JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends II

[JayUtah]

You really think that a convicted rifleman/murderer with ties to the murder's chief benefactor being present at the crime scene is not suspicious?

This is barely worth serious consideration.

Since you're "begging the question," you're right -- your begged question deserves no serious consideration.

That is a wholly reasonable and logical inference, although unproven.

So your claim is that Lyndon Johnson hired his "crony" Wallace as a hit man to kill Kennedy instead of, or in addition to, Lee Harvey Oswald. And you admit you cannot prove it.

How on earth does that compel anyone to share your belief?

This evidence is the subject of ongoing dispute as you no doubt appreciate, and it's not possible to draw any firm conclusion from it at all.

It's entirely speculation. You seem to want speculation to be considered as robust evidence. That will never happen.

On the other hand, here is hard forensic evidence indicating a co-conspirator at the crime scene, and for some reason no-one seems to want to address it.

No one is addressing it the way you had hoped it would be addressed -- the way your source has prepared you to rejoin it. You'll have to deal with the rebuttals actually given, not the absence of the straw-man rebuttal you had hoped to get.

Well, at least we can dispense with the "complete solution and no loose ends" demand, which is progress.

No one ever asked for that. The only "progress" is in finally getting you to quit deliberately misrepresenting your critics' statements. Now that your straw-man ploy has failed, perhaps you'll be finally willing to substantiate your hypothesis.

Oh wait, you already admitted it's "unproven" and that we "can't draw any conclusions" as yet. Sounds like a concession to me.

 

[supposenot]

Yes.

You think it's reasonable to demand that I read approx. 150 pages of quite probably irrelevant stuff, in order to get to a precise section of argument that you refuse to summarise here?

I think it's plain which one of us is being unreasonable.

I've described my response to your finger print evidence three times, even going so far as to express it in a single sentence. Your avoidance of that does not constitute dereliction on my part.

You have not addressed the argument I made in my first post on this thread.

So you're claiming that you personally are an expert in fingerprinting, are an expert in FBI fingerprint procedures, and that you personally collected affidavits from the contributing parties? That's a pretty tall claim for someone who lives thousands of miles from where any of this took place.

Am I claiming any of that, or is it just silly strawman erection on your part (again)? By the same standard, are you claiming that you have the relevant expertise and/or experience to personally adjudicate on all the evidence contained in the Warren Report? I don't think you are, and it would be silly to demand any such thing.

Because the difference between primary and secondary or tertiary evidence is important.

OK, let's assume that I didn't already appreciate that. Why is this relevant here?

So you're proud of evading my questions?

Until you respond to my critique of the counter-argument concerning the Wallace print ID, you are in no position to cast stones or to attempt such obvious twisting of my position.

 

[supposenot]

Since you're "begging the question," you're right -- your begged question deserves no serious consideration.

Again with the mischaracterisation.

Forensic evidence of a convicted rifleman/murderer at the scene is prima facie suspicious and incriminating.

You appear to be claiming it is not.

I am therefore interested to hear why it is not prima facie suspicious and incriminating.

So your claim is that Lyndon Johnson hired his "crony" Wallace as a hit man to kill Kennedy instead of, or in addition to, Lee Harvey Oswald. And you admit you cannot prove it.

Yep. If I could prove it, I would be collecting my Pulitzer prize, not wasting my time talking to someone like you.

How on earth does that compel anyone to share your belief?

Appeal to mass popularity. Not worth bothering with.

It's entirely speculation. You seem to want speculation to be considered as robust evidence. That will never happen.

The fingerprint is firm forensic evidence. The connection between Wallace and LBJ is documented fact.

What I can't prove is the mechanics of the conspiracy itself, phone calls, private meetings, that sort of thing. But as I have already said, I am not required to do so.

No one is addressing it the way you had hoped it would be addressed -- the way your source has prepared you to rejoin it.

Sorry, but you are dealing with an entirely new argument here. I am repeating this since it evidently didn't sink in first time. That's fair enough, we are all fallible. But I don't expect to have to repeat it a third time.

You'll have to deal with the rebuttals actually given, not the absence of the straw-man rebuttal you had hoped to get.

What on earth are you on about?

I have provided a very clear demolition of the argument against the Wallace print ID. You have refused to address that. That is how matters stand at present.

No one ever asked for that. The only "progress" is in finally getting you to quit deliberately misrepresenting your critics' statements. Now that your straw-man ploy has failed, perhaps you'll be finally willing to substantiate your hypothesis.

Sorry, but I think you're losing the plot. This bears no resemblance or relevance to anything I've said.

Oh wait, you already admitted it's "unproven" and that we "can't draw any conclusions" as yet. Sounds like a concession to me.

Check your hearing aid. I have provided a clear analysis of the argument against the Wallace print ID. You have failed to address it.

Secondary to that, I have said that I cannot provide a complete explanation of how this conspiracy worked.

