Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[JayUtah]

I guess I'm not convinced I should take the unsupported opinions of these people as Gospel.

Finding a different way to dismiss the evidence without addressing it doesn't help you.

Are you trying to imply you are an experienced trial lawyer?

No, I'm asking you what your experience is in the obtaining of oral testimony, formal examinations, cross-examinations, transcription. etc. You're telling us, based on your reading of the transcripts, that the examination of Markham was somehow suspicious or improper, and that it led to a conclusion that should not have been drawn.

You've made this a pretty prominent point in your argument, so I'm asking you to state the foundation for that interpretation.

Please don't try these disingenuous tactics on me.

Asking someone to state the foundation for his judgment is not being disingenuous. Answer the question.

Now put your assertion compared to something like six times it took the prosecuting attorney to lead Markham to agree that she had identified Oswald.

Markham's testimony begins on page 305 of the relevant volume. Please identify by page and/or line number all the times Markham denies or evades that she identified Oswald (i.e., suspect no. 2) in the lineup.

Shall I post all the times in the relevant testimony she affirms (often unsolicited) that she identified Oswald? Hint: it's more than once.

Edited to add: I think I see what you're referring to. I'll stipulate that on the bottom of page 310 there is a rapid-fire exchange in which Ball asks Markham several times whether she recognized anyone in the lineup and that she answers in the negative several times. I'll presume this is what you mean unless you indicate differently.

You'd better go back and read it again.

I have -- several times. The whole thing, not just the parts reproduced on your various web sites.

Nice of you to put your own words in Markham's mouth.

I didn't. That's what the little square brackets indicate. And you're quoting from the excerpt as it was read into the Warren Commission's record, which is inaccurate. I have the whole transcript; you do not.

No point in producing the transcript if you're going to rewrite it to suit yourself.

I'm reproducing the transcript as it actually existed, not as it was quoted in the Warren Commission testimony record. See, these little inconsistencies often occur, even in unremarkable, mainstream history. The WC testimony erroneously drops the "oh well -- he was -- no he wasn't." My only edit was to reproduce Lane's phrase to which she was specifically responding, only to suit the format of my post. I had to get Lane's comment in there somewhere, because it was material.

So Lane is 'pestering' her when he persists in his inquiry. Is that what prosecution lawyers did when they persisted in trying to get her to confirm she identified Oswald?

No, not at all. The two are, in my opinion, two entirely different kinds of lines of questioning.

What would be interesting to discover is why she gave this description to a reporter which led Lane to call her in the first place.

Pity you haven't read the full transcript. She kind of explains that.

I see why you persist in trying to make this about me...

Nope. If you believe I'm making personal arguments or attacks then report the post for moderation. But don't try to insinuate as much for pure rhetorical effect.

...you don't seem to be having much success in arguing on the facts.

I'm willing to let the reader judge which of us is arguing more accurately about the facts.

 

[I Ratant]

As much as I think that manifesto and proudfoot are blowing smoke, I do have to agree at this point. You made a positive, verifiable, testifiable, falsifiable claim so you do bear the burden to provide evidence to back up your claim that this guy, Lane was it, was/is a liar or lied. If only to shut them up.

.
It can't work. These "one-book" guys are like puppies shaking a sock. They're gonna do that, forever.
You've seen this fixation on the religion forum. Same aberration.
Posner references Lane 19 times, with citations to the pertinent WCR references.
I'll leave it to the "researchers" to collect their own information, rather than spoon-feed them.
They DO have that information, don't they?

 

[proudfootz]

Exactly. It doesn't matter that you fervently wish there wasnt a huge and insurmountable preponderance of evidence against Oswald. It's there.

Yes, that is a claim frequently made.

But that which you assert without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The evidence says beyond a doubt that it was Oswald.

And you may even believe that.

Exactly, no matter how fervently you wish you could prove him innocent, the overwhelming evidence shows him to be guilty. I'm glad you agree with me.

Of course I agree that opinions don't trump facts.

Thus far we have your repeated confession of faith.

The facts? Nowhere to be seen.

A pity those "facts" have never been presented here.

They may have been presented and dismissed by true believers in the Warren Commission. People of the book can be a hard sell.

Amazingly, the only thing the CTists ever seem to do is speculate. Who knows, you might start doing something different. Some day.

Another claim by you, without even the hint of factual support. I can see where this is going...

No hypothesis at all, huh?

Why is this so important to you? Am I throwing you off your game plan?

 

[JayUtah]

I prefer to stick with what can be established facts.

And who do the established facts show killed Kennedy?

I don't understand why you are wedded to the notion that wild speculation must be indulged in.

