Why CBS Covered up the JFK Case (pt1)

[David Von Pein]

[Quoting from "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"...]

"If the preponderance of evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is not reasonable to say a particular anomalous piece of evidence shows innocence. Even when more than one anomaly arises, as it certainly does with respect to the JFK assassination, it is still not 'reasonable' to assume innocence if the preponderance of evidence shows guilt." (p. 118)

How can anybody possibly argue with the logic contained within the above sentences?

Why is this so unusual? Because the above is not the legal definition of the term as used in American criminal courts.

So what? We're not in a courtroom. And Mel Ayton, when he wrote the above words for page 118 of BRD, wasn't speaking to a jury sitting in a courtroom's jury box either. He was merely applying common sense and logic to the BASIC TERM "reasonable doubt".

In short, the above paragraph from the BRD book is still 100% logical and sensible, regardless of official courtroom "definition".

Edited April 24, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Martin's fine review which stopped the book in its tracks...

You're too funny, Jimmy.

As if Martin's blistering critique had any effect on the pathetic book sales of BRD, which have been virtually non-existent since Day 1 in December 2014, just as I predicted they would be in August 2012 when Mel brought me into the project.

It's an "LN" book, so I knew it would sell like a lead balloon (esp. since the authors are virtually unknown to most readers). And I was right. So there were no "tracks" for Martin Hay to stop in the first place. (LOL)

I'm still glad the book is out there, though. It provides at least a little more "LN" balance to the lopsided overall catalog which will always heavily favor the CT side in sheer numbers.

And there are a few sensible reviewers out there (thank goodness).....

"[beyond Reasonable Doubt] is a very good book and one of the best resources on the Kennedy assassination I have ever read and a nice companion to "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi and "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner. The manner in which Mr. Ayton and Mr. Von Pein present the information is very effective. .... A very useful book, very comprehensive, easy to read and well written. So, anyone interested in the Kennedy case must have a copy of this book." — Cassio F. D. Queiros; March 15, 2016

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/04/beyond-reasonable-doubt.html

Edited April 24, 2016 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

[Quoting from "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"...]

"If the preponderance of evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is not reasonable to say a particular anomalous piece of evidence shows innocence. Even when more than one anomaly arises, as it certainly does with respect to the JFK assassination, it is still not 'reasonable' to assume innocence if the preponderance of evidence shows guilt." (p. 118)

How can anybody possibly argue with the logic contained within the above sentences?

Why is this so unusual? Because the above is not the legal definition of the term as used in American criminal courts.

So what? We're not in a courtroom. And Mel Ayton, when he wrote the above words for page 118 of BRD, wasn't speaking to a jury sitting in a courtroom's jury box either. He was merely applying common sense and logic to the BASIC TERM "reasonable doubt".

In short, the above paragraph from the BRD book is still 100% logical and sensible, regardless of official courtroom "definition".

No it is not.

If you title your book with that moniker, the reader is entitled to think that you will prove that standard and not switch the standard like a used car salesman.

Now look at this other point from Martin's review: Another way of explaining it is this: the prosecutor has judiciously, methodically and conclusively closed off all other avenues of possible explication to the defense. The crime could have happened no other way.

Did the WR do this?

HECK NO!

In fact, if you look at the ending of Six Seconds in Dallas way back in 1967, you will see that Thompson, using just 2-3 witness's testimony and the Hughes film demonstrates that there was another way to explicate the crime. But that the WC and Hoover decided not to give that alternative any credence.

Now today, with all the evidence declassified by the ARRB, we can go light years further with what happened.

So therefore, far from not reaching the highest standard of evidence, the WC did not even meet the lowest standard.

Edited April 25, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

DVP: It's an "LN" book, so I knew it would sell like a lead balloon (esp. since the authors are virtually unknown to most readers). And I was right. So there were no "tracks" for Martin Hay to stop in the first place. (LOL)

Hmm, Shenon's book did pretty well did it not?

That is a lone nut book. So the fact is that being a WR advocate is not related to sales.

​I would argue the opposite is true.

[David Von Pein]

So therefore, far from not reaching the highest standard of evidence, the WC did not even meet the lowest standard.

Total BS.

The evidence is so abundant against Oswald, in order to have any "reasonable doubt" about his guilt, a person must pretend that all of that evidence (or virtually all of it) was faked by unknown plotters who wanted to make it only look like Oswald killed TWO people.

Yes, Jim DiEugenio is one of those people who believes such foolishness. But does that mean everybody should be sucked into his vacuum of silliness? I think not.

A friend of mine at Facebook summed up Jimmy's approach to the case the other day, and it's worth repeating here....

