Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

[manifesto]

Don't start with self-pity about being challenged by multiple critics--a common ploy of CTists on this list. You came on and asked for this.

It is not self pity. I am enjoying myself. I’m stating the fact that you are many = many posts and questions = takes time to adress.

It’s that simple.

 

[OKBob]

Federal Rules of Evidence regarding Business Records once more:[...]

Just to elaborate a bit on the legal dimension here, Hank. What you've cited is the hearsay exception that permits the admission of business records kept in the regular course. That goes to hearsay.

I think that manifesto is (murkily) raising issues of authentication and best evidence as well. But there are FRE provisions for these concerns, too. First FRE 1003 states that a "duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original" in many circumstances, and satisfies the best-evidence rule unless a "genuine question" is raised regarding the original's authenticity.

Further, FRE 901 et seq. contain provisions regarding authentication of documents that permit best-evidence duplicates to be admitted.

The upshot is that the Federal Rules of Evidence answer manifesto's objections regarding court-admissibility of photocopies of Klein's orders, and he has raised nothing close to a "genuine question" regarding them--only JAQ suspicions.

Of course, we aren't, and never will be, in a court of law to determine Oswald's guilt. Historians have their own reasonable ways of satisfying themselves as to best evidence, authentication, and hearsay. Reasonable historians accept the copies of Klein's business records.

 

[OKBob]

It is not self pity. I am enjoying myself. I’m stating the fact that you are many = many posts and questions = takes time to adress.

Okay, but why are you enjoying such a drubbing?

 

[CORed]

I’m not primarily arguing that the officers actually saw a Mauser, I’m saying they made that identification, in writing and verbally, when they found the weapon. This leave room for doubt, still not resolved, 55 years later.

If they misslabel the murderweapon in the crime of the century, what else did they got right?

For me, personally, it doesn’t really matter if they planted the Carcano on the 6th floor, or if they switched it later down the line. What matters is the muddy identification. It’s a good example of how evidence was handled by investigators right from the start. No secured provinience. No secured chain of custody. No secured crime scene.

This is not a mere formality.

They made one mistake, so anything else they reported is suspect.

Conspiracy theorist "thinking" at it's finest.

 

[CORed]

Hilarious, after spending what, five or more pages arguing for the Mauser, you now say 'nevermind'.




Nobody mislabeled anything. Two officers identified it as a Mauser (the more common weapon) instead of the Carcano (the less common weapon but the same basic design). It's like saying you saw a Volkswagen Beetle when you actually saw a Super Beetle (slightly larger and slightly different design). This is an example of the kind of 'stuff' conspiracy theorists throw against a wall hoping some of it sticks.




Hilarious, now you're begging the question once more, and giving us only two out of the possible choices. That's the logical fallacy of a false dilemma. The choice you're omitting, of course, is that the weapon was left there by Oswald after he used it.




Nonsense. Two cops looked at it and thought it was a Mauser. The man responsible for taking possession of the weapon personally transported it back to the Crime Lab and photographed it and noted the markings. He initialed the weapon and identified the weapon in evidence as the weapon he marked. His testimony is above.

For the rifle, there is secured provenance. For the rifle, there is a secured chain of custody. For the rifle, there is a secured crime scene.

And this is what you decided to argue for starters? I can't wait until you get to your weaker arguments.

In the meantime, J.C. Day is on the stand. The guy who identified the rifle. Do you have any questions for HIM?

YOUR WITNESS.

Hank

I'd forgotten that manifesto had posted in this thread before. Now I remember in his previous go-round he tried to make a big deal over the barrel length being listed incorrectly on the invoice, even to the point of claiming that there must have been two Carcanos with the same serial number with different barrel lengths [insert laughing dog here].

 

[Axxman300]

So, what behaviour of JFK makes you suspect him of trying to kill Greer?

Obviously, playing by your rules of logic, Greer was protestant and had to die.

Obviously JFK hired Oswald to shoot Greer with promises that he would be governor for life of a free Cuba after he won the election based on sentiment from his near-death experience in Dallas.

Oswald was a lousy shot, missed Greer, and nailed Kennedy.

Why didn't I think of this before?

 

[Axxman300]

Still, I argue from behavior, not from motive as you stated. No matter how you regard said behavior.

No, you argue from prejudice, you ignore evidence you don't agree with, and in the case of Greer and JFK you argue from a place of bigotry.

 

[Axxman300]

First time in my life I have been called a racist. I’m quoting Greers son saying that his father did not like JFK on reasons of ethnicity/race and I AM a racist??

Nuts.

That and your bloated and ignorant misstatement of Irish history, and your insistence that Catholicism is a race, and your assumption that religious differences lead to Greer being complicate in JFK's murder is completely racist.

Just switch out the words "Irish" with "Black", or "Jew", and it is clear you have a problem.

You need to rethink your life.

 

[Axxman300]

Federal Rules of Evidence regarding Business Records once more:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803

(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:
(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;
(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;
(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;
(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and
(E) the opponent does not show that the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

Ball in your court. The Waldman exhibits are copies of Klein's business records. Show why they are not admissible.

Hank

Yup.

I have been present three times when the FBI came into my place of employment with a warrant to seize documents (receipts). In every case those documents were returned after being photocopied.

 

[HSienzant]

Just to elaborate a bit on the legal dimension here, Hank. What you've cited is the hearsay exception that permits the admission of business records kept in the regular course. That goes to hearsay.

