JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[No Other]

And you're going to still insist you're not a conspiracy theorist?

Hilarious.

You could have cribbed all the above in your most recent post off any conspiracy author, from the earliest ones like Weisberg and Lane to the more recent ones like Jim Fetzer and James DiEugenio, and numerous ones in between. Your earlier claims that I was jumping to conclusions are clearing not true.

Hank

Being critical is not a confirmation of polarity. I am critical of how of my tax dollars are spent but I am not an Anarchist. I held you a bit higher in your analyzing skills...

 

[RoboTimbo]

Nothing in that sentence is accurate. Ask the autopsy doctors, they hated that cowlick crap.

LOL. You may want to ask yourself why the evidence is giving you such a beating and why I said you're getting smoked.

 

[OKBob]

Two problems here. First, while it is true that the WC did not employ a full adversarial approach to truth-seeking, it is not the case that the WC placed no checks on its fact-finding process. For one thing, the WC engaged Walter E. Craig, then President of the American Bar Association, to advise the WC on whether its activities "conformed to the basic principles of American justice" (WCR xiv). Craig had the ability to cross-examine and recall witnesses, and he "participated fully and without limitation" in the process (xiv). His participation was agreed to by Marina Oswald.

Second, you beg the question whether a full adversarial approach would have yielded better, fuller, and fairer results. Had LHO lived, an adversarial trial would have enabled his counsel to keep lots of information away from the jury and therefore from the American public. Hearsay objections would have precluded many statements that were available to the WC. (Hearsay exclusions do not always assist the truth, which is one reason why there are so many exceptions to the hearsay rule.) LHO would also have invoked the spousal privilege to prevent testimony by Marina and to exclude many of her pretrial statements, as well as to exclude physical evidence that would have required her testimony for foundation and authentication. And so on. Would such evidentiary exclusions have resulted in a better understanding of the assassination by the American public, or would we have much less information than we have, whether or not LHO had been convicted?

No Other, the above questions and challenges are still pending. Do you plan to respond?

 

[No Other]

The allegation that they excluded only exculpatory witnesses is a lie.

point to where I said they only excluded exculpatory witnesses. Using the word "lie" is inflammatory as it implies intent.

The FBI and the WC were two different investigations. The FBI made their assessment based on the evidence.

??? What assessment did the FBI make? The FBI is an investigative body part of the Department of Justice. They provide recommendations to the Justice Department...

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, in your "only two shots from the Carcano" theory, would the CE543 shell casing with the dented lip be the one used as a simple chamber plug or leftover from the Walker attempt?

I advanced the two shot theory as a rebuttal to Robert Harris, who insisted there was no contrary theory on the table that could explain some of the things the witnesses testified to, like two shots close together at the end of the assassination sequence. I found lots of testimony that I could use to support that theory, including many of the witnesses that Harris used to support his theory.

For example, Clint Hill heard only two shots and an impact on the President's head. So did John Connally. The more I posted about this theory, the less Bob Harris understood about it, introducing strawmen at every turn.

In this theory, one of the shells would have remained in the weapon since the last time Oswald fired it, whether that was at a rifle range the Sunday prior to the assassination, or going back to another time he took the rifle for some shooting, or as far back as the Walker shooting on April 10th.

I have no idea which of the three shells that would be.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Cut to the chase. Are you claiming two shots to JFK's head, or one shot so positioned as to be impossible for LHO to have made it?

I think it was probably two. Can you think of any other way the cerebellum would not be severely damaged from a bullet entering there? Or do you think there could be a way it still could've avoided hitting the cerebellum by going above into the occipital lobe?

 

[OKBob]

Using the word "lie" is inflammatory as it implies intent.

I agree with No Other that we should avoid accusations of lying. Not only does persistent use of such rhetoric violate the ISF rules, but just go to McAdams' alt-assassination forum if you want to see how charges of "lying" have eroded and degraded intellectual exchange.

 

[HSienzant]

What assessment did the FBI make? The FBI is an investigative body part of the Department of Justice. They provide recommendations to the Justice Department...

In this case, there was no adversarial conditions, which allowed the Commission to do anything they wanted to do and rules of the Court were not engaged as there was no court. ... this is why the FBI announced within the first week, after JFK was killed, that it was LHO and no one else.

So the FBI makes no assessments, only recommendations, but within the first week of the assassination they announced that Oswald was the lone assassin, do I have that right?

Breathtaking.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

I think it was probably two. Can you think of any other way the cerebellum would not be severely damaged from a bullet entering there? Or do you think there could be a way it still could've avoided hitting the cerebellum by going above into the occipital lobe?

What did the autopsy results say?

