Jump to content
The Education Forum
Lance Payette

Explain this and I'll take you more seriously

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

David Von Pein- what's your point? That one guilty man was acquitted because of an inept prosecution?

"Just like in the O.J. Simpson case, the notion of police misconduct in the JFK/Tippit cases is totally blown up to massive, unprovable proportions by people who literally NEED such misconduct to be taking place in order to have their beloved conspiracy exist." -- DVP; August 2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

"Just like in the O.J. Simpson case, the notion of police misconduct in the JFK/Tippit cases is totally blown up to massive, unprovable proportions by people who literally NEED such misconduct to be taking place in order to have their beloved conspiracy exist." -- DVP; August 2006

David, my interest is in the Tippit case, if you have time could you briefly outline what you think happened and why. My mind is open and I'm not looking for an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

...timeline and motives for the events between 12.30 and 2...

FWIW, here's my $0.02 (in three parts)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-timeline-part-1.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-timeline-part-2.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/tippit-timelines.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Thank you, I'll read later and compare to my own rudimentary timeline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the name of that cop whose Warren Commission testimony is just one page long and consists of him saying "my superior tried to make me change my story. He tried saying our careers were on the line" and Arlen Specter being like "that's all, folks!"

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Lance and David,

Yes there are similarities between Oswald and O.J but the main premise for comparing the two is "Reasonable Doubt" .

One man received a trial and one man didn't. It is my belief that Lee Harvey Oswald would of walked free if he received a trial for murder.

Perhaps we can ask a fellow EF member and a man i respect greatly Mr. Douglas Caddy a hypothetical question here?

Mr. Caddy, if your were forced to represent Lee Harvey Oswald in a murder trial of the President do you believe you could have gotten him acquitted by establishing "Reasonable Doubt"?

Mr. Caddy, if your were forced to represent Lee Harvey Oswald in a murder trial  of Officer Tippit do you believe you could have gotten him acquitted by establishing "Reasonable Doubt"?

P.S If Oswald had of been found guilty in a trial i believe Kathleen Zellner would have gotten him out in the late 1990's anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Adam Johnson said:

Thank you Lance and David,

Yes there are similarities between Oswald and O.J but the main premise for comparing the two is "Reasonable Doubt" .

One man received a trial and one man didn't. It is my belief that Lee Harvey Oswald would of walked free if he received a trial for murder.

Perhaps we can ask a fellow EF member and a man i respect greatly Mr. Douglas Caddy a hypothetical question here?

Mr. Caddy, if your were forced to represent Lee Harvey Oswald in a murder trial of the President do you believe you could have gotten him acquitted by establishing "Reasonable Doubt"?

Mr. Caddy, if your were forced to represent Lee Harvey Oswald in a murder trial  of Officer Tippit do you believe you could have gotten him acquitted by establishing "Reasonable Doubt"?

P.S If Oswald had of been found guilty in a trial i believe Kathleen Zellner would have gotten him out in the late 1990's anyway.

 

Our own Mr. Payette, who has pretty extensive litigation experience himself, will offer this from one of his own recent responses to Mr. Jeffries, who posed the "reasonable doubt" challenge to Mr. Payette but was seemingly struck dumb by the sheer sagacity of the following reasoned response:

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 lone 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 acquittal 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 individual 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 as a whole 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.

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.

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice writing lance but the ‘ holier than thou ‘ thing about how you use ‘ evidence ‘ is getting a bit thin now . You called all of the witnesses who ran to the grassy knoll after  ‘crack pots ‘ ? Pot painting the kettle black more like . You then said that the acoustics made it seem like the shots came  from there . How ? You have repeatedly ignored my questions about the smoke many  people saw and was PHOTOGRAPHED. I wish you’d look at the evidence instead of using it as a pulpit . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

You [Lance Payette] have repeatedly ignored my questions about the smoke many people saw and was PHOTOGRAPHED.

What photos or films supposedly show the "smoke" on the Knoll, Jake?

I have a feeling you're referring to Bob Groden's claim that there's smoke (and lots of it) visible in the film taken by NBC's Dave Wiegman. But if that's the "photographed" instance of alleged smoke to which you are referring, that notion is not a credible one, as author Vince Bugliosi pointed out in his 2007 book:

"If what [Robert] Groden encircled [on a still frame of Dave Wiegman's film; linked here] were smoke, it would appear to be smoke from a small smokestack. If that's an exaggeration, what is not is that the image is probably 50 times larger than what could be expected from the muzzle of a fired rifle. Moreover, the large image is not anywhere along the stockade fence, being to the west of the fence near the Triple Underpass. And finally, Groden has also encircled the presidential limousine on the photo, and it is, as he acknowledges, "disappearing under" the Triple Underpass, meaning that Wiegman's photo had to have been taken at least a few seconds after all the shots were fired. What can Groden's response to this be? That the smoke originally came from a rifle fired behind the picket fence, that instead of vanishing in the wind it actually mushroomed into a large, cloudlike image that kept its form and was drifting west at the time of the frame from Wiegman's film? We know the image in the Wiegman frame is not smoke from any rifle." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 500-501 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

Full Wiegman Film:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8UwZ588YcqIRG5FNlpKUjJvRnc/view

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jake Hammond said:

Nice writing lance but the ‘ holier than thou ‘ thing about how you use ‘ evidence ‘ is getting a bit thin now . You called all of the witnesses who ran to the grassy knoll after  ‘crack pots ‘ ? Pot painting the kettle black more like . You then said that the acoustics made it seem like the shots came  from there . How ? You have repeatedly ignored my questions about the smoke many  people saw and was PHOTOGRAPHED. I wish you’d look at the evidence instead of using it as a pulpit .  

