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

[manifesto]

Here's your "Zoo" problem precisely. You beg the question in stating that the chain of custody must be "solid." Where do you get that standard, and what do you mean by it? It seems to be a very high standard--improvised by you--since you imply that we could mention any "material [e]vidence" and you would likely find it to lack a "solid" chain, and therefore rule it inadmissible in your court. I couldn't have illustrated the "If I Ran the Zoo" fallacy more succinctly. It's the fallacy in which a critic assumes the roles of both legislator and judge--that is, the critic gets to make up the rules and then apply them.

I asked you this:

So, why is there a concept like ”chain of custody”? What is it for? What is its function?

Do you have an answer?

 

[OKBob]

I asked you this:
Do you have an answer?

You also asked me what the "If I Ran the Zoo" fallacy was. I've taken the time to answer you, but you don't seem interested in such fundamentals.

And of course I have an answer. I'm an attorney and a law professor. First, the "chain of custody" is a requirement of trial courts for ensuring that evidence was not faked, altered, or tampered with before it was brought into court. Oswald never was and never will be tried in a true court of law. So you must ask yourself whether such a forensic standard is appropriate for what is and will always be a historical question. Historians, in their reasonable judgment, accept many forms of evidence that were not hermetically controlled by some chain of custody.

Second, even if we apply a forensic "chain of custody" standard--that is, the procedures that would be applied by a trial court--you are not entitled to establish the standard in your own arbitrary manner. It would be established, of course, by what the courts do and say. Here's what a recent (2017) Texas appellate court stated: “Any gaps in the chain of custody go to the weight of the evidence, not admissibility; however, proof should be shown as to the beginning and end of the chain. [....] The trial court need only make the preliminary determination that the proponent of the item has supplied facts sufficient to support a reasonable jury determination that the proffered evidence is authentic.”

So, at trial, evidence is not automatically ruled inadmissible by a court, even if there appear to be gaps in the chain of custody. The present Texas standard is "facts sufficient to support a reasonable jury determination of authenticity." A reasonable chain of custody may be, and often is, established by the testimony of officers, particularly where defense counsel has challenged documentation or procedures. FBI, Secret Service, and DPD officers would have testified regarding any gap-flawed evidence in the JFK case.

And do you notice that little bit about gaps usually being a question of factual weighting, to be tested by the jury, not a question of admissibility for the court? Even evidence with custody gaps may be admitted upon proper testimony, and those gaps are simply for the jury to assign the weight to be given to the evidence in the final verdict.

Most CTists suggest that the evidence against Oswald, if flawed in any respect, would not be admitted for jury consideration. Not true.

Now, I've answered your questions, but you haven't answered mine. (1) Why do you apply a trial standard instead of a standard appropriate to historical inquiry? (2) Where do you get your standard of a "solid" chain of custody? (3) Why do you feel that the "material evidence" in the JFK case would fail your standard (even if acceptable as a standard)?

 

[manifesto]

Don't you know which one you're claiming got it wrong? Specifically?

I know of no alleged refutation that got it right. You are claiming that you know of several.

Since I’m not a mind reader, you have to show me these refutations AND explain why they are valid.

One at the time.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I know of no alleged refutation that got it right. You are claiming that you know of several.

Since I’m not a mind reader, you have to show me these refutations AND explain why they are valid.

One at the time.

If you're claiming one got it wrong, you'll have to provide compelling evidence of it. Your burden of proof.

Maybe you should have responded to one of the posts where I told you exactly who refuted it? Is that beyond the ability of all CTists?

 

[manifesto]

You also asked me what the "If I Ran the Zoo" fallacy was. I've taken the time to answer you, but you don't seem interested in such fundamentals.

And of course I have an answer. I'm an attorney and a law professor. First, the "chain of custody" is a requirement of trial courts for ensuring that evidence was not faked, altered, or tampered with before it was brought into court. Oswald never was and never will be tried in a true court of law. So you must ask yourself whether such a forensic standard is appropriate for what is and will always be a historical question. Historians, in their reasonable judgment, accept many forms of evidence that were not hermetically controlled by some chain of custody.

Second, even if we apply a forensic "chain of custody" standard--that is, the procedures that would be applied by a trial court--you are not entitled to establish the standard in your own arbitrary manner. It would be established, of course, by what the courts do and say. Here's what a recent (2017) Texas appellate court stated: “Any gaps in the chain of custody go to the weight of the evidence, not admissibility; however, proof should be shown as to the beginning and end of the chain. [....] The trial court need only make the preliminary determination that the proponent of the item has supplied facts sufficient to support a reasonable jury determination that the proffered evidence is authentic.”

So, at trial, evidence is not automatically ruled inadmissible by a court, even if there appear to be gaps in the chain of custody. The present Texas standard is "facts sufficient to support a reasonable jury determination of authenticity." A reasonable chain of custody may be, and often is, established by the testimony of officers, particularly where defense counsel has challenged documentation or procedures. FBI, Secret Service, and DPD officers would have testified regarding any gap-flawed evidence in the JFK case.

