Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
David Von Pein

Sometimes Things Really Are As They Appear To Be

Recommended Posts

David,

You're welcome. I like what you say about lurkers. Here's something else for lurkers:

No one, not the Warren Commission, not anyone on either side of the current fence, knows for sure what happened. Some on both sides of the fence believe they know what happened. That's fine. We're all entitled to our opinions.

Many talk about "evidence" in the JFK case. In the law, there is no evidence in the JFK case, except for evidence adduced in the prosecution of Clay Shaw. A tendered item or testimony does not become "evidence" until a trial judge admits the item or testimony into evidence in a trial court. The only trial court to consider the JFK case was the New Orleans court in the prosecution of Clay Shaw. Based on the evidence presented in that case, the jury found Clay Shaw innocent of conspiring to kill JFK.

Pieces of paper, transcripts, reports, allegations, even Warren Commission testimony -- these are not evidence; they have not been tested by the Rules of Evidence known to lawyers and judges -- except to the extent they were admitted into evidence in the Clay Shaw trial.

To assert item A or testimony B is "evidence" is to use the word evidence incorrectly as a matter of law.

The discussion of evidence here is not abstract or meaningless. It's important. Something a trial judge has ruled is "evidence" is incredibly important in the particular case. Why? Not because the filter of the Rules of Evidence guarantee the truthfulness of what has been admitted into evidence. Only that what has been admitted into evidence is worthy of being considered and weighed by a jury (or judge in the case of a non-jury trial).

There is no evidence in Texas as to the JFK case. Nor in Maryland, where the autopsy occurred.

The field is littered with facts and asserted facts. And opinions. Not with evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mark Valenti

What do you call a bloody knife found at the scene of a murder?

Evidence.

If it's not admitted in court, it's still evidence, it just can't be used, either because of a lawyer's trick or because there was difficulty in chain of possession or some other failure.

But it's still evidence.

You know what they call the space in a police station where they keep bits and bobs of items relating to criminal cases?

The Evidence Room.

Not the "This Stuff Isn't Really Evidence Until A Judge Says It Is" Room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

For example, a bloody knife at a murder scene. A was killed. B is charged with A's murder.

Is a bloody knife at A's murder scene admissible into evidence? Possibly. Sure if it contains A's or B's blood. It's relevant in that circumstance.

What if it contains chicken or fish blood? Well, yes, because it shows the blood isn't related to A's murder.

So, I guess you are correct. The knife cuts both ways.

That which can't be used as evidence, such as A testifies, "B said he saw C kill D.", because it's hearsay, is not evidence, even though it might be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many talk about "evidence" in the JFK case. In the law, there is no evidence in the JFK case, except for evidence adduced in the prosecution of Clay Shaw. A tendered item or testimony does not become "evidence" until a trial judge admits the item or testimony into evidence in a trial court. The only trial court to consider the JFK case was the New Orleans court in the prosecution of Clay Shaw. Based on the evidence presented in that case, the jury found Clay Shaw innocent of conspiring to kill JFK.

Pieces of paper, transcripts, reports, allegations, even Warren Commission testimony -- these are not evidence; they have not been tested by the Rules of Evidence known to lawyers and judges -- except to the extent they were admitted into evidence in the Clay Shaw trial.

To assert item A or testimony B is "evidence" is to use the word evidence incorrectly as a matter of law.

The discussion of evidence here is not abstract or meaningless. It's important. Something a trial judge has ruled is "evidence" is incredibly important in the particular case. Why? Not because the filter of the Rules of Evidence guarantee the truthfulness of what has been admitted into evidence. Only that what has been admitted into evidence is worthy of being considered and weighed by a jury (or judge in the case of a non-jury trial).

There is no evidence in Texas as to the JFK case. Nor in Maryland, where the autopsy occurred.

The field is littered with facts and asserted facts. And opinions. Not with evidence.

Well, Jon, what you just said about "evidence" is a little silly, IMO.

If you think the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle doesn't qualify as "evidence" because it was never introduced into Oswald's court trial, well, I guess you're entitled to think that.

But if that Carcano isn't "evidence", then what is it? What would you call it? Is it merely "Potential Evidence" in your view? Aren't we really arguing semantics here?