When I respond to posts, I attempt to make sure that I am (1) understanding what the poster actually said and (2) responding to what the poster actually said.  I said, "The fact that multiple people looked or ran in that direction is purely a matter of the acoustical characteristics of Dealey Plaza as described by Lee Bowers. You cannot simply assemble every crackpot witness and item of non-evidence and declare 'We don't need common sense and logic anymore.'"  Some of those in Dealey Plaza were indeed crackpot witnesses - Jean Hill and her gets-better-with-every-retelling story is one example.  The people who turned or ran to the Grassy Knoll were simply misled by the acoustical characteristics that Bowers described.

I'm sorry, but the Grassy Knoll "evidence" doesn't move this retired lawyer's Lone Nut-O-Meter one iota.   http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ3.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve been musing about the “separate cover-up conspiracy” theory that seems to be in vogue.  Even as a provisional Lone Nutter, I have no conceptual problem with this.  The FBI, CIA and LBJ had good reasons to keep a lid on Oswald’s possible KGB and Cuban associations.  “Nip it in the bud,” as Barney Fife would’ve said.  I don’t believe this would have plausibly extended to altering films and photos, intimidating and murdering witnesses, mutilating the body, faking the autopsy, terrorizing physicians, and other insane and insanely risky activities, but we’ll assume arguendo that even if Oswald acted alone there was indeed a cover-up conspiracy involving some combination of the DPD, CIA, FBI, Army Intelligence, Postal Service and/or LBJ.  Let us think through this.

If the above folks were involved in the assassination itself, then a massive cover-up conspiracy raises the question I asked initially:  Why would they have formulated an assassination plan whereby such a cover-up could have become necessary at all – i.e., why would any shooters have been located in front of the patsy and JFK?  The answer has to be, “Oh, because shooters in the front were Plan B, to be activated only if the shooters in the rear didn’t get the job done.”

But wait.  The only shooter to the rear of JFK surely wasn’t Oswald in the sixth-floor window with his clunky weapon?  That would have been the exceedingly inept planning that my original post highlighted.  The other shooters in the rear who theoretically didn’t get the job done were highly-trained killers with assassination-grade weapons and a comically easy shot, were they not?  (Don’t try to make this a tough shot, folks.  I do know a little about scoped rifles.)  So were they completely inept or were there indeed no shooters at all in the rear other than the patsy and his clunky weapon?  And the Plan B shooters were in screamingly obvious locations like the Grassy Knoll with their fingers on their triggers just in case the trained killers to the rear didn’t get the job done?  And those Plan B shooters would have had literally nanoseconds to realize they were needed - guided by, what, Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man?  Does this make sense to you?

If the assassination conspiracy had comprised someone other than the above folks – perhaps the Mafia or the right-wing lunatic fringe or anti-Castro zealots – we still have the question as to why any of them would have been so stupid as to place shooters in front of their patsy and JFK.  But we’ll let it go.  In this instance, how and why would the massive cover-up conspiracy have been triggered?  The only thing the cover-uppers would have known in the immediate aftermath of the assassination would have been that Oswald was a former defector with possible KGB and Cuban connections.  They would have welcomed the news that he was a mere patsy.  They would have welcomed the opportunity to show that the real assassins had been Mafia hit men, right-wing wackos or anti-Castro zealots on the Grassy Knoll and in manholes, thereby deflecting the possible public impact of Oswald’s possible KGB and Cuban connections.  An elaborate cover-up conspiracy would have made no sense – would it?

I confess, any attempt to bring common sense and logic to these discussions just gives me a headache.  To the extent I’m willing to don a conspiracy beanie for a few minutes each day, the only scenario that makes any sense to me is (1) Oswald as the organizer (or very active participant) and probably the only shooter in a very small and entirely pro-Castro effort to eliminate JFK, followed by (2) a far less elaborate and convoluted effort on the part of the FBI, CIA, LBJ, et al., to conceal their own ineptitude as well as Oswald’s possible KGB and Cuban connections.  This isn’t sexy enough for the conspiracy community, but at least it isn’t completely absurd.  Yes, for (1) you could substitute "Oswald as the pro-Castro patsy in a very small and entirely anti-Castro or at least anti-JFK effort to eliminate JFK" - but this to me doesn't square with who Oswald was or the best evidence.  Even if Oswald were the lone assassin, I would be more inclined to insert a number (3): "and all of this taking place while anti-Castro or anti-JFK conspiracies actually were in some stage of planning, thereby sending future generations of researchers off on tangential wild-goose chases."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

What photos or films supposedly show the "smoke" on the Knoll, Jake?

I will just add that I used to live on a ranch, do my own reloading, and shoot a scoped .308 and 30-06 with regularity.  I don't recall ever observing anything that might even remotely be described as "smoke."  My understanding is that when Oliver Stone made his JFK movie, he had to use a smoke-producing bellows because he couldn't find a rifle that would do what he expected a high-caliber rifle to do.  Surely any of the huge percentage of people who smoked in 1963 would have produced far more smoke than any rifle this side of a Revolutionary War blunderbuss.  The little pile of cigarette butts discovered behind the fence are "suspicious," but no connection is made to whatever smoke (if any) was observed.  I'm sorry, but this is the sort of giggle-inducing nonsense from which conspiracy theories are woven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...