And do you notice that little bit about gaps usually being a question of credibility, to be tested by the jury, not a question of admissibility for the court? Even evidence with custody gaps may be admitted upon proper testimony, and those gaps are simply for the jury to assign the weight to be given to the evidence in the final verdict.

I have no serious issue with this.

Most CTists

Is calling names a part of your law education?

suggest that the evidence against Oswald, if flawed in any respect, would not be admitted for jury consideration. Not true.

I have never made this claim. Lack of secured chain of custody has to be put in context and a good argument has do be made to why this have any bearing on the validity of said evidence. I do that in every specific case.

You are free to argue against. But, be specific.

Now, I've answered your questions, but you haven't answered mine. (1) Why do you apply a trial standard instead of a standard appropriate to historical inquiry?

Because they capture the essence of flawed evidence. Is ”provenance” a better word, do you think? Secured authenticity? Other?

(2) Where do you get your standard of a "solid" chain of custody?

No standard. Contextual.

(3) Why do you feel that the "material evidence" in the JFK case would fail your standard (even if acceptable as a standard)?

Because nothing fits. Wherever you look there are clear signs of tampering.

Yes, it could have been sloppy work, incomptence, stress, lack of cooperation or communication between different law enforcement organizations, pressure to produce results, etc, but somewhere the line has to be drawn, and I am prepared to argue for that line in every relevant case where I see overwhelming signs of faul play, of cover up and/or accessories after the fact.

This is impossible to formalize and therefore has to be assessed on a case by case basis. To argue for and against.

 

[OKBob]

Is calling names a part of your law education?

I wasn't calling names. Stop using that dodge. I'm characterizing CT behavior and thinking from my observation of many years. You know nothing about my legal education, practice, teaching, or publication record, so stop embarrassing yourself by being presumptuous.

 

[OKBob]

Lack of secured chain of custody has to be put in context and a good argument has do be made to why this have any bearing on the validity of said evidence.

You just failed your first law exam. I put the Texas chain-of-custody standard up in bright lights for you: "facts sufficient to support a reasonable jury determination of authenticity." The standard isn't a "good argument," whatever in the world that means. Where questions have been raised about gaps, proof, often in the form of officer testimony, is offered to make a reasonable case for submitting the evidence to the jury.

Not "a good argument," not "solid" proof, not "secured authenticity," not "contextual" persuasiveness or any other spaghetti you've tossed against the wall. Facts "sufficient" to support a "reasonable" jury determination.

Stop trying to run the zoo.

 

[OKBob]

My question:
Now, I've answered your questions, but you haven't answered mine. (1) Why do you apply a trial standard instead of a standard appropriate to historical inquiry?

Your answer:
Because they capture the essence of flawed evidence. Is ”provenance” a better word, do you think? Secured authenticity? Other?

Your answer is word salad. And you didn't answer my fundamental question: why a judicial rather than a historian's standard, since all any of us can ever be is an historian, not a lawyer, regarding the JFK assassination?

 

[OKBob]

My question:
(2) Where do you get your standard of a "solid" chain of custody?

Your answer:
No standard. Contextual.

This makes no sense and is a retreat into weasel words. "Contextual" is simply a way for you to conceal your arbitrary standards and claims. Everything is contextual, so you've offered nothing in response to my question.

 

[OKBob]

My question:
(3) Why do you feel that the "material evidence" in the JFK case would fail your standard (even if acceptable as a standard)?

Your answer:
Because nothing fits. Wherever you look there are clear signs of tampering.

And this is why you and other CTists (no, I'm not calling names) never get a hearing outside of the echo chamber of those who share the paranoid style in politics (look up the essay by Richard Hofstadter). It's absolutely clear that you have prejudged all the evidence against Oswald ("wherever you look") and found it to have "clear signs of tampering." Why should any reasonable person take your claims seriously?

 

[manifesto]

I wasn't calling names. Stop using that dodge. I'm characterizing CT behavior and thinking from my observation of many years. You know nothing about my legal education, practice, teaching, or publication record, so stop embarrassing yourself by being presumptuous.

So, calling me a ”CT” is not calling names?

 

[manifesto]

You just failed your first law exam.

I don’t give a crap of law exams. I care about democracy and human rights, a free and open society where truth and justice rules.

I put the Texas chain-of-custody standard up in bright lights for you: "facts sufficient to support a reasonable jury determination of authenticity." The standard isn't a "good argument," whatever in the world that means. Where questions have been raised about gaps, proof, often in the form of officer testimony, is offered to make a reasonable case for submitting the evidence to the jury.

I do not care of ”Texas chain-of-custody standard”. I care of alleged evidence being genuin not temperad with evidence.

Not "a good argument," not "solid" proof, not "secured authenticity," not "contextual" persuasiveness or any other spaghetti you've tossed against the wall. Facts "sufficient" to support a "reasonable" jury determination.

