Earlene Roberts WC Testimony Amazing To Me Yet Disturbingly Ignored.

[Joe Bauer]

Roy, that "tit-tit" horn honk sound description is a direct quote in Earlene Robert's WC testimony.

 

[Roy Wieselquist]

20 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Roy, that "tit-tit" horn honk sound description is a direct quote in Earlene Robert's WC testimony.

 

Yes, I've known that for years and my pre-adolescent brain has giggled over it for all those years, at least a thousand times.  I thought it was obvious that I was using the word(s) in her testimony IN YOUR POST as an excuse to... try to be funny?  Also to stress an important part of JFKA.

Earlene Roberts' phonemic accuracy was the first fact I learned on this long journey.  Thanks so much for bringing it up.  That whole scene in Oak Cliff 1-2 PM is a sort of Rosetta Stone of JFKA.  And ER's tape-recorder-like reproduction of the killer polices' car horn is still hilarious to a 64-year old suffering from arrested development, the mental maturity of a 9-year old.

Since everything today is related to JFKA and the Beatles, of course there is a Beatles parallel.  In their early song "Girl", instead of singing dih-dih-dih in the chorus like the Motown girl groups did (human parroting of the dot in Morse code), they clearly went, ".......................", you guessed it.  It would be immature of me to spell it out.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Roy Wieselquist
spelling

[Joe Bauer]

I want to repost this edited version of my previous Earlene Robert's one in response to L.Payette's last post countering my points and views regards Mrs. Roberts and her DPD  car story and her personal credibility.

I would like to restate his feedback to this edited post of mine and regards other points he made as well.

L. Payette quotes:

"For those of us who have not imbibed the Conspiracy Kool-Aid and donned our Conspiracy Blinders, there is just no mystery to this sequence of events.  Roberts' tale is simply not credible.  She was a goofball who embellished the actual events, simple as that.  If you're going to prove me wrong, it's going to take a scenario that plausibly deals with all of the above points and affirmatively presents something more than raw speculation."

"I know, I know:  I keep saying I’m moving on.  But then the little Monty Python demon on my shoulder eggs me on:  ( “Come on, Lance, you old fart, have another Guinness Stout and play along with the wackiness for a little while - it'll be fun!”)

Lance, you call Roberts a "goofball" ... who embellished the actual events, simple as that."

You also say that Robert's didn't mention the police car until a week after 11,22,1963.

In whatever documents that are available concerning what Earlene Roberts did or did not say to the press and the authorities right after 11,22,1963, can you say with researched certainty that she never mentioned the police car to anyone in that week?

Ms. Roberts said she was stressed to the max with all the reporters and authorities descending on her every day that week.

I could easily imagine a single, older woman in quite poor health and struggling to make necessity ends meet in a low pay physical job, being discombobulated and exhausted enough to not easily organizing all her thoughts and recollections of her experience that day after being descended upon by a horde of press, police and other authorities on the most crazy and stressful day and week of her life.

And maybe she was "afraid" to share everything she heard or saw that day. Afraid of saying something that might jeopardize her job with "the scrooge" Mrs. Johnson as well?

And as far as embellishing what she saw and heard that day, Ms. Roberts shared a very succinct and sparsely described bare bones account ( very true to what people who knew Oswald would expect ) of what she saw and heard regards her personal encounter with Oswald bustling in past her to his room and the fact he said nothing in response to her saying to him he sure was in a hurry and with absolutely nothing said back to her by Oswald as he left minutes later as well.

That's embellishment? 

What are the points of embellishment in that sparcely described encounter statement?

And Mrs. Roberts sure didn't present herself in any "goofball" manner, tone or rattling on in any of the video recordings of her being interviewed that I have found and viewed.  Exhausted yes. Not well spoken regards proper English yes.

If Roberts was such a teller of "tall tales" and who did this for attention, wouldn't someone like this embellish her encounter with the "now world famous" Oswald more than she did ( which she didn't at all ) for some "real" attention instead of just her later added on, off-the-wall weird "tall tale" about a DPD car parking in front of her residence and honking twice, which even she had the sense to know would bring her the wrong type of attention and just add to her greatly stressed situation?

The reality of Mrs. Robert's not at all exaggerating or embellishing her personal one-on-one encounter with Oswald around 1:pm on 11,22,1963  is starkly contrary to the extremely negative and discrediting image assigned to her by her critics who don't address this dichotomy.