Anyway, the old dodge I hear from a lot from CTers -- "We can never declare Oswald guilty of either of the Nov. 22 murders he was charged with, because he didn't go to trial" -- is simply a big fat COP-OUT, in my opinion.

The "evidence" is still the "evidence" (Carcano and the rest), even though Oswald didn't live long enough to see it introduced as People's Exhibit No. 1 at an LHO trial.

And I know that no conspiracy believer in the world thinks that the 1986 Bugliosi/Spence mock trial resembled anything close to a "real" trial, but there WAS a "real" judge sitting on the bench during that mock trial, and Vince Bugliosi told me in 2009 that there WAS, indeed, an evidentiary hearing held before the trial started to see what evidence would be admitted at the trial. And guess what one of those pieces of admissible evidence was? None other than Commission Exhibit No. 399.

"The admissibility of CE 399 (along with other items of evidence) was,

indeed, dealt with in London by Judge Lucius Bunton at a pre-trial

evidentiary hearing, and Bunton, a sitting federal judge in Texas at

the time, ruled in my favor that CE 399 (not the actual bullet, of

course, which we did not have in London) was admissible at the

London trial." -- Vincent Bugliosi; August 2009

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vince-bugliosi-on-ce399.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP,

I write here sometimes about the law. On Rules of Evidence, I'm not an outlier. I'm mainstream as far as lawyers and judges go.

So what I say about "evidence" is mainstream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP,

I write here sometimes about the law. On Rules of Evidence, I'm not an outlier. I'm mainstream as far as lawyers and judges go.

So what I say about "evidence" is mainstream.

Okay, Jon, fair enough.

But does that mean--in your opinion--that the Carcano rifle and CE399 and the bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest and the two bullet fragments found in the front seat of the President's limousine and the testimony of William Scoggins and Barbara Davis and Ted Callaway and Charles Brehm (et al) cannot be used by ANYONE outside of an "official" court of law to evaluate the facts surrounding the deaths of President Kennedy and J.D. Tippit?

Are you saying we have no choice but to wait until Mac Wallace (is he dead?) or James Files or Ruth Paine or Buell Frazier is actually put ON TRIAL before we can utilize any of the "Potential Evidence" in the JFK case to try and figure out what happened?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If LHO had gone to trial, I'm sure there would have been a lot more eye witnesses testifying in the case than the pitiful handful the Warren Commission chose to speak to. This, Dave, is the difference between "evidence" and "selective evidence".

Further, there would have been less of a chance for the testimonies of these witnesses to be "improved" following their testifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would ask why would Dawn post here, when she has had so many bad things to say about the place.

I have been a member here since 2004. Just because I have no use for the lone nut position does not mean I can't post here. Many post on more than one forum.

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...No one, not the Warren Commission, not anyone on either side of the current fence, knows for sure what happened. Some on both sides of the fence believe they know what happened. That's fine. We're all entitled to our opinions.

...The field is littered with facts and asserted facts. And opinions. Not with evidence.

Well, Jon, I think you should more finely distinguish levels within the Warren Commission.

It seems to me that a few WC members knew for sure what happened -- but could not tell the rest of the members.

Earl Warren knew what happened -- and he told the USA that the Truth about the JFK murder must be held Top Secret for 75 years. Earl Warren told us a part of the Truth -- that these Secrets were necessary for NATIONAL SECURITY.

That should be underscored at all points in this discussion.

Who else knew the Truth? J. Edgar Hoover -- and it was his idea to use the "Lone Nut" theory for purposes of National Security. Also, Allen Dulles. And LBJ. And a few others.

I don't know about Ford, but I doubt he knew the full truth -- or Boggs, or Russell or Specter, or most of the WC attorneys. I think Rankin, Liebeler and Ball knew. I don't think Griffin knew, nor any below his station.

In 1964 Earl Warren promised to reveal the Truth 75 years after the Warren Report. In 1992 GWH Bush promised to reveal it 53 years after the Warren Report.

SOMEBODY knew the Truth about the JFK murder. If we can believe Warren and Bush, then we will all know on 26 October 2017.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mark Valenti

I would ask why would Dawn post here, when she has had so many bad things to say about the place.

