Barry Krusch

EXCERPT #25: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" Under this element, we seek to ask two questions: 1. Even if the evidence is authentic, does it necessarily prove the claim with which it is associated? 2. Is the evidence authentic?

EXCERPT #24: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" ELEMENT ONE The key evidence in the case actually connects Lee Harvey Oswald to the assassination. Under normal circumstances, evidence related to this element would be incorporated as background for the legal assumption and discussed in the next two elements, but as you will see, extraordinary issues with the quality and quantity of evidence for this Proposition entails giving it its own element; analyzing all the evidence together will reveal a pattern of inauthenticity and inherent unreliability. To this latter point, if the evidence is so unreliable it won’t be admissible, we won’t get to court, and the buck stops here.

EXCERPT #23: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" PROPOSITION TWO Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. ELEMENT ONE The key evidence in the case actually connects Lee Harvey Oswald to the assassination. ELEMENT TWO Lee Harvey Oswald, at the time of the assassination, was present at the window from which it was alleged that the shots were fired (the sixth floor of the southeast window of the Texas School Book Depository), and the weapon purported to be Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 mm Italian rifle was in Oswald’s possession at the time it was fired. ELEMENT THREE A rifleman of Lee Harvey Oswald’s capabilities could plausibly have fired 3 separate shots using the Mannlicher-Carcano within the elapsed time of the shooting and with the requisite accuracy required. ELEMENT FOUR Lee Harvey Oswald was not framed for the murder of President John F. Kennedy.

EXCERPT #22: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" ELEMENT SIX There was one and only one bullet which struck Governor Connally, and that bullet (identified as CE 399) first passed through the body of President Kennedy. The Warren Commission created a concept known as the Single Bullet Theory because it was not physically possible (based on the Zapruder film) for Oswald to make two separate shots in the time frame established by the film. The bullet which ostensibly achieved this feat was allegedly found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, and was identified by the Warren Commission as Commission Exhibit 399, abbreviated as CE399. If it can be shown that the Single Bullet Theory is invalid because no bullet passed through the body of President Kennedy, subsequently striking Governor Connally, the proposition would positively be disproven. The foregoing analysis has demonstrated why these elements of the Proposition One are necessary. Now let’s move to the elements of the Proposition Two.

EXCERPT #21: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" ELEMENT FIVE A rifleman could plausibly have fired 3 separate shots from the Mannlicher-Carcano within the elapsed time of the shooting and corresponding with the keyframes of the Zapruder film. The Mannlicher-Carcano allegedly owned and used by Oswald was not a rapid-fire machine gun. Before a bullet could be fired, the bolt had to be manually operated to place the bullet in the chamber before firing. This could only be done at a certain speed. The Warren Commission estimated that the rifle could be fired no faster than 2.3 seconds between shots. Accordingly, all the shots that Oswald allegedly made had to be physically possible within the beginning and end of the shooting sequence. Moreover, the Zapruder film shows the relative timings of the shots to President Kennedy and Governor Connally. If Kennedy and Connally were struck by separate bullets faster than the 2.3 seconds, the element, and therefore the proposition, would be positively disproven.

EXCERPT #20: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" ELEMENT FOUR The shots fired at Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 were fired from no other weapons besides Lee Harvey Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano. According to the Warren Commission, Oswald had one and only one weapon, a 40” Mannlicher-Carcano. Even if Oswald had more than one weapon, he would not have had time (and obviously no inclination) to switch back and forth between weapons in the time within which the shots were fired. Accordingly, if there is evidence to show that other weapons besides Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano were used, the element would be positively disproven, and so would the proposition.

EXCERPT #19: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" ELEMENT THREE Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at 12:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963. The Warren Commission claimed that Oswald was the only person on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the assassination. If another person was on the southern side of the sixth floor, this individual could have aided Oswald, and also could have fired the shots. An accomplice = conspiracy.