And I also believe Robert's DPD car story is just too illogically removed from the strongly pushed motive of her making up exaggerated "tall tales" for attention for at least two reasons.

One:

it is too detailed an account with car color and type descriptions, honk types and numbers, two uniformed officers inside, exact time of and time length of occurrence, direction and speed of departure and even some comparative past police car pull up visit claims ( which were actually verified by DPD officer Alexander ) to be made up just for the purpose of attention in that any story with that many details is an extremely risky one to present because so many of those details could be easily proven to be false if they were simply made up.  And the reported official documentation and under oath testimony record countering Robert's story details seems weak with poorly explained holes at best.

Two:

This car parking and honking story would not immediately make Roberts anymore attention popular to the press and others simply because it's is so off-the-wall and it's relevance and importance would not be easily and quickly understood. If Roberts was as dumb as one Dallas police officer claimed she was, then she herself would have a hard time explaining why she would make up such an odd and highly detailed story just for attention.

And on another note;  neither I nor several other newer non-researcher members who are posting fairly regularly on this forum now are trying to create an "illusion" that we are credible and deep researchers.

We all say often we are not. However,  I think we still feel our respectfully presented observations and views of well known aspects of the assassination truth research are worthy of sharing if for any other reason than their pure JFK truth seeking passion and enthusiasm. And this forum has had a large influx of such posters and readers from what I remember seeing just a couple of years ago ( when it almost shut down ) and seems much more  participatory and popular now as a result imo.

Your quote Lance:

"Roberts’ affidavit of December 5, 1963 doesn’t mention any car.  (Even though the FBI report of a week earlier does mention car number 207, and Valentine and Westbrook had already nailed down the whereabouts of this car, the omission is highly suspicious to a true conspiracy theorist."

Lance, as it should be.

And lastly, addressing Mrs. Roberts blindness in one eye and how this handicap supposedly taints and weakens the credibility of her DPD car parking and honking story from a visual aspect.

One of my longest and best friend friendships ( 57 years going back to elementary school ) is with a practicing lawyer who was completely blinded in one eye in a tree trimming accident 30 years ago. He is 67 now. He lives a completely full and productive life and drives his car alone everywhere.

We occasionally have lunch together at a local "subway" sandwich shop. He can see very well even at some distance with his one good eye.

Mrs. Roberts rooming house front windows were what...maybe 30 to 40 feet away from the curb in front of her residence?

The ability of her with one good eye ( even if aided by glasses ) to identify a car pulling up there as a police car and to see how many occupants were in this car at that relatively close distance is easily possible. 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[Joe Bauer]

I've tried to imagine how stressfully traumatic, entire life upsetting, exhausting and depressing the instant crush of aggressive, quizzing and some times doubting press, police and other high authority agencies must have been on Roberts. 

And include people she knew socially impugning her honesty, integrity and personal character reputation as well!

And a cheap and back stabbing employer knocking her already low pay even lower?

A financially poor and older single woman in bad health and who had to perform a physically demanding and demeaning domestic work job ( not by choice but by necessity ) going through all this at almost sixty years of age? 

And later seeking out other domestic jobs and not having these work out as well after the Oswald affair at her age must have strained her mentally, physically and financially even more.

Honestly I just "can't" imagine how tough all that must have been on Ms. Earlene Roberts.

No wonder she died just two years later.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[Steve Thomas]

On 12/7/2018 at 11:55 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Roy, that "tit-tit" horn honk sound description is a direct quote in Earlene Robert's WC testimony.

 

Joe,

 

Just as an aside:

Mrs. ROBERTS. Right direct in front of that door-there was a police car stopped and honked. I had worked for some policemen and sometimes they come by and tell me something that maybe their wives would want me to know, and I thought it was them, and I just glanced out and saw the number, and I said, "Oh, that's not their car," for I knew their car.

 

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes--it stopped directly in front of my house and it just "tip-tip" and that's the way Officer Alexander and Charles Burnely would do when they stopped,

 

Mrs. ROBERTS. No--I didn't pay that much attention--I just saw it wasn't the police car that I knew and had worked for

 

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, and it was in a black car. It wasn't an accident squad car at all.

