I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Its been years since I read the report.  Thank you David for pointing this out.

In Court, "probably" wide range of possibilities, etc. means this is not scientific.  While it is admissible as a government document, in a criminal case, if I had an expert using this type of speculation, it would not come in.  So, the W.C. is supporting a supposed historical fact with speculation and possibilities.  Can we agree to start looking at what actually happened?  Clearly, the W.C. did not have all the information a true investigating body needs and as such, its findings must be considered with all the evidence since which has been presented.

As someone who practiced law for more than 35 years, 95% civil but about 5% criminal (prosecution), I really don't believe it is helpful to attempt to introduce evidentiary rules or burdens of proof into an Internet discussion.  Reasonable inferences from the evidence are always permitted.  One man's "undue speculation" is another man's "reasonable inference."  The very fact that experts are allowed to give opinions in both civil and criminal trials, and that each party typically has one or more experts who vehemently disagree with the opinions of the other party's experts, shows that we are always dealing with probabilities.  Because laymen are prone to attaching great weight to an expert's opinion, the expert's qualifications and the reliability of the evidence on which his opinion is based must be established to a higher degree than is required of a lay witness - but courts at every level and in every jurisdiction struggle with exactly how the standards should be applied.

We're not in court.  No one is being prosecuted.  There are no rules of evidence or burdens of proof here.  Every lawyer knows that the rules of evidence and burdens of proof hinder the quest for the truth as often as they facilitate it.  Each person here, lawyer or bricklayer, can assess the evidence for himself, draw his own inferences and make his own conclusions.  We should each try to inform ourselves about the evidence and make sure that our inferences are reasonable, but lawyer games have no place in these discussions.

I don't see unwarranted speculation or dealing in mere possibilities in the WC report.  I see an incredibly intensive and thorough investigation that predictably generated considerable conflicting evidence and testimony.  When the WC said that this "precludes a conclusive finding" as to which shot may have missed, it was doing no more than acknowledging the reality that exists with respect to many issues in almost every civil and criminal case.  When this occurs, all we can do is assess probabilities and drew reasonable inferences.  If new evidence or techniques allow better assessments and inferences, this is something we can each determine without reference to rules of evidence, burdens of proof and other legal niceties.

[Cory Santos]

12 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

As someone who practiced law for more than 35 years, 95% civil but about 5% criminal (prosecution), I really don't believe it is helpful to attempt to introduce evidentiary rules or burdens of proof into an Internet discussion.  Reasonable inferences from the evidence are always permitted.  One man's "undue speculation" is another man's "reasonable inference."  The very fact that experts are allowed to give opinions in both civil and criminal trials, and that each party typically has one or more experts who vehemently disagree with the opinions of the other party's experts, shows that we are always dealing with probabilities.  Because laymen are prone to attaching great weight to an expert's opinion, the expert's qualifications and the reliability of the evidence on which his opinion is based must be established to a higher degree than is required of a lay witness - but courts at every level and in every jurisdiction struggle with exactly how the standards should be applied.

We're not in court.  No one is being prosecuted.  There are no rules of evidence or burdens of proof here.  Every lawyer knows that the rules of evidence and burdens of proof hinder the quest for the truth as often as they facilitate it.  Each person here, lawyer or bricklayer, can assess the evidence for himself, draw his own inferences and make his own conclusions.  We should each try to inform ourselves about the evidence and make sure that our inferences are reasonable, but lawyer games have no place in these discussions.

I don't see unwarranted speculation or dealing in mere possibilities in the WC report.  I see an incredibly intensive and thorough investigation that predictably generated considerable conflicting evidence and testimony.  When the WC said that this "precludes a conclusive finding" as to which shot may have missed, it was doing no more than acknowledging the reality that exists with respect to many issues in almost every civil and criminal case.  When this occurs, all we can do is assess probabilities and drew reasonable inferences.  If new evidence or techniques allow better assessments and inferences, this is something we can each determine without reference to rules of evidence, burdens of proof and other legal niceties.