EXCERPT #18: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" ELEMENT TWO All of the shots fired at Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 were fired from the sixth-floor southeast window of the Texas School Book Depository, and from no other location. The Warren Commission claimed that at the time of the assassination, Oswald was at the sixth floor southeast window of the Texas School Book Depository. Since Oswald could not be in two places at one time, if there were shots fired from another location, the element would positively be disproven, and likewise the Lone Gunman proposition with which it is irrevocably associated.

EXCERPT #17: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" While Bugliosi most likely did not believe in a conspiracy in the assassination of Robert Kennedy (notwithstanding his contradictory statements), his central point stands: if the evidence demonstrates that more bullets were fired than could have been fired by the assassin — and there is no plausible alternative explanation or evidence to the contrary — then this would be proof of conspiracy, and one’s beliefs should be modified accordingly.

EXCERPT #16: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" He then discussed his conclusion as he stated to the media at the time, first indicating that if he was “forced to the wall” he would conclude that there was no conspiracy because bullet holes could be explained with an alternative hypothesis (even though this contradicts the first statement quoted above), but on the other hand, that that conclusion would not necessarily be the final word (RH Endnotes 551): If I were forced to the wall, I’d say there was no conspiracy, that the additional bullets and bullet holes can be accounted for by the existence of fragments and ricochets . . . I reiterated that in the absence of official contravening evidence, we were talking about too many bullets for Sirhan to have fired them all.

EXCERPT #15: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" Vincent Bugliosi, in Reclaiming History, agreed with the logic of this line of analysis in his discussion of the assassination of Robert Kennedy, and noted the importance of ancillary evidence in making a determination regarding the number of shots fired, such as additional bullet holes. As he stated in relation to that case (RH Endnotes 551): [A]ny bullet holes observed in addition to those accounted for. . . would constitute evidence of a second gun being fired. Bugliosi reiterated the point regarding statements he received on the number of bullets fired (including one from Thomas Noguchi, the coroner of Los Angeles) (RH Endnotes 551): n the absence of a logical explanation, these statements, by simple arithmetic, add up to too many bullets and therefore, the probability of a second gun.

EXCERPT #14: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" The Warren Commission stated that only three shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. Indeed, no more than three cartridges were ever claimed to have been found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. However, if there is other evidence that demonstrates that there were more than three shots fired, or evidence that Oswald fired fewer than three shots, then obviously there was more than one gunman, and the proposition is disproven.

EXCERPT #13: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" ELEMENT ONE Exactly three shots were fired from the sixth-floor southeast window of the Texas School Book Depository at Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 — no more, no less — and the three shells found on the floor of the Depository — in the possession of the Warren Commission — were fired from Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

EXCERPT #12: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" With this critical protocol of due process in mind, let us look at the factual elements comprising Proposition One. PROPOSITION ONE There was one and only one gunman in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, and that gunman was neither aided nor abetted by any person or group. ELEMENT ONE Exactly three shots were fired from the sixth-floor southeast window of the Texas School Book Depository at Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 — no more, no less — and the three shells found on the floor of the Depository — in the possession of the Warren Commission — were fired from Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. ELEMENT TWO All of the shots fired at Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 were fired from the sixth-floor southeast window of the Texas School Book Depository, and from no other location. ELEMENT THREE Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at 12:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963. ELEMENT FOUR The shots fired at Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 were fired from no other weapons besides Lee Harvey Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano. ELEMENT FIVE A rifleman could plausibly have fired 3 separate shots from the Mannlicher-Carcano within the elapsed time of the shooting and corresponding with the keyframes of the Zapruder film. ELEMENT SIX There was one and only one bullet which struck Governor Connally, and that bullet (identified as CE 399) first passed through the body of President Kennedy. Remember, these factual elements are all necessary — they must be true for the proposition to be true. For most, the necessity of these elements will be obvious, but there is no harm in a little analytical redundancy to achieve clarity.

