Pat Speer Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) You avoided my point, Cliff. Photographs don't need a chain of possession. All it takes is someone--and in this case we have two very big someones, the autopsy doctor who ordered the photographs and the autopsy photographer who took the photographs--to say these are photos taken of Kennedy's body during the autopsy, and they accurately reflect the wounds to his body, and they get entered. Bing. Bang. Boom. As far as any perceived conflict on your part between the autopsy photos and the clothing, that is something that could be raised after the photos were entered into evidence. Edited August 7, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) You avoided my point, Cliff. Photographs don't need a chain of possession. Sure they do. http://www.nfstc.org/pdi/Subject01/pdi_s01_m01_04.htm (quote on) From crime scene to forensic laboratory to courtroom, all evidence must be inventoried and secured to preserve its integrity. Evidence admissibility in court is predicated upon an unbroken chain of custody. It is important to demonstrate that the evidence introduced at trial is the same evidence collected at the crime scene, and that access was controlled and documented. (quote off) Pat, you can provide NO evidence that the extant autopsy photos were taken at the autopsy. All it takes is someone--and in this case we have to very big someones, the autopsy doctor who ordered the photographs and the autopsy photographer who took the photographs--to say these are photos taken of Kennedy's body during the autopsy, and they accurately reflect the wounds to his body, and they get entered. Bing. Bang. Boom. As far as any perceived conflict on your part between the autopsy photos and the clothing, that is something that could be raised after the photos were entered into evidence. The bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars, at least 2 inches below your "T1". That is not a "perceived conflict" -- it is a conflict as a cold matter of fact. A conflict YOU cannot resolve. Edited December 20, 2014 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) UPDATE..... The Kindle (E-Book) version of "BRD" is now available too.... As well as a PDF version, available here.... BRD Book Reviews ---------------- Edited March 22, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) Some reviews for "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".... "'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' is co-authored by two of my favourite assassination writers/commentators. For me, Ayton and Von Pein are a dream ticket. Ayton is studious and measured, whilst Von Pein is battle-hardened and caustic. Ayton's academic credentials, allied with Von Pein's years of ferocious online exchanges with the baying masses of the Lee Harvey Oswald fan club, have come together in this outstanding book. This meeting-of-minds is the iron fist inside the velvet glove of assassination writing.For readers who are looking for a no-nonsense introduction to a case that has been mangled and misrepresented by legions of cynics and paranoiacs for half-a-century, 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' is an ideal starting point.The authors begin by discussing the two main investigations into the case: the Warren Commission and the HSCA. As is to be expected, both writers give praise and criticism where it is due. There's no ducking of issues here. Mistakes were made by both investigations and there's no attempt to whitewash the errors. Ayton and Von Pein call it like it is. A pat on the back here and a kick up the rear there.The chapters move through the gathered evidence—and there was a lot of it—which shows Oswald to have been the murderer of two men.[...]The chapters dealing with 'Oswald's Defenders' and the 'Usual Suspects' are particularly enjoyable. Mel and David pour scorn on the charlatans who have earned big bucks by selling lies and deceptions to the public since day one.[...]The bulk of the book is given over to re-examining issues that have long been resolved. Unfortunately these issues can't be put to rest because the amateur researchers seem to feel that they are better qualified than the professionals to conduct investigations and reach conclusions. The 'Miss Marple' brigade will be with us for a long time yet, it seems. Hence the need for books like 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt'.[...]Appendix One is a 'solo' contribution from DVP and those familiar with his outstanding blogspot will recognise the man in full flow.Appendix Two features a highly detailed debunking of the 'acoustic evidence' written by Michael O'Dell. It's very good and it meshes well with the analyses of the CBA, James C. Bowles and Dale Myers. There never was a grassy knoll shot.Do I like or love this book? I love it! Readers who are grounded in provable facts and common sense will love it too."