JFK's assassination: your thoughts

[BStrong]

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.

Let me introduce you to a legal concept you've probably never encountered before:

Exceptional Clearance.

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

"Cleared by exceptional means

In certain situations, elements beyond law enforcement’s control prevent the agency from arresting and formally charging the offender. When this occurs, the agency can clear the offense exceptionally. Law enforcement agencies must meet the following four conditions in order to clear an offense by exceptional means. The agency must have:

Identified the offender.

Gathered enough evidence to support an arrest, make a charge, and turn over the offender to the court for prosecution.

Identified the offender’s exact location so that the suspect could be taken into custody immediately.

Encountered a circumstance outside the control of law enforcement that prohibits the agency from arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender.

Examples of exceptional clearances include, but are not limited to, the death of the offender (e.g., suicide or justifiably killed by police or citizen); the victim’s refusal to cooperate with the prosecution after the offender has been identified; or the denial of extradition because the offender committed a crime in another jurisdiction and is being prosecuted for that offense. In the UCR Program, the recovery of property alone does not clear an offense."

Don't feel bad, the same concept badly demoralized another pro-JFK CT poster here on JREF just recently - if you read through the JFK CT threads you should find them easily.

 

[Mudcat]

It's good enough though, because however inadequate the evidence is, some people will believe anything because the government says so.

Why is it that conspiracy theorists always try this tactic?

 

[BStrong]

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.

Bad idea.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

I'm virtually certain that you're out of your depth in discussing such matters with Jay. It will be interesting to see how much rope you use, though.

In the case of Oswald, the burden of proof was already met in the determination that Oswald was the lone assassin. There's no need to continue to prove his guilt. You may accept the burden of proof to overturn that and offer an alternative coherent theory that fits all the evidence.

Or not, doesn't really matter. If not, we'll just accept the null.

 

[abaddon]

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.

Bad idea.

 

[kookbreaker]

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?

http://i42.tinypic.com/a48z8o.png[img]

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?
[/QUOTE]

Well first of all I am going to stop giggling over what you consider evidence. What is that? A 6th generation xerox? It even looks like someone penned in the '62' part. Looks like a rather sad fake.

 

[Garrison]

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.

Actually I think you will find that it was the presentation of new evidence that overturned most of those cases; not an endless dreary questioning of every inconsistency in the prosecution case.

 

[JayUtah]

...is underminded without any alternative at all been offered.

You don't seem to appreciate what constitutes an alternative theory.

For example the West Memphis Three...

Alternate theories proposed included coerced confession and jury misconduct.

The Staircase Killer...

Alternative theories proposed included animal attack and inexpert forensic judgment.

the Birmingham Six...

Alternate theories proposed included affirmative evidence of another's guilt and police misconduct.

The Guil[d]ford Four and the Maguire Seven.

Alternative theories proposed included coerced confessions, manipulated interrogation records, competing affirmative claims of other party's guilt, and police misconduct.

You don't seem to realize that the act of undermining evidence presented at trial necessitates an alternative theory for how it came to be presented. In several of these cases, confessions were obtained and presented in evidence at trial. On its face, this evidence would be the result of the defendants' material admission of actual guilt. However, an alternative theory was presented and eventually accepted that the confessions were not the true intent of the subjects, but had been obtained under inauspicious circumstances.

In the Staircase case, forensic judgment was presented in court as being the product of sound scientific and reasonable judgment. But the alternative theory was presented that it was hasty, in error, and that the practitioner called to offer his judgment had exercised questionable judgment in the past.

I find it especially amusing that some of the examples you cite specifically offer an affirmative defense. If you had researched this question as I asked, you'd realize where the burden of proof occurs in such a case.

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

Perhaps you should read many of my posts here at JREF on that very subject before continuing this path of bluff and bluster.

 

[JayUtah]

Actually I think you will find that it was the presentation of new evidence that overturned most of those cases; not an endless dreary questioning of every inconsistency in the prosecution case.

In some cases new exculpatory evidence was found. In many cases however, the conviction was overturned because of new theories of the evidence that were not presented at trial. A court presumes that a confession is given voluntarily and with full knowledge of its consequence, for example. That is the prevailing theory of that kind of evidence as presented in court. The jury is meant to believe that a confession at the hand of the defendant is a true reflection of the defendant's will and intent. However, the defense can theorize that the confession was obtained under false pretenses or coercion, and while existing in fact it does not represent the defendant's true belief. This theory still requires the defense to submit proof that such coercion occurred; it may not simply raise the possibility that it occurred. When so theorized and supported by evidence (e.g., the testimony of the interrogating officer or records of the interrogation), it constitutes an alternative explanation for how a signed confession managed to appear before the jury.

Exculpatory evidence, such as in the first case, does not exonerate by itself. Instead it alters the overall picture of evidence such as to make more likely a theory that circumstantial evidence against the defendant was coincidental, or that expert testimony (e.g., bite marks) involved judgment that was mistaken. All these are theories that stand up against the prosecution's inductive proposition: "All this evidence is best answered by the single proposition that the defendant is guilty."

