Oswald mock trial drop box of CLE course materials

[Sandy Larsen]

On 11/21/2017 at 12:07 PM, Micah Mileto said:

I am not talking about the actual fabric folding or creasing. Imagine Kennedy as a turtle, with his hypothetically stiff shirt and jacket clinging together like a shell. Perhaps this "shell" could move a couple of inches above the base of his neck? Like if the ends of his shoulders raised the shirt+jacket while it raises above the position of the center of his back?

Like this gif, but less ridiculous.

Shirt collar still exposed, yet the jacker+shirt is adequately raised for this gentleman to have been shot at T1 while the bullet hole in the clothing would appear at T3.

 

Micah,

Just put a dress shirt on and button it all the way up to the neck. (To be fair the neck shouldn't be oversized.) Then try to make the fabric rise 2 inches in the back.

 

Edited November 23, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Cliff Varnell]

21 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

I am not talking about the actual fabric folding or creasing. Imagine Kennedy as a turtle,

This is what happens when you point the weaponized fact of conspiracy at T3 deniers -- they start to babble gibberish.

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I agree. Problem is, you have to convince the jury that the autopsy photo was doctored. It doesn't matter what the best evidence is or the integrity of the chain of custody. All that matters is what you can convince the jury to believe.

 

You assume that a jury can't figure out the supremacy of physical evidence, the significance of chain of possession, that the photo is "more confusing than informative", that the eye witnesses put the wound lower, that the properly prepared medical records put the wound at T3?

Bring it on!

[Ray Mitcham]

Suit jackets have a smooth lining, which eliminates the sticking together of a shirt and the jacket. To think that his shirt and his jacket stuck together like a tortoise shell, stinks of desperation.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Ray Mitcham

[Dawn Meredith]

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 3:35 AM, Pat Speer said:

The trial was discussed at Lancer by some of those involved, and I discussed it with a number of them outside their presentation.

Here's a few points of interest..

1. The trial was limited to two days. The prosecution agreed to limit their case to one witness. But in return the defense had to agree to limit their responses to the prosecution's questions of their witnesses. Some saw this as a mistake, as there was not enough time to respond to the challenges of the prosecution.

2. The deliberation time for the jury was also limited. Word has it that it started out 8-3 in favor of conviction, and that 2 jurors were turned to acquittal during the limited deliberation. The thinking is that more would have turned with a longer deliberation.

3. The jurors were filmed and the response of the jurors to the defense witnesses are going to be studied.

4. It is hoped that this is the first of a series of mock trials to be performed at a number of law schools. The defense team plans to use what they've learned from this mock trial to improve their performance.

5. There was much discussion over the direction of the defense. There was a movement by some of those involved to let the doctors make their case for conspiracy, that won the day. But the next go-round will probably be different, as some of those involved felt the science was much too much for the jury.

6. Some felt it was a mistake to spend so much of the opening statement discussing ethics. Some wanted this on the record, but others felt this was too boring for the jury. Should this same team perform another mock trial, this opening salvo will probably be re-focused.

7. The feeling was that the defense did much better with the seniors, than it did with millennials. An effort will be made to address this.

 

In short, this mock trial was kind of like an experiment. For decades, a certain group of doctors and experts--you know who they are--have been dying to present their case to a jury. With this mock trial, they finally got their chance.  Only it didn't go as well as they planned. So corrections will be made.

WOW...you have just listed all of my issues with this trial. That said the lawyers are all well versed in this case and in spite of all of the above did  very well.  This case is simply far too complicated to present in two days.  I did not know that about the cross of the state's sole witness, now it makes more sense. 

An whoever decided to do an ethics presentation as part of the opening was totally off the mark. You have to grab your jurors coming out of the park. On why your client is not guilty.

A history lesson puts them to sleep.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Dawn Meredith said:

WOW...you have just listed all of my issues with this trial. That said the lawyers are all well versed in this case and in spite of all of the above did  very well. 

They didn't appear to grasp the basic fact of JFK's murder -- the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to associate with his throat wound.

That they didn't challenge the state's claim JFK was shot in the back of the neck is inexcusable incompetence.

5 hours ago, Dawn Meredith said:

 

 

This case is simply far too complicated to present in two days. 

Oh really?

Salandria could present the case after lunch and send everyone home early.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Dawn Meredith said:

You have to grab your jurors coming out of the park. On why your client is not guilty.

Start with the FBI report on the autopsy, how the autopsists were "at a loss" to explain JFK's shallow back wound, an entrance with no exit -- and no bullet to be found at the autopsy.

This wound pattern proves at least 2 shooters fired, and is inconsistent with a shot from the rifle identified as Oswald's, the alleged "lone nut".

Can the state argue for a lone nut with co-conspirators?

