David Von Pein Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) DVP, Please define evidence as you use the term. Jon, if you can't figure out what the "evidence" is in the JFK case, God help you. But here's a pretty good place to start.... Edited January 28, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 Dave Dale Myers' cartoon shows the bullet basically going through the centre of JFK's neck. Am I missing something here? Was JFK a freak or something, and his spinal column offset to the left side of his body? C'mon now, Dave, we are trying to have a serious discussion here. When do you plan to quit clowning around and start giving us some serious answers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 DVP, You're right -- I need help. But I did take a second-year course in law school called "Evidence". And I'm conversant with the rules of evidence. Having done trial work, etc. I'd like a dialogue with you about evidence in the JFK case. But I don't know how you're using the term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) C'mon now, Dave, we are trying to have a serious discussion here. After glancing at the quote below, it's pretty clear that it's impossible to have a "serious discussion" with you concerning the JFK case, Bob. Because this comment is just too absurd to contemplate... "There is no doubt now that the CE 399 in the photo above [this photo] was not fired from a 6.5mm Carcano rifle, nor any other 6.5mm calibre rifle." -- Robert Prudhomme; January 22, 2015 Edited January 28, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) DVP, You're right -- I need help. But I did take a second-year course in law school called "Evidence". And I'm conversant with the rules of evidence. Having done trial work, etc. I'd like a dialogue with you about evidence in the JFK case. But I don't know how you're using the term. The "evidence" in this case is ..... the guns, the shells, the bullets, the fibers, the fingerprints, JFK's autopsy report, Commission Exhibit No. 1 (re: Walker), the backyard photos of Oswald, etc. Do you think all of the above would have been inadmissible under the "rules of evidence" in a court of law? Edited January 28, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 DVP, the proponent of such items (the person seeking to have such items admitted into evidence) would have had to lay a foundation for the proffered evidence. A foundation means, among other things, a clear chain of custody. It also means a factual basis. Something to convince a judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) Jon, Let's hear what a veteran attorney has to say.... "I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible. I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 442 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" Regarding CE399 specifically ----> JFK-Archives.blogspot.com / Vince Bugliosi On CE399 ------------ Edited January 29, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 DVP, Here's a ten-question test in the law, let's call it a bar exam. Bugliosi will fail the test. Guaranteed. 1. A agrees to transfer $10,000 to B in exchange for an annuity for life. The transfer is made. The agreement is subject to the Statute of Frauds. TRUE or FALSE? Let's stop here. Or if you wish, let's go on. 2. A transfers $10,000 to Charity subject to an agreement that Charity will use the $10,000 to fund the project A's daughter is working on at Charity. A will get a federal income tax charitable deduction for his $10,000 gift to Charity. TRUE or FLASE? Let's go on. 3. A is intoxicated, dead drunk. A performs an act that is a crime one element of which is intent. A may be convicted of the crime. TRUE or FALSE? 4. A agrees to sell a piece of real estate to B for $5,000. B defaults. There is no written agreement. A sues B to enforce the agreement. A wins. TRUE or FALSE? 5. The police enter Mrs. Mapp's house and find obscene materials in her living room. The police have no warrant to search her house but a suspicion she's purveying pornography. The materials the police find in her living room are admissible against Mrs. Mapp in a trial for possession of obscenity. TRUE or FALSE? DVP, I should stop here. These are not questions for you. They are questions for any lawyer, let's say Bugliosi. Bugliosi is your hero, your idol. I suggest he be tested for his knowledge of the law. BTW, I have taught law and am published in peer-reviewed journals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) Yeah, you're right, Jon. Bugliosi knows absolutely NOTHING about the law. He was only a top lawyer in L.A. for eight years. Meh. Just a rookie when compared with that incredible barrister, Jon G. Tidd, Esq. Edited January 29, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) Bugliosi is your hero, your idol. Why do you say that? Just because he and I both know that Oswald is guilty based on the easy-to-figure-out evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases? Edited January 29, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 No, DVP. No that you assert Bugliosi is an expert in the law. Let Bugliosi answer for himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Now if we could just get Vince to buy a computer, we'd be all set for him to take your quiz. (Vince doesn't use a computer---remember?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) Well, Jon, let me ask you this.... Do you think Vince just MADE UP this part of the quote I cited previously?.... "I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule." -- Vince Bugliosi Edited January 29, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 29, 2015 Author Share Posted January 29, 2015 Dave Dale Myers' cartoon shows the bullet basically going through the centre of JFK's neck. Am I missing something here? Was JFK a freak or something, and his spinal column offset to the left side of his body? C'mon now, Dave, we are trying to have a serious discussion here. When do you plan to quit clowning around and start giving us some serious answers? Sorry about that, Dave. I guess you missed this in all of the posts being made, so I posted it again for you. How did the bullet go through JFK's neck, as depicted by Myers in his cartoon, without hitting any cervical vertebrae? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 You're simply misinterpreting Dale Myers' computer animation, Bob. Dale doesn't have the bullet hitting the spinal column or any vertebrae.... Oh, c'mon Dave. You and I have been going around on this for ten years now and you know full well that NO ONE pushing the single-bullet theory has ever shown us how a bullet entering where the HSCA said it did could exit where they said it did without hitting bone. You know full well that Lattimer moved the bullet hole way up the neck to do so--and you know full well that Myers, Bugliosi, and McAdams et al run full speed the other way whenever this issue comes up. You may even recall McAdams had a meltdown when I asked him a simple question: IF the bullet entered at T-1, and descended in the neck, at what level did it exit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now