Well we certainly disagree with that then.

So lets research this case in fantasyland with its rules then. Physics, legal practices, medical, none of that matters.

Lets try to be intellectually honest.  I apply that to the conspiracy arguments and the LHO did it arguments.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Well we certainly disagree with that then.

So lets research this case in fantasyland with its rules then. Physics, legal practices, medical, none of that matters.

Lets try to be intellectually honest.  I apply that to the conspiracy arguments and the LHO did it arguments.

No, not in Fantasyland but in the world of common sense that all of us use in our everyday lives.  No one outside a courtroom leads his life according to rules of evidence, burdens of proof and other legal niceties.  As I said, every lawyer and judge knows that the rules of evidence hinder the quest for truth at least as often as they facilitate it.  Certainly physics and medicine matter if the issue under consideration is one to which physics and medicine are relevant.  But each person can evaluate the quality of the evidence and the reasonableness of the inferences for himself, completely without regard to what would or wouldn't be allowed in a courtroom or whether a particular burden of proof would be met.  Those things are irrelevant.

There were a couple of threads where my legal expertise actually was highly relevant.  I do know rather a lot more about reading and interpreting statues and regulations and researching legislative histories than does any layman.  Nevertheless, that didn't prevent laymen here from characterizing my work as pathetic and their own interpretations as vastly superior in order to prop up their goofy (Harvey and Lee) theories.  Nothing I can do about it except trust my own skills and hope that those who are attempting to reach their own reasonable conclusions might realize the difference between a lawyer with impeccable academic and professional credentials and a layman insofar as interpreting statutes and regulations is concerned.  Beyond my specific legal expertise, I don't believe that being a lawyer should add any weight to my views concerning the JFK assassination.

[François Carlier]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Tell that to Francois.

 

That guy is so out of it he is up to over eight seconds.  And why stop there.

Its very simple, the Z film is their evidence, Kennedy is hit in the back, Tague heard that shot.  Then at 313 JFK is hit in the skull.

Do the arithmetic and its 5.6 seconds. 

So you're saying that there were three shots, and only three shots fired that day, right ?

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Cliff, I realize the holes-in-the-clothing issue is your idee fixe, and I wouldn’t try to change your mind. 

Lance, I'm not trying to change your mind, either.

I'm here to state the facts and ridicule you for ignoring them.

As an attorney you should be aware of the primacy of physical evidence in a murder case, but you seem blissfully unaware of such.

Quote

 

The assassination was a unique real-world event that can never be precisely recreated. 

We're not talking about a "precise" recreation.

There is at least a 3-inch discrepancy between the bullet holes in the clothes and your Single Bullet Fallacy.

When it comes to the movement of a man's shirt 3 inches may as well be 3 miles given Kennedy's movements in the limo.

Such an event cannot be replicated, period.

Quote

If there were gross and inexplicable discrepancies, which there aren’t, your position would be more solid. 

"Gross discrepancy" is precisely what I'm talking about.

In clothing design there are two categories of body/clothing movement -- "normal" and "gross."

The term of art for clothing movement is -- "normal ease," and "gross ease."

Normal body movement is casual; gross body movement is stretched out,  When a first baseman reaches for a throw his body movement is "gross."  When the umpire raises his fist to call the runner out his body movement is "normal."

Normal ease invariably involves a fraction of an inch of clothing movement.  Exclusively.

Gross ease involves more than an inch of clothing movement.

Normal body movement cannot produce gross ease.

That's why every time Lance Payette imitates JFK's normal body movement there is a normal ease of a fraction of an inch of your shirt fabric.

Anyone can verify this by watching the fabric of their shirt indent along the right shoulder-top when they raise their right arm and wave.

Lone Nutters may be the only people on the planet incapable of making this simple physical observation.

Quote

In the real world, weird stuff happens and people make honest mistakes. 

The location of the bullet holes in the clothes are corroborated by the statements of more than a dozen back wound witnesses including the contemporaneous reports of 4 Federal agents and two verified medical documents.