These are two separate issues, and it's you who is muddying the waters by confusing them. This may be deliberate on your part, although I suspect it is not.

 

[supposenot]

Since you're the one behind in this thread, it is entirely reasonable to require you to read it as a condition of participating. Moving the discussion along is not served by forcing all the other participants to repeat their longstanding contributions again for your sole benefit.

Sorry, but I have presented a new argument.

You haven't addressed it.

This is simple.

Then report it. Otherwise quit trying to get rhetorical mileage out of it.

Was I talking to you? I think not.

As I said, I'm giving him the option to correct his error before reporting it. I think that's fair, and I'm not particularly interested in your mischaracterisation of what I am doing.

Your unwillingness to address arguments already made is so old a fallacy, contrary to being inappropriately ad hominem, it even has one of Aristotle's original Latin names -- ignoratio elenchi.

On the contrary, it is you (collectively) who are failing to address the new argument I have brought to this discussion.

What part of "It lacks foundation" was unclear? If I had made only one response to your claims, your ignorance of it would be excusable. Since I've responded the same way three separate times, all the while you've been whining about being ignored, I have to conclude that your evasion is deliberate.

"It lacks foundation" is not an argument, and I feel sorry for you if you think that it is.

Also, kindly do not mischaracterise me as 'whining', since that is not what I am doing and (assuming it wasn't unintentional) it is merely a device of yours to cast doubt on what I am saying, which is usually a sign of a lack of substantive argument.

 

[JayUtah]

You think it's reasonable to demand that I read approx. 150 pages of quite probably irrelevant stuff, in order to get to a precise section of argument that you refuse to summarise here?

Asked and answered. The thread contains much that is relevant to your argument. You joined the thread voluntarily. You have the obligation to discover what has already been said.

You have not addressed the argument I made in my first post on this thread.

I said it lacks foundation and I explained why.

Am I claiming any of that...

You are either an expert yourself or you are borrowing another's expertise. There is no third option. And since you deny using another source, the only remaining alternative is that you are claiming expertise and to have obtained personally the affidavits you say you have.

In any case, you have been asked repeatedly to clarify what the foundation is for your argument. Your continued evasion is noticed.

By the same standard, are you claiming...

I am making no claims, nor do I need to in order to question the basis for your claims.

Until you respond to my critique of the counter-argument...

Address the rebuttal I actually made, not the one you fervently wish I had.

Forensic evidence of a convicted rifleman/murderer at the scene is prima facie suspicious and incriminating.

You appear to be claiming it is not.

It is not. You're trying to sidestep problems with your evidence as well as extend that evidence to a conclusion that it does not support. You are begging a question.

Yep. If I could prove it, I would be collecting my Pulitzer prize...

But you admit you cannot prove it, so not only do you forego the Pulitzer prize you forego ordinary credibility.

...not wasting my time talking to someone like you.

"Someone like you" means exactly what?

Regardless, you are here voluntarily talking to "people like us." So you can either content yourself with that and participate in the discussion the way it is being laid out, or you can go submit your case to the Pulitzer committee. Either way, insinuating that your critics are somehow beneath your consideration is quite clearly an ad hominem.

Appeal to mass popularity. Not worth bothering with.

Not at all. Above you say that your hypothesis is nothing short of "incriminating." That's not only asking to be believed, it's claiming that the evidence for the belief meets a criminal standard of proof, which is very high. Yet out of the other side of your mouth you admit that your conclusion is speculation and that you can't prove it. It can't be both. Given this contradiction, it is quite proper to ask why you believe your case is convincing.

What I can't prove is the mechanics of the conspiracy itself, phone calls, private meetings, that sort of thing. But as I have already said, I am not required to do so.

Nonsense. Of course you are. The fact that you can't is your problem, and dooms your hypothesis. You don't get to beg off your obligation just because you have speculated something you can't prove.

I have provided a very clear demolition of the argument against the Wallace print ID. You have refused to address that. That is how matters stand at present.

No, you have provided your "demolition" of a straw-man rebuttal given by someone else. Nothing obligates me to defend another person's rebuttal to your claims. Instead I have given you my own rebuttal. Demanding that I address some other rebuttal is absurd.

Sorry, but I think you're losing the plot.
Check your hearing aid.

Don't get snippy.

I have provided a clear analysis of the argument against the Wallace print ID. You have failed to address it.

Asked and answered. Demanding that your critics adopt and defend someone else's rebuttal is absurd.

Secondary to that, I have said that I cannot provide a complete explanation of how this conspiracy worked.

Then your hypothesis deserves no further attention.

Was I talking to you? I think not.

You're posting in a public forum. You must address all comers.

On the contrary, it is you (collectively) who are failing to address the new argument I have brought to this discussion.

