Is the Legal standard, "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" OR "Beyond all Doubt"?

[Martin Weidmann]

It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the evidence, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took before being accepted by the parties as jurors, and they have the right to expect nothing less.

A “reasonable doubt” is a doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in making the most important decisions of your own affairs.

https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf

A “reasonable doubt” is a doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case.

This is absolutely true, but the careful and impartial consideration has to be of all the evidence after it has been scrutinized by the prosecution and defense.

In this case that didn't happen. We were told a fairytale, with evidence being locked away for years and no possibility of examination by the defense.

[Andrew Mason]

A “reasonable doubt” is a doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case.

This is absolutely true, but the careful and impartial consideration has to be of all the evidence after it has been scrutinized by the prosecution and defense.

In this case that didn't happen. We were told a fairytale, with evidence being locked away for years and no possibility of examination by the defense.

The Warren Commission did not have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was guilty of murdering JFK and that he acted alone.  This was a inquiry. They just had to be satisfied as to what happened.  Proof beyond reasonable doubt only applies in a criminal trial in which the accused faces criminal sanctions - e.g. loss of liberty or death - if convicted.  Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is there to protect the rest of the population from false convictions. It does not apply to a public inquiry.  OJ Simpson, despite his acquittal, was held to be responsible by a civil jury.  Most people who followed the evidence had no difficulty accepting the jury's verdict in the civil case.

Although all seven members signed off on the final report, three did not agree with the Single Bullet Theory. But they concluded, as stated in the WC report, that the SBT was not necessary to reach the conclusion that the SBT was not needed to conclude that Oswald fired all three shots and that he acted alone. 

[Martin Weidmann]

The Warren Commission did not have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was guilty of murdering JFK and that he acted alone.  This was a inquiry. They just had to be satisfied as to what happened.  Proof beyond reasonable doubt only applies in a criminal trial in which the accused faces criminal sanctions - e.g. loss of liberty or death - if convicted.  Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is there to protect the rest of the population from false convictions. It does not apply to a public inquiry.  OJ Simpson, despite his acquittal, was held to be responsible by a civil jury.  Most people who followed the evidence had no difficulty accepting the jury's verdict in the civil case.

Although all seven members signed off on the final report, three did not agree with the Single Bullet Theory. But they concluded, as stated in the WC report, that the SBT was not necessary to reach the conclusion that the SBT was not needed to conclude that Oswald fired all three shots and that he acted alone.

The Warren Commission did not have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was guilty of murdering JFK and that he acted alone.  This was a inquiry. They just had to be satisfied as to what happened.

Sure it was. That was the point. Perfectly in accordance with the Katzenbach memo. To convince the people that Oswald was the lone gunman was more important than finding out what really happened.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt only applies in a criminal trial in which the accused faces criminal sanctions - e.g. loss of liberty or death - if convicted.  Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is there to protect the rest of the population from false convictions. It does not apply to a public inquiry.

True, and we can agree, can't we, that the outcome of a public inquiry can never be considered the same as the outcome of a criminal trial, where reasonable doubt does apply.

How understandable the intention of the inquiry was, given the political situation of the day, it was tainted from day one and there was nothing reasonable about it. Anybody who claims Oswald is actually guilty based on the findings of the WC denies reality.

[Andrew Mason]

The Warren Commission did not have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was guilty of murdering JFK and that he acted alone.  This was a inquiry. They just had to be satisfied as to what happened.

Sure it was. That was the point. Perfectly in accordance with the Katzenbach memo. To convince the people that Oswald was the lone gunman was more important than finding out what really happened.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt only applies in a criminal trial in which the accused faces criminal sanctions - e.g. loss of liberty or death - if convicted.  Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is there to protect the rest of the population from false convictions. It does not apply to a public inquiry.

True, and we can agree, can't we, that the outcome of a public inquiry can never be considered the same as the outcome of a criminal trial, where reasonable doubt does apply.

How understandable the intention of the inquiry was, given the political situation of the day, it was tainted from day one and there was nothing reasonable about it. Anybody who claims Oswald is actually guilty based on the findings of the WC denies reality.

The purpose of a criminal trial is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what happened.  Do you really think that OJ Simpson's acquittal by a jury means that OJ did not commit murder?

[Martin Weidmann]

The purpose of a criminal trial is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what happened.  Do you really think that OJ Simpson's acquittal by a jury means that OJ did not commit murder?

No, just like the findings of the WC inquiry does not mean that Oswald actually commited the murders. 

[Andrew Mason]

No, just like the findings of the WC inquiry does not mean that Oswald actually commited the murders.

I agree that the WC findings were not made beyond a reasonable doubt. That can only occur in a criminal trial with full cross-examination and scrutiny by parties having an interest in the outcome. As it is, however, it does mean that based on the evidence (all of which is documented) Oswald very probably committed the murders and that they found no evidence of a conspiracy and very small possibility that anyone else participated.

[Martin Weidmann]

I agree that the WC findings were not made beyond a reasonable doubt. That can only occur in a criminal trial with full cross-examination and scrutiny by parties having an interest in the outcome. As it is, however, it does mean that based on the evidence (all of which is documented) Oswald very probably committed the murders and that they found no evidence of a conspiracy and very small possibility that anyone else participated.

As it is, however, it does mean that based on the evidence (all of which is documented) Oswald very probably committed the murders and that they found no evidence of a conspiracy and very small possibility that anyone else participated.

That's a bold statement. We don't even know if we have seen all the evidence, neither do we know if the context in which that evidence is placed is in fact correct. Any attempt to scrutinize the evidence is being blocked and the evidence (as it was) is locked away for decades. A lack of finding evidence of a conspiracy doesn't mean there wasn't one. It can just as easily mean that they didn't look hard enough or were highly selective in what they wanted to find.

Is it possible that Oswald committed the murders and did it alone? Sure it is. But it's equally possible that the lone gunman scenario was the desired outcome and the actual truth was never found and/or told.

To conclude, under these conditions, that Oswald "very probably committed the murders", is passing to a belief system that in no way can be considered reasonable.