— Barry Ryder; May 8, 2015 -------------------------------------- "I found 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' to be a very well written, easily readable book, and not simply a Warren Commission apology book. The author does not give the Warren Commission a free pass, and rightly so. Mr. Ayton does a nice job of pointing out that although the ultimate conclusion that Lee Oswald murdered Kennedy and Tippit was correct, the bureaucracies involved in the investigation were their own worst enemies in many respects, and their handling of the investigation ultimately added fuel for conspiracy theorists to pollute the JFK assassination landscape for decades. Much needed context regarding this is found in BRD.Having David Von Pein's name attached to this book, and his contribution to BRD, is only a plus. Mr. Von Pein is one of the most knowledgeable, respected researchers/archivists around and has amassed an enormous archive of JFK-related material and blogs that is unmatched on the internet.The contribution Michael O'Dell provides concerning his attempt to recreate the Weiss & Aschkenasy acoustic study results for the HSCA is, in my opinion, nothing short of stunning, and should be regarded as the historical standard of truth about the W&A/HSCA final conclusions of a so-called "possible conspiracy".A welcome feature in the Kindle version of BRD are clickable links found in the Notes and Sources section as well as links to DVP's blog. This feature alone may make the Kindle version the way to go with this book.'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' lives up to its title for 'reasonable' people who wish to learn about the assassination, and learn why many theories put forth by conspiracy theorists hopelessly fall flat under close scrutiny. Conspiracy theorists will stomp on a book like BRD, like a rhino putting out a jungle fire, but in the end BRD shows us how the conspiracy theorists have it all wrong, and always have, and beyond ALL reasonable doubt, Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of double murder on Nov. 22, 1963. Well done." — Michael Giampaolo; April 26, 2015 -------------------------------------- "These gents, especially Mr. Von Pein, who I had the pleasure of debating for 24 hours [HERE], are very sincere in their contention that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President Kennedy and the murderer of Officer Tippit. Whatever your own feelings, you can be sure that the authors have done their due diligence and are "calling it as they see it". An all around compelling read that belongs on the shelf of all assassination researchers. No matter what your personal feelings are regarding the big event - this book will be a worthwhile addition to your library."— Bruce Alan; February 1, 2015 MORE "GOOD" REVIEWS: And, for the sake of equal "CTer" time, here are all the negative reviews for the book: http://amazon.com/BRD/One-Star-Reviews And since Vince Palamara was kind enough to start this thread about "BRD" in the first place (and thanks, Vince, for doing that), I'll put in a plug for Vince's newest book, "JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda: The Ultimate Kennedy Assassination Compendium", which is due out via Trine Day publishing on November 1, 2015.... Edited August 7, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 Some reviews for "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".... "'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' is co-authored by two of my favourite assassination writers/commentators. For me, Ayton and Von Pein are a dream ticket. Ayton is studious and measured, whilst Von Pein is battle-hardened and caustic. Ayton's academic credentials, allied with Von Pein's years of ferocious online exchanges with the baying masses of the Lee Harvey Oswald fan club, have come together in this outstanding book. This meeting-of-minds is the iron fist inside the velvet glove of assassination writing. For readers who are looking for a no-nonsense introduction to a case that has been mangled and misrepresented by legions of cynics and paranoiacs for half-a-century, 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' is an ideal starting point. The authors begin by discussing the two main investigations into the case: the Warren Commission and the HSCA. As is to be expected, both writers give praise and criticism where it is due. There's no ducking of issues here. Mistakes were made by both investigations and there's no attempt to whitewash the errors. Ayton and Von Pein call it like it is. A pat on the back here and a kick up the rear there. The chapters move through the gathered evidence—and there was a lot of it—which shows Oswald to have been the murderer of two men. [...] The chapters dealing with 'Oswald's Defenders' and the 'Usual Suspects' are particularly enjoyable. Mel and David pour scorn on the charlatans who have earned big bucks by selling lies and deceptions to the public since day one. [...] The bulk of the book is given over to re-examining issues that have long been resolved. Unfortunately these issues can't be put to rest because the amateur researchers seem to feel that they are better