I'm not asking you to indulge in wild speculation. I'm asking you to look at the entire body of evidence and tell me to whom it points most accusingly. If you can't tell me it points to anyone more strongly than Oswald, then just say so.

I think I can go along with this, so far.

Then you should answer the questions.

By what standard of proof do you propose to exonerate Oswald, and why is that the correct standard of proof for this kind of investigation?

By whose judgment does the body of evidence fail to meet the standard of proof, and why is that good judgment?

This speculation is interesting.

It's not speculation. It's an observation followed by an inference.

The observation is that every JFK conspiracy theorist seems to take the stance of exonerating Oswald by saying the evidence against him just doesn't hold up. Therefore since it wasn't Oswald acting alone, it "had" to be a conspiracy. Again, that's my observation based on years of debating this with conspiracy theorists. Feel free to show me otherwise if I've mischaracterized it.

The inference is an attempt to explain why this approach is taken. I infer that conspiracy theorists want to set up a line of reasoning that requires them to do the least amount of work and avoid making any affirmative claims, yet appear to have drawn the most defensible conclusion. Hence the notion that Oswald isn't guilty beyond reasonable doubt seems well tailored to that presumed goal. It requires the author only to erode a bit of faith in the case against Oswald, without really stating any sort of definable target or measuring how successful he is.

So, in your opinion, this is what is required.

No, that is what's required. If you disagree, try to get a real historian to follow your argument.

So, to return to the Jack the Ripper analogy - if I disagree with your theory that Abraham Lincoln was the culprit it's not enough...

Straw man.

Let me now state that I disagree with this 'requirement' you've invented.

I already knew that. I'm explaining why conspiracy theorists aren't taken seriously. Their inability to make headway without stacking the deck is fairly apparent to real historians.

And the quantity isn't that much. In my opinion.

So to turn this sentence into an answer to my two key questions, the standard of proof is "quality isn't that much," and the judge is you. Would that be a fair statement?

Your opinion is duly noted. As has been suggested - your enthusiasm for your opinion doesn't change the facts.

Why do you keep trying to frame my arguments in a hypothetical emotion?

You argue passionately that we should look at the facts. I'm asking you if the facts point to any other person more strongly than they do to Oswald. Without attempting to answer that question, there's no point in looking at the facts -- that's why we turn to them.

 

[JayUtah]

But that which you assert without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Nonsense. The evidence you're frantically trying to explain away is the body of evidence against Oswald. By trying to undermine it or dismiss it, you acknowledge its existence.

Of course I agree that opinions don't trump facts.

The whole point of looking at the facts is to attempt to draw a conclusion regarding who killed Kennedy. That someone looks at the body of evidence and inductively arrives at a conclusion or belief is not somehow anathema. It is, in fact, the point of the exercise.

They may have been presented and dismissed by true believers in the Warren Commission. People of the book can be a hard sell.

No, contrary to your desires, we are not all just blind, religious believers in the Warren Commission. But it does rather tip your hand. As I said, conspiracy theorists want to argue that the case against Oswald was too flimsy, and as such there had to be a conspiracy and that the Warren Commission was at least one organ of government complicit in that theory.

It all boils down to attacking the Powers That Be, for that is every conspiracy theory. It's common to project your antagonism along those lines to a reciprocal favoritism in your opponents, but such is not the presumption. My belief that Kennedy was most likely killed by Oswald acting alone is not a product of dogmatic faith in government.

I can see where this is going...

Enlighten us. Where is this going, in your estimation?

Why is this so important to you? Am I throwing you off your game plan?

"Game plan?" Who has one of those? I certainly don't. Do you?

Is your "game plan" to look at the evidence solely for a way to discredit your critics, to discredit the Warren Commission, and to exonerate Oswald at all costs? That does seem to be what you're trying to do.

 

[proudfootz]

Finding a different way to dismiss the evidence without addressing it doesn't help you.

The opinions expressed by Ayton or Posner are only evidence of their opinions. I can't see why you're trying to make these fellows out to be indisputable experts whose words are brute facts that must be unquestioningly accepted.

No, I'm asking you what your experience is in the obtaining of oral testimony, formal examinations, cross-examinations, transcription. etc. You're telling us, based on your reading of the transcripts, that the examination of Markham was somehow suspicious or improper, and that it led to a conclusion that should not have been drawn.

,...and your expertise and experience along those lines is...?

You've made this a pretty prominent point in your argument, so I'm asking you to state the foundation for that interpretation.

Apparently it's every bit as good yours is, or of any intelligent person.

Asking someone to state the foundation for his judgment is not being disingenuous. Answer the question.