 

[OKBob]

I think it was probably two. Can you think of any other way the cerebellum would not be severely damaged from a bullet entering there? Or do you think there could be a way it still could've avoided hitting the cerebellum by going above into the occipital lobe?

Okay, that's a bit of progress perhaps. But please don't shift the burden of proof to me regarding what you claim to be damaged cerebellum. You have a steep uphill climb because, notably, you have to refute the autopsy findings, the WC evidence and conclusions, the HSCA analysis and conclusions, and other analyses that found only one wound of entrance in the skull, beveled inward, and one exit wound, beveled outward. If your reply is simply that these multiple findings were lies or errors, please demonstrate, with evidence, how they were lies or errors.

 

[HSienzant]

point to where I said they only excluded exculpatory witnesses.

This is why key witnesses were not called, the Commission did not want testimony that was counter to their stance...

You said they excluded "key witnesses" contrary to the Commission's stance.

Nothing in there about excluding "key witnesses" that would give inculpatory testimony supporting their stance.

So yeah, you said they only excluded exculpatory witnesses. We can all read. And we all understand English.

Hank

 

[No Other]

Two problems here. First, while it is true that the WC did not employ a full adversarial approach to truth-seeking, it is not the case that the WC placed no checks on its fact-finding process.

My comment dealt solely with the adversarial process... period.

For one thing, the WC engaged Walter E. Craig, then President of the American Bar Association, to advise the WC on whether its activities "conformed to the basic principles of American justice" (WCR xiv). Craig had the ability to cross-examine and recall witnesses, and he "participated fully and without limitation" in the process (xiv).

This is nothing but window dressing, as this process was in full compliance of our American Justice system, I never said it wasn't. Your input about W.E. Craig is a non-sequitur as it has nothing to do with the adversarial process.

Second, you beg the question whether a full adversarial approach would have yielded better, fuller, and fairer results.

That is your question not mine, so there is no begging the question.

Had LHO lived, an adversarial trial would have enabled his counsel to keep lots of information away from the jury and therefore from the American public.

Do you feel that the adversarial process is counter to a good jurisprudence system? This is cornerstone to American justice and your slippery slope is quite opposite of our Bill of Rights.

Hearsay objections would have precluded many statements that were available to the WC.

you are correct

LHO would also have invoked the spousal privilege to prevent testimony by Marina and to exclude many of her pretrial statements, as well as to exclude physical evidence that would have required her testimony for foundation and authentication. And so on.

and this is bad?

Would such evidentiary exclusions have resulted in a better understanding of the assassination by the American public, or would we have much less information than we have, whether or not LHO had been convicted?

An unequivocal "YES"

I tell what Bob; if you ever are in a position where you are dragged in front of a court and charged with murder, stop all the proceedings and elect to invoke the process carried out by the WC so that we as the public will get see only one side of the argument...

 

[HSienzant]

No Other, the above questions and challenges are still pending. Do you plan to respond?

Hey, get in line!

There's a few dozen posts of mine (often with a few dozen points in each) that's he's avoided entirely.

This one come to mind: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11835551&postcount=3425

Hank

 

[OKBob]

I tell what Bob; if you ever are in a position where you are dragged in front of a court and charged with murder, stop all the proceedings and elect to invoke the process carried out by the WC so that we as the public will get see only one side of the argument...

I'm pretty familiar with courts, No Other, being a tenured law professor and a practicing attorney. The WC was very clear that it was not conducting an adversarial process, and that its procedures blended wide-ranging fact-finding with the approach of historical researchers. Again, why should the WC have used an adversarial approach? Please tell us exactly how the WC would have arrived at more of the truth by implementing all the evidentiary exclusions that protect the trial process. Be specific, and don't just preach about the Bill of Rights.

 

[HSienzant]

My comment dealt solely with the adversarial process... period.

That's not true. You contrasted the Warren Commission's proceedings with the adversarial process of a trial, and argued justice and truth came out on the losing end because of the investigatory non-adversarial process the Commission used:

Evidence is what it is; it is what is done with the evidence that shows the true colors of the Prosecution. In this case, there was no adversarial conditions, which allowed the Commission to do anything they wanted to do and rules of the Court were not engaged as there was no court. This is why key witnesses were not called, the Commission did not want testimony that was counter to their stance, this is why the Commission altered some testimony (it was behind closed doors and there was no challenge opportunity provided), this is why the FBI announced within the first week, after JFK was killed, that it was LHO and no one else. The results had to fit the narrative. Discussing the virtues or quality of the evidence is a sham because all of the evidence came from the people who wrote the Report. The Commission was conducted like a Grand Jury and Grand Juries are to determine if the charge is worthy enough to go to court, in this case, the Commission was the Judge, the jury, and the Prosecution.