You have brought an old argument to the table, as witnessed by your critics' ability to name its participants even before you disclose them. You have pretended to address some third party's objection to your claims, and for some odd reason you expect your critics here to adopt the same objection and defend it.

Sorry, but you don't get to script your critics' role in this debate. This is not a show trial for your benefit.

"It lacks foundation" is not an argument, and I feel sorry for you if you think that it is.

Of course it's a valid rebuttal, and I explained why. In fact I explained why three times. And I don't need your condescension or pity. Kindly stop trying to personalize this debate.

Also, kindly do not mischaracterise me as 'whining', since that is not what I am doing...

Yes, it really is.

 

[supposenot]

Asked and answered. The thread contains much that is relevant to your argument. You joined the thread voluntarily. You have the obligation to discover what has already been said.

No, I don't.

I said it lacks foundation and I explained why.

No, you didn't.

You are either an expert yourself or you are borrowing another's expertise. There is no third option. And since you deny using another source, the only remaining alternative is that you are claiming expertise and to have obtained personally the affidavits you say you have.

This is a false dichotomy of such intergalactic proportions that I think I will let it stand as evidence of its own stupidity.

In any case, you have been asked repeatedly to clarify what the foundation is for your argument. Your continued evasion is noticed.

The foundation of my argument is the forensic evidence of Wallace's presence at the crime scene.

I am making no claims, nor do I need to in order to question the basis for your claims.

You are claiming (in your own words!) that the Wallace print ID "lacks foundation". So you need to back that up with reference to the argument I presented in my first post on this thread.

Address the rebuttal I actually made, not the one you fervently wish I had.

You have not made a rebuttal. You have asserted something ex cathedra, with no further argument.

It is not. You're trying to sidestep problems with your evidence as well as extend that evidence to a conclusion that it does not support. You are begging a question.

You have not addressed the argument I made in my first post on this thread.

Until you do so, you are just being peevish imho.

But you admit you cannot prove it, so not only do you forego the Pulitzer prize you forego ordinary credibility.

If I could prove it, I wouldn't be here, presenting a reasoned argument for the Wallace print ID's authenticity.

You have failed to address that.

"Someone like you" means exactly what?

A nonspiracist, obviously. What did you think I meant?

Regardless, you are here voluntarily talking to "people like us." So you can either content yourself with that and participate in the discussion the way it is being laid out, or you can go submit your case to the Pulitzer committee. Either way, insinuating that your critics are somehow beneath your consideration is quite clearly an ad hominem.

So report it and quit trying to get rhetorical mileage out of it (even if you weren't making an incorrect inference, as seems to be your wont).

Above you say that your hypothesis is nothing short of "incriminating." That's not only asking to be believed, it's claiming that the evidence for the belief meets a criminal standard of proof, which is very high. Yet out of the other side of your mouth you admit that your conclusion is speculation and that you can't prove it. It can't be both. Given this contradiction, it is quite proper to ask why you believe your case is convincing.

The forensic evidence meets the standard for court admissibility.

What I cannot prove (and what is, again, a separate matter) is the mechanics of the conspiracy I am adumbrating.

As I have already told you, these are two separate issues.

Nonsense. Of course you are. The fact that you can't is your problem, and dooms your hypothesis. You don't get to beg off your obligation just because you have speculated something you can't prove.

So my "hypothesis" is doomed because it's not a proven fact?

You do understand the meaning of the word "hypothesis", right?

No, you have provided your "demolition" of a straw-man rebuttal given by someone else.

The counter-argument was produced in order to dismiss the Wallace print ID.

I have demolished that counter-argument.

Therefore, the Wallace print ID stands.

Nothing obligates me to defend another person's rebuttal to your claims. Instead I have given you my own rebuttal. Demanding that I address some other rebuttal is absurd.

You have provided no rebuttal. You have simply asserted your position. That is not a rebuttal.

Don't get snippy.

I think it's quite obvious which of us is being "snippy".

Asked and answered. Demanding that your critics adopt and defend someone else's rebuttal is absurd.

Since you apparently aren't willing to place any faith in the counter-expert provided by your fellow nonspiracist, does this mean you accept the Wallace print ID? If not, why not?

Then your hypothesis deserves no further attention.

Yet another ex cathedra announcement. I place no credibility in your position at the moment.

You're posting in a public forum. You must address all comers.

And indeed I am trying to. But what is not acceptable is for you to take a remark to someone else and mischaracterise it. Which is what happened.

You have brought an old argument to the table, as witnessed by your critics' ability to name its participants even before you disclose them.

No, in my first post here I brought a new argument to the table. You have failed to address it.

You have pretended to address some third party's objection to your claims, and for some odd reason you expect your critics here to adopt the same objection and defend it.

Again, since you are apparently unwilling (or more likely simply unable) to defend the evidence produced by your fellow nonspiracist, does that mean you accept the Wallace print ID? If not, why not?

Sorry, but you don't get to script your critics' role in this debate. This is not a show trial for your benefit.