 

I can't say about Alexander, I can't find an Alexander on the force. Perhaps he had left the Police Department at that point), but Charles T. Burnley worked in the Criminal Investigation Division, Burglary and Theft Bureau under Captain Fanin. (See Batchelor Exhibit 5002 page 146.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=164&tab=page

 

(Paul McCachren was one of the Lieutenants in that Bureau. McCachren would be assigned to the special investigation unit that Curry set up on Nov. 29^th to investigate initially how Ruby got into the basement. See his testimony before the HSCA http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/mccaghr.htm )

 

What work had Earlene Roberts done for the police?

Was it cleaning work?

She knew enough to distinguish an accident squad car.

 

Steve Thomas

[Joe Bauer]

Steve, another poster mentioned that Roberts had done some housekeeping work for one or both officers. I don't know for sure if this is a fact but it would make sense considering she did this for a living and perhaps she did some side work to supplement her obviously low income.

Whatever, Roberts certainly knew these two officers well enough to instantly remember their names.

Which to some fair degree logically indicates she didn't make up or embellish her relationship with the two officers in her WC testimony.

And Roberts didn't embellish her WC testimony regarding her brief 1:00 PM encounter with Oswald when he rushed past her into his room and rushed back out a few minutes later, not speaking to her both times. Anybody who knew Oswald personally would expect exactly this kind of reaction by Oswald. So Robert's recounting of this encounter rings totally true with no embellishment.

I have yet to see any video interview clips of Roberts where she embellished anything she said in those interviews.

These characterizations of Roberts as a teller of "tall tales" and attention seeking embellisher are very exaggerated imo and without much real verification except by Roberts landlady boss Mrs. Johnson.

One of Robert's DPD officer friends reportedly described her as dumb. But he didn't say she was a xxxx or teller of tall tales.

Robert's tale of the DPD car stopping and honking right in front of her residence and just 30 to 40 feet from Oswald himself right at that impossible time is too important to dismiss if true.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[Guest]

Responding to Joe in the limited time I have available at the moment:

One of my points was simply that these threads and the forum in general do create the illusion of participants being more knowledgeable than they actually are.  I'm not casting aspersions at you personally.  I've made clear on numerous occasions that I don't consider myself a "serious JFK researcher" by any stretch of the imagination, yet time and again little old me has  discovered massive holes in what is stated here when I do only the most minimal sort of lawyerly fact-checking.  I've also documented to my dismay how the most blatantly incorrect, baseless assertions are then repeated and repeated until they take on a life of their own and become Conspiracy Gospel.  I can't begin to tell you how many "facts" I've read in the conspiracy literature that simply ARE NOT FACTS AT ALL.  Your post was simply an example of taking the "fact" of what Earlene saw and running with it, when in reality it isn't a fact at all.

You seem to have some emotional involvement in dear old Earlene that I simply don't.  The fact that she was a one-eyed, salt-of-the-earth, minimum-wage housekeeper doesn't automatically vest her with any special credibility or make her Saint Earlene.  Such folks tell whoppers all the time, often for reasons that are difficult to understand.  The fact is that her employers, Gladys Johnson and Sgt. Alexander, 30 years apart, identified her as someone who was less than credible.  The fact is, her story has not checked out in the slightest when attempts have been made to check it out.  She may as well have said a glowing UFO pulled up in front of the house and went tit-tit (except you'd know that was false because real UFOs go bwoot-bwoot).  If you choose to believe her in light of all that I have set forth, which to me shreds any notion that her car 207-107-106 story is credible or that the DPD, FBI or WC was afraid of it, be my guest and tailor your thinking accordingly.  (BTW, my vision is 20/1000 and I am all but blind in my right eye as well.  I function in the world as well or better than most people, but the reality is that I would not make an ideal eyewitness - and neither did Earlene, assuming that she saw anything at all.)

Come on, even a complete dolt would realize the significance of a police car mysteriously pulling up and honking its horn at the very moment Oswald was hurriedly getting his pistol.  Perhaps you don't, but I find it INCONCEIVABLE that this minor detail just slipped the mind of frazzled old Earlene for a week. 

No, I can't say with absolute, utter certainty that Earlene told no one her car story until she related it to the FBI almost a week later.  But by all I have read, she didn't.  And then she changed it and changed it.  She also had two stories as to exactly what she was doing when Oswald entered,  Good Lord, I would think her WC performance ALONE would be sufficient to cast grave doubt on her story.