qualified than the professionals to conduct investigations and reach conclusions. The 'Miss Marple' brigade will be with us for a long time yet, it seems. Hence the need for books like 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt'. [...] Appendix One is a 'solo' contribution from DVP and those familiar with his outstanding blogspot will recognise the man in full flow. Appendix Two features a highly detailed debunking of the 'acoustic evidence' written by Michael O'Dell. It's very good and it meshes well with the analyses of the CBA, James C. Bowles and Dale Myers. There never was a grassy knoll shot. Do I like or love this book? I love it! Readers who are grounded in provable facts and common sense will love it too." — Barry Ryder; May 8, 2015 "I found 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' to be a very well written, easily readable book, and not simply a Warren Commission apology book. The author does not give the Warren Commission a free pass, and rightly so. Mr. Ayton does a nice job of pointing out that although the ultimate conclusion that Lee Oswald murdered Kennedy and Tippit was correct, the bureaucracies involved in the investigation were their own worst enemies in many respects, and their handling of the investigation ultimately added fuel for conspiracy theorists to pollute the JFK assassination landscape for decades. Much needed context regarding this is found in BRD. Having David Von Pein's name attached to this book, and his contribution to BRD, is only a plus. Mr. Von Pein is one of the most knowledgeable, respected researchers/archivists around and has amassed an enormous archive of JFK-related material and blogs that is unmatched on the internet. The contribution Michael O'Dell provides concerning his attempt to recreate the Weiss & Aschkenasy acoustic study results for the HSCA is, in my opinion, nothing short of stunning, and should be regarded as the historical standard of truth about the W&A/HSCA final conclusions of a so-called "possible conspiracy". A welcome feature in the Kindle version of BRD are clickable links found in the Notes and Sources section as well as links to DVP's blog. This feature alone may make the Kindle version the way to go with this book. 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' lives up to its title for 'reasonable' people who wish to learn about the assassination, and learn why many theories put forth by conspiracy theorists hopelessly fall flat under close scrutiny. Conspiracy theorists will stomp on a book like BRD, like a rhino putting out a jungle fire, but in the end BRD shows us how the conspiracy theorists have it all wrong, and always have, and beyond ALL reasonable doubt, Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of double murder on Nov. 22, 1963. Well done." — Michael Giampaolo; April 26, 2015 -------------------------------------- "These gents, especially Mr. Von Pein, who I had the pleasure of debating for 24 hours [HERE], are very sincere in their contention that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President Kennedy and the murderer of Officer Tippit. Whatever your own feelings, you can be sure that the authors have done their due diligence and are "calling it as they see it". An all around compelling read that belongs on the shelf of all assassination researchers. No matter what your personal feelings are regarding the big event - this book will be a worthwhile addition to your library." — Bruce Alan; February 1, 2015 [...] Now I swear I saw a review from the Mozkowitz family of Pine Bluff Arkansas (a family of three plumbers don'tcha know), so what happened to that? You holdin' out on us? They didn't say they loved it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) delete duplicate Edited August 7, 2015 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 You avoided my point, Cliff. Photographs don't need a chain of possession. Sure they do. http://www.nfstc.org/pdi/Subject01/pdi_s01_m01_04.htm (quote on) From crime scene to forensic laboratory to courtroom, all evidence must be inventoried and secured to preserve its integrity. Evidence admissibility in court is predicated upon an unbroken chain of custody. It is important to demonstrate that the evidence introduced at trial is the same evidence collected at the crime scene, and that access was controlled and documented. (quote off) Pat, you can provide NO evidence that the extant autopsy photos were taken at the autopsy. All it takes is someone--and in this case we have to very big someones, the autopsy doctor who ordered the photographs and the autopsy photographer who took the photographs--to say these are photos taken of Kennedy's body during the autopsy, and they accurately reflect the wounds to his body, and they get entered. Bing. Bang. Boom. As far as any perceived conflict on your part between the autopsy photos and the clothing, that is something that could be raised after the photos were entered into evidence. The bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars, at least 2 inches below