Lee Oswald The Cop Killer


Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
Gary Thomas and 49 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer  (Read 236590 times)

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5912
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #2664 on: May 23, 2022, 02:27:23 AM »
And in one line you've pretty much summed up Iacoletti
Takes one line from a lengthy post, takes it completely out of context and then argues against a point that you weren't even making in the first place  ::).

Mytton didn't have time?  :D

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #2664 on: May 23, 2022, 02:27:23 AM »


Offline Vincent Baxter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #2665 on: May 23, 2022, 02:51:15 AM »
Mytton didn't have time?  :D

Have time for what? Well done on attempting a joke that didn't actually make sense.

Have you calmed down from your explosive rant and excessive 'throwing your toys out of the pram' moment with regards to the $25,000 challenge that got our previous thread disabled yet, Weidmann?
Still haven't received a PM with the contact info for yours (and Otto's) solicitors yet.  :-\

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5912
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #2666 on: May 23, 2022, 02:58:29 AM »
Have time for what? Well done on attempting a joke that didn't actually make sense.

Have you calmed down from your explosive rant and excessive 'throwing your toys out of the pram' moment with regards to the $25,000 challenge that got our previous thread disabled yet, Weidmann?
Still haven't received a PM with the contact info for yours (and Otto's) solicitors yet.  :-\

Have time for what? Well done on attempting a joke that didn't actually make sense.

But you still got it, anyway... I wonder why

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #2666 on: May 23, 2022, 02:58:29 AM »


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9957
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #2667 on: May 23, 2022, 04:29:04 AM »
To suggest I'm not providing evidence is ridiculous and misrepresentative.
Juries use common sense all the time to determine which "narrative" is the most realistic/probable.

Perhaps they do, but that doesn’t make it evidence.

Quote
The "Prosecution Narrative" in the case of JFK's assassination is well known, it is the narrative espoused by all LNers. To counter it, there must be a "Defense Narrative" that has emerged from the same evidence available to the Prosecution.

This is why it’s important to distinguish actual evidence from assumptions made about the evidence. The WC narrative is not conclusively supported by the totality of the evidence.

Quote
This is the reason why all the pseudo-defense attorneys who inhabit this forum are irrelevant and always will be - they never provide a "Defense Narrative".

No, that doesn’t absolve the people who make up a narrative from demonstrating that it’s actually true. The burden of proof always lies on the person making the positive claim. The only thing that’s required to reject a claim is to show that it has not met that burden. For example it was not rational to accept as true the claim that the moon is made of cheese prior to humans visiting it. There wasn’t any conclusive evidence to support that — it was just a narrative made up by somebody who considered it “common sense”. Sure, it’s better to keep investigating and come up with a correct answer, but it’s not a requirement for rejection. The point in showing that the proffered evidence is either not evidence at all (ring in a cup), questionable/tainted (lineups), or not pointing to a specific person (shells by the window) is to show why the burden of proof has not been met.

Quote
We are left with determining which narrative is most realistic, most probable, and "common sense" is key to making this determination.

Right. And the best answer that fits all the known evidence is “undetermined”. I know that doesn’t satisfy people who would rather have an answer, even if they have to make one up, but it is what it is.

Quote
The McIntire pic below, taken from the Unger gallery, shows the Hertz clock reading 12:30pm.

Agreed.

Quote
So whatever I present is never going to be an "Absolute Truth" as this is impossible to do.

Also agreed. Which is why the legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not just “story makes sense to me”.

Quote
The screenshot below shows the moment in the DP tape transcripts that the assassination occurs:

Also agreed.

Quote
Dave Powers "was Special Assistant and assistant Appointments Secretary" to JFK.
My common sense is telling me that the assistant Appointments Secretary to the most powerful man on the planet is someone very concerned with timekeeping.

That’s not the same kind of assumption as the previous two. In fact it has no evidentiary basis at all. And even if it happens to be correct, that doesn’t mean his watch was precise or that he remembered it properly. A photo carries much more weight.

