Oswald mock trial drop box of CLE course materials

[Sandy Larsen]

Maybe I don't understand how the mock trial worked. (I didn't watch it.)

How would the defense introduce statements made by Roger Craig, for example? Would they allow someone to read his account? If so, how could the prosecutor cross examine Craig?

If in some way everything that could have been argued in a real 1964 trial could have been argued in the mock trial, I can't believe the prosecution wouldn't have had a slam dunk. Just think of all the chain-of-evidence problems the prosecution would have to overcome.

 

[Michael Clark]

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

12:10 to 14:22

Salandria's greatest accomplishment!

Cut to the chase and the jury will love it!

Thanks Cliff. @13:xx he points out that the plotters wanted us to get bogged down in the minutia. That's where things stand. As an aside, disinformation like the Walker-did-It fabrication is backup plan to derail the solution to the problem, which is a counter coup.

[James DiEugenio]

I can  see that very few people here watched it.

First, the NAA was discussed more than once.

Second, there were very loose rules about admitting people as experts and also admitting certain testimony.

One thing I did not understand was if these rules applied, why was the prosecution allowed to question an expert's qualifications?  For instance, Aguilar testified as an expert witness, and Pappas ridiculed him for being an eye surgeon.  Same with Don Thomas since he is not an acoustics scientist. 

I thought there were some people who should have been there are were not.  Like Jeremy Gunn.  He deposed all the autopsy doctors and Stringer.  If it had been me I would have done all I could to get him there.  And if you were going to use the acoustics, and I am not sure I would have, then why not try and get Weiss or Achenasky? 

But beyond that, in my opinion, Dawn was absolutely right.  The defense tried to dump about 5 MB of information on the jury in two days. We tend to forget sometimes that people who do not live this case do not understand it anywhere near as well as we do.  But secondly, in a two day setting--which is totally unreal for this case--you cannot educate them as to all those issues.  Not even close. 

I thought the best witness for our side was Brian Edwards. He really benefited from his years in police work and was very calm and collected and confident on the stand.

 

 

[George Sawtelle]

Cliff

I can't argue with you. You're right. Simplicity was the way to go. They felt the acoustics would help and once they made the decision to go with the acoustics they had to have someone there who could answer defense questions about cross talk, how the recorder functioned, the lag or delay time enherent in the recorder and rebut the critics.

Don knows the ins and outs of this issue so he had to be there. In writing his book, "Hear No Evil", Don worked very closely with BBN and W-A.He undoubtedly learned quite a bit about the issue from the experts. You might say he went to school. That is why a scientist who is not a physics major knows so much about sound and it's properties.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Thanks for explaining that, Jim.

To me it sounds like the trial was sort of like a debate framed as a trial.

You make an excellent point about it being difficult to educate a jury in just two days. They've had a lifetime (on and off) hearing the prosecutor's side of the story.

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I can  see that very few people here watched it.

I checked out the first two documents in the drop box.

I was planning on dropping the 75 bucks for the livestream but a post the night before indicated it was going to be lame, so I saved.

Quote

First, the NAA was discussed more than once.

Called it!

Of course -- three main rabbit holes -- the provenance of CE399, the acoustics, the NAA.

Not a jury in the land is going to sit still for any of that.

Quote

Second, there were very loose rules about admitting people as experts and also admitting certain testimony.

One thing I did not understand was if these rules applied, why was the prosecution allowed to question an expert's qualifications?  For instance, Aguilar testified as an expert witness, and Pappas ridiculed him for being an eye surgeon.  Same with Don Thomas since he is not an acoustics scientist. 

I thought there were some people who should have been there are were not.  Like Jeremy Gunn.  He deposed all the autopsy doctors and Stringer.  If it had been me I would have done all I could to get him there.  And if you were going to use the acoustics, and I am not sure I would have, then why not try and get Weiss or Achenasky? 

But beyond that, in my opinion, Dawn was absolutely right.  The defense tried to dump about 5 MB of information on the jury in two days. We tend to forget sometimes that people who do not live this case do not understand it anywhere near as well as we do.  But secondly, in a two day setting--which is totally unreal for this case--you cannot educate them as to all those issues.  Not even close. 

I've had discussions with millennials who had little prior interest in the case and they got it in about two minutes on just the basic facts.

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thanks for explaining that, Jim.

To me it sounds like the trial was sort of like a debate framed as a trial.

You make an excellent point about it being difficult to educate a jury in just two days. They've had a lifetime (on and off) hearing the prosecutor's side of the story.

 

 I once pointed out to a millennial friend of mine that her generation didn't appear all that interested in the Kennedy assassination.

"That's because they make it so boring," she said, and the subject dropped.

A couple weeks later she asked me what I'd been up to and I said --"Giving people hell about the central question of the JFK assassination."  This was in the late summer of 2013.

"What is the central question of the JFK assassination?"

"You don't want to know--"

"No, tell me.," she said, or words to that effect.