your "T1". That is not a "perceived conflict" -- it is a conflict as a cold matter of fact. A conflict YOU cannot resolve. Apples and oranges, Cliff. You quoted a passage about physical evidence collected at a crime scene and suggested it related to photographs taken of a body. I have read dozens of books on Criminal Evidence and Forensic Pathology, and hundreds of articles. To my knowledge, there has never been a case where photographs IDed as authentic by the pathologist and autopsy photographer were disallowed due to a problem with the chain of custody. It just doesn't happen, and has probably never happened. If you have anything to prove otherwise, by all means do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted August 7, 2015 Author Share Posted August 7, 2015 Thanks, DVP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) Running neck and neck (well, sort of). As of 2:30 PM EDT on 8/10/15...."Beyond Reasonable Doubt" (Mel Ayton & David Von Pein) --- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #140,315 in Books"JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda" (Vincent Palamara) --- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #261,299 in Books Edited August 10, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted August 10, 2015 Author Share Posted August 10, 2015 LOL! Hey, my second book is only in pre-order now and it was 68K for a couple days over the weekend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 ...$160.00 bucks? That says it all... Davey "Zapruder Never Filmed The Assassination At All" Healy actually seems to think we will be selling the book to the general public for the outlandish price of $160. As usual, David H. doesn't disappoint. He gets something else wrong. Gee, what a surprise. $160 bucks at Amazon or $1 in the K-Mart book bin -- considering the totality of what we NOW know about the WCR (in 2015), I'd say the murder of JFK is ripe for reinvestigation... a travesty of justice the WCR, hell, let's simply call it the "No JUSTICE Warren Commission!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) SORRY DOUBT DVP..gaal++++++++++++++++++++ More on Michael Jelisavcic Posted by grassyknollgirl ⋅ October 26, 2013⋅ 2 Comments In a previous post, I mentioned Michael Jelisavcic, who worked at the American Express office in Moscow, and whose name was found in Lee Harvey Oswald’s address book, when he was arrested in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. I just wanted to add some more interesting facts about Jelisavcic that I managed to find out. Not much generally seems to be known about the man, although according to some sources, he is not alive today, but has a son who presented some of his father’s ‘belongings’ shall we say, in 2009 at the American Embassy in Moscow. (more about that later on). I think that perhaps this is someone whose significance to the case may have been overlooked by researchers, and that he could be someone more important than has been previously realised. According to both Michael Kurtz and Joan Mellen, Jelisavcic was a known CIA asset, a fact which was verified in a declassified CIA document. They posit that Oswald was communicating with Jelisavcic through American Express – a fact that would also fit with what Richard Nagell said about the company being used to also pay agents for their intelligence work. This, taken together with Albert Osborne being a probable intelligence agent who had mail forwarded to Amex offices in both Mexico City and New York all make for an intriguing, interconnected web spun around the JFK assassination. All that I have been able to find out about his background is that Jelisavcic apparently was the manager of the Amex office in Moscow, and according to an October 30th, 1969 article in the New York Times, he was a U.S. citizen who had been born in Yugoslavia (year not given), and had been in Russia for the previous nine years. What is interesting is what happened to him after the assassination. In 1968, the same New York Times article reported that he was expelled from the Soviet Union, but the explanation he apparently gave to a reporter as to why, seems strange. Jelisavcic said in an interview that the reason for his expulsion was due to his involvement in a car accident, which occurred when, quote, “….an apparently intoxicated Soviet citizen walked in front of the automobile he was driving.” Being ordered to leave the country seems a particularly exaggerated punishment for an accident which, from the facts, would seem to be the drunk person’s fault and not that of Jelisavcic. However, it isn’t perhaps so strange, if you consider another piece of evidence; a cable from the American Embassy in Moscow to the Secretary of State, State Department, Washington. This document, (Warren Commission Document 1115, page 82), which is undated, (but is presumably from Spring of 1962 when arrangements were being made for the Oswalds’ return to the U.S.), makes reference to the cost of fares from Russia to the United States, and mentions the name of the man who