I realize that the religion on these forums - and I do mean religion - is Conspiracy.  There are bickering denominations, but the religion is Conspiracy.  Those who hold Lone Assassin views are the functional equivalent of New Atheists here.  I thus realize that participation here is essentially futile.  I may as well keep showing up at a Catholic mass and screeching about how none of it makes any sense to me.  No matter how small the issue (e.g., what Earlene saw), or how well-supported by facts, reasonable inferences, logic and common sense the Lone Assassin perspective on it may be, the Conspiracy community will simply have none of it.

[Joe Bauer]

Lance, at times, I do appreciate your sense of humor.

My bestowing Sainthood on Earlene for example.    Ha!

I have depicted Earlene Roberts in a very sympathetic light perhaps a little too emotionally invested I admit.

But, your depiction of ER seems just as invested in impugning her character in an overly simplified and subjective negative light.

" The fact that she was a one-eyed, salt-of-the-earth, minimum-wage housekeeper doesn't automatically vest her with any special credibility or make her Saint Earlene.  Such folks tell whoppers all the time, often for reasons that are difficult to understand. "

"Such folks tell whoppers all the time."   They do?

What an overly general and flippant statement that I completely disagree with. Kind of elitist sounding.

I've never found that tall tale tellers or BS artists come from any group specifically identified by income or occupation or with one eye more than others.

I have come across them more in specific social settings such as bars, guy barbecues and sporting events with gambling and recently while viewing news clips of presidential rally speeches.

You are obviously a very smart person who writes well.  Do you have your own blog?

That sounds like a better fit for you.

Believe it or not I do enjoy reading your postings here however.

Except when your critiquing gets too cynical and personal and sharp on a forum that clearly promotes more debate and view tolerance and respect.

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Except when your critiquing gets too cynical and personal and sharp on a forum that clearly promotes more debate and view tolerance and respect.

Tolerance and respect?  TOLERANCE AND RESPECT?  You, sir, are a humorist of the first magnitude!  I humbly bow to your drollery.  I do believe that you do exceptionally well at abiding by this standard, but come on - there is no way these forums could reasonably be characterized as ones of tolerance and respect.  Talk about a rule being "honored in the breach."  If this is what the forums intend to promote, they should damn well enforce it (as I thought some time ago the admins had promised they were going to do).  Some of the most active participants here - and you well know who I'm talking about - are the most incredible violators I've ever seen survive on ANY forum, and I've been on a LOT of forums.

You're once again misreading my comments about Earlene, who I feel I am coming to know and love like a dear old aunt.  My comments were not that folks of Earlene's ilk are especially prone to tell whoppers.  Since you seemed to place her on something of a pedestal, I was simply pointing out that such seemingly down-to-earth characters tell whoppers all the time.  Some of the most notable UFO hoaxes were perpetrated by simple working folks who were defended by all their friends and neighbors as someone who "would NEVER do anything like that."  Alas, yes they would.  As I have pointed out previously (and wish the conspiracy enthusiasts would keep in mind), the whopper-telling propensity cuts across the entire socio-economic spectrum.  People from all walks of life tell whoppers at approximately the same rate for the wildest reasons you can imagine - and often for reasons no one can ever figure out.

I used to have a blog called "The Christian Iconoclast," devoted almost entirely to the theological topics that are my main interest.  Blogs are a tremendous amount of work, however, and were really pretty much passé by the time I dived in. They are really only useful (and mostly only exist) as a marketing vehicle to promote the author's books, speaking availability and whatnot.  So I pulled the plug after about a year, although I have from time to time toyed with the idea.

 

[Joe Bauer]

Yes, certain posters here go at it pretty good.

However, I think the newer forum moderators have succeeded in not allowing their sometimes heated debates to devolve to the level I remember seeing years ago.

And I think these more animated and worked up exchanges do bring out more interesting research facts that might not come out in less engaged ones. Like watching a well matched toe to toe boxing fight.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[Don Jeffries]

So Earlene Roberts is joining the endless cavalcade of witnesses, all of whom presented testimony that contradicted the official fairy tale, in being smeared and discredited here? 

