Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[JayUtah]

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

No one is suggesting that it does. No one is advocating an "automatic" indictment.

Hypothetically if one suspect can be completely ruled out based on some supposedly airtight alibi, then whither? Any other suspects? Maybe someone against whom the evidence wasn't quite as strong, but who still bore suspicion?

After decades operating under the presumption that Oswald didn't act alone to kill Kennedy, the conspiracy theorists are no closer to identifying a second prime suspect.

 

[proudfootz]

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.

It's an illustration of a simple point, which if you cannot grasp it, you will be unable to appreciate the significance of exculpatory evidence and its uses in the investigation of crime or historical events.

In your opinion.

Naturally, our opinions differ. You are no more required to accept mine than I am yours.

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

Yes, each of us might make a judgement of how long it was appropriate for Lane oops, I mean Ball to question Markham.

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

OK, knock yourself out.

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?

Not as far as I am aware. This is not a court of law, either. Therefore neither of us need pretend we are experienced lawyers.

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

We did not tell you that, no we didn't. But if forensic science is 'good enough' to convict or exculpate defendants in a court of law, why would it not be enough to satisfy you here outside of a court where the consequences are nowhere near as dire??

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

Let me guess - you want to be the judge, and the rest of us should just follow your lead.

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.

Your opinions are not evidence against Oswald. Nor are they counter-arguments or rebuttals of the points I've laid out.

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'm not sure where you are getting this flight of fancy from. Everyone is free to use their own intelligence to draw their own conclusions. It seems to bother you that I come to different conclusions than you want me to.

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.

A rhetorical question. And this proves anything one way or another how, exactly?

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

Your attempts to poison the well won't prove Oswald guilty of anything, either.

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

I've supported my conclusions with facts and arguments. But rather than address those, you prefer to have a go at me.

Predictable, you are.

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.

If you cannot grasp the simple fact that exculpation of one does not mechanically and immediately indicate the guilt of a single other person, then you won't be much help as a discussion partner.

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.

Even the dullest cop on the beat knows it's not useless to eliminate suspects.

 

[proudfootz]

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.

Yes, I wonder whether someone can see the usefulness in an investigation of eliminating suspects.

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.

The alternative is to simply convict someone because they're embarrassed they couldn't find the real culprit. This does happen, I suppose.

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

I've made it very clear why I think the reckless charge against Mark Lane as 'lying' is not supported by an examination of the facts.

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.

Gotta love this mind-reading act of yours.

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.

As soon as people are willing to stop all the generic strawman stuff about 'conspiracy theorists' I'd be happy to lay off giving the same right back.

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.

Not at all - I just don't necessarily feel obliged to substitute your judgement for my own.

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.

Completely accurate.

I've supported my conclusions with sound reasoning.

 

[JayUtah]

...exculpatory evidence and its uses in the investigation of crime or historical events.

And if you were actually investigating a crime or an historical even, this rant would mean something. But JFK conspiracism is not about finding out who killed Kennedy for either legal or historical reasons.

Naturally, our opinions differ. You are no more required to accept mine than I am yours.

I'm not demanding that you accept mine. I'm asking you the basis for yours. Apparently that's something you don't want me to know.

Yes, each of us might make a judgement of how long it was appropriate for Lane oops, I mean Ball to question Markham.

Are you making a point here?

OK, knock yourself out.

I've repeated my most pressing question often enough. What is your experience in obtaining oral testimony in a legal context, examining a witness, and cross-examination?

Not as far as I am aware. This is not a court of law, either. Therefore neither of us need pretend we are experienced lawyers.

But you are advocating a court-of-law standard for the evaluation of the evidence. Which is it?

...why would it not be enough to satisfy you here outside of a court where the consequences are nowhere near as dire??

What consequences? Historians studying other events don't apply a legal standard of proof. A court has such standards for reasons that are good and proper, but derive from legal needs.

You didn't answer the question. You just shifted the burden of proof.

Let me guess - you want to be the judge, and the rest of us should just follow your lead.

Don't put words in my mouth. Just answer the question.

Your opinions are not evidence against Oswald. Nor are they counter-arguments or rebuttals of the points I've laid out.

That's not even remotely connected to the point. You chastised me for drawing conclusions about conspiracy theories based on observation. You asked me for evidence of that observation, and I cited your own statements in the very same post. This particular point has nothing to do with Oswald. It has to do with statements I made about the conspiracy theorists' approach to reasoning.