Stop trying to run the zoo.

If you take a look in any academic paper in the human sciences it is stuffed with foot notes. Do you know the meaning of this? What purpose do these foot notes have?

Aesthetics?

 

[manifesto]

My question:
(3) Why do you feel that the "material evidence" in the JFK case would fail your standard (even if acceptable as a standard)?

Your answer:
Because nothing fits. Wherever you look there are clear signs of tampering.

And this is why you and other CTists (no, I'm not calling names)

Yes you certainly do, calling names.

Ask yourself while looking in the mirror, ”Why am I calling names?”

never get a hearing outside of the echo chamber of those who share the paranoid style in politics (look up the essay by Richard Hofstadter).

Since when did Hofstadter became chief arbiter in matters of political assassinations and coup d’etat’s?

Self appointed, anointed all seeing magus?

It's absolutely clear that you have prejudged all the evidence against Oswald ("wherever you look") and found it to have "clear signs of tampering." Why should any reasonable person take your claims seriously?

No, you are utterly and completely wrong.

Your posts in the discussion about the HSCA acoustical evidence is a case in point.

- Oswald was the lone nut assassin of JFK, ergo, the acoustical evidence HAS to be wrong. No matter the strength of the scientific evidence.

You’re the one in a self-reinforcing loop and I’m the one trying to wake you up.

Wake up.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- Oswald was the lone nut assassin of JFK, ergo, the acoustical evidence HAS to be wrong. No matter the strength of the scientific evidence.

The HSCA acoustical evidence has been debunked as junk. You've never refuted the National Academy of Science about that. You've always run away.

You still have the burden of proof to show ... whatever it is you're claiming ... is correct and you haven't done that.

Sorry, that's just the way it is. Maybe if you didn't do the typical CT running away?

 

[Axxman300]

I don’t give a crap of law exams. I care about democracy and human rights, a free and open society where truth and justice rules.

And yet you are clearly bigoted against the Irish, talking about us as if we lack self-control, and are all walking around barely containing homicidal rage due to things that happened centuries ago on the other side of the Atlantic.

You are clearly not interested in the truth, and you only care about human rights for those humans you deem worthy.

 

[Axxman300]

- Oswald was the lone nut assassin of JFK, ergo, the acoustical evidence HAS to be wrong. No matter the strength of the scientific evidence.

As has been pointed out, there is no scientific evidence against Oswald's guilt,

 

[Axxman300]

So, calling me a ”CT” is not calling names?

All you have done is advance one theory after another about a conspiracy.

You advance theories of a conspiracy.

You are a Conspiracy Theorist.

You are a CT.

 

[cmikes]

Of course not. That is why I ask you to present specific evidence for specific claims.

OK, the specific claim is that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John Kennedy, hitting him twice and causing the death of JFK.

The evidence for this is the Warren Commission report and the accompanying volumes of exhibits, the HSCA report*, the Clark report, the Rockefeller report, and the ARRB report.

I’m all too familiar with the SO CALLED evidence in the investigations, but I do not know what specific evidence you find compelling in any specific case.

Only you yourself know that.

What evidence are you referring to as "SO CALLED"? Do you have any evidence supporting your claims, or is it the standard conspiracy theorist handwave of "If it doesn't support my belief, it must be fake!"?

If you make a claim it’s up to you to provide evidence supporting said claim. I couldn’t possibly do that for you even if I wanted to.

I’m not a mind reader.

Done and done by multiple posters. Just because you insist on sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" doesn't mean that other posters aren't reading and understanding the rebuttals to your claims.


*The HSCA is a particularity fascinating case because the Chief Counsel, Robert Blakey, was a committed conspiracy theorist of the "Mafia did it" faction and spent his entire tenure desperately driving his staff to find something, anything that pointed to a conspiracy. The fact that the best he could do with the full power of a Congressional investigation behind him was the quickly debunked acoustic evidence says volumes about the lack of any evidence showing a conspiracy. It's about as close as you can get to proving a negative.

 

[traxy]

Hey Manifesto, here is the clip proving McLain wasn't where the HSCA said he was when the "shots" on the dictabelt were fired.

https://youtu.be/thSPu57vaWg

Anything else?

 

[manifesto]

All you have done is advance one theory after another about a conspiracy.

You advance theories of a conspiracy.

You are a Conspiracy Theorist.

You are a CT.

The ”CT” name calling serves a purpose. To discredit everyone who suspects the US Government of doing evil deeds. If you consider its track record, it is a very well founded suspicion.

Proven psychological warfare against its own population is a case in point. Dumping billions of dollars worth of cocaine/heroine on its minority groups in the urban ghettoes is a case in point. Lying to the American people to get its permission to wage illegal wars on millons of defenceless civilians all over the globe, is a case in point. Having jailed a higher percentage of its afro-population than aphartheids South Africa in its heyday, is a case in point. Shall I continue?

So yes, I doubt everything coming out of from US officaldom.

Why shouldn’t I?