EXCERPT #11: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" In fact, this is the minimum criterion to be deployed. From a probability assessment perspective, the correct procedure is to actually multiply the confidence level of the elements to arrive at the ultimate confidence level of the proposition. Thus, the Supreme Court directive would posit a necessary, but not a sufficient condition. This point will be discussed at length further in this book when we analyze Element One of Proposition One in detail.

EXCERPT #10: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" This primary directive related to every element having to achieve the threshold is drawn directly from the key holding determined by the Supreme Court in the Winship opinion discussed earlier (In Re Winship, 397 US 358 at 364 (1970); emphasis supplied): Lest there remain any doubt about the constitutional stature of the reasonable doubt standard, we explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. Note that the Supreme Court is unequivocal on this point: proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be achieved for every fact necessary to constitute the crime: every element of every proposition.

Ah, I see what you're saying!! Thank you, Paul, you caught a mistake, should be "20% doubtful that it will rain." Very sharp, thank you for pointing that out. You know, if you can find enough of these errors, you might actually have a case!! The $25,000 could be yours!

Well, Paul, I am not really sure I understand your question, but if my argument is so "flimsy", as you suggest, then why has no one accepted the JFK challenge or any of the assorted mini challenges?

EXCERPT #9: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" At the risk of being redundant, all of the elements must be considered as true for the proposition to be supported. “True,” in this case, must be seen in the context of reasonable doubt, which of course is a primary component of our legal assumption. Again, as noted earlier (and worth repeating), if there is reasonable doubt regarding the truth of even one of the elements (that is to say, if there is a confidence level of less than 95% for any one element), then the proposition itself cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (that is to say, there is a confidence level of less than 95% for the proposition).

EXCERPT #8: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" The validity of the legal assumption will be determined as we analyze the evidence adduced for the propositions. Nor do we have to provide separate evidence for the conclusion; if the legal assumption and the propositions are true, then the conclusion will automatically be true via the laws of deductive reasoning (if there is only one gunman, and Oswald is that gunman, then obviously Oswald fired the fatal shot). Consequently, all we need to do for each proposition is to determine its component elements, and then analyze the evidence justifying each of the elements.

And they cannot prove it before an arbitrator to this very day.

EXCERPT #7: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" With this proviso in mind, let’s once again look at the factual propositions comprising The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD LEGAL ASSUMPTION All the evidence in The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald stipulated as admissible is authentic. This admissible evidentiary record is comprehensive, credible, sufficient, and consistent to the extent that it precludes reasonable doubt regarding both of the following propositions regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy: PROPOSITION ONE There was one and only one gunman in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, and that gunman was neither aided nor abetted by any person or group. PROPOSITION TWO Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. CONCLUSION Therefore, it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shot that killed President John F. Kennedy.

EXCERPT #6: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" This same general approach is especially necessitated in law, which requires the meticulous organization of facts into categories to add clarity to the case (“WTO Case Review 2004”, 22 Ariz. J. Int’l & Comp. Law 99 at 215; emphasis supplied): [A] judge ought not to fail at the task of organizing the elements of a case into widely understood cognitive categories, and the starting point of any case, in any country, at any time, is the category of “Facts.” A statement at the outset of the opinion of what exactly transpired yields a document that is more by virtue of its clarity and efficiency. In turn, the interest of justice — for the parties to the case and for lawyers advising clients in the future based on the jurisprudence of the case — is served.

EXCERPT #5: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" Note that with reference to the proposition “the first man walked on the moon on July 20, 1969,” a number of subpropositions could be formulated that are not necessary, and are therefore not elements. For example, “America had the greatest desire of any country to put a man on the moon by July 20, 1969.” While this might have been true, even if false, it would not reduce the confidence level of the proposition. This would not be true of the elements: if even one of them was false, then the proposition would be disproven.

EXCERPT #4: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" You would then implement the same procedure for all the other elements. As would soon readily become apparent, a massive amount of evidence supporting the elements would be gathered, and the sheer weight of this evidence, along with its quality and consistency, would demonstrate the truth of the elements, and therefore the proposition, beyond a reasonable doubt.