Now the defense may nit-pick at the evidence and undermine it. But that undermining in each instance takes the form of providing another theory to explain the evidence, other than the overarching and allegedly parsimonious conclusion of guilt. "The confession is best explained by police misconduct; the wounds are best explained by an animal attack; the expert's judgment is best explained by his incompetence, and the defendant's alleged presence at the scene of the crime is best explained by the witnesses' drunkenness."

When new and clearly exculpatory evidence comes along, such as a strong DNA sample that fails to include the defendant, it makes that set of alternative theories stronger. Especially when strong evidence such as DNA makes an affirmative case for another perpetrator. Then the most parsimonious answer to the evidence presented at trial becomes the defense's set of alternatives, not the inductive leap pursued by the prosecutor.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Actually, the burden is 100% yours.

Oswald's guilt has, for nearly 50 years now, been quite sufficiently established; it is the null hypothesis. No one has to continue to establish the null, certainly not to anyone blithely challenging it.

That's entirely untrue. Very few people believed The WCs conclusions right from the beginning, including nearly half of the WC and the man who commissioned it.

The last government investigation of the crime declared it a was probably a conspiracy, which is still the current office verdict.

The WC verdict was, is and remains the minority opinion on the subject.

Enough time has elapsed since I've visited this thread that I don't have to respond to your erroneous post above; I see others have done nicely.

But why did you edit out the next portion?

Moreover, this is a conspiracy thread in a conspiracy subforum. Proving, yet again, the null is out of place here. Since it's apparent you disbelieve it, you must therefore believe something else - a conspiracy.

So, please provide your conspiracy theory, being sure to include your supporting evidence.

Am I to understand that you have no theory of the assassination - just that you disbelieve Oswald's sole guilt? If so, that's pretty weak sauce. I don't know about anyone else, but your argument from incredulity won't much serve to compel me to rethink my conclusions.

 

[swright777]

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.

Bad idea.

I agree. That's like telling Georges St-Pierre that he does not have the slightest understanding of what it takes to be an MMA fighter.

 

[Soily]

Well first of all I am going to stop giggling over what you consider evidence. What is that? A 6th generation xerox? It even looks like someone penned in the '62' part. Looks like a rather sad fake.

It is a sad fake, that's the point. The question is how did Nagell fake it up in prison, obtain a copy of the Oswald version and creste a version without the October stamp?

 

[Soily]

You don't seem to appreciate what constitutes an alternative theory.

None of the examples cited were released because they offered alternative theories, they were released because the prosecution evidence was fatally undermined. You appear to be making some sort of ontological argument that it's impossible to undermine one proposition without offering another. That may be true, but its not the same as an affirmative defense. So the argument that the prosecutions forensic evidence cannot be trusted because their expert was found to have fabricated evidence or oversold his expertise is a defense based on attacking the prosecutions facts, it is not an affirmative defense, but a negative one.

The Birmingham Six for instance were released because the polices forensic evidence was found to be bogus and some of their other evidence had been tampered with. This rendered the production case weak and unsound. It was a defense based in attacking the prosecutions facts.

Similarly the Guildford 4 and Maguire 7 were released because of gross police misconduct, tampering with evidence, faulty forensics etc. Again, not affirmative, but attacking the prosecutions facts. In all 3 cases no other convictions have been secured.

And the staircase killer was released purely because one of the main forensic experts in the trial was found to be a charlatan, not because of the owl theory or because of any other alternative explanation.

 

[Soily]

Enough time has elapsed since I've visited this thread that I don't have to respond to your erroneous post above; I see others have done nicely.

But why did you edit out the next portion?Am I to understand that you have no theory of the assassination - just that you disbelieve Oswald's sole guilt? If so, that's pretty weak sauce. I don't know about anyone else, but your argument from incredulity won't much serve to compel me to rethink my conclusions.

It's not an argument from incredulity, it's an argument based on attacking the faulty facts of the WC defenders.

By the way, arguments from credulity can sometimes make valid points, people make them on this forum all the time. For example - 'Why would the conspirators shoot Kennedy from the front if the patsy is been framed from the rear, I can't believe they'd be that stupid' seems to me to be quite a good argument from credulity.

By the same token, one of the most powerful pro conspiracy arguments is 'Why would anyone want to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in a way that linked him to both Castro and and a KGB assassin 6 weeks before the assassination if he was just some lone nut'?

Of course that's one that nobody on the lone nut side has ever been able to explain.

 

[abaddon]

None of the examples cited were released because they offered alternative theories, they were released because the prosecution evidence was fatally undermined. You appear to be making some sort of ontological argument that it's impossible to undermine one proposition without offering another. That may be true, but its not the same as an affirmative defense. So the argument that the prosecutions forensic evidence cannot be trusted because their expert was found to have fabricated evidence or oversold his expertise is a defense based on attacking the prosecutions facts, it is not an affirmative defense, but a negative one.

The Birmingham Six for instance were released because the polices forensic evidence was found to be bogus and some of their other evidence had been tampered with. This rendered the production case weak and unsound. It was a defense based in attacking the prosecutions facts.

No, you are incorrect. Affirmative rebuttal was presented against Frank Skuse and the police.

