Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Josephs

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

24,696 profile views

David Josephs's Achievements

  1. Whole bunch of words to once again add and say nothing. Well done Jon…. You do understand that these vapid statements of yours will eventually require some substantiation. But u got opinion and hyperbole down. Why not find a safe little place to spout ur incredulity… ur WAY outta ur league, or don’t u notice that either?
  2. Even a broken clock is right 2x a day… lol But overturn ALL the H&L evidence? Simply too much of it. Namaste… DJ
  3. Real stickler is that Kostikov er al were being watched and recorded wherever they were in Mexico. Many of these meetings occur Sept 27/28 yet if they wanted Oswald in Mexico not a single report in the month of Sept’s CIA summary reports mentions the CIA awareness of these meets. No voice recordings from within the Soviet compound has Oswald speaking. Like all the players there is no reason to believe KGB officers, whose job it is to turn westerners, or Azcue’s with the same job for Cuba, would have treated a wanna be “redefector” the way they described… almost as bad as the never dying Paz party disinformation…
  4. I have the deepest respect and appreciation for DL and Best Evidence…. That said there is something about “chain of custody” that continues to be overlooked. https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/summary-of-the-rules-of-evidence.html This provable chain is but one of numerous ways to “Authenticate” evidence for admissibility. To make it “Real”. There are ways to establish this chain which includes a statement from those involved establishing such a fact. (Like with CE884 and the sealed plat.) The fact is, identifying marks on evidence doesn’t overshadow when and where and how these marks are made…. (Again, like the initialing of the pistol at the station hours after “recovery” doesn’t tie that pistol to the scene of the crime) I think these concepts make it doubly hard to understand the provenance of any of the offered evidence… FWIW… DJ IV. REAL EVIDENCE. Real evidence is a thing the existence or characteristics of which are relevant and material. It is usually a thing that was directly involved in some event in the case. The written contract upon which an action is based is real evidence both to prove its terms and that it was executed by the defendant. If it is written in a faltering and unsteady hand, it may also be relevant to show that the writer was under duress at the time of its execution. The bloody bloomers, the murder weapon, a crumpled automobile, the scene of an accident--all may be real evidence. To be admissible, real evidence, like all evidence, must be relevant, material, and competent. Establishing these basic prerequisites, and any other special ones that may apply, is called laying a foundation. The relevance and materiality of real evidence are usually obvious. Its competence is established by showing that it really is what it is supposed to be. Proving that real or other evidence is what it purports to be is called authentication. Evid. Code § 1400; Fed. Rules Evid. 901. Real evidence may be authenticated in three ways--by identification of a unique object, by identification of an object that has been made unique, and by establishing a chain of custody. You only have to be able to use one of these ways, though it is prudent to prepare to use an alternate method in case the court is not satisfied with the one you have chosen. The easiest and usually the least troublesome way to authenticate real evidence is by the testimony of a witness who can identify a unique object in court. For example, the curator of a museum may be able to testify that he is familiar with, say, Picasso's "Dames de Avignon" and that what has been marked as exhibit so-and-so is in fact that unfortunate painting. It is important to remember, however, that many more mundane objects may be amenable to this kind of identification. A unique contract, or one that has been signed, may be authenticated by a person who is familiar with the document or its signatures. A ring may have an inscription by which it can be identified. Even a manufactured object, like a wallet, may be identifiable by its owner after years of use have given it a unique personality. The second method--identification in court of an object that has been made unique, is extremely useful since it sometimes allows a lawyer or client to avoid the pitfalls of proving a chain of custody by exercising some forethought. If a witness who can establish an object's relevance to the case marks it with his signature, initials, or another mark that will allow him to testify that he can tell it from all other objects of its kind, that witness will be allowed to identify the object in court and thus to authenticate it. Often, if a member of the lawyer's staff or another person early in the chain of custody marks the evidence, big problems can be avoided if a later link in the chain turns out to be missing. The third and least desirable way to authenticate real evidence is by establishing a chain of custody. Establishing a chain of custody requires that the whereabouts of the evidence at all times since the evidence was involved in the events at issue be established by competent testimony. The proponent of the evidence must also establish that the object, in relevant respects, has not changed or been altered between the events and the trial. This can sometimes be a tall order, or can require the testimony of several witnesses. If there is any time from the events in question to the day of trial during which the location of the item cannot be accounted for, the chain is broken. In that case, the evidence will be excluded unless another method of authentication can be used