Classic projection. I am content to let this remark stand as testimony to its own stupidity.

Of course it's a valid rebuttal, and I explained why. In fact I explained why three times.

No you didn't. Unless I have somehow managed to miss those three posts, which I doubt.

And I don't need your condescension or pity.

Your needs are not important to how I feel about your arguments (or lack thereof, to be precise).

Kindly stop trying to personalize this debate.

Given the amount of mischaracterisation you perform, this is more than a bit rich.

 

[supposenot]

I suppose a lengthy and irrelevant point by point reply is being typed at this very moment, but it is an ungodly hour here, and I am going to hit the hay.

I'll aim to return in around 18 hours' time (i.e., 6pm here), give or take. If anyone cares, and indeed whether they give a tinker's cuss on the matter.

Meanwhile (and I would like to stress that this is not facetious, but completely sincere) could someone *please* sum up the case against the Wallace print ID?

Jay apparently isn't up to the job (I could be wrong here, but given the simplicity of what I have (quite reasonably) requested, I am beginning to run out of reasonable explanations for his reluctance).

 

[I Ratant]

http://dperry1943.com/drbrown.html
.
http://dperry1943.com/drbrown.html
.
http://dperry1943.com/darby.html
.
and Yawn.....

 

[JayUtah]

No, I don't.

Then you deserve no further attention.

No, you didn't.

Three times I did.

The foundation of my argument is the forensic evidence of Wallace's presence at the crime scene.

That's not what is meant by "foundation." I pointed this out repeatedly, suggesting in what context you should research the term.

You are claiming (in your own words!) that the Wallace print ID "lacks foundation". So you need to back that up with reference to the argument I presented...

No, do not simply attempt to redirect me back to your straw man.

You have not made a rebuttal. You have asserted something ex cathedra, with no further argument.

Nonsense. You explicitly decline any obligation to lay the appropriate foundation. It is not an assertion of any kind on my part, but simply a reflected observation.

You have not addressed the argument I made in my first post on this thread.

Asked and answered. Do not simply demand we perform your preordained debate.

If I could prove it, I wouldn't be here, presenting a reasoned argument for the Wallace print ID's authenticity.

You either have a valid argument or you do not. Venue is irrelevant.

A nonspiracist, obviously. What did you think I meant?

I don't understand the word "nonspiricist." I had no idea what you meant, since you didn't identify what specific property of your critics you had in mind when saying "like you." So I asked.

The forensic evidence meets the standard for court admissibility.

Are you an American lawyer or judge?

What I cannot prove (and what is, again, a separate matter) is the mechanics of the conspiracy I am adumbrating.

As I have already told you, these are two separate issues.

No, they are not. You can either prove the chain of events implied by your hypothesis, or you cannot. Attempting to sideline them with the term "mechanics" does not diminish them as a necessary step in proving your claim.

So my "hypothesis" is doomed because it's not a proven fact?

For any practical purpose, yes.

You do understand the meaning of the word "hypothesis", right?

Of course I do. The problem is that you think in this case that a "hypothesis" also "meets the standard of court admissibility." You flip-flop depending on what strength you need from moment to moment in your argument. You characterize it as "hypothesis" only when evading a burden of proof.

The counter-argument was produced in order to dismiss the Wallace print ID.
I have demolished that counter-argument.
Therefore, the Wallace print ID stands.

Asked and answered. Repeating the straw man does not validate it. Your point doesn't stand until you have rejoined all rebuttals, not just your cherry-picked ones.

You have provided no rebuttal. You have simply asserted your position. That is not a rebuttal.

No, I have observed that your case in chief lacks foundation. I have explained how and why it lacks foundation. If you don't understand what "foundation" means in American jurisprudence, I advised you to look it up. I repeat that advice.

Since you apparently aren't willing to place any faith in the counter-expert provided by your fellow nonspiracist, does this mean you accept the Wallace print ID? If not, why not?

I decline to defend him as my means of engaging in this debate. I don't accept your argument, and I've given the reasons why. I will not be baited into a different line of reasoning than what I have presented.

And indeed I am trying to. But what is not acceptable is for you to take a remark to someone else and mischaracterise it. Which is what happened.

You made the same remark to me several times. Get it through your head that no one ever asked you to do what you accuse them of asking. Several times you used that remark when people ever only asked you to make some affirmative case for your Wallace hypothesis.

Your ploy failed. Move on.

No, in my first post here I brought a new argument to the table. You have failed to address it.

Asked and answered.

No you didn't. Unless I have somehow managed to miss those three posts, which I doubt.

You have declined to read the thread. It is entirely plausible that you have ignored parts of the discussion.

In any case I have reiterated it several times since. Your argument lacks foundation because you insinuate you are the expert judge of the fingerprint evidence and that you have personally collected the affidants' testimony in the matter. You flip-flop on the question of whether you have done this yourself or whether you are copying someone else's work. I have addressed all this at length, including the rationale for why it is important to the argument.

