JFK's assassination: your thoughts

[JayUtah]

I come from the angle that all information that is available should be used for the solution.

Do you believe that all information has equal probative value?

It is without argument that many documents have come to light since the WC which have factually altered their conclusions.

From what conclusion to what other conclusion? Be specific.

 

[ladmo]

Do you believe that all information has equal probative value?

In order for information to have probative value, it needs to meet criteria of moving the case forward. If the information meets that threshold, then "yes". If it does not reach that bar, then it is not probative. Each juror will react differently to the presentation of probative exhibits, so it would difficult to measure if all is equal, therefore I default to the "yes".

From what conclusion to what other conclusion? Be specific.

This needs to be built with a foundation.

Using the above 'probative value"; presentation of LHO in Mexico City would have been disallowed in a court of law (I understand this is not court but probative value brought us there). Since LHO visit to MC was critical to establish his disenchantment with the USA, his want to leave the USA, et al. This admission of false conclusions will prejudice the committee.

What overall conclusions should be changed is extremely difficult; it is not unlike a football game. If the Left Guard would have been called for "holding"; would that have changed the outcome of the game? It certainly had an impact on the play but to determine if it makes a difference on the final score, is impossible. Most people have not read the WC but they base their opinion on the Commission's conclusion which was partially formulated with known errors. This is not a test where if a person gets 95% correct, it is considered OK. What is part of the report needs to be vetted, validated and verified but the need to get it out with LHO as the lone gunman overrode other considerations.

 

[BStrong]

NO it isn't; it is an FBI clearance procedure.

Wrong.

From the link:

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, law enforcement agencies can clear, or “close,” offenses in one of two ways: by arrest or by exceptional means.

Although an agency may administratively close a case, that does not necessarily mean that the agency can clear the offense for UCR purposes. To clear an offense within the UCR Program’s guidelines, the reporting agency must adhere to certain criteria, which are outlined in the following text. (Note: The UCR Program does not distinguish between offenses cleared by arrest and those cleared by exceptional means in collecting or publishing data via the traditional Summary Reporting System.)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances

Exceptional Clearance is not restricted to the FBI, as can be seen in relation to the Universal Crime Reporting format - local agencies absolutley use EC in the course of their investigations and the process is recognized as being part of LEA sop.

 

[ladmo]

Nice try. You are advocating a minority opinion. Complaining that you are in the minority and that the majority expresses general agreement on the criticism they level and employ generally the same method in delivering it is just silly grandstanding. Tautology is a tautology.

Maybe you are correct, this is a site for something that I totally misunderstood.

When James Randi exposed Uri Geller, he didn't have to provide how you can actually bend spoons with your mind. All he did was expose that Geller used "slight of hand", he showed what Geller did and it was debunked. This site is not that, exposing is not enough, an alternative theory is required. There is no martyrdom required, the majority is not interested in an open discussion, it is interested in "are you a CT or one of us"? There is no in between... I do agree with your approach of either embracing it or deal with it.

 

[ladmo]

Wrong.

From the link:

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, law enforcement agencies can clear, or “close,” offenses in one of two ways: by arrest or by exceptional means.

Although an agency may administratively close a case, that does not necessarily mean that the agency can clear the offense for UCR purposes. To clear an offense within the UCR Program’s guidelines, the reporting agency must adhere to certain criteria, which are outlined in the following text. (Note: The UCR Program does not distinguish between offenses cleared by arrest and those cleared by exceptional means in collecting or publishing data via the traditional Summary Reporting System.)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances

Exceptional Clearance is not restricted to the FBI, as can be seen in relation to the Universal Crime Reporting format - local agencies absolutley use EC in the course of their investigations and the process is recognized as being part of LEA sop.

Again, provide the information that LHO was processed under this criteria; otherwise it has no relevance.

 

[BStrong]

Support your claim; I have not seen this applied to LHO.

Records have been kept for a number of years; the state of Texas adopted this in the mid to late 60's. It would have had to been the FBI who assigned it but never the less, support your claim that LHO was processed under this process.

LHO is named as the assassin in the WC, and is named as the shooter in the murder of officer Tippet.

They did not hang the charges on him in a kangaroo court.

The case met the critera for EC - Oswald and the rifle used to assassinate JFK were tied together and recovered at the scene. LHO was apprehended. LHO was in possession of the firearm used to murder Tippet. Because of LHO's murder by Ruby, no criminal cases could proceed.