worked out the travel costs: “Note On Fares For The Oswalds: Mike Jelisavcic has given me the following fare quotations: Moscow-Brussels-Rotterdam:$65.22 Moscow-Berlin-Rotterdam: 58.00 Moscow-Paris-Le Havre: 78.33 Although the detour by Brussels costs a little more, I believe the added convenience of the ready-made shelter arrangement, justifies this route…..” I cannot believe that this ‘Mike Jelisavcic’ is a different person. The name and circumstances are too similar. The signature at the bottom of the document is difficult to read, but the cable could have been sent by the consul Richard E. Snyder. So, if Jelisavcic was working at the American Embassy in Moscow in 1962 and helped arrange Oswald’s return to the U.S., could it be possible he was actually working for the CIA, as some researchers have suggested? I think there is a very strong possibility of this, given his Amex connections later on and the fact that Synder, as Edward Epstein reported in the book Legend,had joined the CIA in 1949 and worked under State Department cover at his previous posting in Tokyo, a common practice amongst many embassy employees. I don’t buy the car accident explanation for his expulsion – this is what Jelisavcic himself reportedly told a journalist and I can find no other independent corroboration of this. But his expulsion completely makes sense if he was a CIA agent and was discovered by the Russians. I think this is the real reason – because he was in fact a US intelligence agent, by 1963 working under cover at the American Express office in Moscow. Other documents, some of which are still withheld,lend further support to this theory. One of them is mentioned A.J. Weberman’s nodule series – in Nodule X7: OSWALD IN MINSK AND THE U2 DUMP: JANUARY 1960 TO FEBRUARY 1961. The document is classified secret and the only information that appears available is the frontsheet: (page 97). To: SAC New York City, Chicago MICHAEL JELISAVCIC- ESPIONAGE, RUSSIA Re: SAC New York, airtel, December 17, 1968. Classified SECRET, exemption category, 2, 3, Date of Automatic Declassification: INDEFINITE. Bufile 65-69127 Division 9 / Civil Rights There are a few other files on Jelisavcic which are titled ‘Espionage -Russia’, four documents in total listed in the NARA database, of which, two are still postponed in full. That in itself is interesting, because they also relate to Lee Harvey Oswald, Hit 1 of 2 AGENCY INFORMATION AGENCY : HSCA RECORD NUMBER : 180-10110-10163 RECORDS SERIES : SECURITY CLASSIFIED FILES AGENCY FILE NUMBER : HDQ-65-69127-4 DOCUMENT INFORMATION ORIGINATOR : FBI FROM : [No From] TO : [No To] TITLE : [No Title] DATE : 01/08/1965 PAGES : 3 DOCUMENT TYPE : PAPER, TEXTUAL DOCUMENT SUBJECTS : OSWALD, LEE, RUSSIAN PERIOD, ASSOCIATES AND RELATIVES; JELISAVCIC, MICHAEL CLASSIFICATION : CONFIDENTIAL RESTRICTIONS : REFERRED CURRENT STATUS : POSTPONED IN FULLDATE OF LAST REVIEW : 08/16/1993 COMMENTS : Box 2. Hit 2 of 2 AGENCY INFORMATION AGENCY : ]SCA RECORD NUMBER : 180-10110-10187 RECORDS SERIES : SECURITY CLASSIFIED FILES AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 65-69127-13DOCUMENT INFORMATION ORIGINATOR : FBI FROM : [No From] TO : [No To] TITLE : [No Title] DATE : 12/17/1968 PAGES : 2 DOCUMENT TYPE : PAPER, TEXTUAL DOCUMENT SUBJECTS : JELISAVCIC, MICHAEL CLASSIFICATION : SECRET RESTRICTIONS : REFERRED CURRENT STATUS : POSTPONED IN FULLDATE OF LAST REVIEW : 08/16/1993 COMMENTS : Box 2. Back to Jelisavcic’s trouble with the Soviets post assassination; after some more digging, I came across another newspaper article that revealed a few more details about the affair. The October 30th 1969 edition of the Niagara Falls carried this short paragraph on the story: American Refuses to Leave Russia MOSCOW -The Soviet Foreign Ministry has given the Moscow representative of the American Express Co. an ultimatum: leave the country or face trial on traffic charges. He says he will stay. Michael S. Jelisavcic, who has headed the American Express office for nine years, received the ultimatum Wednesday through the U.S. Embassy. The embassy advised him to get out but he refused, saying he was innocent of the charges and he owed it to his company to stay. Jelisavcic, a native of Yugoslavia and a naturalized American, said a Soviet citizen had lurched into the path of his car as he was being waved forward by a policeman at a crowded intersection. He said the man was seriously injured. Jelisavcic also said that if he leaves, “it is tantamount to closing the office” because two Soviet employees quit recently and a replacement has been on the job only 10 days.” Even more puzzling! Again, if Jelisavcic was guilty of these charges, why not just prosecute him – why bother giving him the option of leaving the country? Unless, as I have already theorised, he was, as seems to be the case, an intelligence asset working at the US Embassy using the cover of an Amex employee? Maybe the Soviets were worried about upsetting the Americans by prosecuting him? Another point is, even if he were just working at the American Embassy and