Do try to make this a discussion about me. So much better 'technique' than addressing the evidence - for you, anyway.

Markham's testimony begins on page 305 of the relevant volume. Please identify by page and/or line number all the times Markham denies or evades that she identified Oswald (i.e., suspect no. 2) in the lineup.

Shall I post all the times in the relevant testimony she affirms (often unsolicited) that she identified Oswald? Hint: it's more than once.

Her's some of the difficulty they had getting Markam to get with the program:

Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.

As the reader can see, it doesn't take an expert to observe that Markham is saying the common English word NO repeatedly and without ambiguity. She didn't recognize anyone in the lineup, didn't know them, didn't identify them, had never seen any of them before, etc.

I didn't. That's what the little square brackets indicate. And you're quoting from the excerpt as it was read into the Warren Commission's record, which is inaccurate. I have the whole transcript; you do not.

So what you're telling me is that you have the real information and that the Warren Commission version is corrupted? Interesting!

I'm reproducing the transcript as it actually existed, not as it was quoted in the Warren Commission testimony record. See, these little inconsistencies often occur, even in unremarkable, mainstream history. The WC testimony erroneously drops the "oh well -- he was -- no he wasn't." My only edit was to reproduce Lane's phrase to which she was specifically responding, only to suit the format of my post. I had to get Lane's comment in there somewhere, because it was material.

Yes, I have also heard that several witnesses complained their testimonies were changed when reproduced by various investigating bodies.

No, not at all. The two are, in my opinion, two entirely different kinds of lines of questioning.

Thanks for your opinion.

Pity you haven't read the full transcript. She kind of explains that.

If Markham chose to use the phrase, and Lane uses the same phrase to recount their conversation, I'm still at a loss to determine how in your opinion that constitutes some sort of 'lie'.

Nope. If you believe I'm making personal arguments or attacks then report the post for moderation. But don't try to insinuate as much for pure rhetorical effect.

It's actually an effort to guide you toward a discussion of the facts of the case instead of making this a discussion about me.

I'm willing to let the reader judge which of us is arguing more accurately about the facts.

Me, too!

 

[proudfootz]

And who do the established facts show killed Kennedy?

It's unknown, like the identity of Jack the Ripper.

I'm not asking you to indulge in wild speculation. I'm asking you to look at the entire body of evidence and tell me to whom it points most accusingly. If you can't tell me it points to anyone more strongly than Oswald, then just say so.

Looking at the entire body of evidence, the identity of the persons who pulled the triggers is unknown.

Then you should answer the questions.

As I have been doing. It's hardly my fault you don't seem to be happy with the answers, is it?

By what standard of proof do you propose to exonerate Oswald, and why is that the correct standard of proof for this kind of investigation?

By means of forensic science as has been admitted to courts of law.

By whose judgment does the body of evidence fail to meet the standard of proof, and why is that good judgment?

As we have seen with Markham's testimony, some of the 'evidence' put forward is rather dubious at best.

It's not speculation. It's an observation followed by an inference.

Your opinions about what 'conspiracy theorists' supposedly think are nothing short of the wildest speculation. Unless you can back up these assertions you'd be better off leaving them out and sticking with demonstrable facts.

The observation is that every JFK conspiracy theorist seems to take the stance of exonerating Oswald by saying the evidence against him just doesn't hold up. Therefore since it wasn't Oswald acting alone, it "had" to be a conspiracy. Again, that's my observation based on years of debating this with conspiracy theorists. Feel free to show me otherwise if I've mischaracterized it.

Thanks for sharing your opinions - but your opinions don't hold any sway.

The inference is an attempt to explain why this approach is taken. I infer that conspiracy theorists want to set up a line of reasoning that requires them to do the least amount of work and avoid making any affirmative claims, yet appear to have drawn the most defensible conclusion. Hence the notion that Oswald isn't guilty beyond reasonable doubt seems well tailored to that presumed goal. It requires the author only to erode a bit of faith in the case against Oswald, without really stating any sort of definable target or measuring how successful he is.

That is indeed a nice story. Step one: imagine what someone thinks. Step two: imagine how that 'information' might best be used to poison the well against persons who disagree with you.

Really, it's almost foolproof method of 'winning' an argument.

No, that is what's required. If you disagree, try to get a real historian to follow your argument.

I think you are wrong. Citing an imaginary 'real historian' doesn't give me much faith in your opinion.

Straw man.

That would be an accurate way to describe your 'conspiracy theorist' theory.

I already knew that. I'm explaining why conspiracy theorists aren't taken seriously. Their inability to make headway without stacking the deck is fairly apparent to real historians.

Again, the imaginary 'real historian' is conjured up.