"DiEugenio is a master of the "shotgun" approach. He relishes in throwing out hundreds of questionable inconsistencies, yet cannot focus on the bare facts of Oswald's prints on the rifle and the sniper boxes. He is another hack distracter who desperately and cowardly will not address the obvious evidence. There will always be a wide audience for DiEugenio and others like him." -- Steve Roe; 4/16/16

https://www.facebook.com/groups/243480929145732/permalink/537068333120322/

Hear! Hear!

Edited April 25, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Shenon's book did pretty well did it not?

I haven't the slightest idea.

Edited April 25, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

How do you explain the evidence that shows that Oswald did NOT fire the Carcano rifle that day?

You surely aren't relying on the wholly UNreliable paraffin (cheek) test, are you?

I am relying on the very reliable neutron activation analysis done on the paraffin casts. Which showed negative for Oswald, yet positive for seven out of seven control subjects who fired a similar rifle.

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy and Tom:

I have been around the block with DVP.

See, he has been doing this stunt all over the web for a very long time.

So what he does is simply goes from one argument to another, sort of like walking over stepping stones in a stream. Once you knock down one, he goes to something else.

Always avoiding the obvious: which is that if everything is questionable, then there is no case.

He then tries to say, "Oh, and so everything is faked?"

More baloney. See, if you read Sylvia Meagher's classic book, Accessories after the Fact, I don't recall her saying anything was fabricated. Her argument was simple: the state of the evidence in 1964 did not come close to convicting Oswald for a felony. Which, back then, was this standard: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt and to a moral certainty.

This is why in the book DVP wrote with Ayton, they changed the standard without telling the reader. They changed it to something much closer to the standard in a civl trial: the preponderance on the evidence. You can check on this in any legal law book on line or in a law library.

But as Martin Hay so well delineated in his review, they could not even clear that standard.

In that way, they were like CBS, they changed the rules and then still couldn't win. Does it get worse than that?

You nailed it, Jim. Both in how DVP jumps from one argument to the next, simply ignoring the ones he can't argue; and in how he and others like CBS change the rules, and then STILL can't win.

[Sandy Larsen]

[Quoting from "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"...]

"If the preponderance of evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is not reasonable to say a particular anomalous piece of evidence shows innocence. Even when more than one anomaly arises, as it certainly does with respect to the JFK assassination, it is still not 'reasonable' to assume innocence if the preponderance of evidence shows guilt." (p. 118)

How can anybody possibly argue with the logic contained within the above sentences?

"Anomalous" pieces of evidence are important, Dave. Numerous convictions have been overturned when new evidence contradicting the finding of the jury was later discovered. The introduction of DNA testing in the 1990s has resulted in hundreds of convicts being released from prison. Would you have kept these individuals imprisoned because of the anomalous DNA test results?

http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/causes-wrongful-convictions

Edited April 25, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[David Von Pein]

I am relying on the very reliable neutron activation analysis done on the paraffin casts. Which showed negative for Oswald, yet positive for seven out of seven control subjects who fired a similar rifle.

You'd better re-think that argument, Sandy. The NAA tests on Oswald's paraffin casts were certainly NOT negative. They were positive.

From a September 2015 Amazon discussion:

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This is an outright lie. The NAA tests, according to John Gallagher, showed a POSITIVE result on all casts for the presence of some deposits of antimony and barium (the casts weren't checked for nitrates at all, remember).

And the obvious reason for there not being a lot MORE deposits found on the casts is because the casts were washed before going through the NAA process.

So it's rather humorous that any CTer would want to utilize the NAA cast tests at all, because they definitely showed some presence of barium and antimony on Oswald's face and hands.

Now, Ben, did Dr. Vincent P. Guinn WASH his casts before subjecting them to his NAA tests? (I kinda doubt he did.)

And why on Earth conspiracy fanatic Ben Holmes [in this post] is propping up the fact that NOT ALL of the barium and antimony was washed off the casts is anyone's guess. That's hysterical! That means that TWO properties that you'd expect to find on a gunman were still present on Oswald's casts during the NAA analysis.

And yet that is supposed to somehow EXONERATE Mr. Oswald and prove a conspiracy????

Incredible illogic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MORE:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-583.html

Edited April 25, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

So therefore, far from not reaching the highest standard of evidence, the WC did not even meet the lowest standard.

Total BS.

The evidence is so abundant against Oswald, in order to have any "reasonable doubt" about his guilt, a person must pretend that all of that evidence (or virtually all of it) was faked by unknown plotters who wanted to make it only look like Oswald killed TWO people.

Dave,

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy. ZERO.

How could he have shot Kennedy given the fact that he didn't fire a rifle that day?

Edited April 25, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[David Von Pein]

Dave,

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy. ZERO.

How could he have shot Kennedy given the fact that he didn't fire a rifle that day?

And the perpetual cycle of CTer nonsense continues.

