Some JFK Debate Traps (see if you recognize anyone)

[Greg Parker]

You need to admit you are more than happy to turn a blind eye to the evidence uncovered over the last few decades showing the disgraceful malfeasance of law enforcement in Dallas during the Wade era. You willfully ignore all of that, don't you, Dave?

It's irrelevant in THIS (JFK) case. Oswald's actions pretty much convict him. And the DPD couldn't possibly have controlled those actions.

Plus, the US Secret Service would have had to also be in bed with the evil DPD in order for Oswald to be innocent (realistically), since the DPD never even touched CE399 or the two front-seat bullet fragments, all three of which were fired in Oswald's rifle.

So, how did the DPD get the SS (and the FBI too) to jump on board the LET'S FRAME OSWALD gravy train?

This is one of your favored fall-back options.

Create one or more false premises on which to build an appeal to incredulity.

I will no longer play your game, David. I will simply call your logical fallacies out.

Of course, should you ever slip up and actually make a logical argument, I'll be happy to respond to it.

[Jon G. Tidd]

"Oswald's actions pretty much convict him."

Which actions do you mean, DVP?

And convict him in what sense?

Oswald's location in the TSBD between 12 noon and 12:30 p.m. has been the subject of great debate, as has been his means of transportation following his departure from the TSBD, as well as his route and timing of travel to the Texas Theater. How do you have certainty as to these matters? I'd like to know.

BTW, you still haven't said what is you definition of "evidence". Did Bugliosi ever argue that the "evidence" points toward Oswald's "guilt"? Just curious. A competent lawyer wouldn't have said that.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[David Von Pein]

Which actions do you mean, DVP?

And convict him in what sense?

Oswald's location in the TSBD between 12 noon and 12:30 p.m. has been the subject of great debate, as has been his means of transportation following his departure from the TSBD, as well as his route and timing of travel to the Texas Theater. How do you have certainty as to these matters? I'd like to know.

Jon,

I mean that Oswald's provable "actions" and movements, in general, certainly point more toward his GUILT than they do his INNOCENCE. Wouldn't you agree? E.G.,

...He leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination.

...He dashes in and out of his rented room to get a gun.

...He acts "funny" and "scared" in Johnny Brewer's shoe store entrance.

...He pulls a gun on the police in the theater and fights with them. (And if this isn't a sure sign that Mr. Oswald had done SOMETHING against the law that day, then what would be?)

...He lied to Buell Frazier about the "curtain rods".

...He carried a long paper package into the Depository on the day of the President's assassination (and lied about the contents of that package).

If you want to dispute each and every item above, feel free to do so. But those are FACTS, in my opinion. They are facts that have been established by a variety of witnesses. Am I to believe they all got together and lied--Roberts, Brewer, McDonald, Frazier, Randle?

And I didn't even mention the Tippit witnesses.

BTW, you still haven't said what is your definition of "evidence".

I think the various online dictionaries give a very good definition of what I mean when I use the word "evidence". Let's have a look at some of those definitions....

EVIDENCE (noun) --

1. A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.

2. Something indicative; an indication or set of indications.

3. [in Law] -- The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.

EVIDENCE (noun) --

1. The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

EVIDENCE (noun) --

1. That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

2. Something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign.

EVIDENCE (noun) --

1. Something which shows that something else exists or is true.

2. A visible sign of something.

3. Material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something.

EVIDENCE (noun) --

1. Something that gives proof or leads to a conclusion.

EVIDENCE (noun) --

1. Ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood.

2. A mark or sign that makes evident; indication.

Did Bugliosi ever argue that the "evidence" points toward Oswald's "guilt"? Just curious. A competent lawyer wouldn't have said that.

Here's what Vince Bugliosi said in his book (emphasis on the word "evidence" is DVP's):

"The evidence against Oswald proves his guilt not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt, or, as they say in the movies, beyond a shadow of a doubt. In other words, not just one or two or three pieces of evidence point toward Oswald's guilt, but more than fifty pieces point irresistibly to his guilt. And not only does all of the physical, scientific evidence point solely and exclusively to Oswald's guilt, but virtually everything he said and did points unerringly to his guilt.