JFK was shot in the back, there was no exit wound and no bullet found in the autopsy; he was shot in the throat, no exit, no bullet found in the autopsy.  The central question is --what happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?

She thought for a second, then said -- "But was it a real autopsy?"

"A lot of problems with the autopsy, but that was the situation...Some people think the bullets were removed prior to the autopsy--"

"Or it was some government shi* that dissolved!" she said with an air of triumph.

About a year later I told this story to another millennial friend of mine and when I got to the line "or some government shi* that dissolved--" she said-- "That's what I was gonna say!"

These kids are ahead of the JFKA Critical Community by a mile.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[George Sawtelle]

Jim

You are correct. Weiss-Aschkenasy should have testified. They used simple graphical methods (no computer, no oscillascope, no complicated statistics and no one critical of their work that I know about). They did use statistics to determine and eliminate background noise but it was simple statistics.

However they piggy backed off of BBN's work, using microphone 4 as the starting point of their work. BBN said mic 4 correlated to the grassy knoll shot and W-A was hired to check the location and accuracy of mic 4. So BBN had to be there also.

 

[James DiEugenio]

I am not sure George since the strict rules of evidence did not apply here.

BTW, the NAA came up twice.  Once with Haag who was their only witness, and once with Spiegelman who was the defense witness.

BTW, it got really heated between Pappas and Aguilar.

I am pretty sure that Len Osanic will have a special hour on tho subject this week.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

34 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Jim

You are correct. Weiss-Aschkenasy should have testified. They used simple graphical methods (no computer, no oscillascope, no complicated statistics and no one critical of their work that I know about). They did use statistics to determine and eliminate background noise but it was simple statistics.

However they piggy backed off of BBN's work, using microphone 4 as the starting point of their work. BBN said mic 4 correlated to the grassy knoll shot and W-A was hired to check the location and accuracy of mic 4. So BBN had to be there also.

 

The kids can't dance to it.

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Thanks Cliff. @13:xx he points out that the plotters wanted us to get bogged down in the minutia. That's where things stand. As an aside, disinformation like the Walker-did-It fabrication is backup plan to derail the solution to the problem, which is a counter coup.

You're welcome, Michael.

Hire Vincent Salandria!

[Cliff Varnell]

39 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I am not sure George since the strict rules of evidence did not apply here.

BTW, the NAA came up twice.  Once with Haag who was their only witness, and once with Spiegelman who was the defense witness.

BTW, it got really heated between Pappas and Aguilar.

I am pretty sure that Len Osanic will have a special hour on tho subject this week.

 

Would Len Osanic call for the hiring of Vincent Salandria?

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 I once pointed out to a millennial friend of mine that her generation didn't appear all that interested in the Kennedy assassination.

"That's because they make it so boring," she said, and the subject dropped.

A couple weeks later she asked me what I'd been up to and I said --"Giving people hell about the central question of the JFK assassination."  This was in the late summer of 2013.

"What is the central question of the JFK assassination?"

"You don't want to know--"

"No, tell me.," she said, or words to that effect.

JFK was shot in the back, there was no exit wound and no bullet found in the autopsy; he was shot in the throat, no exit, no bullet found in the autopsy.  The central question is --what happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?

She thought for a second, then said -- "But was it a real autopsy?"

"A lot of problems with the autopsy, but that was the situation...Some people think the bullets were removed prior to the autopsy--"

"Or it was some government shi* that dissolved!" she said with an air of triumph.

About a year later I told this story to another millennial friend of mine and when I got to the line "or some government shi* that dissolved--" she said-- "That's what I was gonna say!"

These kids are ahead of the JFKA Critical Community by a mile.

Did you ask them how they became aware of bullets that dissolve?

 

[Cliff Varnell]

16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Did you ask them how they became aware of bullets that dissolve?

 

It was intuitive, cynical.  They're millennials.  High tech solutions are obvious to them.

I think it's because they grew up on The Matrix while the boomers and silent gen types grew up on James Bond.

Agent Smith v Agent 007.  007 types can't take dissolving bullets seriously.

But the autopsists took the scenario seriously, and so did the two FBI agents at the autopsy.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

On 11/18/2017 at 1:22 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I was responding to your statement that the prosecution would have to prove that the autopsy photo is real. In response, I pointed out that they couldn't do that these days in a mock trial, because the evidence and witnesses that would be needed are no longer available.

 

 

Maybe so. But what really matters is what the jury can be convinced of. I don't think I need to point out that even we have several CTer members here who can't be convinced the photo was doctored. (Don't ask me why... it baffles me.)

 

 

Saundra Kay Spencer wasn't there to testify. See, that's the problem with a mock trial.

 

FWIW, photos are admissible if a witness is willing to say the photo is an accurate representation of what they remember. In this case, the autopsy doctors did that, on numerous occasions. While I presume a judge would allow counter-testimony, that is, the testimony of other witnesses who say the photos don't show what they remember., that would not prevent the photos from being introduced in the first place.