Who are we talking about? Posner? Bugliosi?

So to turn this sentence into an answer to my two key questions, the standard of proof is "quality isn't that much," and the judge is you. Would that be a fair statement?

You have set yourself as the arbiter of proof. There is no reason why I cannot claim the same privilege.

Unless, of course, you want to go the whole 'double standards' route.

Why do you keep trying to frame my arguments in a hypothetical emotion?

I think you started that game with your 'panties in a wad' remark early on.

You argue passionately that we should look at the facts. I'm asking you if the facts point to any other person more strongly than they do to Oswald. Without attempting to answer that question, there's no point in looking at the facts -- that's why we turn to them.

It's my conclusion that the facts point away from Oswald. There is no necessity to know the identity of the killer(s) to establish that conclusion.

If you are unable to comprehend the meaning of this we will be unable to have a discussion.

 

[JayUtah]

The opinions expressed by Ayton or Posner are only evidence of their opinions.

Or maybe they aren't. Maybe they are accurately reported facts. How would you go about determining that? Even if you agree they are "only opinions," they still bear examination. They don't cease to be evidence simply because they are conclusions reasoned from a premise. If you want to show that they shouldn't be considered, you have to show how the pertinent facts were misstated, or how the conclusion they draw doesn't follow logically.

First you tried to sidestep the evidence according to an ad hominem argument that the authors were "blogger" and "plagiarist." Now you're trying to sidestep it by saying it's "only opinion." That doesn't stop it from being probative.

I can't see why you're trying to make these fellows out to be indisputable experts whose words are brute facts that must be unquestioningly accepted.

Where have I done any such thing? Straw man.

Apparently it's every bit as good yours is, or of any intelligent person.

First of all, I never alleged my level of expertise. Nor am I required to in order to ask you for your foundation. Since you're the one offering the opinion that the examination of Markham was somehow anomalous, I am asking you to provide a foundation for that judgment.

Second, the question was not about intelligence. It was about experience. What is your experience in obtaining oral testimony in a legal context, transcribing it, examining a witness, or cross-examining a witness?

I grow weary of asking. If you have only a layman's experience with it, then be honest and say so. Continuing to evade the question suggests you have something to hide, which further suggests you know you're making judgments outside your ken.

Do try to make this a discussion about me. So much better 'technique' than addressing the evidence - for you, anyway.

Part of your "evidence" is your opinion that the questioning of Markham was irregular or anomalous. I'm examining the basis of that evidence, which is the foundation of experience you may or may not have dealing with the examination of witnesses.

Here's some of the difficulty they had getting Markam to get with the program:

Stipulated, as above. Our posts evidently crossed. I had assumed wrongly that you were referring to a different part of the testimony.

As the reader can see, it doesn't take an expert to observe...

But it might take an expert to know why that exchange occurred. Markham had already sworn to have recognized and identified a person in the lineup. That deposition was before the examiners. A deposition is just as admissible as oral testimony under oath. If you say one thing in a deposition and another thing on the stand, you had better believe counsel will quiz you on that point.

Ball, knowing that Markham's testimony was already on record, was legitimately surprised when she appeared to contradict her previous testimony. Naturally he wanted to give her every opportunity to understand the question and answer consistently. She eventually did, and you predictably cut off your quotation of the transcript before Ball asked for an explanation for the denial and Markham gave him one -- she had misunderstood the question.

So what you're telling me is that you have the real information and that the Warren Commission version is corrupted? Interesting!

That's an interesting way of avoiding the question of whether you've read the entire transcript of the telephone call.

It's actually an effort to guide you toward a discussion of the facts of the case instead of making this a discussion about me.

As long as you insist on applying your judgment to the facts and drawing conclusions, then the basis of that judgment is on the table and will be examined until you either defend or withdraw it. Trying to sidestep it by begging the question that "any intelligent person" would conclude similarly to you is just plain evasive.

 

[proudfootz]

Nonsense. The evidence you're frantically trying to explain away is the body of evidence against Oswald. By trying to undermine it or dismiss it, you acknowledge its existence.

I see. Now I'm supposedly 'frantic'.

Your desire to make this personal is as transparent as it is irrelevant.

The whole point of looking at the facts is to attempt to draw a conclusion regarding who killed Kennedy. That someone looks at the body of evidence and inductively arrives at a conclusion or belief is not somehow anathema. It is, in fact, the point of the exercise.

Certainly it would be good to know the identity of the assassins. But in order to do that, one must first stop being misled down blind alleys chasing the wrong suspect.