You simply refuse to acknowledge it. Your own ex cathedra pronouncements that such things are irrelevant don't wash; you've evading the rebuttal and frantically attempting to steer the debate into territory for which you believe you have already prepared.

 

[JayUtah]

Jay apparently isn't up to the job (I could be wrong here, but given the simplicity of what I have (quite reasonably) requested, I am beginning to run out of reasonable explanations for his reluctance).

I have explained my "reluctance" to follow the role you have obviously scripted for your opponents. I am under no obligation to adopt someone else's line of reasoning and defend it against your attack. I am perfectly capable of formulating my own rebuttal.

You have laid out you case in chief, and I have given you the reasons why I don't find it credible. In response you have simply waved your hand, declared them to be irrelevant reasons, and demanded that I follow your prescribed plan.

You may "request" whatever you want. But when that request is that we refute your claim in the way you've already decided we should, no one is obliged to satisfy it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

One of them is indeed Loy Factor, I had hoped that would be obvious. How credible a witness he would be, I do not know (although I strongly suspect he'd be torn to shreds by any half-decent lawyer on the stand). But brain-damaged and unreliable as his account is, he identified Wallace as a conspirator *before* the print ID was made.

I can tell you exactly how credible a witness he is:
He describes multiple shooters firing shots for which we have no evidence and is directly contradicted by the physical evidence we have for shots that were fired, and by the known whereabouts of LHO during the entire timeline.

Loy Factor has no credibility.

To save you the suspense (joke!) the other confession is that of Billy Sol Estes.

Not Billie Sol Estes?
Can I ask a simple question: Is the book you read on JFK you liked the most by Robert Ramsey, editor of the Lobster? As you seem to be taking your revelations directly from that source.

So given Estes is your other prime witness, please describe a documentary source for what he claims to know. He never told the Justice Department anything, he only made a claim that JFK was one of the murders he could provide information on, and the book he co-wrote, published only in France is nothing more than speculation

Simple. None of the other CTs have any supporting forensic evidence. They're (at best) strong on means, motive and opportunity, but all the trails go cold as they approach Dealey Plaza.

Where as the null, the consensus has:
Latent finger and palm prints of provable validity for LHO.
The murder weapon.
The bullets.
The autopsy.
Filmed footage consistent with the consensus.
Photographic evidence consistence with the consensus.
And so on.

Given your claim is based on three sources: One of which is a provable liar, one of which is nothing more than an entertaining yarn that is clearly second hand, and one of which is a very dubious claim to physical evidence that simply does not stand to scrutiny, there is no reason to assume an assassination. The evidence points away from a claim.

This one's different, because there is forensic evidence of a conspirator at the crime scene.

No there is not. It does not pass scrutiny. And again, there is evidence for somebody at the crime scene after the murder. And again, even if the evidence were of better quality, there are obvious reasons Mac Wallace would be sent to the scene by LBJ other than murder.

It is a claim based on dubious evidence. It is exactly the same as all other claims, that all pertained to have other evidence in their favour. It is also exactly the same as all the other claims about multiple shooters, who are clearly at odds with the physical evidence.

I have provided an analysis of the weakness of the counter-experts claims. I have supported that argument by reference to an objective evidentiary standard (the FBI position statement).

So again, the print ID remains untouched (NPI).

It remains untouched? So invalidated and of dubious origin. Excellent you admit this, assuming you recognise the limitations of the support and how far your "analysis" goes.

If you want to analyse my critique of the counter-expert, go ahead, that's why I am here.

No. I don't want to repeat a conversation already had elsewhere in the thread.

"Expectable reasons"?

Expectable given the prerequisites of the theory you are repeating. If we accept Mac Wallace was a fixer and paid criminal in the employ of LBJ, if we believe that political corruption and skulduggery was his day job, then we would expect him to be one of the agents LBJ sent to respond to a crisis. Exactly like the murder of JFK.

You really think that a convicted rifleman/murderer with ties to the murder's chief benefactor being present at the crime scene is not suspicious?

No. I think it is highly suspicious. Given the evidence I find it highly unlikely to be true. But feel free to ignore the limitations of the evidence, or the very notion that there is no reason to reach your conclusion from the evidence you offer.

This is barely worth serious consideration.

Compared to what?

A story that Mac Wallace, Loy Factor and LHO all stood next to each other in the TSBD and fired three shots a piece, and of the nine shots fired only three found their mark or left any trace whatsoever? Then while LHO was being seen elsewhere and shooting a Policeman he was really in a car being driven away?

LHO's rifle? It is not part of my claim that he ever touched it.

So the expert rifleman hung around and didn't touch the only murder weapon we have any evidence for being used?

Why was he there?

That is a wholly reasonable and logical inference, although unproven.