But your fundamentalist religious belief in the LN prevents you from processing anything that doesn't conform to your illogical bias.

 

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cory Santos]

32 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

No, not in Fantasyland but in the world of common sense that all of us use in our everyday lives.  No one outside a courtroom leads his life according to rules of evidence, burdens of proof and other legal niceties.  As I said, every lawyer and judge knows that the rules of evidence hinder the quest for truth at least as often as they facilitate it.  Certainly physics and medicine matter if the issue under consideration is one to which physics and medicine are relevant.  But each person can evaluate the quality of the evidence and the reasonableness of the inferences for himself, completely without regard to what would or wouldn't be allowed in a courtroom or whether a particular burden of proof would be met.  Those things are irrelevant.

There were a couple of threads where my legal expertise actually was highly relevant.  I do know rather a lot more about reading and interpreting statues and regulations and researching legislative histories than does any layman.  Nevertheless, that didn't prevent laymen here from characterizing my work as pathetic and their own interpretations as vastly superior in order to prop up their goofy (Harvey and Lee) theories.  Nothing I can do about it except trust my own skills and hope that those who are attempting to reach their own reasonable conclusions might realize the difference between a lawyer with impeccable academic and professional credentials and a layman insofar as interpreting statutes and regulations is concerned.  Beyond my specific legal expertise, I don't believe that being a lawyer should add any weight to my views concerning the JFK assassination.

Yes, Fantasyland rules apply.

You suggest that common sense is all that is needed.

That is the problem.  What you call true based on common sense another calls false based on common sense.  Who judges which is right?

That is why courts have a standard for evidence.  That is why journalists used to have standards for reporting.

If we just apply common sense to a historical event and a crime, such as this, then one is left to speculate.  The W.C. weighed the limited amount of evidence it had and concluded LHO did it alone.  The people of this government then rely on this.  The problem with this should be obvious to anyone.  When they announced the w.c. they presented it as facts which led to conclusions that LHO did it alone.  If you truly want to pursue the truth- as you said does not always happen within the court system- then acknowledge the historical facts that show the w.c. was lead, evidence was destroyed or mutilated, there was a cover up and that is a fact as it has been admitted, that information was withheld from the w.c.

To do otherwise not only violates common sense but puts the weighing of evidence in Fantasyland.

So I choose to apply my legal standards to the evidence as this is the proper thing to do, just as a medical doctor should apply her medical standards to the evidence.  Anything less is dishonest intellectually and Fantasyland.  This applies to LHO did it and to conspiracists.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

Yes, Fantasyland rules apply.

And what are those Fantasyland rules?  Why do I have the feeling that what you call Fantasyland rules are what I call Conspiracy Logic?

You suggest that common sense is all that is needed.

No, I didn't.  I said that a theory of the assassination must be built upon logic, common sense, the best evidence and reasonable inferences.  I said that each person must do this to the best of his or her ability.  I said that rules of evidence and burdens of proof are not appropriately part of this process.  A reliance on them is as likely to hinder a quest for the truth as to advance it.

That is the problem.  What you call true based on common sense another calls false based on common sense.  Who judges which is right?

Certainly we are likely all to have different perspectives on what satisfies logic and common sense, what constitutes the best evidence, and what inferences are reasonable.  This is unavoidable.

If we just apply common sense to a historical event and a crime, such as this, then one is left to speculate.  The W.C. weighed the limited amount of evidence it had and concluded LHO did it alone.  The people of this government then rely on this.  The problem with this should be obvious to anyone.  When they announced the w.c. they presented it as facts which led to conclusions that LHO did it alone.  If you truly want to pursue the truth- as you said does not always happen within the court system- then acknowledge the historical facts that show the w.c. was lead, evidence was destroyed or mutilated, there was a cover up and that is a fact as it has been admitted, that information was withheld from the w.c.