Tomorrow's inevitable instant replay argument from Sandy:

Oswald never even owned a rifle!

(Don't these conspiracy myths have any expiration date at all? You'd think 52 years would be past their shelf life.)

~sigh~

Edited April 25, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

I am relying on the very reliable neutron activation analysis done on the paraffin casts. Which showed negative for Oswald, yet positive for seven out of seven control subjects who fired a similar rifle.

You'd better re-think that argument, Sandy. The NAA tests on Oswald's paraffin casts were certainly NOT negative. They were positive.

Say what? Even Bugliosi acknowledges that the NAA test came back negative on Oswald's cheek, when he wrote (on p. 165 of Reclaiming History):

"Predictably, the paraffin cast for Oswald's right cheek showed no reaction."

You do recall, don't you, that we are talking about the cast of Oswald's cheek?

The NAA test showed positive on the cheeks of seven control subjects who fired a Carcano. But not on Oswald.

EDIT: I suppose that when Bugliosi wrote the above he could have been thinking ONLY of the standard paraffin test, not the NAA test. But I doubt it. Why would he point out that the standard test failed, but not point out that the more sensitive NAA test tested positive... if it had indeed tested positive??

EDIT 2: I've done some further reading regarding the NAA test performed on the cast of Oswald's cheek. I discovered that SOME residues were found on Oswald's cheek cast. HOWEVER, the level was too low to indicate a positive result. In fact, the level of these residues on the OUTSIDES of the cast was found to be greater than on the part of the cast that made contact with Oswald's cheek.

(Source. Note: I quote WC testimony directly in the post following this.)

Edited April 25, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

I am relying on the very reliable neutron activation analysis done on the paraffin casts. Which showed negative for Oswald, yet positive for seven out of seven control subjects who fired a similar rifle.

You'd better re-think that argument, Sandy. The NAA tests on Oswald's paraffin casts were certainly NOT negative. They were positive.

The NAA analysis of Oswald's cheek paraffin cast came back negative.

Here is John Gallagher's testimony regarding it:

Mr. REDLICH. All right. Now let us turn to the cheek casts, Mr. Gallagher. Could you tell us the results of your examination of the cheek casts with reference to the presence of the elements barium and antimony?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Barium and antimony were found on the cheek casts. However, when the cheek cast was analyzed, both surfaces of the cheek cast were studied. That is, the surface adjacent to the skin of the subject and the surface away from the skin of the subject, or the outside surface of the cast.

Mr. REDLICH. For our record, let us call the surface adjacent to the skin the inside surface, and the other surface the outside surface.

Mr. GALLAGHER. The outside surface of this cast was found to contain--barium and antimony--actually more barium was found on the outside surface of the cast than on the inside surface.

Mr. REDLICH. And as far as antimony is concerned, was there more on the outside than on the inside ?

Mr. GALLAGHER. There was slightly less antimony on the outside of the cast than on the inside of the cast.

Mr. REDLICH. Do you have any explanation for the presence of barium and antimony on the outside of the cast, and as part of the same question, do you have any explanation for their being more barium on the outside than the inside ?

Mr. GALLAGHER. I have no explanation for this difference.

Mr. REDLICH. Were you able to make determination as to whether the barium and antimony present on the inside cast was more than would be expected in the case of a person who had not fired a weapon or handled a fired weapon ?

Mr. GALLAGHER. I found that there was more barium and antimony on the inside surface of the cast than you would find on the cheek of an individual who had recently washed his cheek. However, the significance of this antimony and barium on the inside of the cheek is not known.

Mr. REDLICH. Is that because the outside surface acts as a sort of control on the basis of which you can make a comparison?

Mr. GALLAGHER. The outside surface of the cheek [cast] was run as a control for this particular specimen.

Mr. REDLICH. And therefore the presence of a lesser amount of barium and a slightly larger amount of antimony on the inside surface was one of the reasons why you could not make a determination as to the significance of the barium and antimony on the inside surface, is that correct?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.

[James DiEugenio]

Nice one Sandy.

And BTW, Redlich wrote an internal memo on this, when he got the report from the FBI.

He said words to the effect that the Commission, based up on this, had little or no case that Oswald fired a rifle that day.

BTW, when you match up that memo with the April 27th memo by Redlich saying they have not the foggiest idea of any kind of how the shooting sequence was conducted in Dealey Plaza, well then you see just how lost the WC was. Simply because they could not mount any kind of case. And this is in late April.

About 4.5 months after the first executive session meeting.

According to Sylvia Meagher, a lot of the staff was ready to quit. But that rat Willens got two newly minted law school graduates to join up and this shifted the case to what the likes of what an even bigger rat, McCloy, wanted: the WR would build its case through the social pathology of Oswald and Ruby, not the evidence.,

Edited April 25, 2016 by James DiEugenio