Quote
As was his custom, he kept a close eye on his watch regarding the timekeeping of JFK's appointments.

You have given no basis for declaring this as his custom.

Quote
Greer witnesses Kellerman look at his watch and then hears him say "12:30". My common sense is telling me that Kellerman's watch was reading 12:30pm which is why he said "12:30". This happened when they were in underpass, seconds after the assassination.

The problem with this is that it’s hearsay. Greer didn’t see what Kellerman’s watch said. There’s a reason that hearsay testimony is generally not permitted in a trial.

Quote
Four pieces of evidence all pointing to 12:30pm as the time of the assassination.

But the only one you have physical evidence for is the Hertz clock. And there’s no compelling reason to believe it must be more accurate than any other timepiece.

Quote
Can it realistically be the case that within 40 minutes later a six minute discrepancy emerges between the two "times".

Absolutely. Because Curry’s 12:30 announcement was on channel 2 and all the Tippit related timechecks were on channel 1. Different dispatcher, different clock. And besides that, the time of the Tippit shooting is not captured on the police recordings at all — only the aftermath.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2022, 04:39:53 AM by John Iacoletti »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9957
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #2668 on: May 23, 2022, 04:42:27 AM »
I have also presented the evidence of Brewer appearing in the Allen pic riding the wrong way up Elm St at 12:39pm (according to the Hertz clock).

How did you determine that this is Brewer?

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2282
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #2669 on: May 24, 2022, 03:46:14 AM »
Perhaps they do, but that doesn’t make it evidence.

I'm completely baffled by this comment.
Of course a juries' choice of "narrative" is not evidence.
How could it be considered evidence?
I wrote:

"Juries use common sense all the time to determine which "narrative" is the most realistic/probable.
The narrative emerges from the totality of evidence available for any particular case, it determines (and is determined by) how each piece of evidence is interpreted."

The "narrative" is an interpretation of the totality of the evidence in a particular case.
Conversely, any new evidence that emerges is then interpreted in the light of the "narrative".
A jury must then use it's common sense to determine which narrative is more realistic/probable.
But why you would then have to point out that this determination, made by the jury, is not, in and of itself "evidence", is completely baffling.
I've never made such a suggestion and would never think to do so.
I'm clearly missing the point you are making.

Quote
This is why it’s important to distinguish actual evidence from assumptions made about the evidence. The WC narrative is not conclusively supported by the totality of the evidence.

There is no "narrative" that is conclusively supported by the totality of the evidence in this case. I'd wager there are many cases where the narrative isn't conclusively supported by the evidence. Yet a determination must still be made.
At the heart of any criminal case are competing "narratives" from which the jury must choose. This is why Common Sense is of fundamental importance.


Quote
No, that doesn’t absolve the people who make up a narrative from demonstrating that it’s actually true. The burden of proof always lies on the person making the positive claim. The only thing that’s required to reject a claim is to show that it has not met that burden. For example it was not rational to accept as true the claim that the moon is made of cheese prior to humans visiting it. There wasn’t any conclusive evidence to support that — it was just a narrative made up by somebody who considered it “common sense”. Sure, it’s better to keep investigating and come up with a correct answer, but it’s not a requirement for rejection. The point in showing that the proffered evidence is either not evidence at all (ring in a cup), questionable/tainted (lineups), or not pointing to a specific person (shells by the window) is to show why the burden of proof has not been met.

This isn't a trial.
There is no "burden of proof".
Nit-picking at the details is meaningless.
It is a question of competing narratives and which, however imperfect, fits best with the evidence related to this case.

We have very different ideas about what "common sense" is.
You seem to think "common sense" is the same as a belief system - people believing the moon is made of cheese because they've been told to believe that.
In my opinion, it is an intuitive rationalising based on our experiences as human beings.
"What goes up must come down", is a good example of common sense. There's no need to have studied physics or have even heard of the concept of gravity to appreciate this as a general "truism".