No, contrary to your desires, we are not all just blind, religious believers in the Warren Commission. But it does rather tip your hand. As I said, conspiracy theorists want to argue that the case against Oswald was too flimsy, and as such there had to be a conspiracy and that the Warren Commission was at least one organ of government complicit in that theory.

It's not that I want to argue it is flimsy, it just is.

It all boils down to attacking the Powers That Be, for that is every conspiracy theory. It's common to project your antagonism along those lines to a reciprocal favoritism in your opponents, but such is not the presumption. My belief that Kennedy was most likely killed by Oswald acting alone is not a product of dogmatic faith in government.

Well, there's nothing like a strawman argument about the alleged 'psychology' of someone you don't agree with. A rather obvious tactic.

Surely you can do better than make this about 'conspiracy theorists' and your imagining what they are thinking.

Enlighten us. Where is this going, in your estimation?

South.

"Game plan?" Who has one of those? I certainly don't. Do you?

Well, the person I was responding to seems to be really upset I don't do things his way. My plan is to take an intelligent look at the facts and come to my own conclusions.

Is your "game plan" to look at the evidence solely for a way to discredit your critics, to discredit the Warren Commission, and to exonerate Oswald at all costs? That does seem to be what you're trying to do.

It's not so much that I have critics, as I have a smattering of posters who seem to be less than pleased that someone holds an opinion that differs from theirs.

 

[proudfootz]

As well as fleeing from the scene of a crime, resisting arrest, reckless endangerment, perhaps a few others that posters more familiar with the law could list. But he wasn't any more innocent of those crimes than just the three you are counting.

Yes, these are all things of which Oswald has been convicted in the press.

Would you charge everyone who left Dealey Plaza with 'fleeing the scene of a crime'? Really?

It's possible Oswald resisted arrest. But it's also possible some cops decided to beat on a suspect and charge him with resisting arrest. It wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened.

I'm not sure what 'reckless endangerment' is supposed to refer to.

What you do need is reasonable doubt. And, by your own admission, disputing one witness isn't enough to provide that.

I didn't claim it was - Markham happened to come up as her very poor showing as a 'witness' doesn't bode well for the quality of the evidence some imagine is so overwhelming.

 

[Mudcat]

Proudfootz, please stop me if I'm wrong, but what I'm reading so far is that you don't have any idea who might have killed Kennedy if not Oswald, or how Oswald became a person of interest or a suspect in the commission of the assassination/murder/attempted murder. You want to insert some reasonable doubt but your attempt so far is to try to discredit the testimony of an eye witness, which you failed to do, without attempting to address the rest of the evidence against him.

Is this about the shape of it?

If it is, why should anyone take you or your arguments seriously?

 

[JayUtah]

It's unknown, like the identity of Jack the Ripper.

What is your obsession with Jack the Ripper? If you must -- there are actually a few candidates for the identity of Jack the Ripper. The facts do not point inexorably toward any one of them, but they do point in some measure to each of them.

You are unable to do this for the Kennedy assassination.

Looking at the entire body of evidence, the identity of the persons who pulled the triggers is unknown.

In your opinion.

As I have been doing.

Except for the all-important question of how you're able to judge that the questioning of Markham was improper.

It's hardly my fault you don't seem to be happy with the answers, is it?

Yes, it's entirely your fault. If your answers don't satisfy me, I will keep asking them until they do.

By means of forensic science as has been admitted to courts of law.

A court of law imposes several standards of proof -- preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing proof, and beyond reasonable doubt. And they only apply to actual trials in a court, not anywhere else. Do police investigating a crime apply any of these standards of proof before filing charges?

And you forgot to tell us why this is the appropriate standard of proof to apply in this case.

As we have seen with Markham's testimony, some of the 'evidence' put forward is rather dubious at best.

You didn't answer, and you're begging the question. Who judges whether the evidence meets your proffered standard of proof?

Unless you can back up these assertions you'd be better off leaving them out and sticking with demonstrable facts.

Well, you just demonstrated it above. According to you the standard of proof is that required by a court of law, and the evidence -- according to you -- just doesn't hold up. I presume you'll consider your own statements suitable demonstrations of my characterization.

Thanks for sharing your opinions - but your opinions don't hold any sway.

Whereas yours apparently do -- such as whether Markham is credible, whether her examination under the Warren Commission was proper, and whether Lane accurately represented her statements to him. You even said your basis for these opinions was just as valid as mine, which you further equated to that of "any intelligent person." So apparently you and any other person is perfectly allowed to examine the facts and form an opinion -- but only yours are to be respected.

I think you are wrong. Citing an imaginary 'real historian' doesn't give me much faith in your opinion.

Then cite the vast ranks of well-known Kennedy or Cold War historians who accept any of the conspiracy theories. Go on -- I dare you.