We know that several witnesses had their original reports altered and distorted by the FBI and Dallas Police. We know that some claimed their testimony before the Warren Commission did not reflect what they'd actually said. Roberts not initially mentioning the police car being out front of the rooming house may very well fall into this category; perhaps her words were simply recorded inaccurately, something we know was common with those "investigating" the assassination. 

Unfortunately, Earlene Roberts did not live long enough to clarify these matters, so we have no way of knowing if she might have echoed what Julia Ann Mercer and others reported about the dishonesty of the authorities recording their experiences. 

I wasted too much time over the years debating those who don't understand this subject, or have an ulterior motive. Lance Payette acknowledges that he is not a serious researcher. This is obvious by his acceptance of the absurd official narrative. As Penn Jones used to say, the only way to believe the Warren Report is not to read it. In that vein, I contend that the only way to believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK is to not honestly study the evidence. 

 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Don Jeffries said:

This is obvious by his acceptance of the absurd official narrative.

Ah, this is how we identify "serious researchers."  I believe this is known as "tipping your hand."

I make no claim to being a serious JFK researcher in the vein of, say, Dale Myers (BOO! HISS!).  It isn't my controlling obsession.  I do claim to have a better grasp of the facts of the assassination and even of the marginal facts associated with most conspiracy thinking than 99% of the population.  I do claim to have 35+ years of experience as a practicing lawyer in which my practice was devoted almost entirely to researching and analyzing complex cases and appellate matters.  Most of my work was done for other lawyers because my skills in those particular areas are at a higher level than the skills of most other lawyers.  I do claim that when I have applied my skills to a variety of "conspiracy assertions," what I have determined is that those assertions are either badly flawed or completely bogus.  When I have applied my skills to the dreaded Official Narrative, I have satisfied myself that it is the most consistent with the best evidence, reasonable inferences, common sense and logic.  Not free of flaws and perhaps not the absolute last word, but by far the most plausible.

[Don Jeffries]

Okay, I'll play long enough to ask a few questions. Since you're a lawyer, what do you think of the "evidence" against Oswald in a legal sense? If I'd been Oswald's attorney, I would have introduced the sworn affidavits of officers Weitzman and Boone, who both described finding a German Mauser on the sixth floor of the TSBD. I would then move to have any evidence related to the so-called murder weapon- the Italian Mannlicher Carcano- thrown out. There was no chain of possession for it, and legally speaking, the weapon found inside the building where Oswald worked was an entirely different one. How would you have introduced the Carcano into the record? Even if you play the "mistake" card and claim both officers were identically wrong in their identification, you can't explain away the fact that the Carcano had "Made Italy" stamped on it, as Mark Lane demonstrated before the Warren Commission while holding it up in front of them. 

As you well know, the same kind of chain-of-possession irregularities, to put it nicely, exist throughout this case. None of the evidence against Oswald would have been legally admissible in an honest courtroom. Now that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been introduced, because the odds are Oswald would have received pathetic Richard Hauptmann/James Earl Ray type of "representation" and the courtroom would have been a typically dishonest one. 

Every bit of evidence in the official record is tainted. Not only by chain-of-possession issues, but by so much of it being lost, purposefully destroyed, or clearly altered. Most lone nutters want desperately to believe in the official story, because they basically trust the system. Or they accept the msm narrative that JFK was a reckless womanizer who was somehow deathly sick at the same time. Their inference is that he was no good, and basically deserved what he got. 

Those of us who understand the policy changes that took effect upon the death of JFK, starting first and foremost with the inevitable escalation in Vietnam, prefer to believe that this charismatic political figure was killed for political reasons. But those who remain asleep buy into the unique American notion that political figures are killed by lone "nuts" for their own impenetrable reasons. I won't get sucked further into this assassination 101 stuff, but as a lawyer you should realize just how legally impossible the case against Oswald would have been, even in the hands of a capable public defender. Walt Brown elaborated on all this in his excellent book "The People vs. Lee Harvey Oswald." 

