Douglas Caddy Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dzmwxzlrv49pvcc/AADl1jyly_4iEBhFrm_-AS9ka?dl=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 (edited) Using the "acoustics" evidence as the basis for the case for conspiracy is like taking a wet noodle to a butter-knife fight. The "acoustics" evidence was a HSCA con job they found necessary because they didn't dare promote the actual physical evidence of conspiracy. The bullet defects in JFK's clothes impeach the autopsy report and the HSCA didn't have the guts to go that far. To see this scam perpetuated is disappointing. Edited November 17, 2017 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 The trial was very disappointing. Too technical and they totally lost the jurors. Did not focus on the one thing every criminal trial is about: the non guilt of the accused. More later, hope more will chime in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 I agree. Also Dawn, is there something wrong with DPF? I cannot get on of late. The connection is so slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 49 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: I agree. Also Dawn, is there something wrong with DPF? I cannot get on of late. The connection is so slow. Jim the site is down. I asked Maggie about it via fb message the other day... Jim Did you watch the entire trial? Will you write about it? I KNEW the prosecutor would jump all over LHO leaving as consciousness of guilt and that was left, no re direct to correct that. And when Bill said that we don't know that he was not involved I knew that the prosecutor would jump to the law of parties, which of course she did. I have so many criticisms of the trial but am too exhausted to articulate such in writing. Just getting over a terrible flu...I have enormous respect for the entire team but I would have tried the case very differently. Lawyers who try criminal cases know that too much technical stuff loses the jury. It was like they were trying to prove there were more shooters, NOT that LHO was a patsy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 20 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: Using the "acoustics" evidence as the basis for the case for conspiracy is like taking a wet noodle to a butter-knife fight. The "acoustics" evidence was a HSCA con job they found necessary because they didn't dare promote the actual physical evidence of conspiracy. The bullet defects in JFK's clothes impeach the autopsy report and the HSCA didn't have the guts to go that far. To see this scam perpetuated is disappointing. Cliff, Is there any chance Kennedy's shirt and jacket could've gotten "stiffer" by the climate and sweatiness, causing the shoulder parts to raise in an odd uniform fashion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 36 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said: Cliff, Is there any chance Kennedy's shirt and jacket could've gotten "stiffer" by the climate and sweatiness, causing the shoulder parts to raise in an odd uniform fashion? Are you kidding? If not, you need to replicate this event before you try to apply it to Kennedy. Shirts are the most readily observable human-related artifacts but many JFK researchers treat them as great mysteries... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dawn Meredith said: It was like they were trying to prove there were more shooters, NOT that LHO was a patsy. And they did a piss poor job at that! The case for conspiracy is prima facie. Not to present the prima facie case to a jury is mal-practice. The provenance of the CE-399 and the acoustics? What a joke! Of course you're going to lose the jurors! Edited November 18, 2017 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 I don't know why, maybe it's just the mood I'm in; but I got a kick out of the DPD General Order# 64-A on page 96. Military Personnel who are arrested. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dzmwxzlrv49pvcc/AADl1jyly_4iEBhFrm_-AS9ka?dl=0&preview=DPD++General+Orders.pdf Don't arrested for being drunk, unless you are just passing through. Then it's okay. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 22 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: The bullet defects in JFK's clothes impeach the autopsy report and the HSCA didn't have the guts to go that far. Had the defense presented the clothing evidence and said therefore the entrance wound must have been at T3, the prosecution would have countered by showing the autopsy photo and the entrance wound at T1. Right? I wonder what the jury would have made of that. Believe the shirt or believe the photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 17 hours ago, Dawn Meredith said: The trial was very disappointing. Too technical and they totally lost the jurors. I guess that's what happens when you build a team of really smart people. They present a case that only they can appreciate. Even so, I'm surprised they'd use the acoustics evidence. (I assume they did based on Cliff's comment.) That's the sort of thing I might have dealt with in my line of work, and even I wouldn't have trusted it. Too many variables, echos for example. Very complicated stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Had the defense presented the clothing evidence and said therefore the entrance wound must have been at T3, the prosecution would have countered by showing the autopsy photo and the entrance wound at T1. Right? Then they'd have to prove the autopsy photo was genuine. 12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I wonder what the jury would have made of that. Believe the shirt or believe the photo. The authenticity of the shirt is not in doubt. The authenticity of the improperly prepared autopsy photos with no chain of possession is in grave doubt. Physical evidence trumps photos of physical evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I guess that's what happens when you build a team of really smart people. They present a case that only they can appreciate. Even so, I'm surprised they'd use the acoustics evidence. (I assume they did based on Cliff's comment.) That's the sort of thing I might have dealt with in my line of work, and even I wouldn't have trusted it. Too many variables, echos for example. Very complicated stuff. I'm going by what's posted on the cloud. I'm surprised they didn't drag out the NAA to really muddle the picture...just say'n... Edited November 18, 2017 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said: 15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Had the defense presented the clothing evidence and said therefore the entrance wound must have been at T3, the prosecution would have countered by showing the autopsy photo and the entrance wound at T1. Right? Then they'd have to prove the autopsy photo was genuine. Which would have worked out well in a real trial. But I imagine it wouldn't work in a mock trial because the necessary evidence and witnesses wouldn't be available for examination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Just now, Sandy Larsen said: Which would have worked out well in a real trial. But I imagine it wouldn't work in a mock trial because the necessary evidence and witnesses wouldn't be available for examination. Why not? Physical evidence trumps photos of physical evidence. Photos can be doctored. Just read from the HSCA report doubting the authenticity of the autopsy photos and Saunda Kay Spencer's ARRB denial that she developed the extant autopsy photos -- and those photos get thrown out. 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