Everyone is free to use their own intelligence to draw their own conclusions. It seems to bother you that I come to different conclusions than you want me to.

No, do not put words in my mouth. And for the umpteenth time, this is not a question of intelligence. It is a question -- at least the notion of the Markham testimony -- of judgment based on experience. You have adjudged that the Markham testimony is somehow improper or irregular, and that she was led to offer predetermined testimony.

I questioned this interpretation of the testimony, and I asked you upon what foundation your judgment was drawn. Specifically I asked you whether you were experienced in collecting, evaluating, and probing oral testimony.

A rhetorical question.

No, an actual question for which I expect an answer.

And this proves anything one way or another how, exactly?

You insinuated that my proposition stating a general rejection of JFK conspiracy theories among relevant scholars was merely hypothetical. I challenged you to refute that by showing a general acceptance of such among the relevant scholars.

Your attempts to poison the well won't prove Oswald guilty of anything, either.

No well-poisoning intended, nor relevancy implied. You asked for examples of the types of conspiracy arguments I described earlier. I cited your own posts. I noted you would be unlikely to disavow your own statements.

I've supported my conclusions with facts and arguments. But rather than address those, you prefer to have a go at me.

Asked and answered. If you do not report alleged personal attacks, do not insinuate as such for rhetorical effect.

If you cannot grasp the simple fact that exculpation of one does not mechanically and immediately indicate the guilt of a single other person, then you won't be much help as a discussion partner.

Asked and answered. No one is arguing the straw man of automatic indictment. However, after decades of believing Oswald didn't do it, you have been unable to evaluate the facts to identify any other suspect. After decades. That is salient.

Even the dullest cop on the beat knows it's not useless to eliminate suspects.

But does he spend decades repeatedly eliminating the same suspect and never try to find any others? I'm not arguing that it's useless to eliminate suspects. I'm arguing that it's useless to eliminate one prime suspect and then never thereafter try to solve the crime.

 

[proudfootz]

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

Indeed, he might have been.

But it's all to common to treat Oswald as if he had in fact been tried in court and convicted.

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

Nor would I - I think the 'fleeing the scene of a crime' thing is a meaningless thing to say.

He did, according to witnesses at the scene.

Even if Oswald resisted arrest, that's not evidence of murder.

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.

OK, I wasn't sure what was intended there. But even reckless endangerment isn't murder, either.

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.

It doesn't matter what I believe, any more than it matters that someone might believe the evidence is unassailable.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, I wonder whether someone can see the usefulness in an investigation of eliminating suspects.

The point of eliminating suspects is to focus attention on other suspects that the evidence suggests might be responsible. You have no other suspects. You don't even have a coherent direction for where the evidence points, if not to Oswald. You say it points "away" from him. That's not a direction, and therefore not a useful analysis.

The alternative is to simply convict someone because they're embarrassed they couldn't find the real culprit. This does happen, I suppose.

No. No one is advocating that. Straw man.

I've made it very clear why I think the reckless charge against Mark Lane as 'lying' is not supported by an examination of the facts.

And I've made it very clear why an evaluation of more facts than you're willing to consider still paints Lane as a liar.

Gotta love this mind-reading act of yours.

I'm not reading minds. You're overtly stating your opinions as if they were fact.

As soon as people are willing to stop all the generic strawman stuff about 'conspiracy theorists' I'd be happy to lay off giving the same right back.

I substantiated my characterization of the JFK conspiracy theorist's typical approach by citing your own posts. It is not a straw man.

By your "people of the book" comment I took you to mean that people who disagree with you do so only out of some pseudo-religious attachment to the Warren Commission. When you are able to substantiate your quips to the same extent as I, you may consider them equivalent. Until then I suggest you withdraw the characterization.

Not at all - I just don't necessarily feel obliged to substitute your judgement for my own.

I'm not asking you to. I'm simply asking you to reveal the foundation underlying your judgment. In response you keep waffling about intelligence. You won't answer my actual question.

Completely accurate.

So then do you withdraw the insinuation that you are being attacked simply because you do not agree with the other posters?

I've supported my conclusions with sound reasoning.

I'm willing to let the readers judge which of us has better reasoning.

 

[proudfootz]

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.

Yes, it's nice for them to speculate. Why wild-eyed speculation is a requirement for exonerating innocent persons is a notion I haven't quite figured out.