not US intelligence, wouldn’t he be covered by diplomatic immunity anyway? I haven’t been able to find out if Jelisavcic was expelled from Russia or what happened to him after that, but the whole saga is very strange indeed! Did he remain in Russia or did he return to the U.S.? To add even more confusion to the story, the FBI seemed to suspect Jelisavcic of being a possible Soviet agent! An FBI document dated December 17th, 1968 (nearly 10 months before the report of Jelisavcic’s traffic accident), reports that: For the information of the Chicago Office, Michael Jelisavcic, currently employed as an American Express Company representative, Moscow, USSR and is visiting US on home leave. It was ascertained, this date, that Jelisavcic departed from the New York City area on December 11, 1968, en route to Chicago…..The Bureau is requested to authorize Chicago to immediately interview Jelisavcic in an effort to resolve all facts concerning possible compromise of Jelisavcic by Soviet intelligence during his employment within the USSR. The enclosures for the Chicago Office contain all pertinent information re Jelisavcic in the possession of the New York Office. Chicago’s attention is directed particularly to Bureau letter, dated January 8, 1965, in captioned matter wherein Jelisavcic’s name and room number were in possession of OSWALD. During interview he should be questioned concerning all circumstances surrounding any possible association with or knowledge of OSWALD and this information should be set out in Letter Head Memorandum form suitable for dissemination under OSWALD caption. All other pertinent information re Jelisavcic’s connection with Soviets in USSR and possible compromise by Soviet Intelligence should be set out in a form suitable for dissemination under Subject’s caption.” Now, was this just a routine query by the FBI because Jelisavcic had been in possible contact with Oswald? Or did they have real suspicion he was working for Soviet intelligence? I have no idea but it strikes me as odd, considering the strong indications he was working for American intelligence. The odd thing about this document is that while it appears to be genuine and have both a genuine FBI and NARA document number (FBI 62-109060, NARA FBI 124-10060-10199), it appears neither in the NARA database or the Mary Ferrell site. I found this document referred to in A.J. Weberman’s aforementioned Nodule series, here (page 95-97). I therefore don’t know where Weberman would have found this document and why it isn’t listed in the NARA database? Another FBI document on Jelisavcic, (mentioned above in the withheld docs. section), dated 17th December 1968, is listed at NARA but it has a different NARA document number, which originated from the HSCA: 180-10110-10187.I can’t check if the content is the same because that record is marked as ‘SECRET’, ‘REFERRED,’ and ‘POSTPONED IN FULL’. Confused yet? You’re not alone! A final part to add to the puzzle surrounding Michael Jelisavcic concerns a conference held in Moscow in July 2009 on ‘The Role of Exchanges in the U.S.-Russian Relationship.’ This conference was held at Spaso House, the official residence of American Ambassadors to Moscow. Searching for information on ‘Michael Jelisavcic’ online, I came across this revealing piece of information from the embassy’s own website: Remarks at the Opening of Conference on The Role of Exchanges in the U.S.-Russian Relationship. Distinguished Guests; Ladies and Gentlemen:I am very pleased to open today’s conference on the role of exchanges in the U.S.-Russian relationship. I want to thank those of you have come here today to share your memories of the past and your ideas for the future. I would like to thank Olga Borisovna Pokrovskaya, Editor-in-chief of America magazine, who provided rare photos for the photo exhibit at the conference. I’d like to thank Vladimir Meletin, who has made a remarkable new film of the 1959 exhibition, which he is presenting to participants today. My special thanks to Aleksey Fominykh and Michael Jelisavcic, for providing material from the original comment books Russian visitors signed at the exhibition. Wait a minute – what?! This appears to be further confirmation of Michael Jelisavcic’s role. Why would someone who ostensibly worked for American Express have in his possession comment books regarding the 1959 exhibition held at the American Embassy in Moscow?! Initially I thought this was Mr Jelisavcic himself being referred to in the comments, but it appears to be his son. According to the English abstract of a Russian article on the academic journal site EBSCO host, these books were lent by Michael Jelisavcic Senior’s son, Michael, whose possession the books are now in. I presume this to be because his father is dead, although this is not stated and I have been unable so far to find a death notice or obituary anywhere as corroboration. The abstract states: ABSTRACTFour comment books from the American National Exhibition in Moscow, 1959, came to light in the early 21st century. The comment books are