I think that manifesto is (murkily) raising issues of authentication and best evidence as well. But there are FRE provisions for these concerns, too. First FRE 1003 states that a "duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original" in many circumstances, and satisfies the best-evidence rule unless a "genuine question" is raised regarding the original's authenticity.

And it gets more specific to the JFK case we're discussing than that.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1003

Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates
A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.

Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules
When the only concern is with getting the words or other contents before the court with accuracy and precision, then a counterpart serves equally as well as the original, if the counterpart is the product of a method which insures accuracy and genuineness. By definition in Rule 1001(4), supra, a “duplicate” possesses this character.

Therefore, if no genuine issue exists as to authenticity and no other reason exists for requiring the original, a duplicate is admissible under the rule. This position finds support in the decisions, Myrick v. United States, 332 F.2d 279 (5th Cir. 1964), no error in admitting photostatic copies of checks instead of original microfilm...

He can keep whining about the microfilm and the photocopies all he wants, but he was the one who came on here asking for a court standard of evidence, and he's been given that, and he rejects that still.

Photocopies are admissible in lieu of the original microfilm. He's (actually just his conspiracy sources) are raising a bogus point, relying on their readers not to know what's acceptable and what's not, and he is left out to dry when his sources are challenged and shown to be wrong. He's just echoing nonsense he read elsewhere.

No matter which set of rules we play by, he loses. The evidence indicts Oswald.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Okay, but why are you enjoying such a drubbing?

I am exposing members of the almighty Church of the Lone Nut for what you are. And no, I do not expect that you would ever fully understand this, unless someone take pity on you and pay for a radical reprograming of your brain.

It can be very painful, yes I know, but it’s better to take the bull by the horn and face up to reality in one grand swoop.

Until that happens, I do as much I can do in eroding your false sense of reality.

Telling the truth.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I am exposing members of the almighty Church of the Lone Nut for what you are. And no, I do not expect that you would ever fully understand this, unless someone take pity on you and pay for a radical reprograming of your brain.

It can be very painful, yes I know, but it’s better to take the bull by the horn and face up to reality in one grand swoop.

Until that happens, I do as much I can do in eroding your false sense of reality.

Telling the truth.

I am not entirely sure you understand what it is you claim to oppose.
That is not a comment on your intelligence, or capability, but your grasp on the null hypothesis, what it is others believe, and most importantly why they believe it, seems to be somewhat skewered.

Have you considered reading the thread in its entirety?

 

[HSienzant]

I am exposing members of the almighty Church of the Lone Nut for what you are.

Begging the question. There's no church. There are people who believe in the rules of law and of evidence.

And no, I do not expect that you would ever fully understand this, unless someone take pity on you and pay for a radical reprograming of your brain.

Sorry you believe in a conspiracy there is no evidence for.

It can be very painful, yes I know, but it’s better to take the bull by the horn and face up to reality in one grand swoop.

When do you intend to start?
By the way, bulls have two horns. Taking it by one horn, you're liable to get gored. I just love your attention to detail.

Until that happens, I do as much I can do in eroding your false sense of reality.

Back at ya.

Telling the truth.

By arguing against legit evidence, invoking logical fallacies, and repeating conspiracy myths?

That's not the best approach to the truth.

But it's the only way to justify a conspiracy belief.

Hank

 

[OKBob]

It can be very painful, yes I know, but it’s better to take the bull by the horn and face up to reality in one grand swoop.

What you seem to be asking us to do is take the bull by the tail and face an alternative reality.

 

[traxy]

I am exposing members of the almighty Church of the Lone Nut for what you are.

Well informed and correct?

 

[HSienzant]

And here comes the change of subject and another conspiracy fringe reset...

He's dropped arguing about the 'Mauser'.

He's going to abandon arguing about the paper trail linking Oswald to the rifle and switch to something else.

Watch.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

I am exposing members of the almighty Church of the Lone Nut for what you are. And no, I do not expect that you would ever fully understand this, unless someone take pity on you and pay for a radical reprograming of your brain.

It seems someone has radically reprogrammed your brain to believe nonsense.

It can be very painful, yes I know, but it’s better to take the bull by the horn and face up to reality in one grand swoop.

Is that why you run away from answering questions? Why you run away from the thread when it gets too hot for you?

Until that happens, I do as much I can do in eroding your false sense of reality.

CTists certainly do have a weird perspective and their own concept of reality.

Telling the truth.

Awesome! When do you start?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Is it worth reminding any other CT who is reading this, that the majority of sceptics in this thread would be happy to see the null overturned.

I would be willing to read any full theory, to see how it measures against the null.

Even if you do not overturn my views, I would be interested to see where your theory falls on various poster's sliding scales of probability.

 

[Whip]

(HINT: Can't be McLain, because when he was told to go the hospital, he hit his siren on. It's not on the recording. Well, maybe not. The siren heard on the recording could be his, but it is from a stationery bike (that's why it has the doppler effect) as the sirens go by it. If the open mic were on McLain's bike, it would be constant pitch and volume. Of course, McLain also says he wasn't in the right spot)

he wasn't chasing Hans Gruber yet?

 

[CORed]

And I think you agree that they are specious.


So you AREN'T claiming Greer is guilty of anything?


So you ARE claiming Greer is guilty of something?


Citation required.

You really aren't very good at this, are you. You should stick to a subject that you know something about.

Show me some evidence that there is a subject manifesto knows something about. I haven't seen any.