Quote
Right. And the best answer that fits all the known evidence is “undetermined”. I know that doesn’t satisfy people who would rather have an answer, even if they have to make one up, but it is what it is.

I didn't mention "answers". Why are you suddenly talking about "answers"?
What is the best narrative?
Is there a better narrative than the LNer one.
What is the best "Defense Narrative" to the LNers "Prosecution Narrative".


Quote
Also agreed. Which is why the legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not just “story makes sense to me”.

Reasonable Doubt is not an empirical measure, it is a measure of Common Sense. It is a subjective measure.
Logic is not interested in Reasonable Doubt, it is only interested in Zero Doubt.

Quote
That’s not the same kind of assumption as the previous two. In fact it has no evidentiary basis at all. And even if it happens to be correct, that doesn’t mean his watch was precise or that he remembered it properly. A photo carries much more weight.

I agree that a photo carries more weight but this does not negate the weight of the testimony of someone like Powers.
It is easily argued that, as the assistant Appointments Secretary to the President of the United States, Powers is an expert in timekeeping. It is the basis of his job. His job is specifically related to keeping a track of time. And not just for anyone, it's for the most powerful man on the planet at that time. And the key piece of equipment for this job must be his watch, which, one would imagine, has to be incredibly reliable.
His testimony on this matter must be considered credible.

Quote
You have given no basis for declaring this as his custom.

He states this himself:

"In accordance with my custom, I was very much concerned about our timing and at just about that point I looked at my watch and noted that it was almost exactly 12:30 p.m."

He is talking about something that is second nature to him - to keep track of the time.

Quote
The problem with this is that it’s hearsay. Greer didn’t see what Kellerman’s watch said. There’s a reason that hearsay testimony is generally not permitted in a trial.

Greer is testifying to seeing Kellerman look at his watch and say "12:30". That's it.
It can be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Kellerman's watch read 12:30pm as:
a) This is what Kellerman states
b) This is the time on the Hertz clock
c) This is the time on Powers' watch
d) This is the timestamp on the DP tapes

It may not be an Absolute Truth but it is a reasonable conclusion.

Quote
But the only one you have physical evidence for is the Hertz clock. And there’s no compelling reason to believe it must be more accurate than any other timepiece.

It doesn't need to be "more accurate", just the same accuracy.

Quote
Absolutely. Because Curry’s 12:30 announcement was on channel 2 and all the Tippit related timechecks were on channel 1. Different dispatcher, different clock. And besides that, the time of the Tippit shooting is not captured on the police recordings at all — only the aftermath.

The impression given here is that the two dispatchers are somehow isolated from each other.
I don't know what the physical set-up of the dispatchers was but the testimony of Gerald Henslee gives a different impression:

Mr. Belin: Could you Just describe your duties there as to what they included?
Mr. Henslee: Well, in this instance, I was not only supervising the channel 1 radio and the incoming radio calls, but was the police dispatcher for channel 2, covering the special event of the arrival of the President of the United States, President Kennedy.


From this I get the impression Henslee was across both channels.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2022, 09:26:44 AM by Dan O'meara »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #2669 on: May 24, 2022, 03:46:14 AM »


Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2282
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #2670 on: May 24, 2022, 03:47:19 AM »
How did you determine that this is Brewer?

No other motorcycle cop reported riding the wrong way up Elm.

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9957
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #2671 on: May 25, 2022, 01:23:30 AM »
There is no "narrative" that is conclusively supported by the totality of the evidence in this case. I'd wager there are many cases where the narrative isn't conclusively supported by the evidence. Yet a determination must still be made.
At the heart of any criminal case are competing "narratives" from which the jury must choose. This is why Common Sense is of fundamental importance.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of a criminal trial. It is for a jury to decide if the state has proven that the defendant committed the crime. No “narrative” is necessary beyond “s/he committed the crime and here is our evidence”. The defendant does not have to figure out who really did it, or make up a better sounding story.