Prosecutors like to argue in their final summation to the jury that "looking at the evidence as a whole" (or "the totality of the evidence," or "all the evidence") makes it clear the defendant is guilty. But in the case against Oswald, one doesn't have to look at all or even most of the evidence to reach the conclusion he is guilty. Indeed, there are many individual things he did, like immediately fleeing the Book Depository Building after the shooting, killing Officer Tippit, et cetera, which by themselves point clearly to his guilt." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 952 of "Reclaiming History"

[End Quote.]

I guess Vince must have been using the following definition of the word "evidence", which is, of course, a definition that all sensible and reasonable people use when they talk about "evidence"....

"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Also see:

Vincent-Bugliosi.blogspot.com [Dozens Of VB Interviews]

Edited August 4, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Jon G. Tidd]

Vince Bugliosi, according to DVP, wrote:

"The evidence against Oswald proves his guilt not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt...."

Thanks for this, David.

I'm appalled by V.B.'s statement, given that he was an experienced lawyer. My only explanation is that he was writing as an advocate for a lay audience. Which is OK, except he was posing as a lawyer in his role as author.

Any competent lawyer would regard the quoted statement as hogwash.

Here's why. [1] There is no evidence against Oswald as a matter of law, because he was never tried. [2] Guilt is determined by the jury and the jury alone in a jury trial. Bugliosi's statement presumes what would be admitted into evidence by a trial judge and how the jury would reach a conclusion based on that evidence.

David, if you wish to take such a position, fine. So long as you make clear you're not arguing the law.

Bugliosi, in my view, committed a writer's sin by using the language of the law and his reputation as a lawyer to make an appealing but fallacious argument to a lay audience. Bugliosi says in effect, "Believe me. I know the law. Here's the way the law comes down.", and then tells a lie. Or at least writes something that would get him laughed out of an Evidence course in law school.

As I say, I'm appalled. Even if I agree Oswald did it all by himself, which I'm capable of doing, I'm appalled.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[David Von Pein]

Why on Earth would you be appalled, Jon? Vince's statement about the evidence proving Oswald's guilt is perfectly acceptable---and 100% accurate.

The only way such a statement is wrong is if all the "evidence" had been fake. And such an over-the-top assertion is "appalling", IMO.

Jon, why are you constantly insisting the EVIDENCE (i.e., the items collected by the police at the scenes of the Dallas crimes) is not really EVIDENCE?

Don't you agree that this definition of "evidence" is an accurate one?.....

"A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment."

[Jon G. Tidd]

OK, David. A law school exam question.

Facts: A was shot dead on a Dallas street in 1963. B told C, "I saw a guy wearing a white shirt pointing a rifle at A." B's statement was made within 60 seconds of A's being shot dead.

Further facts: B and C are highly reputable Dallas citizens; they never have been known to lie.

Further facts: Dumbo is indicted for killing A. At Dumbo's trial, it's shown Dumbo was wearing a white shirt on the day of the murder.

Further facts: Unfortunately, by the time Dumbo's trial has started, B has died.

Further facts: At Dumbo's trial for killing A, the prosecutor calls C as a witness. The prosecutor, V.B., asks C, on the witness stand under oath, "What did B tell you about the shooting of A?"

Question to you, DVP: What objection do you make, as defense attorney, to V.B.'s question?

I know, DVP. You regard this a high-brow stuff. But please answer the question -- at least as long as you're willing to throw around terms such as "evidence" here.

[David Von Pein]

So, Jon, do you consider all of the bullets, guns, shells, fingerprints in the JFK case to be "hearsay"?

Edited August 4, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Glenn Nall]

You don't even think Oswald had a gun in the theater, do you Greg?

Admit it---you think he was unarmed, don't you?

???

what???

[David G. Healy]

So, Jon, do you consider all of the bullets, guns, shells, fingerprints, etc., to be "hearsay"?

what trial was the above entered into as evidence? And what was the name of the sitting judge? After all, someone must of objected, "hearsay" eh?

[Glenn Nall]

So, Jon, do you consider all of the bullets, guns, shells, fingerprints in the JFK case to be "hearsay"?

