Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send these  to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Recommended Posts

Most JFK Medical Evidence Would Not Be Admissible at Trial
by Douglas P. Horne

AssassinationOfJFK.net presents an essay written by Doug Horne, the author of “Inside the Assassination Records Review Board.”
In this essay Horne examines how much of the medical evidence he feels would have been admitted into a court of law, his reasons why,
and he describes the shady “sleight of hand” activities that were going on the night President Kennedy’s body was returned to Washington.

Edited by Greg Burnham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it necessary to speculate on whether any evidence or testimony could be admissible at a trail, especially when a real grand jury investigation is possible, and the question should be whether the evidence or testimony should be presented to the grand jury for their evaluation?

The grand jury, which determines whether there is enough evidence to indict anyone for a crime, can use hearsay as evidence, which is not permissible in a court trial, but is okay in determining whether someone can be indicated and brought to trail.

Speculating as to whether or not a prosecutor DA or assistant district attorney could or would not introduced certain evidence is a real waste of time when in fact, a grand jury can review evidence in the case TODAY - and determine whether or not someone can be indicted for crimes related to the assassination, including perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, conspiracy and homicide.

Bill Kelly

Edited by William Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great observations, Bill, although I think the thrust of Doug's argument was geared more toward addressing how flimsy the medical evidence against the accused actually was.

Please be sure to post your comment under that essay on my website where it will be seen by guests there.

Edited by Greg Burnham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,
Are you part of a group working on a grand jury investigation? If so, then what can others do to assist?

Merci.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug Horne has fallen into the Whitaker pothole. Anything else he writes needs to be weighed and evaluated on that basis, unfortunately...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug Horne has fallen into the Whitaker pothole. Anything else he writes needs to be weighed and evaluated on that basis, unfortunately...

so says the flutist..... lmao!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug Horne has fallen into the Whitaker pothole. Anything else he writes needs to be weighed and evaluated on that basis, unfortunately...

Unfortunately, Pamela is committing a fallacy known as Poisoning the Well. Even if Doug's work, hypothetically, is later proved to be in error, still Pamela's

use of this type of (fallacious) "reasoning" does nothing to reveal that error and does nothing to add to our understanding of the admissibility of the medical

evidence. It is tantamount to encouraging the prejudicial dismissing of a conclusion in lieu of evaluating the arguments based on their own merits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug Horne has fallen into the Whitaker pothole. Anything else he writes needs to be weighed and evaluated on that basis, unfortunately...

Unfortunately, Pamela is committing a fallacy known as Poisoning the Well. Even if Doug's work, hypothetically, is later proved to be in error, still Pamela's

use of this type of (fallacious) "reasoning" does nothing to reveal that error and does nothing to add to our understanding of the admissibility of the medical

evidence. It is tantamount to encouraging the prejudicial dismissing of a conclusion in lieu of evaluating the arguments based on their own merits.

Unfortunately, Greg seems to have fallen prey to the fallacy of false alternatives.

Also, imo, the 'poisoning of the well' was done when the 'nameless witness' that later was revealed to be Whitaker was forced onto the JFK research community when those doing this had ample documentation available to them that demonstrated his statements were false. No one bothered to pony up a single bit of documentation connecting him to the limo in any way.

It is my thinking that this campaign has gone on unchecked in order to 'poison the well' against the man who wrote the memo that NARA sent to me by mistake, Vaughn Ferguson. There is documentation connecting him to the limo in the days following the assassination. He was the one who took possession of some of the bloody back seat leather. There are photos of him with the limo.

My logic is this -- fool me once shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

From my standpoint on the limousine, Horne has driven himself into the pothole that the lies about Whitaker represent. That is his choice. But as long as he or anyone is maintaining a false position on a major issue in the assassination it is unrealistic not to anticipate that they will fall into potholes in other areas of their research.

Greg also seems to be forgetting my position, which is not to tell people what to think, but to give them all the information available and ask that they think things through for themselves.