I'll stand by my observation, and the simple fact that you have no knowledge of the procedure or how it's applied is more evidence that you're parroting some other CT hawkers conclusions rather than actually doing any unbiased investigation on your own - 15 minutes with a criminal attorney should have brought an explanatiion of EC as it relates to the WC findings on Oswald.

 

[JayUtah]

In order for information to have probative value, it needs to meet criteria of moving the case forward. If the information meets that threshold, then "yes". If it does not reach that bar, then it is not probative. Each juror will react differently to the presentation of probative exhibits, so it would difficult to measure if all is equal, therefore I default to the "yes".

Non sequitur. You lay out a case for the proposition that evidence must meet a standard in order to be probative, which effectively answers my question with "no." Then you tell me your answer to my question is "yes."

Please answer my question again without trying to weasel around it or non-answer it.

This needs to be built with a foundation.

100% weasel words.

You say the Warren Commission's conclusions have been "factually altered" by new information. Please, without a plethora of backpedaling, list the conclusion that the commission arrived at, the new information that materially alters it, what the new conclusion should be in light of that information, and a cogent line of reasoning that leads there.

And I did as you to be specific, so when you try again to answer my question, continue to be specific.

 

[BStrong]

Again, provide the information that LHO was processed under this criteria; otherwise it has no relevance.

You're the individual that asserted that there was no legal finding naming LHO as JFK's murderer - I explained how there was, but because you have no knowledge of how the CJ system works and this is probably the first time you've heard the term Exceptional Clearance, you reject the concept's validity.

Sorry about that, it's not my fault that you aren't up to speed.

If you have any alternative explanation as to how the WC named Oswald, have at it, I've done my part.

 

[ladmo]

You're the individual that asserted that there was no legal finding naming LHO as JFK's murderer - I explained how there was, but because you have no knowledge of how the CJ system works and this is probably the first time you've heard the term Exceptional Clearance, you reject the concept's validity.

Sorry about that, it's not my fault that you aren't up to speed.

If you have any alternative explanation as to how the WC named Oswald, have at it, I've done my part.

So you cannot provide me with the reference that Oswald was processed under this EC. Good to know.

 

[BStrong]

So you cannot provide me with the reference that Oswald was processed under this EC. Good to know.

How was the case cleared by the WC findings if not by EC?

No criminal trial took place ladmo, and the only other method in a criminal case to determine a legal finding is by EC.

ETA ladmo - your post:

"The above statement shows that the Commission was conducting a proceeding that held no merit in court.

The Commission states in Chapter VII:

"The evidence reviewed above identifies Lee Harvey
Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy and indicates
that he acted alone in that event. There is no evidence that
he had accomplices or that he was involved in any conspiracy directed
to the assassination of the President."

The Commission has identified LHO as the assassin but they failed to bring their findings up to court standards. They were not able to "prove" it. As stated many times, the Commission is strictly an opinion and they state that themselves when they confess that their findings are inadmissible in the court.

In short, you accept a finding that would be disallowed in our judicial system.

I demonstrated that your lack of knowledge of Exceptional Clearance led you to believe that the findings of the WC "would be disallowed in our judicial system" when in fact the findings have legal standing under the established critirea of EC.

 

[LSSBB]

No, not from the very first time I heard about the assassination. I am old enough to remember that day Kennedy was killed, I was young and it had a huge impact on me. It may be different for me due to actually being a part of the fabric in society and that the criticism of the WC has been from day 1.

My position is not to disprove the LHO was a lone gunman; I come from the angle that all information that is available should be used for the solution. It is without argument that many documents have come to light since the WC which have factually altered their conclusions.

Ok, I don't see how your approach differs from the majority of the voters to date in the poll. The answer that most agree with is worded: "Probably just Oswald acting alone". Note the word "Probably" - which, as I see it, means that to those agreeing with the statement, all the evidence presented to date best fits the conclusion of LHO being a lone gunman.

Unless your point is that the readers of the poll have poor reading comprehension, I don't see where your position differs from the majority of poll respondents, and therefore as of this posting, probably 90.3% of the posters and readers present.

 

[Jetblast]

The thought occurs that he may have bought them somewhere else.

The problem with that is Oswald had a trace-able routine. There's a limited number of places where he could have bought them. They were an odd ammunition.

One could legitimately argue that Oswald bought them from a source that didn't want to get involved and stayed quiet, but this would be the exception.

