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

[Hans]

Holy. Mighty.

Hole-in-head where all your memory of where the evidence was or is - leaked out.

May I offer you a cork?

 

[JayUtah]

Copies of business records are fully acceptable.

They are admissible only if the original cannot be placed into evidence, such as when the original no longer exists.

 

[HSienzant]

In bad standing I might add for saying over and over again that they really added to the collection plate when they didn't.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

And again, since JFK's head is tilted down at the moment of impact, I would expect nothing less. Do you understand what the word 'anatomically' means? It appears you don't.

Hank

I don't think you even read the words, but basically how many things do you disagree with the HSCA on? How high do you think the beveled exit notch was?

 

[HSienzant]

They are admissible only if the original cannot be placed into evidence, such as when the original no longer exists.

I'm no lawyer, but it appears photocopies of microfilm of originals are admissible per the Federal Rules of Evidence:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1003

"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 in absence of suggestion to trial judge that photostats were incorrect; Johns v. United States, 323 F.2d 421 (5th Cir. 1963), not error to admit concededly accurate tape recording made from original wire recording; Sauget v. Johnston, 315 F.2d 816 (9th Cir. 1963), not error to admit copy of agreement when opponent had original and did not on appeal claim any discrepancy. Other reasons for requiring the original may be present when only a part of the original is reproduced and the remainder is needed for cross-examination or may disclose matters qualifying the part offered or otherwise useful to the opposing party. United States v. Alexander, 326 F.2d 736 (4th Cir. 1964). And see Toho Bussan Kaisha, Ltd. v. American President Lines, Ltd., 265 F.2d 418, 76 A.L.R.2d 1344 (2d Cir. 1959)."​

I'm not sure if you were around when Manifesto was arguing that only the original business records would suffice to establish Oswald bought the rifle from Klein's, and that neither the photocopies from the microfilm nor the original microfilm would suffice.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I don't think you even read the words, but basically how many things do you disagree with the HSCA on? How high do you think the beveled exit notch was?

You just ignored my point entirely.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

No. The regulations you posted are only evidence of what is supposed to happen, not of what actually happened. You have shown no evidence that this was normal practice, nor have you shown evidence that every PMO ever issued is always stamped on being banked.

One issue at the time. Do you now agree that the regulations says that the PMO’s 1963 SHOULD HAVE bank endorsement stamps on them?

 

[HSienzant]

One issue at the time. Do you now agree that the regulations says that the PMO’s 1963 SHOULD HAVE bank endorsement stamps on them?

You haven't established that.

At all.

Hank

PS: Looks like the 52 knoll witnesses argument has been abandoned -- for now. Wanna bet next time he brings it up he's back at 52 knoll witnesses like all the preceding discussion where he admitted some witnesses shouldn't be labelled knoll witnesses will be conveniently ignored. Any takers? What are my odds?

 

[manifesto]

I think Gus Russo's book touched on this, but the dozens of books I've read on the topic tend to blend into each other and I might be misremembering.

Basically the theory goes that Oswald wanted to defect to Cuba and attempted to do so through Mexico City in September of '63. His request was denied, but somehow Oswald got the notion that assassinating Kennedy would punch his ticket into Cuba. Whether he was promised safe passage by other Cubans, or if the request came from Castro himself, or if Oswald just took it upon himself, who knows.

It makes for interesting discussion anyway.

This is CIA’s fall back position popping up now and again over the years. No, there is not a single piece of evidence of Castro taking part in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK. On the contrary.

But, the threat of ”Castro did it = American people would demand revenge = third world nuclear war”, was a very effective thought stopper and the chief instrument for the cover up.

Who wants a nuclear war with a projected 40 million Americans dead the first hour alone?

That was how LBJ recruited among others a very unwilling Earl Warren to head his white wash ”truth” commission.

 

[Axxman300]

How it is stealing when there's an infinite amount? Why should I feel guilty over what is ultimately a failure of capitalism?

Because if the right thing to do, the honest thing to do, is to pay for it, and you take it without paying for it - you're a thief.

It further undermines your credibility because it is a testament to your honesty, and if firmly implies that you don't believe any of the claims you're making here.

If you are not willing to pay for information then by definition the information is worthless.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm no lawyer, but it appears photocopies of microfilm of originals are admissible per the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Certainly, for the purposes and under the limitations described, which are -- as usual -- finely sliced in law as I understand it.

If the copy is admitted merely to convey the information contained on it, and there is no controversy over what the content is (as, say, opposed to what implications it might have), then a copy would certainly suffice. There is no need to provide the original even if the original exists.

If the content of the record is challenged by way of claiming it's a copy that has been doctored away from the original, the challenger would have the burden of proof for his affirmative defense, and would then be on the hook to supply the original to substantiate it. If the original, say, had been destroyed in the normal course of business, and the archival microfilm becomes the only remaining copy of the record, then the challenger's affirmative rebuttal fails. He would not be able to salvage his defense by saying only originals are admissible.

 

[Axxman300]

I think Gus Russo's book touched on this, but the dozens of books I've read on the topic tend to blend into each other and I might be misremembering.