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Don Jeffries said:

Okay, I'll play long enough to ask a few questions. Since you're a lawyer, what do you think of the "evidence" against Oswald in a legal sense? If I'd been Oswald's attorney, I would have introduced the sworn affidavits of officers Weitzman and Boone, who both described finding a German Mauser on the sixth floor of the TSBD. I would then move to have any evidence related to the so-called murder weapon- the Italian Mannlicher Carcano- thrown out. There was no chain of possession for it, and legally speaking, the weapon found inside the building where Oswald worked was an entirely different one. How would you have introduced the Carcano into the record? Even if you play the "mistake" card and claim both officers were identically wrong in their identification, you can't explain away the fact that the Carcano had "Made Italy" stamped on it, as Mark Lane demonstrated before the Warren Commission while holding it up in front of them. 

As you well know, the same kind of chain-of-possession irregularities, to put it nicely, exist throughout this case. None of the evidence against Oswald would have been legally admissible in an honest courtroom. Now that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been introduced, because the odds are Oswald would have received pathetic Richard Hauptmann/James Earl Ray type of "representation" and the courtroom would have been a typically dishonest one. 

Every bit of evidence in the official record is tainted. Not only by chain-of-possession issues, but by so much of it being lost, purposefully destroyed, or clearly altered. Most lone nutters want desperately to believe in the official story, because they basically trust the system. Or they accept the msm narrative that JFK was a reckless womanizer who was somehow deathly sick at the same time. Their inference is that he was no good, and basically deserved what he got. 

Those of us who understand the policy changes that took effect upon the death of JFK, starting first and foremost with the inevitable escalation in Vietnam, prefer to believe that this charismatic political figure was killed for political reasons. But those who remain asleep buy into the unique American notion that political figures are killed by lone "nuts" for their own impenetrable reasons. I won't get sucked further into this assassination 101 stuff, but as a lawyer you should realize just how legally impossible the case against Oswald would have been, even in the hands of a capable public defender. Walt Brown elaborated on all this in his excellent book "The People vs. Lee Harvey Oswald." 

 

I think you mean "even in the hands of a capable public prosecutor."  But anyway …

Within a week of O.J. being arrested, I said (to the dismay of some of my law partners) that I would cheerfully flip the switch on the electric chair right then without shedding a tear.  Today, notwithstanding the acquittal, I say the same thing.  The point being, the rules of evidence are not really designed or even intended to ensure that the full story is presented in the courtroom.  The burden of proof in a criminal trial is not really designed or intended to ensure that justice is done.  The primary goals are consistency, orderly administration and, in a criminal case, to minimize the chance that innocent people will be convicted.  "Better that 25 guilty men go free than that one innocent man is convicted" - I don't happen to think so, but that's the philosophy.  The O.J. verdict had little or nothing to do with the strength of the prosecution's case and was somewhat of an aberration, but the reality is that even in a properly administered case all 12 jurors may be "pretty damn sure" the defendant did it but not "convinced beyond a reasonable doubt."

It's entirely possible that Oswald would not have been convicted.  There would have been massive evidentiary battles and "motions in limine" to exclude or limit particular items of evidence, witnesses or areas of testimony.  I have no idea how that would all have panned out, what the jury would have ended up seeing and hearing, or how they would have interpreted the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.  Even in the civil context, I can't tell you how many times in my own experience EVERYONE on both sides knew the result was wrong and would have been different if critical and credible evidence had been admitted - but could not be because it was blocked by the rules of evidence.  Often both sides know that the fate of a genuinely complex case hinges on how a single motion in limine is decided.  This can be maddening.  Knowing what I know, which includes many things on both sides that may not have made it into evidence at trial, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Oswald was the loan assassin, but I don't insist that everyone absolutely must be.

The rifle?  No question that would have been in evidence.  We have the record of purchase, the storage in the garage, a solid if not flawless chain of evidence from the time it was discovered, and enough other circumstantial evidence (Frazier and Randle, the bag, the palm print, etc.) that I don't believe any judge on the planet would have excluded this evidence.  The Mauser stuff you are citing is weak in the extreme and would have gone (I believe) to the weight of the evidence rather than it's admissibility.  In a best-case scenario for the defense, the jury might have decided the rifle was not compelling evidence - anything can happen in litigation.  When you say "none of the evidence" against Oswald would have been admissible, you are grossly overstating the case.  The fact is, much of the evidence that conspiracy enthusiasts would like to present to impeach the prosecution evidence would have been inadmissible as well.  In their enthusiasm, conspiracy zealots think they could simply attach Harvey and Lee as Exhibit A to a motion for dismissal and say "There you go."  Well, as O.J. used to say in the Hertz commercials, "Not exactly."