That would be an accurate way to describe your 'conspiracy theorist' theory.

If only your own arguments didn't so aptly exemplify them.

You have set yourself as the arbiter of proof.

No, I haven't. I'm simply asking the basis according to which you've arrived at your judgments.

There is no reason why I cannot claim the same privilege.

Then do it. Name a suspect and make a case. Oh, that's right. You can't, therefore you pretend you don't have to.

It's my conclusion that the facts point away from Oswald. There is no necessity to know the identity of the killer(s) to establish that conclusion.

If you are unable to comprehend the meaning of this we will be unable to have a discussion.

If you are unable to comprehend why that's a completely useless conclusion, then you are correct in that we will be unable to have a discussion.

 

[proudfootz]

You can hypothetically exculpate Oswald until the cows come home. But as long as there is still more evidence for his guilt than for some other actual person's guilt, you still haven't solved anything.

Naturally, if Oswald is exculpated it does change things.

That would seem to me the point of some people fervently defending the Oswald-did-it scenario.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to make an affirmative case for another suspect and show that the preponderance of evidence favors him more than it does Oswald. Imaginary trials where you acquit Oswald in your mind have no value either in law or in history.

Oswald has already been convicted in imaginary trials have no value in law or history either - just FYI.

It doesn't matter to me if someone on the internet only wants to hear speculations about who did it.

Honestly, I see no reason to take such persons seriously. Do you?

 

[JayUtah]

Your desire to make this personal is as transparent as it is irrelevant.

Then stop bringing it up in every post. It's like you're trying so very hard to convince somebody of something you're not sure they can see for themselves.

Certainly it would be good to know the identity of the assassins. But in order to do that, one must first stop being misled down blind alleys chasing the wrong suspect.

Fine, but you are apparently unburdened by the bias of chasing Oswald. With what you insinuate is a more sober and complete view of the facts, you can't see that the facts point to any other assassin. Once you cross Oswald off the list, you're fresh out of suspects. Hm.

It's not that I want to argue it is flimsy, it just is.

It is, in your opinion. And you clearly don't want the basis of that opinion to be too closely examined.

Your desire not to debate the question, and the proposal to put it beyond the scope of scrutiny, is irrelevant. You're just demanding that we accept your opinion as fact.

Well, there's nothing like a strawman argument about the alleged 'psychology' of someone you don't agree with. A rather obvious tactic.

It's a completely appropriate line of reasoning following your "people of the book" quip. Unless you meant something other than that your critics must be just blind believers in the Warren Commission.

My plan is to take an intelligent look at the facts and come to my own conclusions.

So your plan is to form an opinion. Yet if someone else does that, it's suddenly anathema, nonprobative, and somehow indicative of poor reasoning.

It's not so much that I have critics, as I have a smattering of posters who seem to be less than pleased that someone holds an opinion that differs from theirs.

A common complaint, not not very accurate. Around here, it matters how well you can support your opinion with facts and sound reasoning, not what your opinion actually is. That's not to say we aren't interested in truth where we can get it. But you earn respect here for being able to support your opinions well, not for toeing some imaginary line.

 

[Mudcat]

Yes, these are all things of which Oswald has been convicted in the press.

And he might have been convicted of those very same crimes in a court of law had he lived.

Would you charge everyone who left Dealey Plaza with 'fleeing the scene of a crime'? Really?

I wouldn't because I'm not a district attorney, who decides what charges are brought against whom.

It's possible Oswald resisted arrest.

He did, according to witnesses at the scene.

I'm not sure what 'reckless endangerment' is supposed to refer to.

He resisted using the very same weapon allegedly used in the shooting death of officer Tippit in what I assume was a crowded theater. If it was then a case for reckless endangerment could certainly be made.

I didn't claim it was - Markham happened to come up as her very poor showing as a 'witness' doesn't bode well for the quality of the evidence some imagine is so overwhelming.

Discrediting one piece of evidence amongst many doesn't detract from the overall quality of the rest of the body of the evidence, despite what you may believe.

 

[JayUtah]

Naturally, if Oswald is exculpated it does change things.

But according to you, he is exonerated. What has it changed for you? You're left with a dead President and no suspects. At least the Jack the Ripper aficionados have a few hopefuls to choose from.

Oswald has already been convicted in imaginary trials have no value in law or history either - just FYI.

Irrelevant straw man. My belief or argument isn't based on any of those.

It doesn't matter to me if someone on the internet only wants to hear speculations about who did it.