owned by Michael Jelisavcic, whose father worked in the Moscow office of the American Express Co. in the late 1950s and collaborated with USIA interpreters at the exhibition. The handwritten comments document the reactions of Soviet citizens to the exhibits of American achievements and everyday life, and to the American representatives present at the exhibition. They have been transcribed and are presented here. The fact that Jelisavcic ‘collaborated with the USIA’ is also noteworthy. The USIA (United States Information Agency) was created by Eisenhower in 1953 and used to disseminate Pro-American propaganda abroad during the Cold War. As described in this page on the Edward Murrow centre website about the USIA: In its overt and covert propaganda programs – the latter programs were more believable abroad because they were not identified with the U.S. government – USIA began to resemble certain CIA operations. In fact, USIA closely collaborated with the CIA. Edited August 12, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) MARTIN HAY SAID: As is obvious from the title of their book, Ayton and Von Pein want you to believe that there is no "reasonable doubt" about Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the assassination. The authors even treat us to their (very unusual) definition of the term, writing that...."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) Why is this so unusual? Because the above is not the legal definition of the term as used in American criminal courts. The legal definition of beyond reasonable doubt in that venue is that 12 reasonable jurors have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt; they are convinced to a moral certainty that the accused committed the crime. If they do have doubt, they are not reasonable doubts. Which means that, during the deliberations, the one or two people who were reserving judgment had their doubts washed away by the other 10 or 11 jurors' arguments. 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. It is the most stringent standard in American jurisprudence. That is because a man's life or liberty is at stake. The second most stringent standard is, "by clear and convincing evidence." That standard is used in many administrative hearings, such as those by the ABA to disbar an attorney. The standard the authors quote above is actually the lowest standard and is used in most civil courts. It is very hard to believe the writers do not understand the difference. Ayton is from the UK, but Von Pein is an American. Yet, at least the book editor should have pointed out this serious discrepancy which, in and of itself, mitigates the portentousness of the title. This reversal reduces the book to a utilitarian, not a fact finding or judicial inquiry. In other words, because of the Ayton/Von Pein switcheroo, the many serious evidentiary issues repeatedly highlighted by critics over the last fifty years do not amount to reasonable doubt. Needless to say, actual legal experts; lawyers who understand the different standards and why they are used; would feel differently.DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Many, many people have had differences of opinion concerning the proper legal definition of the term "reasonable doubt". It can be a confusing issue even among seasoned trial attorneys. Take the O.J. Simpson case as a good example of this. Veteran lawyer Vincent Bugliosi, who I think probably knew a little bit more about the rules that apply in an American courtroom than does Mr. Martin Hay, has expressed his opinion as to the manner in which Simpson's defense team (particularly DNA lawyer Barry Scheck) defined the term "reasonable doubt" to the jury at Simpson's 1995 criminal trial. And Bugliosi had no doubt that the definition of that term that was used by Simpson's defense lawyers was dead wrong and was (to quote Mr. Bugliosi) "not simply the law". Here's what Bugliosi said about the "reasonable doubt" jury instruction in 1999 during a filmed simulation of the final arguments that Vince would have delivered to the jury if he had prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case (and this very same argument would also, of course, have applied at Lee Harvey Oswald's criminal trial, had Oswald lived to be put on trial for the murders of President Kennedy and Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit)....Vincent Bugliosi Defines Reasonable Doubt So, as we can see by watching the above video, it's pretty clear that the following words written on page 118 of the book "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", which are words that were quoted by Martin Hay earlier in this post, are 100% accurate...."