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

Well, then if Oswald is not convicted we may have to go to the civilized notion of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

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.

OK

I'm asking you to look at the facts and draw a different affirmative conclusion. You say you can't.

Obviously, if we have no viable suspects, then it would be very stupid to insist we must simply choose somebody - anybody - to punish. [/sarcasm]

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?

It's really quite simple. In the investigation of a crime, like murder, it is often very useful to eliminate suspects and not waste time and resources on investigating innocent people.

Police realize this simple principle. Is it really not making sense to you?

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.

I suppose, if I had the resources and the authority to subpoena witnesses, seize records, tap phones - all the powers of the state at my disposal 50 years ago it would be a tad easier.

So much easier to have a patsy served up on a silver platter...

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.

Hooray for you.

As for me, I will proceed on the time tested methods employed by real life investigators.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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.

This is an absolutely silly idea. We absolutely should not just accept information because it is possible you choose to believe that author.

Any information you quote can and should be put under reasonable scrutiny. We absolutely should not accept an authors take on an interview if the full transcript shows something entirely different.

It may be inconvenient to you. You may not like people disagreeing with you or the one or two books you happen to be passionate about. But any claim, any citation, any deduction you wish to post must be shown to withstand scrutiny.

You have shown remarkably thin skin over every disagreement that has been had with anything you post. Simply commanding people to accept your wisdom is not going to aid you convincing them of anything.

 

[Mudcat]

Indeed, he might have been.

But it's all to common to treat Oswald as if he had in fact been tried in court and convicted.

Because it's the most reasonable conclusion with all the available evidence.

Nor would I - I think the 'fleeing the scene of a crime' thing is a meaningless thing to say.

No, it isn't a meaningless thing to say. It's a chargeable offense should the district attorney had chosen to pursue it.

Even if Oswald resisted arrest, that's not evidence of murder.



OK, I wasn't sure what was intended there. But even reckless endangerment isn't murder, either.

Did I say those crimes were murder or even the equivalent of murder? Those would all be separate crimes that he could be charged with in addition to murder. And they probably aren't the full list of crimes he could have been charged with, either.

It doesn't matter what I believe, any more than it matters that someone might believe the evidence is unassailable.

Strawman. To the best of my knowledge no one here has claimed that the evidence was unassailable.

 

[JayUtah]

Why wild-eyed speculation is a requirement for exonerating innocent persons...

No one has ever advocated wild-eyed speculation. However identifying other suspects is not a requirement. It's a consequence.

Obviously, if we have no viable suspects, then it would be very stupid to insist we must simply choose somebody - anybody - to punish. [/sarcasm]

Again, no one is suggesting you do that.

In the investigation of a crime, like murder, it is often very useful to eliminate suspects and not waste time and resources on investigating innocent people.

But the point is then to turn that time and those resources on solving the crime. I have yet to see a JFK conspiracy theorist who has any interest whatsoever in solving JFK's murder.

Police realize this simple principle. Is it really not making sense to you?

Police keep investigating the crime after eliminating a suspect. Is that really not making sense to you?

I suppose, if I had the resources and the authority to subpoena witnesses, seize records, tap phones - all the powers of the state at my disposal 50 years ago it would be a tad easier.

So convince the people who do have those powers that you have a case. Conspiracy authors purport to have vastly more evidence than the Warren Commission, developed in the subsequent decades. They claim to have far better insight into the evidence the Commission did see. With all that purported advancement, you still can't take a case to a prosecuting attorney and open an investigation?

As for me, I will proceed on the time tested methods employed by real life investigators.

Let me know when you decide to start doing that. Specifically let me know when a critical mass of serious historians or law enforcement professionals take you seriously.

 

[proudfootz]

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.

No, I get the point. You cited their opinions as if they were something we should accept as facts because for unexplained reasons they satisfied you that they were accurate.

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 propose to treat your authors identically to the way you treat authors I cite.

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.

As you have offered your own judgement as an argument. Sauce for the goose...

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.

I'm glad this is the last time. Frankly, it is a waste of time and effort to go the route you've chosen thus far.

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

Do you? Yes or no. Stop evading!

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.

I have discussed it in detail. I thought it was you I was trading posts with.

And I have demonstrated by use of rational argument and pertinent facts that it appears Mark Lane's testimony about the conversation with Markham was accurate in every relevant respect.