I'm not asking you to speculate. I'm asking you whether the body of evidence points to some other suspect besides Oswald. You've already answered that it doesn't. I'm asking you to look at the facts and draw a different affirmative conclusion. You say you can't. But the point remains salient because that's the whole point of looking at the facts. If you aren't trying to solve the murder, then what exactly are you trying to do?

You imply you'd make headway if everyone wasn't so fired up about Oswald. But you don't believe Oswald did it. So you are not burdened by any such bias. So what headway have you made? Apparently none, nor even the willingness to attempt to make headway.

Honestly, I see no reason to take such persons seriously. Do you?

Yes, I do. People asking who the facts show killed Kennedy, if not Oswald, are in my opinion the only people asking a useful question.

 

[proudfootz]

Or maybe they aren't. Maybe they are accurately reported facts. How would you go about determining that? Even if you agree they are "only opinions," they still bear examination. They don't cease to be evidence simply because they are conclusions reasoned from a premise. If you want to show that they shouldn't be considered, you have to show how the pertinent facts were misstated, or how the conclusion they draw doesn't follow logically.

So long as you are willing to entertain the possibility that opinions of various authors might be 'accurately reported facts' then there should be no problem my taking information from authors of my own choosing.

First you tried to sidestep the evidence according to an ad hominem argument that the authors were "blogger" and "plagiarist." Now you're trying to sidestep it by saying it's "only opinion." That doesn't stop it from being probative.

I do hope you'll remember you posted this when I cite authors of my own choosing.

Where have I done any such thing? Straw man.

I'll withdraw that.

First of all, I never alleged my level of expertise. Nor am I required to in order to ask you for your foundation. Since you're the one offering the opinion that the examination of Markham was somehow anomalous, I am asking you to provide a foundation for that judgment.

I feel that any demands for expertise or experience you ask of me are fair questions you should be asking of yourself.

If you choose to proceed on the basis of some kind of double standard, then we will be unable to conduct any kind of rational discussion.

Second, the question was not about intelligence. It was about experience. What is your experience in obtaining oral testimony in a legal context, transcribing it, examining a witness, or cross-examining a witness?

This will go more smoothly if you could bring yourself to play the ball and not the man.

I grow weary of asking. If you have only a layman's experience with it, then be honest and say so. Continuing to evade the question suggests you have something to hide, which further suggests you know you're making judgments outside your ken.

Stop tiring yourself out asking such inane questions.

Part of your "evidence" is your opinion that the questioning of Markham was irregular or anomalous. I'm examining the basis of that evidence, which is the foundation of experience you may or may not have dealing with the examination of witnesses.

Part of the story that 'Markham identified Oswald as the shooter' included her repeated denials that she had so identified him. I supplied that half of the story which was so conveniently forgotten.

That the prosecution lawyers weren't troubled by this performance does not in my opinion mean it shouldn't be of interest of be left out of this discussion.

Stipulated, as above. Our posts evidently crossed. I had assumed wrongly that you were referring to a different part of the testimony.

Thank you.

But it might take an expert to know why that exchange occurred. Markham had already sworn to have recognized and identified a person in the lineup. That deposition was before the examiners. A deposition is just as admissible as oral testimony under oath. If you say one thing in a deposition and another thing on the stand, you had better believe counsel will quiz you on that point.

Yes, it's interesting to think what a defense attorney would do with a witness like Markham on cross examination.

Ball, knowing that Markham's testimony was already on record, was legitimately surprised when she appeared to contradict her previous testimony. Naturally he wanted to give her every opportunity to understand the question and answer consistently. She eventually did, and you predictably cut off your quotation of the transcript before Ball asked for an explanation for the denial and Markham gave him one -- she had misunderstood the question.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Where can I read Ball's testimony about what he claims he was trying to do in this exchange?

That's an interesting way of avoiding the question of whether you've read the entire transcript of the telephone call.

How is it I'm supposedly 'avoiding' a question that I wasn't asked?

Or are you confusing me with someone else?

As long as you insist on applying your judgment to the facts and drawing conclusions, then the basis of that judgment is on the table and will be examined until you either defend or withdraw it. Trying to sidestep it by begging the question that "any intelligent person" would conclude similarly to you is just plain evasive.

Not sure why you've suddenly veered off onto this tangent of my being 'evasive'.

Surely, if you think people posting on JREF shouldn't apply their intelligence to facts and draw their own conclusions, then whose judgement are we supposed to substitute for our own? Yours?

 

[proudfootz]

Proudfootz, please stop me if I'm wrong, but what I'm reading so far is that you don't have any idea who might have killed Kennedy if not Oswald, or how Oswald became a person of interest or a suspect in the commission of the assassination/murder/attempted murder. You want to insert some reasonable doubt but your attempt so far is to try to discredit the testimony of an eye witness, which you failed to do, without attempting to address the rest of the evidence against him.

