JFK's assassination: your thoughts

[JayUtah]

The only thing a defence has to do in a criminal case is cast reasonable doubt on the claims of the prosecution. There is absolutely no burden of proof on them to provide an alternative explanation of what did happen.

Have you actually ever been in a court case?

 

[JayUtah]

...some people will believe anything because the government says so.

No. Contrary to what your conspiracy authors prime you to expect in a disputation, people do not reject half-baked conspiracy theories just because they have such blind faith in the government. Consider that people are indeed reaching a reasoned conclusion that you don't have any better explanations and you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Soily]

The part where Oswald was also carrying the ID of and Alex Hidell when he was caught, which was coincidentally the name signed for the rifle. When confronted on this matter by the police he plays coy with them, despite the fact that it was obvious that the conspirators planted the ID on Oswald at...some point.

Perhaps you could explain how Richard Case Nagell, for all his nuttiness, was able to be arrested in September 1963 with a near exact copy of Oswalds fake selective service ID card?

The major difference been, the Nagell version didnt include a stamp visible on the Oswald version which was made in October 1963, whilst Nagell was in prison. Since Nagel was in prison throughout the whole period involved, it's impossible for him to have faked this card up after the fact. Therefore the only logical conclusion is he had Oswalds ID before the assasination.

Care to explain how?

Perhaps you could also explain why a man who everyone who encountered him described as quick, intelligent and cunning, would order a mail order weapon under a psuedonym, presumably to avoid detection, but have it sent to a PO box under his own name? Why a man would try to conceal his illegal purchase of guns via a pseudonym but carry an ID card with that pseudonym in his wallet?

It's also a mystery as to why Oswald would continue to use Hidell as a pseudonym after it had already been revealed to the FBI after his arrest in New Orleans in August 1963.

 

[Soily]

No. Contrary to what your conspiracy authors prime you to expect in a disputation, people do not reject half-baked conspiracy theories just because they have such blind faith in the government. Consider that people are indeed reaching a reasoned conclusion that you don't have any better explanations and you don't know what you're talking about.

The Warren Commission verdict isn't a reasoned conclusion, because having actually read about the history and politics behind it I know for a fact it was a politically orchestrated cover up.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You only have to see the picture of the DPD officer carrying the bag and how it goes right over his face to see that bag was huge.

Which makes one wonder, how did the real perp get such a ginormous rifle into the TSBD without anyone seeing them??

Even if you believe these stories extracted under duress from Marina, these recount events from many months before the assassination.

There is no evidence that rifle was used at all in the months before the assasination, the offical story has it wrapped in a blanket in the Paines (unwitting) possession.

That doesn't explain why Oswald would *choose* to commit the crime of the century on a floor were there are a bunch of men working, or some guy having his lunch.

I dunno, maybe he worked there or something. LOL.

 

[Soily]

Have you actually ever been in a court case?

I have yes.

In common law, established in the UK in the middle ages and inherited by the US constitution, the 'presumption of innocence' is an absolute fundemental part of the legal system. This places the burden of proof on the accuser rather than the denier.

You're the accuser.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have yes.

In common law, established in the UK in the middle ages and inherited by the US constitution, the 'presumption of innocence' is an absolute fundemental part of the legal system. This places the burden of proof on the accuser rather than the denier.

You're the accuser.

No, Oswald was already proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the null hypothesis now. Oswald did it. That's what the totality of evidence points to to this day.

The burden of proof has already been satisfied.

 

[Soily]

I took me a moment to realize you are talking about a couple of photos taken from below from the outside. So you are talking at most a couple of boxes that could have been bumped by accident.

Accidentslly by who? Oswald was racing down the stairs at the time ready to calmly encounter Marion Baker.

 

[Soily]

No, Oswald was already proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the null hypothesis now. Oswald did it. That's what the totality of evidence points to to this day.

The burden of proof has already been satisfied.

This is not true. Not only was Oswald never tried in a court of law, 1 of the 2 official investigations declared the assasination a 'probable conspiracy'. What's more 3 out of 7 of report 1 plus the commissioner of report 1 didnt believe Oswald acted alone and all of those responsible for report 2 believed Oswald didn't act alone.

Therefore your claims that Oswalds guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt are extremely faulty.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This is not true. Not only was Oswald never tried in a court of law, 1 of the 2 official investigations declared the assasination a 'probable conspiracy'. What's more 3 out of 7 of report 1 plus the commissioner of report 1 didnt believe Oswald acted alone and all of those responsible for report 2 believed Oswald didn't act alone.

Therefore your claims that Oswalds guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt are extremely faulty.

No, you've spoken falsely.

Seriously, you should read the Warren Commission report and pay particular attention to their findings.

Are you saying that Oswald can't have killed JFK because he was killed before he could be tried in a court of law? That's... different.

 

[Stamuel]

This is not true. Not only was Oswald never tried in a court of law, 1 of the 2 official investigations declared the assasination a 'probable conspiracy'. What's more 3 out of 7 of report 1 plus the commissioner of report 1 didnt believe Oswald acted alone and all of those responsible for report 2 believed Oswald didn't act alone.