Basically the theory goes that Oswald wanted to defect to Cuba and attempted to do so through Mexico City in September of '63. His request was denied, but somehow Oswald got the notion that assassinating Kennedy would punch his ticket into Cuba. Whether he was promised safe passage by other Cubans, or if the request came from Castro himself, or if Oswald just took it upon himself, who knows.

It makes for interesting discussion anyway.

That's what the CIA looked into after the assassination. That file I posted from the Mexico City Station details their investigation. The problem was that they could never get a straight answer.

If the Cubans put him up to it then that conversation occurred during or after the party he attended while he was down there. He was in Mexico City for a week.

 

[Hans]

This is CIA’s fall back position popping up now and again over the years. No, there is not a single piece of evidence of Castro taking part in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

So why didn't the evil CIA create that evidence?

I mean was the evil CIA just doing things randomly?

 

[Axxman300]

Certainly, for the purposes and under the limitations described, which are -- as usual -- finely sliced in law as I understand it.

If the copy is admitted merely to convey the information contained on it, and there is no controversy over what the content is (as, say, opposed to what implications it might have), then a copy would certainly suffice. There is no need to provide the original even if the original exists.

If the content of the record is challenged by way of claiming it's a copy that has been doctored away from the original, the challenger would have the burden of proof for his affirmative defense, and would then be on the hook to supply the original to substantiate it. If the original, say, had been destroyed in the normal course of business, and the archival microfilm becomes the only remaining copy of the record, then the challenger's affirmative rebuttal fails. He would not be able to salvage his defense by saying only originals are admissible.

A few years ago the FBI showed up at my place of work with a search warrant (had to do with the Pollard case). They needed the physical receipts from a purchase made a few years back. This was in the 1980's. We tracked them down from storage, and we gave them the receipts, and we signed papers confirming their authenticity, and they took them to be photographed, and copies. The receipts were returned via US Mail a few weeks later.

The trial happened after all of that so they only had copies by the time they went to court.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not sure if you were around when Manifesto was arguing that only the original business records would suffice to establish Oswald bought the rifle from Klein's, and that neither the photocopies from the microfilm nor the original microfilm would suffice.

I assume the photocopy of the microfilm can be easily verified as containing the same pertinent information as the microfilm itself. Notaries all across the country do this many thousands of times a day. That would make it admissible as a faithful rendition of the microfilm for pretty much any purpose under law. In a court it would be the same as having the microfilm itself.

I'm sure you can find details in the rules of evidence, but there's no reason to suppose a microfilmed archival record of long disposed paper records would not be admissible. If Manifesto's aim is to impeach the record by saying it could have been doctored, then that's his burden of proof. And it would be fairly difficult, I would think, to carry that from the microfilm itself. But he certainly doesn't get to say it's impeached or inadmissible simply because it's a copy.

 

[Hans]

That's what the CIA looked into after the assassination. That file I posted from the Mexico City Station details their investigation. The problem was that they could never get a straight answer.

If the Cubans put him up to it then that conversation occurred during or after the party he attended while he was down there. He was in Mexico City for a week.

Yeah that was always the basis of my CT. That someone might have accidentally or on purpose inspired him in some way in that situation. Some phrase or comment from a Cuban official or sympathizer.

Will we ever know? Nope.

 

[JayUtah]

...they took them to be photographed, and copies. The receipts were returned via US Mail a few weeks later.

The same happens with digital records. The FBI doesn't often take the whole computer in a search or seizure; they image the hard disks onsite with equipment made specifically for that purpose. The forensic examination of the contents is done in their lab using the copy of the disk image. It's perfectly admissible as evidence.

 

[manifesto]

So why didn't the evil CIA create that evidence?

I mean was the evil CIA just doing things randomly?

Do you love the terror organization, CIA, Hans?

 

[OKBob]

If a nations academia and press are ”paid” by the very special interests that benefits from the cover up of the JFK assassination, unpaid research is the only recourse left.

I've been a tenured university academic in two separate and very different disciplines for the better part of thirty years. In neither discipline was I ever offered money by special interests, and none of my many professor friends--in many fields--have ever reported anything like that to me. (I do not include here the payments that some academics have received from, say, the tobacco industry and such. Those payments have occurred, but they're different from what you're talking about, though also objectionable, in my view.) I concede that my evidence, though grounded in deep experience, is negative--that is, I have simply not seen or heard of such payments offered or made. But what is your evidence or experience for the claim you make?

 

[Axxman300]

This is CIA’s fall back position popping up now and again over the years. No, there is not a single piece of evidence of Castro taking part in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK. On the contrary.

Maybe, maybe not:

https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/cha...assination-Did-Castro-know-before-it-happened

But, the threat of ”Castro did it = American people would demand revenge = third world nuclear war”, was a very effective thought stopper and the chief instrument for the cover up.

Um...Cuba didn't have nuclear weapons, and the Soviets would not have gone to war with the US over Cuba. So, you're wrong.

We never found evidence directly linking Oswald to Cuba, which is why we never invaded.

That was how LBJ recruited among others a very unwilling Earl Warren to head his white wash ”truth” commission.

Pipe dream.