Is this about the shape of it?

If it is, why should anyone take you or your arguments seriously?

Well, let's take a moment's time to consider a hypothetical situation:

Suppose there was some evidence which indicated Oswald was not in fact guilty of shooting either Kennedy or Tippit - let's say, for the sake of this thought experiment it was photographic proof that Oswald was eating his lunch on the 2nd floor when Kennedy was shot.

Now if we had evidence that Oswald did not shoot Kennedy, that would not necessarily mean we'd at the same time have evidence of who did shoot Kennedy. Can you follow that so far?

It's really a very simple concept - evidence that exonerates one person does not necessarily indict someone else automatically.

 

[JayUtah]

So long as you are willing to entertain the possibility that opinions of various authors might be 'accurately reported facts' then there should be no problem my taking information from authors of my own choosing.

You missed the point. I agreed with the characterization of Mark Lane's reliability on certain subjects based on facts I had investigated myself. That characterization may conceivably be in error, but it is based on a process I can articulate and demonstrate.

You instead propose to reject authors on subjects you haven't heard them yet report on, on a basis no stronger than an ad hominem impression. Do not purport that my process and your process are demonstrably equivalent, nor that I endorse your authors categorically.

I feel that any demands for expertise or experience you ask of me are fair questions you should be asking of yourself.

Your feelings are irrelevant. You are the one offering his own judgment as an argument. No one else. You are the one obliged to lay the foundation for that judgment. No one else.

This will go more smoothly if you could bring yourself to play the ball and not the man.

For the last time, if you believe my posts are inappropriately personal, report them for moderation. I have received no relevant warnings. Hence you either haven't reported them, or the moderator's judgment is that they are not inappropriate.

Stop tiring yourself out asking such inane questions.

Mocking the question doesn't make it go away. Do you have the relevant experience? Yes or no.

I supplied that half of the story which was so conveniently forgotten.

It's not forgotten. It's just evaluated in context. You omit that context when you report the story, and you refuse to discuss it.

That the prosecution lawyers weren't troubled by this performance does not in my opinion mean it shouldn't be of interest of be left out of this discussion.

But you haven't demonstrated that your opinion is suitably informed.

Yes, it's interesting to think what a defense attorney would do with a witness like Markham on cross examination.

Indeed, but that would be speculation. And as you are fond of reminding us, we should stick to the facts. We have the facts of Markham's testimony before us. They indicate -- however circuitously solidified -- that she identified Oswald in the lineup as the person who killed officer Tippet.

Where can I read Ball's testimony about what he claims he was trying to do in this exchange?

Straw man. Maybe you should consider how important it is for you to answer the question about how conversant you are with the methods of obtaining oral testimony, examining a witness, and cross-examining a witness. When you realize how important it is for you to come clean about that, you'll realize how this awkwardly worded attempt to shift the burden of proof has landed.

How is it I'm supposedly 'avoiding' a question that I wasn't asked?

I stipulate it was implied. You quote only from the portion of the transcript that was read into the Warren Commission record. Have you read the rest of it?

Surely, if you think people posting on JREF shouldn't apply their intelligence to facts and draw their own conclusions, then whose judgement are we supposed to substitute for our own? Yours?

Again you confuse intelligence with experience and expertise. The question is not whether you're smart or dumb, but what experience you have in oral testimony, examination, reading depositions, cross-examining witnesses, etc.

I'm a reasonably intelligent person by most estimates. Yet I've never been to Ankara. Someone with only a moderate IQ would be far more an expert than I on what Ankara is like if he had actually been there. Do not confuse questions about your experience with questions about your intelligence. And do not suppose that vaunting your intelligence substitutes for specialized knowledge and experience.

 

[Mudcat]

Well, let's take a moment's time to consider a hypothetical situation:

Sure. And since we're engaging in hypotheticals anyhow, hypothetically speaking who do you think was really responsible for killing Kennedy and Tippit if not Oswald? Where did they fire the weapon if not at his place of work? How did Oswald become the prime suspect? Was Oswald complicit in some way with the crimes with which he was accused or was he completely innocent of wrong doing?

Suppose there was some evidence which indicated Oswald was not in fact guilty of shooting either Kennedy or Tippit - let's say, for the sake of this thought experiment it was photographic proof that Oswald was eating his lunch on the 2nd floor when Kennedy was shot.

Supposing there was such a photograph that managed to surface it would run into the issue of providence, but I'm following you so far.

evidence that exonerates one person does not necessarily indict someone else automatically.

True, but the evidence that condemns one man can just as easily be used to condemn another.