Therefore your claims that Oswalds guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt are extremely faulty.

The HSCA concluded that Oswald fired three shots at JFK, hitting him once in the back, and once in the head. They also concluded that no other shot hit JFK. Thus, both affirm his guilt as the assassin.



The only difference in findings was whether anyone else was involved. HSCA concluded, based solely on acoustic evidence from one recording of a police radio, that there was a fourth shot. Thus they concluded probable conspiracy. They found nothing in the medical, ballistic, forensic, documentary or eyewitness evidence to support a conspiracy, just the acoustic evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

I have yes.

In common law, established in the UK in the middle ages and inherited by the US constitution, the 'presumption of innocence' is an absolute fundemental part of the legal system. This places the burden of proof on the accuser rather than the denier.

Yeah, you've never been in a court.

I would love to see you "cast doubt on the prosecution's evidence" without, in the process, having to come up with some alternate theory for how it came to be. In order to win your case, the jury has to believe that your alternate theory better explains it than the prosecutor's theory. I'd love to see how far you'd get with a jury when your alternate theory is, "How should I know? I don't have a time machine or psychic powers."

Also, since you seem to be an expert now in the Common Law practice of jurisprudence, I'd like to see your definition of "affirmative defense" in a legal context.

You're the accuser.

Actually, no, the Warren Commission is the accuser. I just happen to think they've done a far better job of presenting a case than you have.

 

[JayUtah]

This is not true. Not only was Oswald never tried in a court of law, 1 of the 2 official investigations declared the assasination a 'probable conspiracy'.

What are you trying to argue? Out of one side of your mouth you say Oswald's posthumous reputation didn't get a fair shake because the only case made against him was outside a court, where presumably there would be rules and burdens of proof that ensured he was tried fairly. Then out of the other side of your mouth you cite these informal investigations -- well, one of them anyway -- as proof that Oswald should not bear sole culpability.

And as I've belabored at length, and you've ignored to equal length, the HSCA simply inferred there must have been a conspiracy because they had no affirmative explanation for what they wrongly took to be a fourth shot. They found no actual evidence for any such conspiracy, and you seem to agree they were sloppier than the Warren Commission.

What's more 3 out of 7 of report 1 plus the commissioner of report 1 didnt believe Oswald acted alone and all of those responsible for report 2 believed Oswald didn't act alone.

Your argument is all over the place. On the one had you keep score. On the other hand you say numbers don't matter because people will continue to believe things for what might be silly reasons.

Therefore your claims that Oswalds guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt are extremely faulty.

"Reasonable doubt" can be concluded outside of a courtroom. It's a general standard of proof, not an attribute of court trials.

 

[Soily]

The HSCA concluded that Oswald fired three shots at JFK, hitting him once in the back, and once in the head. They also concluded that no other shot hit JFK. Thus, both affirm his guilt as the assassin.



The only difference in findings was whether anyone else was involved. HSCA concluded, based solely on acoustic evidence from one recording of a police radio, that there was a fourth shot. Thus they concluded probable conspiracy. They found nothing in the medical, ballistic, forensic, documentary or eyewitness evidence to support a conspiracy, just the acoustic evidence.

This isn't an accurate reflection of what the HSCA thought. Schweiker, Tannebaum, Blakey and Sprague all believed Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy, as did staff members Lopez, Hardway and Fonzi.

The unfortunate fact about the HSCA is that it was hopelessly lost by the last few months of its existence, confronted with so much evidence of conspiracy they didnt know what to do, and running out of time and money they were presented with an easy way out - scientific proof of conspiracy but without having to name names or blame anyone.

That such a high proportion of both offical government reports believed in conspiracy is instructive of how deceptive the offical conclusions actually were.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This isn't an accurate reflection of what the HSCA thought. Schweiker, Tannebaum, Blakey and Sprague all believed Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy, as did staff members Lopez, Hardway and Fonzi.

Beliefs, huh?

The unfortunate fact about the HSCA is that it was hopelessly lost by the last few months of its existence, confronted with so much evidence of conspiracy they didnt know what to do, and running out of time and money they were presented with an easy way out - scientific proof of conspiracy but without having to name names or blame anyone.

The problematic acoustic evidence.

That such a high proportion of both offical government reports believed in conspiracy is instructive of how deceptive the offical conclusions actually were.

You do set a high reliance on beliefs that parallel yours, don't you?

 

[Soily]

Yeah, you've never been in a court.

I would love to see you "cast doubt on the prosecution's evidence" without, in the process, having to come up with some alternate theory for how it came to be.

This is utterly false and makes me suspect you really don't understand either common law or the US constitution.

Perhaps, in undermining the prosecutions claims the defence may suggest innocent explanations for their evidence, but they are under no obligation to prove any of their claims, just establish a reasonable doubt about the prosecutions claims. But even this is not necessary, all that is required is that the prosecution evidence is undermined, doubt cast upon their witnesses, their expert testimony contradicted

Actually, no, the Warren Commission is the accuser. I just happen to think they've done a far better job of presenting a case than you have.