  5. JM, And when one refuses to only repeat the same unsupported opinions rather than engage in debate with citing evidence… we just keep turning the other cheek? How many vapid posts do u enjoy in rebuttal of any of your researched conclusions? Have u seen today’s self appointed forum overlord provide anything concrete in rebuttal or is it the same tired feckless double talk we get any time H&L is brought up? Why do none of these nay sayers ever address Ely and that memo or the obvious differences in who made statements and who served with the taller Lee? what are the consequences for opinion stated as misinformation in rebuttal to physical evidence anyway?
  6. Agreed…. Go look at the evidence for oneself and come to one’s own conclusion. John has some far out there hypotheses which may come off as his statements in fact…. If Chris didn’t turn everything on its edge and make far reaching hypotheses AND THEN PROVE THEM, we wouldn’t have a fairly detailed map of how we arrive at just over 6 feet of viewable film on a 25ft roll of film spliced in 6 places… the so called “original or “master” as the SS called it. As for Tracy, much of his rebuttal centers around, “why would it be that way when it could be this way”? And shrugging repeated cases of official evidence off as mistakes…. As if the military doesn’t know who they are sending where. tracy at least presents a case and in some areas his rebuttals are spot on… I too do not agree with every page written about H&L… but there has yet to be an explanation for what I posted above. Or the obvious differences in the 2 men’s physiques. Back to back, one CE directly conflicts with the next…. John Ely was right.
  7. Here is something simple for u…. Explain how these are the same person and what is the DoD doing with that induction photo? Please provide something more than ur opinions
  8. again big brain… what have u done to investigate the hundreds of conflicts showing the existence of these 2 men? been doing this just as long, spoken with and collaborated with many u mention and many more. if you actually have something to offer in rebuttal other than your pathetic opinion, you would. But since you can’t be bothered with actual research, actual evidence, actual documentation all you do is appoint yourself opinion N A Z I and pollute these pages… Maybe try looking into Allen Felde and John Ely and what they say about our man Ozzie. C’mon Jon, show us that big brain and use more than ur opinion to debate/refute what is offered. Why is John Ely so confused and Rankin/Jenner so insistent? Finally oh sage of the forum, are u even aware that El Toro and Santa Ana were 2 separate and distinct bases… not one big base…. But u knew that right? You have all this research and analysis at ur fingertips, RIGHT?
  9. So says the self proclaimed expert having never read a book or done any research so the opinions he spouts are uninformed and pedantic. what purpose are you serving here besides the ignorant critic of subject matter far beyond your comprehension ? Every post of urs is a waste of time and thought… but hey, you’re a shining example of how not to behave on an intellectual forum, everyone is good for something.
  10. Hi Paul. yes… th full write up is on k&k in one of the Mexico chapters… the couple decided/reported on were the Brill’s but their entry papers had the name transposed, if I remember correctly, so I remember a search for the “Allen’s” Then again, they were looking at just getting him there by any means possible.. the “card” is provided by OCHOA.
  11. Bravo buddy…. Ur work remains personally inspiring. and just for pure speculation… the film to Rowley that disappears into history… 0184? very few other explanations given that Max Phillips memo sent with the “third print”. … oh, and automatic counters punching numbers into films don’t just skip one. 0184 had to exist. The Rowley film Friday night is the only film where a number is not offered. IMO, this is what then goes to Hawkeyeworks and then onto Dino Sat eve. Only Speculation, a hypothesis if u will…. Gotta start somewhere with the evidence available … Again.. Thx. DJ
  12. Of course my friend…. And don’t forget Holmes… you just keep rocking it. Question remains, how impossible is impossible in 1963? When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
  13. Spouting off yet again. Is that all u do here Jon… try and bandwagon with others to nsult other researchers and posters? Do you ever offer anything from your POV or too ashamed you have no original analysis or hypotheses that can increase understanding? (yawn)
  14. Uh, how about the extant film is spliced in 6 places and has more total film than a single side should have. Here is Chris’ 2’7” of Black Film. Yknow, maybe do a little homework before u pull guns blazing. Nothing worse than someone who only knows enough to ask repetitive and previously answered questions…. Try preparing for this forum bud… we’re not amateurs here…
  • Create New...