But as I noted, 99.9% of the issues raised by conspiracy theorists would not have been dealt with at the trial. The defense wouldn't be raising the arguments about multiple shooters, for instance, so the whole argument about conspiracy goes away. Whether the Zapruder film was altered wouldn't be an issue, nor would Oswald's Mexico City visit, or the body alteration theory, or shots from the knoll, etc.

Oswald would be on trial in an adversarial process for shooting the President. Proving a conspiracy that Oswald was part of would not help Oswald at all. He would still be guilty of the assassination. As his lawyer, you'd need to take the gun out of his hands, and limit yourself to those arguments that introduce reasonable doubt on those issues.

So a whole host of side issues to Oswald's guilt or innocence would never be dealt with at trial, and would remain unexplored to this day.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, you have repeatedly claimed that "the autopsy" supports the cowlick entry theory, when in reality it doesn't. A bunch of Johnny-come-latelies claimed that the X-ray and BOH photos support that idea, but nobody who was there agrees.

The measurements recorded in the autopsy are accurate.
The photographic record confirms them.
The people who were there confirmed it to the WC.
The xrays confirm it.
Those "Johnny come latelies" are qualified experts, reading the extant materials. They not agree with the decades later memories of the people who were there, but there is a very good reason we keep accurate records, rather than asking people what they remember. There is a reason that photographs are taken. There is a reason xrays are kept. It is precisely so, that at any point in the future, somebody can read them, and know what happened.

I am sorry that is not convenient for you, or whatever strange fantasy you expect reality to represent, but this is how the truth is established, through objective reasoning and actual evidence.

If you continue to think that makes me a liar, then I am afraid it says far more about you than me.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I think it was probably two. Can you think of any other way the cerebellum would not be severely damaged from a bullet entering there? Or do you think there could be a way it still could've avoided hitting the cerebellum by going above into the occipital lobe?

How about distribution of forces from the point of impact. Trauma waves, for example, building pressure in the confined space of skull, and spreading outwards. That would do it.

 

[OKBob]

So a whole host of side issues to Oswald's guilt or innocence would never be dealt with at trial, and would remain unexplored to this day.

Exactly. And not just side issues. Take only Marina Oswald. Most or all of her testimony regarding LHO, her pretrial statements to authorities, and much of the physical evidence she personally handed over to authorities, would have been subject to challenge and possible exclusion, because in 1963 Texas had the spousal privilege: the right of the defendant not to have his/her spouse testify against him/her.

What would have resulted? All or much of what Marina testified to, along with the physical evidence she authenticated, under oath, for the WC would have been excluded. Absent any sworn testimony, Marina's evidence would have been elicited, exclusively, through informal questioning by reporters, researchers, and other self-appointed fact-finders. We'd have a mess of unsworn statements by her. Would such material be more credible than what we have from the WC and HSCA?

 

[No Other]

You said they excluded "key witnesses" contrary to the Commission's stance.

Nothing in there about excluding "key witnesses" that would give inculpatory testimony supporting their stance.

So yeah, you said they only excluded exculpatory witnesses. We can all read. And we all understand English.

Hank

You and I have different views on sentence structure, syntax (virtually none since this written) and what value one puts on certain words. I am tired of nit-picking and that is what this is... Nowhere and I will repeat nowhere did I say "only".

 

[No Other]

That's not true. You contrasted the Warren Commission's proceedings with the adversarial process of a trial, and argued justice and truth came out on the losing end because of the investigatory non-adversarial process the Commission used:



But as I noted, 99.9% of the issues raised by conspiracy theorists would not have been dealt with at the trial. The defense wouldn't be raising the arguments about multiple shooters, for instance, so the whole argument about conspiracy goes away. Whether the Zapruder film was altered wouldn't be an issue, nor would Oswald's Mexico City visit, or the body alteration theory, or shots from the knoll, etc.

Oswald would be on trial in an adversarial process for shooting the President. Proving a conspiracy that Oswald was part of would not help Oswald at all. He would still be guilty of the assassination. As his lawyer, you'd need to take the gun out of his hands, and limit yourself to those arguments that introduce reasonable doubt on those issues.

So a whole host of side issues to Oswald's guilt or innocence would never be dealt with at trial, and would remain unexplored to this day.

Hank

The Government had no problem in convicting Shirhan, Bremer, James Earl Ray, Hinckley, Chapman, Moore, Frohm... so why would LHO be any different? Your preemptive concern is not valid unless you point to a case that was lost because of what you say would be missing.

Having said all of that, we are at polar ends when it comes to what you feel is "fair" in the court of law.