Edited by Pamela Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yikes! Let's not make this personal, Pamela. I simply pointed out an error in logic. Anyone who reads what you wrote can determine for themselves if my observation

about your reasoning is valid.

PS: Thanks for bumping Doug's article.

Edited by Greg Burnham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yikes! Let's not make this personal, Pamela. I simply pointed out an error in logic. Anyone who reads what you wrote can determine for themselves if my observation

about your reasoning is valid.

PS: Thanks for bumping Doug's article.

Speak for yourself, Greg. That was not my intent.

You pointed out a fallacy by using a fallacy. That is what I pointed out. I don't think your position has merit as a result.

At least we agree that everyone should read all that is available and decide for themselves what to think. I am attempting to provide definition for anyone who chooses to ask questions about the limo issue that I think causes us to have to ask questions about Horne's credibility on every other issue.

Curious that you seem to have complimented me on 'bumping' Doug's article while failing to pony up a single bit of objective documentation connecting the 'nameless witness' to the limo, which is the focus of my criticism.

Edited by Pamela Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you just have a prejudice against all researchers named Doug and those that support their work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you just have a prejudice against all researchers named Doug and those that support their work.

Greg has provided yet another example of the fallacy of false alternatives.

Still waiting for Greg to pony up what he considers the most convincing objective documentation that the 'nameless witness' has any connection to the limo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't accuse you of intending to commit a fallacy, I simply pointed it out.

As for the fallacy of False Alternative, where have I committed it?

The fallacy of false alternative occurs when we fail to consider all the relevant possibilities.

One example is only considering the extreme possibilities rather than the intervening points on

a scale. For instance, if you told me that you are not very short--and I concluded that you must

therefore be very tall, that would be an example of the fallacy of False Alternative.

Having said that, it is not fallacious to consider all the available evidence and possibilities, but

choose the one that is most probable. All evidence is not equal and all possibilities are not either.

Among the available possibilities we must choose the most probable one. Of course, this can be

arrived at by using various methods including logic and intuition. I may not be correct in my

conclusion, but it is not due to the commission of the fallacy of False Alternative.

Edited by Greg Burnham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't accuse you of intending to commit a fallacy, I simply pointed it out.

As for the fallacy of False Alternative, where have I committed it?

The fallacy of false alternative occurs when we fail to consider all the relevant possibilities.

One example is only considering the extreme possibilities rather than the intervening points on

a scale. For instance, if you told me that you are not very short--and I concluded that you must

therefore be very tall, that would be an example of the fallacy of False Alternative.

Having said that, it is not fallacious to consider all the available evidence and possibilities, but

choose the one that is most probable. All evidence is not equal and all possibilities are not either.

Among the available possibilities we must choose the most probable one. Of course, this can be

arrived at by using various methods including logic and intuition. I may not be correct in my

conclusion, but it is not due to the commission of the fallacy of False Alternative.

By Greg's refusing yet again to accept a person's stated position I suppose a case could be made for this being something other than just a simple case of the fallacy of false alternatives.

Let's review -- once again, not a shred of evidence has been posted yet to show why Greg even considers there to be any possible link between the 'nameless witness' that is the actual issue here and the limo. And it is my impression that this is why he seems unable to accept my position and move on. It seems 'the Dougs' are of no help to him either...

In spite of the fact that I have repeatedly stated my position, Greg insists on rejecting it in favor of other alternatives that happen to be not only false but in the case of 'the Dougs' just a tad dismissive. So, Greg seems to be stuck in a rut of false alternatives that he has 'dug', even though he has been repeatedly provided with a valid one, which is that a lack of documentation renders a person's statements invalid.

Some of us weigh and evaluate information starting with actual documentation of some kind. Others tend to fall into potholes 'believing' or 'disbelieving' people. When they realize this, they tend to become a bit huffy. But don't worry, that's all part of the learning process. :-)

Edited by Pamela Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×