Similarly the Guildford 4 and Maguire 7 were released because of gross police misconduct, tampering with evidence, faulty forensics etc. Again, not affirmative, but attacking the prosecutions facts. In all 3 cases no other convictions have been secured.

Wrong again. Affirmative evidence for the defence was also presented in both of these cases.

And the staircase killer was released purely because one of the main forensic experts in the trial was found to be a charlatan, not because of the owl theory or because of any other alternative explanation.

No opinion, not familiar with the case.

In any event, you are clearly wrong in your claim that the defence only attacked the prosecution and presented no alternative narrative, nor affirmative evidence.

And what do these cases have to do with JKF's assassination?

 

[kookbreaker]

It is a sad fake, that's the point. The question is how did Nagell fake it up in prison, obtain a copy of the Oswald version and creste a version without the October stamp?

A sad fake is just that. I really don't need to explain how someone in a prison made something. For crying out loud there have been counterfeiters working out of prison why is a pathetic copy in need of explaining?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It's not an argument from incredulity, it's an argument based on attacking the faulty facts of the WC defenders.

By the way, arguments from credulity can sometimes make valid points, people make them on this forum all the time. For example - 'Why would the conspirators shoot Kennedy from the front if the patsy is been framed from the rear, I can't believe they'd be that stupid' seems to me to be quite a good argument from credulity.

By the same token, one of the most powerful pro conspiracy arguments is 'Why would anyone want to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in a way that linked him to both Castro and and a KGB assassin 6 weeks before the assassination if he was just some lone nut'?

Of course that's one that nobody on the lone nut side has ever been able to explain.

I've read this a couple times and am having trouble, so please help me out. Can you point out where the conspiracy theory is? Y'know, the one where you provide names, evidence, and the like?

 

[BazBear]

Okay then...

If not Lee Harvey Oswald, then who? WHO?

The WC report this, the Zapruder film that...yadda yadda, same old crap.

 

[Soily]

No, you are incorrect. Affirmative rebuttal was presented against Frank Skuse and the police.

Its still a negative defense, attacking and undermining the prosecutions facts. They weren't released because they explained what did happen or who was responsible.

Wrong again. Affirmative evidence for the defence was also presented in both of these cases.

Again, the defendants were released because the prosecutions evidence was fatally undermined - a negative defense.

In any event, you are clearly wrong in your claim that the defence only attacked the prosecution and presented no alternative narrative, nor affirmative evidence.

I'm correct in stating that the defendents walked because the prosecutions facts were undermined with the use of negative arguments.

And what do these cases have to do with JKF's assassination?

Quite a lot, since Oswald could have walked simply by undermining the prosecutions case against him, for example by pointing out fabrication or tampering with evidence, suborning perjury etc. Oswald isnt required to provide an alterntaive explanation, just cast doubt on the prosecutions facts or their propertiety and thus by proxy their facts.

He did not have to demonstrate who did kill Kennedy or even necessarily provide an alternative scenario for the individual components of evidence, although he could have effectively done this aswell.

For example, Oswald's lawyers could have argued that the police lineups were unfairly conducted and so the identifications of him at the Tippit scene were invalid. Does that involve affirmitive evidence? Yes, he would have to provide some evidence that the lineups were badly conducted, but it's essentially a negative defense. He's not coming up with an alternative scenario as to what happened at the Tippit murder scene or who did kill Tippit, just casting doubts on the prosecution claim that he was seen there.

Oswalds lawyers could have attacked the entire prosecution case in this manner.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Its still a negative defense, attacking and undermining the prosecutions facts. They weren't released because they explained what did happen or who was responsible.


Again, the defendants were released because the prosecutions evidence was fatally undermined - a negative defense.


I'm correct in stating that the defendents walked because the prosecutions facts were undermined with the use of negative arguments.



Quite a lot, since Oswald could have walked simply by undermining the prosecutions case against him, for example by pointing out fabrication or tampering with evidence, suborning perjury etc. Oswald isnt required to provide an alterntaive explanation, just cast doubt on the prosecutions facts or their propertiety and thus by proxy their facts.

He did not have to demonstrate who did kill Kennedy or even necessarily provide an alternative scenario for the individual components of evidence, although he could have effectively done this aswell.

For example, Oswald's lawyers could have argued that the police lineups were unfairly conducted and so the identifications of him at the Tippit scene were invalid. Does that involve affirmitive evidence? Yes, he would have to provide some evidence that the lineups were badly conducted, but it's essentially a negative defense. He's not coming up with an alternative scenario as to what happened at the Tippit murder scene or who did kill Tippit, just casting doubts on the prosecution claim that he was seen there.

Oswalds lawyers could have attacked the entire prosecution case in this manner.

You have to provide alternative explanations for all the things that would have been damning to Oswald. His rifle with his fingerprints in the sixth floor where he worked, Oswald's attempted escape, his murdering Officer Tippit and attempted murder of the other officers who cornered him in the theater, Oswald's attempted assassination of General Walker. Oswald bringing the very long package, which was found, to work with him containing "curtain rods" that were never found.

Right now, Oswald is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Burden of proof met, slam dunk.