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

You are not suitably informed to assess my opinion.

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.

Yes, I have stipulated that they eventually got her to testify to that.

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.

This rather verbose attempt to make it appear you are more qualified than I am to read and understand English is just another way for you to ask the same inane question as if it were probative of anything at all.

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?

Not that I am aware of. Is there anything relevant regarding Mark Lane's summary of Markham's description in there - in your 'expert' opinion?

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.

...and your experience and expertise is...?

Oh, that's right - only you get to ask questions. Sorry!

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.

Of course not.

 

[proudfootz]

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?

No point in going there until we have laid a foundation.

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.

Good. Supposing the provenance was impeccable (this is a thought experiment after all). Would this not be a useful thing to know?

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

Sometimes that is true. Sometimes it isn't.

But suppose it only exonerates one suspect, but does indict anyone else in particular?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Well, then if Oswald is not convicted we may have to go to the civilized notion of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

And perhaps we should retain the baby when throwing out the bathwater and possibly cede that some people who describe the only suspect against whom viable material (ie physical) evidence has been produced is the most likely suspect and a subject of almost certain probability.

You seem to like comparisons to Ripperology. So allow me to demonstrate the difference between Jack the Ripper and JFK:

We have physical, tangible, testable evidence against LHO that can be scrutinised on an objective level. In Ripperology we have none. We have a wealth of documentary evidence to describe the crime scenes, we have ample evidence of whom the police suspected, but none for why. We have exactly two witness statements of a person likely to be the Ripper.

And the similarity: In both we have a metric ton of thunder and noise that is itself meaningless.

Your posts tend to contain the latter. Either your own, or that of other sources who you mistakenly assume to be perfect as they are probably from the one book you read that your REALLY liked and thus REALLY want to believe.

Oswald is as close to being convicted as a historian can get. He is the most probable and only viable subject for suspicion. The body of evidence weighs too heavily upon him. So far, even if accepted at face value, nothing you have posted undermines that body of evidence.

You seem to be under the impression there will one day be a single piece of evidence that will exonerate Oswald. That is not the case. That piece of evidence will be added to body of evidence, but you would still have to explain the totality of evidence.

You can talk large about theoretically eliminating suspects, but you offer no practical reason or way that the entire weight of evidence could be ignored.

In simple terms you may push the suspect a little down the sliding scale of probability, but you will not eliminate him with a single piece of evidence.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No point in going there until we have laid a foundation.

Actually, I see any point in doing ANYTHING other than posting your theory and evidence,seeing if people accept it or not when putting it to reasonable scrutiny.

 

[proudfootz]

No one is suggesting that it does. No one is advocating an "automatic" indictment.

Hypothetically if one suspect can be completely ruled out based on some supposedly airtight alibi, then whither? Any other suspects? Maybe someone against whom the evidence wasn't quite as strong, but who still bore suspicion?

Yes, if one suspect is eliminated from suspicion, then those who have been otherwise ignored will likely be subject to greater scrutiny.

After decades operating under the presumption that Oswald didn't act alone to kill Kennedy, the conspiracy theorists are no closer to identifying a second prime suspect.

However, like the Ripperologists whose speculations you admire, there is much speculation in some quarters about who might be responsible.

 

[Tomtomkent]

However, like the Ripperologists whose speculations you admire, there is much speculation in some quarters about who might be responsible.

And this means nothing. Speculation is noise and thunder ultimately meaningless.

This is how I see it in Jack the Ripper terms:

Jay is looking at the Macnaughten Memorandum and the Swanson Marginalia trying to deduce why the police concentrated on five suspects who they considered viable. He is attempting to build a reasonable deduction on what evidence the police may have had for the names given as viable suspects.

You on the other hand are concerned with "much speculation" and have posted here that we should accept authors of your choosing simply because it is possible they may have made truthful comments. That pretty much puts you somewhere in the region of The Duke of Clarance, William Gull or Walter Sickert. Who of course we should accept because Stephen Knight wrote a book (and any evidence that all that talk of masons, illegal marriages and royal edicts were based on a crude hoax by a single attention seeker be damned, as long as you can argue if it was a knowing lie or not).

In the Marginalia and Memoranda for the JFK Assassination there is one single name towards which any real evidence points. You can howl around the edges, but all you have shown so far is that the signal to noise ration is not 100%. Frankly, no nit can be picked that will alter this.