If you read legitimate sources for Oswald's alleged acquiring of the rifle you'll see there's serious doubt as to its provenance and that Oswald was likely set-up as ordering it. The postmaster involved had serious issues and was working covertly for an FBI letter-opening program. It's unlikely a defector in a post office with employees doing covert FBI activity would be allowed to have a rifle sent to his address unnoticed. Oswald was a CIA operative so even if he did have some part in ordering the rifle it could have been done under covert orders.

 

[ladmo]

How was the case cleared by the WC findings if not by EC?

No criminal trial took place ladmo, and the only other method in a criminal case to determine a legal finding is by EC.

You can't answer a question with a question. Show me your findings or admit you just "googled" it and thought this would be the answer. If your grasp of the judicial system is so robust, you should be able to produce it instantaneously.

 

[BStrong]

The problem with that is Oswald had a trace-able routine. There's a limited number of places where he could have bought them. They were an odd ammunition.

One could legitimately argue that Oswald bought them from a source that didn't want to get involved and stayed quiet, but this would be the exception.

If you read legitimate sources for Oswald's alleged acquiring of the rifle you'll see there's serious doubt as to its provenance and that Oswald was likely set-up as ordering it. The postmaster involved had serious issues and was working covertly for an FBI letter-opening program. It's unlikely a defector in a post office with employees doing covert FBI activity would be allowed to have a rifle sent to his address unnoticed. Oswald was a CIA operative so even if he did have some part in ordering the rifle it could have been done under covert orders.

Other than assuming facts not in evidence, let me fill you in on a fact of life pre-1968.

Mail order firearms up to and including DEWAT'ed (De-Activated War Trophy) machineguns and destructive devices were very commonly available no questions asked and short of someone ordering an actual railroad car full, not much attention was paid to any of the mail order dealers or the customers.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You can't answer a question with a question. Show me your findings or admit you just "googled" it and thought this would be the answer. If your grasp of the judicial system is so robust, you should be able to produce it instantaneously.

The JFK assassination meets the very definition of EC. Oswald was dead and they couldn't try his corpse in a court of law to "prove" he was the lone assassin. For FBI uniform reporting purposes, the case was cleared without using a court of law to determine the facts of the case. You may want to reread where you posted the WC's findings about Oswald's guilt earlier.

Seriously, read something.

 

[ladmo]

Ok, I don't see how your approach differs from the majority of the voters to date in the poll. The answer that most agree with is worded: "Probably just Oswald acting alone". Note the word "Probably" - which, as I see it, means that to those agreeing with the statement, all the evidence presented to date best fits the conclusion of LHO being a lone gunman.

Unless your point is that the readers of the poll have poor reading comprehension, I don't see where your position differs from the majority of poll respondents, and therefore as of this posting, probably 90.3% of the posters and readers present.

I can easily see how I fit into that model.

 

[BStrong]

You can't answer a question with a question. Show me your findings or admit you just "googled" it and thought this would be the answer. If your grasp of the judicial system is so robust, you should be able to produce it instantaneously.

Show me you that had any idea that such a thing as Exceptional Clearance existed before I informed you of the process yesterday, and I don't see any evidence of you having any knowledge of the process given the fact that you asserted that EC is only used by the FBI.

Sorry again ladmo, you're digging another hole - between you and JB the CT forum is starting to look like the lunar surface.

EC is a well established process - go speak with a practicing criminal attorney and ask them.

 

[kookbreaker]

The problem with that is Oswald had a trace-able routine. There's a limited number of places where he could have bought them. They were an odd ammunition.

It was also post-war surplus. That stuff was dumped onto the market en-masse. It was not as rare as you might have us believe.

 

[Jetblast]

You got a source for that or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Because it is nonsense.

Curry's statement is well-known. When he was selling his book 5 years after the assassination he openly said there was no evidence tying Oswald to the 6th floor window or the rifle.

Look it up. This is correct. You have a Google search, right?

 

[ladmo]

The JFK assassination meets the very definition of EC. Oswald was dead and they couldn't try his corpse in a court of law to "prove" he was the lone assassin. For FBI uniform reporting purposes, the case was cleared without using a court of law to determine the facts of the case. You may want to reread where you posted the WC's findings about Oswald's guilt earlier.

Seriously, read something.

If Oswald was processed under the EC, there will be a record of it. That is all I am saying. Records are kept.

Seriously, it is obvious that you have very little executable knowledge on the JFK assassination.