I have been a member here since 2004. Just because I have no use for the lone nut position does not mean I can't post here. Many post on more than one forum.

Dawn

It just seems weird to me that you spent a great deal of time bashing this forum and its administrators, once you skedaddled over to your new home, yet you feel perfectly okay with coming back here when it's convenient. See, I've been a long time member here too and I remember the garbage you and your pals spewed about this place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP,

If the rifle and bullets had been admitted into evidence -- say, in a prosecution of LHO -- the rifle and bullets would have gone through an adversarial vetting process, overseen by a neutral judge. This process would assure, from a reasonable person's standpoint, that there was every good reason to believe the rifle and bullets were Oswald's and were found on the sixth floor, as the DPD maintained.

Because this vetting process never occurred, it's entirely appropriate to say the rifle and bullets aren't evidence. "Evidence" is vetted before a neutral judge, often by opposing counsel. What substitutes poorly, very poorly, today for such a vetting process are the arguments of CT-ers and LN-ers about whether Oswald owned the rifle and bullets. The arguments are useful, but they're not about "evidence." They're about items never tested in a court supervised, adversarial vetting process. These items are of interest, perhaps great interest, but they're not "evidence," meaning simply they have what ever value to one that one ascribes to them.

Edited by Jon G. Tidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because this vetting process never occurred, it's entirely appropriate to say the rifle and bullets aren't evidence.

Okay, Jon. Whatever. EYEROLL.gif

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because this vetting process never occurred, it's entirely appropriate to say the rifle and bullets aren't evidence. "Evidence" is vetted before a neutral judge, often by opposing counsel. What substitutes poorly, very poorly, today for such a vetting process are the arguments of CT-ers and LN-ers about whether Oswald owned the rifle and bullets. The arguments are useful, but they're not about "evidence." They're about items never tested in a court supervised, adversarial vetting process. These items are of interest, perhaps great interest, but they're not "evidence," meaning simply they have what ever value to one that one ascribes to them.

The last line is absolutely accurate, and it sums up why we're still debating this 51+ years later.

"...they have what ever value to one that one ascribes to them."

And yet, that's the point that Mr. Von Pein apparently missed [or chose to ignore].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP,

If the rifle and bullets had been admitted into evidence -- say, in a prosecution of LHO -- the rifle and bullets would have gone through an adversarial vetting process, overseen by a neutral judge.

This process would assure, from a reasonable person's standpoint, that there was every good reason to believe the rifle and bullets were Oswald's and were found on the sixth floor, as the DPD maintained.

Because this vetting process never occurred, it's entirely appropriate to say the rifle and bullets aren't evidence.

"Evidence" is vetted before a neutral judge, often by opposing counsel. What substitutes poorly, very poorly, today for such a vetting process are the arguments of CT-ers and LN-ers about whether Oswald owned the rifle and bullets.

The arguments are useful, but they're not about "evidence." They're about items never tested in a court supervised, adversarial vetting process.

These items are of interest, perhaps great interest, but they're not "evidence," meaning simply they have what ever value to one that one ascribes to them.

Well, Jon, these are valid points -- to a point.

I think you're overlooking the overriding purport of the Warren Commission -- not to bring justice -- not to find the guilty and bring them to justice -- not in the slightest.

The overriding reason for the behavior of the WC was NATIONAL SECURITY. To prevent riots and a possible Civil War in the USA.

To that end, anything they did was justified in their eyes. (I see a chance that they were probably correct in their decision.)

It is not about proving a Conspiracy anymore, not since 1979. Until 1979 the official position of the US Government was the WC and its conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the "Lone Shooter." After 1979 the official position of the US Government is the HSCA conclusion that JFK was probably killed "as a result of a Conspiracy."

The material evidence that you speak of, Jon, e.g. the medical X-rays of JFK, and medical photos, and medical notes -- WERE SHAMELESSLY WITHHELD from the WC volumes. The WC used hand-drawn pictures instead. Does that sound like a normal Court procedure?

Therefore, we should never use normal Court procedure as a measure of the WC -- the WC had a massively different purpose.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mark Valenti

No David, not LHO's identification of a Secret Service agent.

A policeman's.

Bumping this because DVP never addressed my question.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...