You either have an actual theory and actual evidence to post, or you are wasting time.

Feel free to prove me wrong and stop thrashing you way around the bush and actually post something of substance.

 

[JayUtah]

No, I get the point. You cited their opinions as if they were something we should accept as facts...

No, not even remotely correct. You proposed to dismiss those authors categorically because you believed what they wrote was "only opinion." But not everything an author writes is opinion. Some is reported fact, An allegation of fact is fundamentally different from an opinion or conclusion. I simply suggested you clarify what the source actually was that you were categorically rejecting, on the possibility that what the author wrote in that specific case was an allegation of fact that could be fact-checked, not an opinion that could be simply disagreed with.

I propose to treat your authors identically to the way you treat authors I cite.

Good luck.

As you have offered your own judgement as an argument.

Link to the post where I do that.

I'm glad this is the last time. Frankly, it is a waste of time and effort to go the route you've chosen thus far.

What does this even mean? You keep insinuating that I'm making personal attacks. But you don't report them for moderation. That is, you aren't willing to submit it to someone else's judgment whether I'm attacking you. You seem to want to mention it repeatedly for rhetorical effect without putting your money where your mouth is.

Do you? Yes or no. Stop evading!

Nice try. I have no obligation to answer because I'm not the one who affirmed Ball's examination of Markham was irregular or improper. That is your claim, and your judgment is the basis of it. Therefore I require you to state the foundation for that judgment.

Clearly you will not, which leads us -- as I said -- to presume you have no requisite expertise and you don't want anyone to know that because it would undermine the strength of your opinion.

I have discussed it in detail. I thought it was you I was trading posts with.

Link to the posts where you discuss the testimony at the top of page 311.

And I have demonstrated by use of rational argument and pertinent facts that it appears Mark Lane's testimony about the conversation with Markham was accurate in every relevant respect.

No, you simply swept the inconsistencies under the carpet.

You are not suitably informed to assess my opinion.

What is this? Kindergarten? Of course I'm suitably informed by your repeated refusal in this thread to lay a foundation for your judgment. You did so twice in this post alone.

Yes, I have stipulated that they eventually got her to testify to that.

But then you go on to offer the opinion that this line of questioning starting at the bottom of page 310 and continuing to the middle of page 311 is somehow shady in a legal context. That propriety is not a self-evident fact, nor the kind of judgment a layman can make. Hence I'm asking you to lay a foundation for that judgment.

This rather verbose attempt to make it appear you are more qualified than I am to read and understand English...

Begs the question that that's all that's required. Denial of the need for relevant experience is not an argument.

Not that I am aware of. Is there anything relevant regarding Mark Lane's summary of Markham's description in there - in your 'expert' opinion?

Yes, there is, as I already mentioned. However you pose a "complex question," the hidden premise being that one needs expertise in order to comprehend a telephone conversation between two laymen.

I expect you're trying to draw a parallel between that at the Markham testimony and say that if one can offer one's intelligent opinion on what two people spoke about on the telephone, one can comment equally on the propriety or methodology of a legal examination undertaken by a lawyer who was familiar with the witness's prior deposition. I don't agree they are equal, and I don't accept you as a learned commentator on how legal examinations are supposed to go.

...and your experience and expertise is...?

...not relevant to whether you have the expertise to back up your judgment regarding Ball's questioning of Markham.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, if one suspect is eliminated from suspicion, then those who have been otherwise ignored will likely be subject to greater scrutiny.

And those people are ... ?

However, like the Ripperologists whose speculations you admire, there is much speculation in some quarters about who might be responsible.

Where do you get the notion that I admire "Ripperologists?" You are the one who brought that up and insisted we keep using it as an analogy. I merely noted that, using the body of evidence available, people have identified a small handful of people for whom there is some evidence they may be the culprit.

I'm not saying those identifications are correct. I'm not saying I admire any of them. I'm not saying the case for any one suspect would meet any given standard of proof.

I'm simply noting a huge difference between people who study the Whitechapel murders and JFK conspiracy theorists. The former have some interest in actually solving the crime. The latter do not.

 

[proudfootz]

And if you were actually investigating a crime or an historical even, this rant would mean something. But JFK conspiracism is not about finding out who killed Kennedy for either legal or historical reasons.

Now I'm 'ranting' - predictable, as always.