WHAT???  The WC was one of the most intensive, comprehensive investigations in the history of mankind.  You may not like the WC's conclusions, but they were hardly speculative.  No investigation will ever satisfy conspiracy theorists, who can turn the money order by which Oswald ordered his rifle into an exercise in silliness that would have occupied five WC volumes if the WC had taken such an approach.

So I choose to apply my legal standards to the evidence as this is the proper thing to do, just as a medical doctor should apply her medical standards to the evidence.  Anything less is dishonest intellectually and Fantasyland.  This applies to LHO did it and to conspiracists.

Oh, really, you do?  So you carefully exclude all hearsay from consideration?  You accept only the opinions of duly qualified experts testifying on the basis of reliable facts and science?  I'll bet you don't.  Good Lord, most conspiracy theories are constructed on the basis of evidence that wouldn't be admitted in court.  Without third-hand hearsay, rank speculation, unreasonable inferences and dubious "experts," the conspiracy world would collapse like a house of cards.

 

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Guest

[David Von Pein]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

That guy [Francois] is so out of it he is up to over eight seconds.

So am I. 8.36 to be precise. And almost all "LNers" are in the same "approx. 8 seconds" boat. But Jim D., for some reason, doesn't seem to even realize that millions of people (i.e., the "LNers" of the universe) believe that LHO had more than 8 seconds to shoot at JFK in Dealey Plaza. I wonder why such a thing comes as such a shock to him?? It's been a common belief among LNers for decades now.

Along similar lines....

In the past, Jim has also suggested to me the ludicrous idea that "The only person who believed it ["Reclaiming History"] was Tom Hanks" [DiEugenio; 4/15/2010].

So, according to Jim, I guess Tom Hanks alone makes up the 30% of the people who said that JFK was killed by "one man" in this 2013 Gallup poll....

http://www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy

After all, per DiEugenio, the "only person" who was convinced by Bugliosi's book "was Tom Hanks".

Edited October 10, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

And now back to our regular Fake Debate between James DiEugenio and David Von Pein -- a guided tour of the rabbit holes littering the field.

[Cory Santos]

4 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

 

You bet I don't?

That is your logic?   LOL.  As a fellow lawyer I am disappointed.  But, I intend to keep our discussion civil-as I know you have been called names by others and are upset by that.  Hopefully you will provide me that courtesy.  To your comment:

"most conspiracy theories are constructed on the basis of evidence that wouldn't be admitted in court"

So what?  You have already concluded that is ok with your above statements about using Fantasyland common sense and inferences which apparently you will be the judge of what is right and wrong.  Don't take this as an offense, but, that is what you are saying.  In one part you claim legal standards should not be used in evaluating the case, then you attack conspiracists over and over, then you say one of the problems with conspiracy logic is the conspiracists evidence would not be admitted in court.  You cannot have it both ways.  This is why standards must be applied to both sides.  Let me repeat, BOTH SIDES.  Third time, BOTH SIDES.  Just want to confirm you agree that I feel it should be applied to BOTH sides.

Yes, I exclude multiple hearsays from serious consideration when I examine the JFK case.

Yes, I look for bias on the part of the witness and/or author.

I have never stated I subscribe to Harvey and Lee, please never lump me in-if that was what you were inferring- in this group. 

Yes, when an author cites an author who cites an author who has not citation for his/her opinion, I disregard it without a citation to evidence.

This holds true also of the W.C. when I examine it.

No, the w.c. was not as exhaustive as you claim.

If you cannot acknowledge that there were serious errors with the W.C., based on all the evidence which confirms it, without conceding that, you have blinders on, respectfully.  I am more than open to LHO did it if there was solid proof he did it-not common sense as you claim or inferences.  Proof.

To me the strongest proof he was involved was the ring being left on the cabinet that morning with Marina.  I never see that cited by LHO did it.  

[Cory Santos]

15 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

So am I. 8.36 to be precise. And almost all "LNers" are in the same "approx. 8 seconds" boat. But Jim D., for some reason, doesn't seem to even realize that millions of people (i.e., the "LNers" of the universe) believe that LHO had more than 8 seconds to shoot at JFK in Dealey Plaza. I wonder why such a thing somes as such a shock to him?? It's been a common belief among LNers for decades now.