For the reasons stated above, no one cares - nor should they - whether Oswald might have been acquitted even though he was guilty.  55 years after the fact, what counts is the entire body of evidence, not the limited evidence or testimony that a jury might have heard 55 years ago.  All the pseudo-lawyering on these forums about "reasonable doubt" is just mental masturbation at this point.  I guess the hope is that the investigation will be reopened, but realistically that isn't going to happen.  And if it did happen, the rules of evidence and burdens of proof wouldn't apply anyway.  Again, knowing what I know about all of the "impeachment evidence" to which conspiracy enthusiasts point, I am still satisfied of Oswald's guilt as the lone assassin beyond a reasonable doubt.  As I have said numerous times in recent days, the fact that many items of evidence may be susceptible to impeachment or even genuinely in reasonable doubt is typical and does not mean AT ALL that the prosecution's case cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is what Cliff (to cite one glaring example) fails to understand with his loose layman's talk of "prima facie" evidence and having an "irrefutable" case.

Since I have retired and resigned from the bar, I can say with utter impunity that I believe our justice system is a bad joke at almost every level and from almost every angle.  I have said a hundred times that if the world is still here in 200 years, they will look at our justice system pretty much the same way we look at the medieval practice of throwing accused witches into ponds to see if they floated or sank (which did at least have the virtue of being efficient).  I have never retained a lawyer in my life and would not do so unless my life were literally on the line.  To the extent I could do so consistent with my professional obligations, when my clients were in the early stages of litigation I always encouraged them to think long, hard and seriously about how far in terms of settlement they would be willing to go RIGHT NOW to GET OUT.  I love Bleak House, where Dickens beautifully captures the reality of the so-called justice system.  He says that the system appears to be an unfathomable, bottomless mess unless and until you realize one central fact:  It doesn't exist to solve your disputes and problems.  It doesn't even care about them.  It exists SOLELY to perpetuate itself, to create business for itself - which is even more true today than it was in Dickens' time.

Anyway, that's why all the efforts to demonstrate "reasonable doubt" about Oswald's guilt are just mental masturbation to me.  I'll decide for myself whether he did it, rules of evidence and burdens of proof be damned.  I don't think I "desperately want" the official story to be true, and I certainly don't "basically trust" the system (any system).  I can't imagine why I would really care whether Oswald acted alone or an elaborate conspiracy framed him.  It's a fascinating case, yes, but it's of strictly academic interest to me.  I just happen to be convinced he did it, on the basis of precisely the same sort of investigation and reasoning that I apply in all other areas of my life.

When you say that you "prefer to believe that this charismatic political figure was killed for political reasons," I find this an interesting admission.  I truly have no "preference" as to the way JFK was killed.  But as I have suggested many times before, I believe that this preference underlies much of the thinking within the conspiracy community.  For some, including some of the most high-profile participants here, this preference has become a consuming and distorting "obsession."

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by Guest

[Ron Bulman]

51 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I think you mean "even in the hands of a capable public prosecutor."  But anyway …

Within a week of O.J. being arrested, I said (to the dismay of some of my law partners) that I would cheerfully flip the switch on the electric chair right then without shedding a tear.  Today, notwithstanding the acquittal, I say the same thing.  The point being, the rules of evidence are not really designed or even intended to ensure that the full story is presented in the courtroom.  The burden of proof in a criminal trial is not really designed or intended to ensure that justice is done.  The primary goals are consistency, orderly administration and, in a criminal case, to minimize the chance that innocent people will be convicted.  "Better that 25 guilty men go free than that one innocent man is convicted" - I don't happen to think so, but that's the philosophy.  The O.J. verdict had little or nothing to do with the strength of the prosecution's case and was somewhat of an aberration, but the reality is that even in a properly administered case all 12 jurors may be "pretty damn sure" the defendant did it but not "convinced beyond a reasonable doubt."

It's entirely possible that Oswald would not have been convicted.  There would have been massive evidentiary battles and "motions in limine" to exclude or limit particular items of evidence, witnesses or areas of testimony.  I have no idea how that would all have panned out, what the jury would have ended up seeing and hearing, or how they would have interpreted the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.  Even in the civil context, I can't tell you how many times in my own experience EVERYONE on both sides knew the result was wrong and would have been different if critical and credible evidence had been admitted - but could not be because it was blocked by the rules of evidence.  Often both sides know that the fate of a genuinely complex case hinges on how a single motion in limine is decided.  This can be maddening.  Knowing what I know, which includes many things on both sides that may not have made it into evidence at trial, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Oswald was the loan assassin, but I don't insist that everyone absolutely must be.

