Arnold said she saw him at either 12:15 or 12:25 in the second floor lunchroom.

That's not evidence of murder.  It's not even evidence that he left without permission if he overheard Shelley saying something about there being no more work that day.

All these things dealing with Oswald's "behavior" are highly speculative, and not evidence of anything.  He also offered his cab to another person, which could be interpreted as not being in a hurry.

Any conclusion based on this is speculative, and not evidence of anything.

There's no evidence that he "got his handgun" -- that's another one of many assumptions.  As for being in a "hurry", Earlene Roberts said she looked out the window and saw him just standing there at the bus stop.

Well now you're using your assumption that he shot someone as "evidence" that he shot someone else.

Another assumption.  Julia Postal said that she wasn't sure if he bought a ticket or not.  I'm not sure how that's evidence of murder though.

Nobody else present at the theater heard him say that.

"Reaching" for a gun is a subjective assessment of one's hand movements.  Furthermore, they had no legal grounds for searching him or arresting him when they approached him in the theater.

That's not evidence of murder.

All "consistent with" means is that they could have come from that blanket.  Equally true is that they could not have come from that blanket.  Marina peeked in the end of that rolled up and tied up blanket and saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle about 6 weeks earlier.

This is all speculative.  The unsigned undated note in Russian that doesn't mention Walker doesn't corroborate anything.  The bullet retrieved from Walker's house was described by the police as steel-jacketed, and Walker himself said that the mutilated fragment they later purported to be from his house was not the same one.  Also, Michael Paine testified that the Oswalds were having dinner at his house on the evening of April 10.

It's a big list of things.  That doesn't make the things evidence of murder, or in many cases even true statements.

When did I claim that anything on your list was "fabricated by persons unknown who conspired and arranged before hand to set up the "perfect" assassination and covered up by every FBI investigator and every member of the the WC and HSCA who looked into it"?

No, it's not either that or the other thing.  The evidence either conclusively shows that Oswald committed the crime in question or it does not.  And it does not.  One does not have to appeal to any kind of "elaborate plan" in order to point out that your evidence is weak, circumstantial and tainted.

I'm not sure how making up a story and putting "of course" in front of it somehow makes a different story actually true.

No, actually let's do talk about that, because that's what you are basing your entire argument upon.

Why do I have to talk about a theory that I never postulated or claimed was true?  Just so you can avoid talking about how weak your case is?

My explanation?  I don't think an unsigned, undated note that doesn't mention Walker explains much of anything at all.  Nor do I think that unscientific handwriting "analysis"  -- particularly done by examiners who aren't familiar with the Russian language or the Cyrillic alphabet -- is particularly meaningful in the first place.
Again, all you are doing in suggesting that each of these bodies of evidence is wrong is to make the case that there was a conspiracy either to fabricate or suppress evidence by law enforcement and the WC or by conspirators to frame Oswald for the assassination.  It is impossible, as you suggest, that this evidence is all wrong by random chance.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2018, 05:48:21 PM by Andrew Mason »

Offline Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
    • SPMLaw
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #58 on: July 31, 2018, 05:54:52 PM »
What makes you think that the bag that Frazier and Randle saw is the same bag as CE 142?  They both specifically said it was not.  Besides, there isn't any good reason to think that CE 142 was even in the "SN" when the "SN" was first discovered.
The probability that they randomly made up a story that was consistent with the physical evidence found at the scene is so miniscule that it is simply impossible in real life.  So we can be confident that they saw a longish paper package being carried by Oswald.  Whether they could identify this particular package is a separate issue and does not mean they did not see what they said they saw: i.e. even though they did not think CE142 was the package they saw Oswald carry, they still maintained they saw Oswald carry a longish package that morning.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #58 on: July 31, 2018, 05:54:52 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4738
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #59 on: July 31, 2018, 06:08:31 PM »
Being weak and/or tainted gives it a less than 100% chance of being accurate. Let's suppose there was a 50-50 chance that each piece of evidence might not be accurate.  There are over 50 individual facts that point to Oswald.

 BS:

If you think there are 50 individual facts that point to Oswald being the killer of JFK, then name them.  As we saw in your last post, many of the things you listed weren't evidence of anything other than your own speculation.  And the rest are conclusions that aren't well supported by the actual evidence.  It's not a matter of the evidence not being accurate, it's a matter of your conclusions about the evidence not being justified.  For example you claimed that there is evidence that the C2766 rifle was fired on Nov 22, 1963 but provided no evidence to support this claim.  No conspiracy is necessary to point out that your argument is fallacious.