No. It is not. Because it is not only unproven but unevidenced.

This evidence is the subject of ongoing dispute as you no doubt appreciate, and it's not possible to draw any firm conclusion from it at all.

Given every bullet to hit JFK, and every shell we have evidence for being fired from the TSBD came from the same rifle, that you just went to pains to point out you do not claim that Mac Wallace ever touched, conclusions can be drawn.

One of them is you mistake any denial of the facts from a CT source to be valid dispute. You are unfortunately wrong.

On the other hand, here is hard forensic evidence indicating a co-conspirator at the crime scene, and for some reason no-one seems to want to address it.

It has already been addressed and it is not "hard" forensic evidence.

You keep claiming this has been ignored, or not addressed. I hope you understand that your reluctance to establish if this is so does not make it true, and frankly I find the claims vulgar and in a patronising tone. Had you asked in a more polite tone if the issue had been discussed and if anybody could indicate where, rather than brashly claiming they had NOT been discussed and HAD been ignored no doubt somebody would have offered you ample links by now. As you seem to have no interest in civilly apologising for your claims (that you clearly made no effort to ascertain were accurate before making them) I doubt anybody is particularly bothered about digging through two hundred pages to help you out.

At the very least you could stop repeating the claim as though it is a mystery why nobody wants to retrace old ground.

Well, at least we can dispense with the "complete solution and no loose ends" demand, which is progress.

Could you please link to the post where this demand was made?

Mac Wallace was a convicted murderer at the time of the assassination, and he was present at the crime scene on the day the crime was committed.

Nope. The only "evidence" for this claim has not been shown to be valid and is flawed. We have no evidence he was there.

Yes, it's a hefty accusation. So what's the case for the defence? (Please note, I am not expecting a complete solution, and nor am I pretending to possess such a thing).

Reversal of the burden of proof. It is your job to show the accusation stands and that the evidence is of a suitable standard to warrant the accusation. As the only evidence you offer is not of a high enough standard to pass scrutiny and is of a somewhat dubious pedigree, as there is no evidence he held the only murder weapon or fired any shots at JFK, as there is nothing to tie him to the murder there is no need to offer a defence.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Anybody else find it interesting that Glen Sample, a CT advocate who also believes that Wallace was involved in the shooting, whose research (as far as I can see) runs along the same lines as Walt Brown and his fingerprint doesn't believe the fingerprint from Box A was Wallace? Despite it being in his interest to accept the ID?

So sod it, I have nothing better to do, let's look at the evidence in detail from what I can remember of the discussion:

1) It is wrong to suggest that a fourteen point match is an instant game winner. Fourteen points is on paper more than enough to get a print admitted in court in most countries. But that does not mean it will instantly cause a slam dunk. To my understanding (and lets be clear this is not my field of expertise) the number of points of similarity may be an obvious form of comparison, but it is quality over quantity that may be the issue. Eight clear points will give a better comparison than fourteen indistinct points.
2) Cardboard is not a great medium for latent prints.
3)There were dissimilarities between the latent print and inked samples. Darby(?) who looked at the prints tried to explain this to be from an old wound that later healed. But this has obvious (and valid) implications. A sort of damned if you do conundrum. Either the fourteen point match was correct for a print that had been altered substantially by a wound, meaning we can not know if it would have matched before the wound, or print did not match because of the wound, meaning that Darby was somehow predicting divining what changes the wound had made and accounting for them. The net result is the print is no longer an exact match but a possible match with an understandable flaw.
It is evidence suggesting Wallace may have been there, not proof he was.
4) The Texan fingerprint expert it was sent to (Hoffman or something? Hoffmeister?) made a statement that under initial inspection if was a match, but later after (IIRC) closer study did not make a definite claim (again IIRC) because it was not a strong enough match. How this has been represented by CT advocates varies in their interpretation. Simple fact: For any reason you want to apply the expert did not validate the claim.
5) Neither for that matter did the FBI. They had the print for over a year (was it 18 months? Two years? Something like that?) And their statement was a nice and concise "no match". Again, many CT advocates put all kinds of sour grapes into that interpretation.
6) As mentioned above, CT advocates who accuse Wallace did not validate the match either.
7) Perhaps one explanation is a simple one. When using a photocopy provided by Darby the initial point of comparison looked favourable to a match. When sourcing a clearer and more suitable image for analysis the devil turned out to be in the detail. A common story we see with the alleged anomalies in photographs, etc. in this case and other conspiracies.
8) The analysis does not account for the pliability of the skin on different surfaces. A print left from resting a finger on a surface will spread and contort in different ways to a finger pressing hard, rolling a tube, gripping, etc. So there would be a difference between, for example, a finger print left while moving boxes to make a snipers nest and those left on a card for identification.
9) There were issues with the source. The match may have been the best from the blind matches made, but where were those matches sourced? From those who had business in the Depot that day? From criminal records? How blind is it when an identified suspect happens to be in the batch? These issues remained a source of reasonable controversy, especially given the experts who have not identified it as a match under due scrutiny.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

"Nonspiracist?"