The rifle?  No question that would have been in evidence.  We have the record of purchase, the storage in the garage, a solid if not flawless chain of evidence from the time it was discovered, and enough other circumstantial evidence (Frazier and Randle, the bag, the palm print, etc.) that I don't believe any judge on the planet would have excluded this evidence.  The Mauser stuff you are citing is weak in the extreme and would have gone (I believe) to the weight of the evidence rather than it's admissibility.  In a best-case scenario for the defense, the jury might have decided the rifle was not compelling evidence - anything can happen in litigation.  When you say "none of the evidence" against Oswald would have been admissible, you are grossly overstating the case.  The fact is, much of the evidence that conspiracy enthusiasts would like to present to impeach the prosecution evidence would have been inadmissible as well.  In their enthusiasm, conspiracy zealots think they could simply attach Harvey and Lee as Exhibit A to a motion for dismissal and say "There you go."  Well, as O.J. used to say in the Hertz commercials, "Not exactly."

For the reasons stated above, no one cares - nor should they - whether Oswald might have been acquitted even though he was guilty.  55 years after the fact, what counts is the entire body of evidence, not the limited evidence or testimony that a jury might have heard 55 years ago.  All the pseudo-lawyering on these forums about "reasonable doubt" is just mental masturbation at this point.  I guess the hope is that the investigation will be reopened, but realistically that isn't going to happen.  And if it did happen, the rules of evidence and burdens of proof wouldn't apply anyway.  Again, knowing what I know about all of the "impeachment evidence" to which conspiracy enthusiasts point, I am still satisfied of Oswald's guilt as the lone assassin beyond a reasonable doubt.  As I have said numerous times in recent days, the fact that many items of evidence may be susceptible to impeachment or even genuinely in reasonable doubt is typical and does not mean AT ALL that the prosecution's case cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is what Cliff (to cite one glaring example) fails to understand with his loose layman's talk of "prima facie" evidence and having an "irrefutable" case.

Since I have retired and resigned from the bar, I can say with utter impunity that I believe our justice system is a bad joke at almost every level and from almost every angle.  I have said a hundred times that if the world is still here in 200 years, they will look at our justice system pretty much the same way we look at the medieval practice of throwing accused witches into ponds to see if they floated or sank (which did at least have the virtue of being efficient).  I have never retained a lawyer in my life and would not do so unless my life were literally on the line.  To the extent I could do so consistent with my professional obligations, when my clients were in the early stages of litigation I always encouraged them to think long, hard and seriously about how far in terms of settlement they would be willing to go RIGHT NOW to GET OUT.  I love Bleak House, where Dickens beautifully captures the reality of the so-called justice system.  He says that the system appears to be an unfathomable, bottomless mess unless and until you realize one central fact:  It doesn't exist to solve your disputes and problems.  It doesn't even care about them.  It exists SOLELY to perpetuate itself, to create business for itself - which is even more true today than it was in Dickens' time.

Anyway, that's why all the efforts to demonstrate "reasonable doubt" about Oswald's guilt are just mental masturbation to me.  I'll decide for myself whether he did it, rules of evidence and burdens of proof be damned.  I don't think I "desperately want" the official story to be true, and I certainly don't "basically trust" the system (any system).  I can't imagine why I would really care whether Oswald acted alone or an elaborate conspiracy framed him.  It's a fascinating case, yes, but it's of strictly academic interest to me.  I just happen to be convinced he did it, on the basis of precisely the same sort of investigation and reasoning that I apply in all other areas of my life.

When you say that you "prefer to believe that this charismatic political figure was killed for political reasons," I find this an interesting admission.  I truly have no "preference" as to the way JFK was killed.  But as I have suggested many times before, I believe that this preference underlies much of the thinking within the conspiracy community.  For some, including some of the most high-profile participants here, this preference has become a consuming and distorting "obsession."

 

= thread nosedive.  Hijacked.  Derailed. Crashed. Burned.  Does anybody really read long diatribes on here?