D. - objects can't be hearsay. hearsay is limited to testimony, because it's things that people "say".

this is why they called it hearsay. otherwise they'd have called it hearstuff. or hearsomething. or...

[Glenn Nall]

Vince Bugliosi, according to DVP, wrote:

"The evidence against Oswald proves his guilt not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt...."

Thanks for this, David.

I'm appalled by V.B.'s statement, given that he was an experienced lawyer. My only explanation is that he was writing as an advocate for a lay audience. Which is OK, except he was posing as a lawyer in his role as author.

Any competent lawyer would regard the quoted statement as hogwash.

Here's why. [1] There is no evidence against Oswald as a matter of law, because he was never tried. [2] Guilt is determined by the jury and the jury alone in a jury trial. Bugliosi's statement presumes what would be admitted into evidence by a trial judge and how the jury would reach a conclusion based on that evidence.

David, if you wish to take such a position, fine. So long as you make clear you're not arguing the law.

Bugliosi, in my view, committed a writer's sin by using the language of the law and his reputation as a lawyer to make an appealing but fallacious argument to a lay audience. Bugliosi says in effect, "Believe me. I know the law. Here's the way the law comes down.", and then tells a lie. Or at least writes something that would get him laughed out of an Evidence course in law school.

As I say, I'm appalled. Even if I agree Oswald did it all by himself, which I'm capable of doing, I'm appalled.

absolutely well put.

i've always had great respect for VBs trial skills, and for his personal integrity.

i'm continually shocked that he's a SBT, and that he would even say something like that.

[Glenn Nall]

Why on Earth would you be appalled, Jon? Vince's statement about the evidence proving Oswald's guilt is perfectly acceptable---and 100% accurate.

there are very few ways that that statement could be any more wrong.

The only way such a statement is wrong is if all the "evidence" had been fake. And such an over-the-top assertion is "appalling", IMO.

wrong. amazingly wrong. there are many ways such a statement could be wrong.

Jon, why are you constantly insisting the EVIDENCE (i.e., the items collected by the police at the scenes of the Dallas crimes) is not really EVIDENCE?

he's not. he's saying it's not convincing, valuable evidence that proves something. that it might, or might not, help in the formation of a conclusion, but doesn't prove anything. there's a big difference.

Don't you agree that this definition of "evidence" is an accurate one?.....

"A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment."

read this last line slowly.

David, do you know the difference in helpful in forming a conclusion and proving a conclusion?

[David Von Pein]

You don't even think Oswald had a gun in the theater, do you Greg?

Admit it---you think he was unarmed, don't you?

???

what???

Glenn, I've talked to some Internet CTers who have actually suggested that Oswald was totally unarmed in the theater. They say LHO had NO GUN at all, and the cops planted the S&W revolver on him.

That's why I asked Greg Parker that question. And Greg certainly seems to be entertaining the "No Gun" idea when he said this....

"I'm not ashamed to be skeptical about any official story put out by proven rogues and

benders of the laws." -- G. Parker

Pretty soon we'll probably have CTers denying the assassination occurred in Dallas.

Edited August 4, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

No, Glenn. Jon has been saying for weeks now that he thinks NONE of the evidence in the JFK case is really "evidence" because it never found its way into a courtroom. That's the ONLY thing that can make it "evidence", per Jon G. Tidd.

And I continue to say---Hogwash to such an assertion.

The fact it can never get inside a courtroom doesn't make the physical bullets and prints and guns CEASE being classified as "evidence".

The WC had no problem calling it "evidence"....

Page 117 -- http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

Page 195 -- http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0110a.htm

Is Jon Tidd "appalled" at the WC for all the times the word "evidence" appears on the above 2 WCR pages?

Edited August 4, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Mark Knight]

Mr. Von Pein, basing generalities about ALL CTer's based upon a statement by ONE CTer is a flawed concept.

CTers are not of homogenous thought...on nearly anything.

I would've thought that, as many appearances as you make on this forum, you might have picked up on that concept.

Color me wrong. Apparently I overestimated your powers of observation. For that, I apologize.