 

[turingtest]

Wow. One day away from this thread, and look what happened.

I see the Mac Wallace fingerprint has now become "hard" evidence for supposenot (and "new"? I don't think so. This forum does have a search function, supposenot- you don't have to read the whole thread, but using that to see what's been already discussed would seem to be a minimum you could do). When did this happen? As I recall, he began like this:

a) The 'debunking' fingerprinter chides Darby for using photocopied fingerprints. Well, lacking access to the original, he had nothing else to work with. Not ideal, but there we go. The irony of that same debunker basing his argument on a digital reproduction (of unknown resolution) of that self-same photocopy is not, I hope, lost on anyone.

The fact that Darby's source for comparison wasn't a good one, and that he had nothing else to work with, is an excuse for the shaky nature of the ID; but it doesn't really make it less so, does it? And "the debunker used the same source" is just tu quoque; the issue is whether Darby's ID can be established on this basis.

b) Fingerprinting is more akin to an art than an exact science, and if two fingerprint experts disagree, then all one can say is that the original ID has not been verified. That doesn't invalidate the original ID, it just fails to confirm it. Another expert might validate the first ID

"An art more than a science"- that says a lot. I'll also note the admission that the print now held out as "hard" forensic evidence is "not...verified." It "might" be validated- how does that translate to "hard"?

c) The 'debunking' expert gives two examples of supposed discrepancies, and implies he could list many more, without doing so. I doubt that such casual failure to provide total evidence would be accepted were it from a conspiracist source

What the debunker can prove from an admittedly-flawed source is not the issue- it's what Darby can.

d) And most damningly, the fingerprint expert fails to uphold the FBI's own methodology for fingerprint matching, which is that three (or more) discrepancies do not constitute a negative result in the given presence of the required number of matching points. The 'debunker''s task, therefore, is to disprove the 14 existing points of correlation, not find other points that don't match, for which there could be any number of reasons. Thus rendering his current effort irrelevant. (If you doubt the FBI's approach, google <FBI "fingerprints do not lie"> the quoted phrase being the title of their position document; again, can't provide a link yet).

Aside from (again) putting the burden of proof where it doesn't belong (on the debunker)...since we're appealing to the FBI, what do they say?

"No match."

I'm not sure I get why supposenot is hanging his hat on this one peg anyway. He himself admits that he accepts LHO as having fired at least some of the shots, presumably because of the overwhelming consilience of other evidence, independent of just his fingerprints at the scene, that says so. So I have to ask- is there any other evidence, independent of just this one shaky fingerprint ID, that puts Wallace even in the building, much less firing (or directing) shots? Any witnesses who say they saw him there around the time of the shooting, for example? Without that, all you've got is, at best, one anomalous loose end in the WC conclusion that proves nothing about it, as compared to the Wallace theory, which is, other than one problematical fingerprint ID, all loose ends on its own and an unnecessary add-on to the WC.

 

[turingtest]

"Nonspiracist?"

Yeah, I wondered about that too. I think it's what passes for wit among the CT crowd. Wasn't there a 9/11 CTist here once who delighted in and constantly crowed over his own "beedunker" neologism?

 

[Mudcat]

Wasn't there a 9/11 CTist here once who delighted in and constantly crowed over his own "beedunker" neologism?

I think it was ergo or Clayton Moore. I can't really say for sure, it was before my time.

 

[dafydd]

"Nonspiracist?"

One who accepts reality.

 

[vtbub]

I think it was ergo or Clayton Moore. I can't really say for sure, it was before my time.

It was ergo.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So assume for a second Mac Wallace was stood right three when LHO fired his rifle?

So what?

*We know that all three shots we have evidence for came from LHO. The wounding bullets came from one rifle.
*The sound recordings do not include more shots.
*The film footage do not include more shots.
*There is no physical evidence for any other shots to have struck anything.
*Mac Wallace did not supply the bullets.
*Mac Wallace did not supply the murder weapons used by LHO.
*Mac Wallace did not help LHO escape.
So what exactly is Mac Wallace accused of? Standing in the TSBD with three other people, one of whom is claimed by others to have "confessed"? While only LHO did the shooting? Why? For what purpose?

Should we also assume that Mac Wallace, his native American buddy and any other members of the kill team were also there for LHOs previous attempt at an assassination? That LHO was somewhere else when he should have been killing a Policeman and getting arrested (as is necessary if we listen to the Factor story?)

A hypothesis is supposed to explain something that can be tested by evidence. A theory is supposed to the best explanation based on evidence. Neither fit the claim that Mac Wallace shot JFK.