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." How could any "reasonable" person argue with the logic that exists within the above paragraph (regardless of whether you're inside or outside the confines of an American courtroom)? And, BTW, since I helped Mel Ayton write the book "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" while we were outside the environment of a United States courtroom (and we also utilized some evidence and testimony to illustrate Lee Oswald's guilt that might not have been allowed to be presented at Oswald's trial, had there been one), the whole notion that an author of a book on the JFK assassination MUST chain himself to—and be forever bound by—the "Rules Of The Courtroom" is a notion that only someone (such as, say, a JFK conspiracy theorist) would think was the only possible way of arriving at the truth concerning the facts surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald and the murder of President John F. Kennedy. In other words, the conspiracy theorists who constantly repeat the refrain "Oswald would never have been convicted in a court of law" are pretty much doing the only thing they CAN do in order to avoid the obviousness of Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt — they're relying on legal technicalities, and hoping that those technicalities would have prevented some (or most) of the incriminating evidence against Oswald from ever seeing the light of day if there had been an actual court trial in the JFK murder case. Because, let's face it, if all of the incriminating evidence that points to Mr. Oswald is legitimate evidence that was not tampered with in any manner, then Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of two murders in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. Quoting from Vince Bugliosi's JFK book (emphasis added by DVP)...."An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. [...]The first observation I have to make is that I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal technicality. Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine. Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why 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 Bugliosi; Page 442 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes) David Von Pein September 1, 2015 Edited March 15, 2018 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) Boy, Vince could really be a blowhard at times. No wonder this show never got produced. Here is the legal definition: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from thefacts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty. The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy. As one can see, Martin was correct. The "preponderance of the evidence" is a civil standard. In no way would that be enough to convict someone of a felony, let alone murder. And then if you show all the holes a good defense lawyer would blow open in the DPD case against Oswald--I mean forget it. This case screams for alternatives, since the WC scenario is so theory driven. As Bob Tanenbaum said to me, the last thing you want to argue is a theory in front of a jury. This is why all the professional lawyers who handled this case officially, after the WC debacle, were appalled at how weak the evidence was. This means, specifically: JIm Garrison, New Orleans DA Dave Marston and Gary Hart, Church Committee (I leave out Schweiker since he was not a lawyer) Dick Sprague, and Bob Tanenbaum, HSCA first phase Bob Blakey and Gary Cornwell, HSCA second phase (Please differentiate between the public face of these guys and the private executive sessions, in which they really were appalled at what the WC had done.) Jeremy Gunn, ARRB counsel So Vince is outgunned here about 8-1. And as anyone can see by reading Reclaiming Parkland, Vince's book is really an argument by invective and by verbiage. Because, on the specific evidentiary points, Vince brought up about zero that was new. Which is what was so shocking about RH. I mean in 21 years, the guy never left his office. Incredible. Edited September 2, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) As one can see, Martin [Hay] was correct. The "preponderance of the evidence" is a civil standard. In no way would that be enough to convict someone of a felony, let alone murder. And then if you show all the holes a good defense lawyer would blow open in the DPD case against Oswald--I mean forget it. This case screams for alternatives, since the WC scenario is so theory driven. As Bob Tanenbaum said to me, the last thing you want to argue is a theory in front of a jury. Jim DiEugenio is blowing smoke---yet again. As if the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases amounts to only a mere "theory". Give us all a freakin' break, Jimmy. Apparently to DiEugenio, the guns owned by Oswald, along with the bullets, the shells, the prints, the paper bag, the "LHO Did It" witnesses, Oswald's constant lies, and Oswald's guilty-like actions are things that all add up to just a "theory" with no solid basis in fact whatsoever. All of that stuff was merely manufactured to make Oswald look guilty. Yeah, right, Jim. The entire batch of physical evidence amounts to just an Oswald-did-it "theory". Oh, brother. What a crock. As Jack Nicholson said --- "Sell crazy someplace else." Edited September 2, 2015 by David Von Pein 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