If you imagine investigating the murder of President Kennedy is unimportant as a criminal matter or a a matter of history, you are wasting your time here.

I'm not demanding that you accept mine. I'm asking you the basis for yours. Apparently that's something you don't want me to know.

As I have shown you - Mark Lane's summary of his conversation appears to be accurate and thus the wild-eyed claim that based on this he is a 'liar' is unsupportable and unreasonable.

Are you making a point here?

As always, but no need to hold everyone back while you catch up.

I've repeated my most pressing question often enough. What is your experience in obtaining oral testimony in a legal context, examining a witness, and cross-examination?

What is your experience and expertise? Stop evading this very important question!

But you are advocating a court-of-law standard for the evaluation of the evidence. Which is it?

Why would you find that to be insufficient - you haven't explained why you find it unacceptable to accept a commonly held and widely understood methodology of discovering facts.

What consequences? Historians studying other events don't apply a legal standard of proof. A court has such standards for reasons that are good and proper, but derive from legal needs.

Yes, indeed. It is because of the possible consequences that law standards are so high. Why do you reject such a standard in a matter where it is a crime under investigation?

You didn't answer the question. You just shifted the burden of proof.

The burden of proof lies on the would-be prosecutors of Oswald.

Don't put words in my mouth. Just answer the question.

You still haven't answered my questions. Stop evading.

That's not even remotely connected to the point. You chastised me for drawing conclusions about conspiracy theories based on observation. You asked me for evidence of that observation, and I cited your own statements in the very same post. This particular point has nothing to do with Oswald. It has to do with statements I made about the conspiracy theorists' approach to reasoning.

I use the straightforward approach. So instead of speculating, you have it directly from me. No need for you to make stuff up anymore.

No, do not put words in my mouth. And for the umpteenth time, this is not a question of intelligence. It is a question -- at least the notion of the Markham testimony -- of judgment based on experience. You have adjudged that the Markham testimony is somehow improper or irregular, and that she was led to offer predetermined testimony.

Where have I used these words 'improper' or 'irregular' - you seem to be addicted to trying to make it appear as if I've written things not found in any of my posts.

I simply reproduced parts of Markham's testimony excised from your presentations which appear to indicate it took some effort to get her to say what was required of her.

I questioned this interpretation of the testimony, and I asked you upon what foundation your judgment was drawn. Specifically I asked you whether you were experienced in collecting, evaluating, and probing oral testimony.

I produced the strangely ignored part of her testimony and stated clearly and unequivocally how it appears. You seem to disagree, but on what basis is anyone's guess.

No, an actual question for which I expect an answer.

It's an inane question useless to the question under consideration. Why you waste your time on this is your business.

You insinuated that my proposition stating a general rejection of JFK conspiracy theories among relevant scholars was merely hypothetical. I challenged you to refute that by showing a general acceptance of such among the relevant scholars.

It's wholly irrelevant. Taking a vote among historians doesn't change matters of fact.

No well-poisoning intended, nor relevancy implied. You asked for examples of the types of conspiracy arguments I described earlier. I cited your own posts. I noted you would be unlikely to disavow your own statements.

It's just silly to attack people for motives you ascribe to them, when there's a million dollars on the table for someone who can read minds are you appear to claim to do.

Asked and answered. If you do not report alleged personal attacks, do not insinuate as such for rhetorical effect.

Anytime you want to drop it I'll have nothing to respond to.

Asked and answered. No one is arguing the straw man of automatic indictment. However, after decades of believing Oswald didn't do it, you have been unable to evaluate the facts to identify any other suspect. After decades. That is salient.

Now you've moved the goalposts - at first it was 'useless' to even try to eliminate suspects in a murder investigation, now it would be useful if after X amount of time another suspect is named.

But does he spend decades repeatedly eliminating the same suspect and never try to find any others? I'm not arguing that it's useless to eliminate suspects. I'm arguing that it's useless to eliminate one prime suspect and then never thereafter try to solve the crime.

If that were the case, you might have a point.

Do you now claim that among those who argue that Oswald was either part of a larger conspiracy or merely a patsy that none of them have tried to solve the crime and name other suspects?

If you honestly think that, then you are honestly mistaken.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Proudfootz: Is there any chance of you offering any evidence for an alternate explanation and suspect for the murder of JFK at any point what so ever?

If so, why have you yet to post it?