And I say that as somebody who likes the Ramsey book that uses the exact same two "witnesses" that are being used here. It's an entertaining yarn that summarises a lot of JFK Buff-ery from the last three decades or so. It holds a lot of stuff to scrutiny: The idea of two Oswalds, the New Orleans stories, the Body Swapping, and best explains the two different sets of JFK Autopsy photos. But it states as facts accepted by the author stuff that just doesn't stand up. It accepts there were nine or twelve shots (but never explains why this is so) and accepts the Backyard photos were fake (but never explains why). It tries to make a theory that fits with actual evidence- but not the totality of evidence. It handwaves too much.

Unfortunately we see the same issues in this regurgitated explanation of somebody else's theory and it smacks too much of "the last book I read was obviously the right explanation", which is pretty rife in JFK conspiracies, JTR, explanations of Nessie, etc.

 

[JayUtah]

Can I ask a simple question: Is the book you read on JFK you liked the most by Robert Ramsey, editor of the Lobster? As you seem to be taking your revelations directly from that source.

Good luck, I've been trying to get that question answered for a couple pages. Now do you see why my rebuttal focuses on establishing the foundation[Wikipedia] for supposenot's claims? And by "foundation" I mean the Common Law jurisprudential concept of establishing the basis a statement's probative value.

Perhaps in the desire to conceal his sources, supposenot has variously suggested no outside sources are involved. So we are left to consider that he is the primary collector of the affidavits of witnesses and the primary judge of matching fingerprints and the standards by which matches are evaluated.

As I mentioned, this is important because it is exactly the difference between evidence and hearsay. If supposenot were the author of all this evidence and reasoning, we can legitimately expect he will be able (if not willing) to rejoin practically any rebuttal. But if he is merely repeating the argument from elsewhere, then a reasoned debate will be unlikely if it would require information not present in the original source. In that case we can expect only distractionary and evasive arguments as soon as we've run off the end of what the source provides.

And that's what appears here. We have the case in chief, borrowed from an outside source that perhaps isn't as obscure as supposenot wishes. We have his defense against other rebuttals made in yet other outside sources, which quickly devolve into a straw man. It boils down to an argument of, "I read a book on JFK and argued with some other people in absentia about it."

An argument of that form must be treated differently than an argument from a first-person researcher and first-person expert. The initial post contains several statements that we know to be hearsay, but which would have more weight of supposenot had been the one to interview them and thus be able to answer questions about the interview. It contains other statements that are clearly born of expert judgment, which would carry weight only if supposenot's judgment could be shown to have probative value.

Granted not all arguments that employ third-party sources are necessarily flawed in this way, but this argument is. At the very least a disclosure of the sources is in order so that the questioning may proceed to the next stage, which would be what steps the proponent here has taken to ascertain and test the reliability of the source, and to reconcile with other pertinent sources. Hiding the source places that important line of questioning out of reach.

...there is no reason to assume an assassination. The evidence points away from a claim.

You probably meant to write no evidence of a conspiracy. I think the evidence is pretty clearly in favor of an assassination.

No. I think it is highly suspicious. Given the evidence I find it highly unlikely to be true.

The problem with many conspiracy hypotheses is the failure to imagine so many different alternatives, many of them even nefarious -- just not in the way the hypothesis suggests.

Any time I participate in a forensic engineering process we always uncover some irrelevant irregularity. The foreman has a bottle of Jack Daniels hidden in his desk, for example. Did its contents contribute to the fire? No, so frankly I don't care whether he broke any rules or laws. But the foreman's belief that I'll uncover it and and make trouble for him will compel him to behave suspiciously. And that suspicion (i.e., over an unrelated foible) will itself compel additional scrutiny. Hence in order to do my job I typically have to be liberal with offers of amnesty in order to get reliable information that I do care about.

Why does this matter? Because even if we grant for the sake of argument that fingerprint evidence places Wallace at the scene of the crime at around the period, there are any number of reasons for him to be there, some of which may be nefarious, and none of which is necessarily that he was there to do Johnson's bidding by murdering Kennedy.

But feel free to ignore the limitations of the evidence, or the very notion that there is no reason to reach your conclusion from the evidence you offer.

Correct; even the best case, most charitable, interpretation of the evidence -- ignoring all pertinent questions of its confidence and reliability -- does not support some specific proposed chain of events.

"Well what else would Wallace have been there for?" is typically the kind of protest you get in return, but that's just proof-shifting and question-begging.

No. It is not. Because it is not only unproven but unevidenced.

As well as patently absurd. If the claim is that Wallace was in Dallas to kill Kennedy on the Vice President's orders, then that's just about the stupidest way for Johnson to do away with Kennedy that I can possibly think of. More so that just about anyone who could be ascribed a motived to kill Kennedy, Johnson had the access to do it in a way that wouldn't involve hundreds of witnesses, a ginormous investigation, and -- ya know -- obvious evidence that it was a murder and not just an "accident."