Quote
This isn't a trial.
There is no "burden of proof".
Nit-picking at the details is meaningless.
It is a question of competing narratives and which, however imperfect, fits best with the evidence related to this case.

This is remarkable. In one paragraph you talk about what you think juries must do in a criminal case and in the next you say this isn’t a trial.

Quote
We have very different ideas about what "common sense" is.
You seem to think "common sense" is the same as a belief system - people believing the moon is made of cheese because they've been told to believe that.

There is no difference in believing that the moon is made of cheese because you’ve been told to believe that and believing that, for example, Oswald had a disassembled Carcano in the package that Frazier saw because you’ve been told to believe it. There’s no evidence to support either belief (or “narrative” if you prefer). Appealing to “common sense” is not a substitute for that evidence. I don’t have to make up a different story about what was in the package when there is no evidence for the rifle story.

Quote
In my opinion, it is an intuitive rationalising based on our experiences as human beings.

Humans “intuitively rationalised” that lightning bolts were thrown by Zeus, based on their experiences as human beings.

Quote
"What goes up must come down", is a good example of common sense. There's no need to have studied physics or have even heard of the concept of gravity to appreciate this as a general "truism".

Sure, until you come across a helium balloon or the Voyager probe.

Quote
I didn't mention "answers". Why are you suddenly talking about "answers"?
What is the best narrative?
Is there a better narrative than the LNer one.

Yes. Given that the LNer narrative cannot be demonstrated to be true, then (as I mentioned), the best narrative is “undetermined”, or the null hypothesis. If you want to try to make up a superior narrative to “undetermined”, that’s admirable, but it doesn’t give the “Oswald did it” story any more credence.

Quote
Reasonable Doubt is not an empirical measure, it is a measure of Common Sense. It is a subjective measure.
Logic is not interested in Reasonable Doubt, it is only interested in Zero Doubt.

Agreed, but we’re back to the trial context again. Absolute certainty about anything is impossible, but that doesn’t mean that a 1% story automatically wins until somebody makes up a 2% story.

Quote
It is easily argued that, as the assistant Appointments Secretary to the President of the United States, Powers is an expert in timekeeping.

Easily argued doesn’t mean there is any reason to believe that it’s true. It’s easily argued that the world is flat.

Quote
It is the basis of his job. His job is specifically related to keeping a track of time. And not just for anyone, it's for the most powerful man on the planet at that time. And the key piece of equipment for this job must be his watch, which, one would imagine, has to be incredibly reliable.

Unless Powers ever said how and when he calibrated his watch, this is pure speculation based on imagination.

Quote
His testimony on this matter must be considered credible.

His testimony wasn’t about how precise he kept his watch.

Quote
He states this himself:

"In accordance with my custom, I was very much concerned about our timing and at just about that point I looked at my watch and noted that it was almost exactly 12:30 p.m."

But you claimed that his custom was that “he kept a close eye on his watch regarding the timekeeping of JFK's appointments”. He didn’t say that. He said it was his custom to be concerned about their timing.

Quote
Greer is testifying to seeing Kellerman look at his watch and say "12:30". That's it.
It can be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Kellerman's watch read 12:30pm as:
a) This is what Kellerman states
b) This is the time on the Hertz clock
c) This is the time on Powers' watch
d) This is the timestamp on the DP tapes

It may not be an Absolute Truth but it is a reasonable conclusion.

It may be a reasonable conclusion that they all put the shots in Dealey Plaza at about 12:30. That doesn’t mean that it’s reasonable to conclude that they were all set independently or that they corresponded to real time.

Quote
The impression given here is that the two dispatchers are somehow isolated from each other.

I never said anything about their proximity to each other. Just that their time announcements were based on separate clocks of unknown synchrony.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2022, 01:33:31 AM by John Iacoletti »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #2671 on: May 25, 2022, 01:23:30 AM »


 

Mobile View