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

8 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Suit jackets have a smooth lining, which eliminates the sticking together of a shirt and the jacket. To think that his shirt and his jacket stuck together like a tortoise shell, stinks of desperation.

T3 deniers don't have an argument.  Only endlessly repeated assertions.

[Denny Zartman]

On 11/19/2017 at 3:23 AM, James DiEugenio said:

My God, what do you call the recovery by the FBI of a 7.65 Mauser shell in Dealey Plaza and the three reports of the rifle being a Mauser in the Commission volumes?  

And I agree that they should have said something like, yep LHO was really in a panic to get away.  He walked toward the bus station about four blocks away to get on a bus going back to the scene of the crime.  That bus stopped in traffic and he got off in the Plaza.  He then hailed a cab, but then offered the cab to an older lady first. Public transportation to beat a murder charge.

And BTW, they did not use the other way to counter that: Roger Craig and Marvin Robinson.   What made that hurt was this: the guy who made that Nash Rambler escape famous was sitting at the defense table: TInk Thompson. 

I hate to interrupt, but the discovery of Mauser shell in Dealey Plaza is one detail I don't remember hearing before. If I may ask, what are the best resources to use to read more about that?

And I agree totally about Oswald's "getaway." It seems incredible to me that he could sneak in a rifle and not a handgun. That he would have no plan at all for a getaway simply doesn't pass the smell test, in my opinion.

[Douglas Caddy]

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I hate to interrupt, but the discovery of Mauser shell in Dealey Plaza is one detail I don't remember hearing before. If I may ask, what are the best resources to use to read more about that?

And I agree totally about Oswald's "getaway." It seems incredible to me that he could sneak in a rifle and not a handgun. That he would have no plan at all for a getaway simply doesn't pass the smell test, in my opinion.

Denny

Here is a background report:

 

[Cliff Varnell]

On 11/21/2017 at 11:16 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Micah,

Just put a dress shirt on and button it all the way up to the neck. (To be fair the neck shouldn't be oversized. Then try to make the fabric rise 2 inches in the back.

 

[cue the crickets...]

 The T3 deniers are silenced. 

There is no argument. 

There is no fake debate.

 

 

[Michael Clark]

3 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

[cue the crickets...]

 The T3 deniers are silenced. 

There is no argument. 

There is no fake debate.

 

 

Cliff, I admire your persistence, and I agree that the evidence that you hold-forth is monumental and definitive. Yet, please respect my observations, in light of the comments of Vincent Salandria at @13 minutes into the video that was recently posted, and in light of the comments he made at about the same time, that the shirt holes do qualify as the minutiae that Vince warned about. Conspiracy is a fact. I will go back and lift Mr. salandria's exact words but it is long-past the time to even care about gathering consensus on the minutiae. It has long-been time to board a plane and map the landscape. To be sure, I am aware that you are all over that as well, and I hope that you publish your findings.

Regards,

Michael

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

Cliff, I admire your persistence, and I agree that the evidence that you hold-forth is monumental and definitive. Yet, please respect my observations, in light of the comments of Vincent Salandria at @13 minutes into the video that was recently posted, and in light of the comments he made at about the same time, that the shirt holes do qualify as the minutiae that Vince warned about.

No, that's what he impeached the SBT with.

The interviewer asked him if debunking the SBT was his greatest accomplishment -- he debunked the SBT with the clothing evidence!

Gaeton Fonzi interviewed Salandria, who pointed out the location of the holes in the clothes as too low.  Fonzi was an agnostic on the matter until he talked to Arlen Specter.  Specter had  a meltdown and Fonzi was no longer agnostic -- the fact of conspiracy was obvious.

 

Quote

Conspiracy is a fact. I will go back and lift Mr. salandria's exact words but it is long-past the time to even care about gathering consensus on the minutiae.

The physical evidence in a murder case is not "minutiae".

The physical facts bring us to the central question -- what happened to the bullet that caused the back wound?

This is reading directly from the historical record, not "minutiae."

Quote

It has long-been time to board a plane and map the landscape. To be sure, I am aware that you are all over that as well, and I hope that you publish your findings.

Since all I'm doing to reading directly from the historical record the findings are prima facie.

The autopsists thought JFK may have been hit with a round that wouldn't show up in the autopsy. 

One of the two FBI guys at the autopsy called up the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of rounds that wouldn't show up in the autopsy.

All I'm pointing out is the fact.

That's my findings.

 

Quote

Regards,

Michael

Best regards to you as well,

Cliff

Edited November 23, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

Danny:

 

That report on the shell was in the book Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman.

[Micah Mileto]

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Danny:

 

That report on the shell was in the book Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman.

Free PDF copy: http://krusch.com/books/kennedy/Bloody_Treason.pdf