Along similar lines....

In the past, Jim has also suggested to me the ludicrous idea that "The only person who believed it ["Reclaiming History"] was Tom Hanks" [DiEugenio; 4/15/10].

So, according to Jim, I guess Tom Hanks alone makes up the 29% of the people who said that JFK was killed by "one man" in this 2013 poll....

http://www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy

After all, per DiEugenio, the "only person" who was convinced by Bugliosi's book "was Tom Hanks".

David, if he had all that time, why not take another shot?

Assuming he knew the first missed, he may or may not have known the second hit Kennedy-with everything happening so fast- 

I know that when I shoot, if I can get another quick shot off, I do to ensure the target is hit.

I mean if your objective is to kill a target, you keep shooting until you are compromised or sure the target is dead right?

So nothing was blocking him, no one was shooting back, the car was not speeding up to get away or zig zagging, so, David, why did he not take the fourth shot to make sure he hit his target.

Certainly a highly trained marine would have done that right?

Just a thought, I would like to hear someone answer who believes LHO did it alone.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Cory Santos

[Cory Santos]

10 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

And now back to our regular Fake Debate between James DiEugenio and David Von Pein -- a guided tour of the rabbit holes littering the field.

Cliff, are you suggesting its starting to stink in here?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 minute ago, Cory Santos said:

Cliff, are you suggesting its starting to stink in here?

Yeah, I'm with Bart Kamp on this -- LOCK IT UP

[David Von Pein]

34 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

So nothing was blocking him, no one was shooting back, the car was not speeding up to get away or zig zagging, so, David, why did he not take the fourth shot to make sure he hit his target[?]

The explosive force of the Z313 head shot was probably a pretty good sign to Oswald that he had hit (and killed) his target. There was no need to fire a 4th shot at all. So he didn't. (He chambered the fourth bullet, but decided he didn't need to kill the dead man again.) [IMHO]

Edited October 10, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

You bet I don't?

That is your logic?   LOL.  As a fellow lawyer I am disappointed.  But, I intend to keep our discussion civil-as I know you have been called names by others and are upset by that.  Hopefully you will provide me that courtesy.  To your comment:

"most conspiracy theories are constructed on the basis of evidence that wouldn't be admitted in court"

So what?  You have already concluded that is ok with your above statements about using Fantasyland common sense and inferences which apparently you will be the judge of what is right and wrong.  Don't take this as an offense, but, that is what you are saying.  

Of course that's why I'm saying!  How dumb do you think I am?  I have no objection to conspiracy theorists relying on whatever they want.  This is exactly what I'm suggesting they should do.  You are the one who suggested the rules of evidence and whatnot should guide the inquiry.  The only problem I have with many conspiracy theorists is that, because they start with the conspiracy mindset and conspiracy blinders, they too often apply Conspiracy Logic rather than logic and Conspiracy Sense rather than common sense, rely on dubious evidence rather than the best evidence, make unreasonable inferences rather than reasonable ones, and engage in blatant speculation.  This is why I said the conspiracy world would collapse without these things.

BTW, I can honestly say that nothing anyone has ever said on here has "upset" me.  (Well, actually, a guy who was banned did because he, a fellow Arizona lawyer, kept insinuating and then stating that he didn't think I was a lawyer at all when the truth could have been determined in 15 seconds on the State Bar website.  I've written three law review articles as well as two fiction pieces for the Arizona Attorney magazine and have something like 20 reported appellate decisions, but this guy didn't think I was a lawyer!) If I didn't find forums like this entirely amusing, I wouldn't bother participating.  To let you in on a little secret, I really have only the mildest interest in who killed JFK (or in JFK at all, for that matter).  Whether it was LHO or LBJ is all the same to me.  This is just mental exercise for my retirement years as well as a source of amusement when it's raining outside, as it has been the last two days.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Guest