Unfortunately they haven't done a better job than Josiah Thompson, Harold Weisberg, Anthony Summers, Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Douglas, Pat Speer, Gerald McKnight or John Newman.

 

[JayUtah]

The unfortunate fact about the HSCA is that it was hopelessly lost by the last few months of its existence, confronted with so much evidence of conspiracy they didnt know what to do, and running out of time and money they were presented with an easy way out - scientific proof of conspiracy but without having to name names or blame anyone.

Look at that: you're trying to undermine the "accusers'" case by -- what? -- by proposing an alternative theory for how the committee came to arrive at its inferential punt. Why wouldn't you think you had an obligation to show that your characterization of how the HSCA arrived at its findings is a more accurate version?

 

[JayUtah]

This is utterly false and makes me suspect you really don't understand either common law or the US constitution.

I understand both, having been in court many times and served also as both a lay and expert witness, and having helped many attorneys prepare cases that lie within my professional field of expertise. You're harping on abstract concepts of high-school civics while assiduously ignoring the mechanics of what actually happens in a court room and how evidence is actually examined and tested.

Perhaps, in undermining the prosecutions claims the defence may suggest innocent explanations for their evidence, but they are under no obligation to prove any of their claims...

And the jury is under no obligation to believe a defense's vague handwaving defense.

...just establish a reasonable doubt about the prosecutions claims. But even this is not necessary, all that is required is that the prosecution evidence is undermined, doubt cast upon their witnesses, their expert testimony contradicted.

And somehow you think this can all be done without proposing an alternative explanation. How can you "cast doubt" upon a witness except by showing that the witness didn't actually see what she says she saw, that she isn't as sure of it as it first appeared, or that the inconsistencies in her story suggest she may be lying? How does this not constitute an alternative explanation for the allegations in her direct testimony? The favorable counsel will present that witness as telling the whole, unaltered truth.

How do you propose to counter expert testimony except by proposing contrary testimony that conveys an impression that the other witness isn't telling the whole story or has made an error. How is this not an alternative theory for how the first expert's allegations and judgment came to be? Or conversely, shaking faith in the foundation laid for that witness offers the alternative theory that the "expert" really isn't one, even though he was represented as one?

How do you propose to discount circumstantial and documentary evidence except by offering the possibility that it was planted, coincidence, or does not relate to the defendant or the crime? Are you simply going to let it stand and hope it's not convincing? No, you must propose an alternative theory for how the defendant's DNA, for example, is found on the murder weapon or how the second set of accounting books happened to be discovered in the defendant's desk.

I really grow tired of the rhetorical games that most JFK conspiracy theories rely on, which eschew any and all obligation to actually show a more defensible line of reasoning that those they lambast, all while accusing their critics and detractors of some presumed lack of erudition.

 

[BStrong]

The only thing a defence has to do in a criminal case is cast reasonable doubt on the claims of the prosecution. There is absolutely no burden of proof on them to provide an alternative explanation of what did happen.

You left out the part about convincing a judge or jury that the "reasonable doubt" asserted factually exists.

 

[Soily]

I understand both, having been in court many times and served also as both a lay and expert witness, and having helped many attorneys prepare cases that lie within my professional field of expertise. You're harping on abstract concepts of high-school civics while assiduously ignoring the mechanics of what actually happens in a court room and how evidence is actually examined and tested.



And the jury is under no obligation to believe a defense's vague handwaving defense.



And somehow you think this can all be done without proposing an alternative explanation. How can you "cast doubt" upon a witness except by showing that the witness didn't actually see what she says she saw, that she isn't as sure of it as it first appeared, or that the inconsistencies in her story suggest she may be lying? How does this not constitute an alternative explanation for the allegations in her direct testimony? The favorable counsel will present that witness as telling the whole, unaltered truth.

How do you propose to counter expert testimony except by proposing contrary testimony that conveys an impression that the other witness isn't telling the whole story or has made an error. How is this not an alternative theory for how the first expert's allegations and judgment came to be? Or conversely, shaking faith in the foundation laid for that witness offers the alternative theory that the "expert" really isn't one, even though he was represented as one?

How do you propose to discount circumstantial and documentary evidence except by offering the possibility that it was planted, coincidence, or does not relate to the defendant or the crime? Are you simply going to let it stand and hope it's not convincing? No, you must propose an alternative theory for how the defendant's DNA, for example, is found on the murder weapon or how the second set of accounting books happened to be discovered in the defendant's desk.

I really grow tired of the rhetorical games that most JFK conspiracy theories rely on, which eschew any and all obligation to actually show a more defensible line of reasoning that those they lambast, all while accusing their critics and detractors of some presumed lack of erudition.

I've lost count of the number of cases that have been thrown out or overturned *just* because the prosecutions evidence is underminded without any alternative at all been offered. For example the West Memphis Three, The Staircase Killer, the Birmingham Six, The Guilford Four and the Maguire Seven.

I'm pretty sure you have not the slightest understanding how the Anglo-American system of common law works.