William Kelly Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) Debate vs. Research Forensics I & II Having taken our form of justice from the English, the United States adopted the adversarial system in which two sides debate an issue before a decision is made. While this works in most instances, it has also evolved into the two party system of politics, which also has its positive and negative attributes. Forensics has two definitions. One is like the school forensic society in which two sides of an issue are debated; while the other definition is strictly reserved for evidence and testimony that can be introduced into a court of law. As a teacher, in establishing the Education Forum, John Simkin named the section on the JFK assassination the JFK Assassination Debate, under the more general heading of Controversial Issues in History, and there have been some outstanding debates here, and despite some deteriating into mud slinging bouts, we've all learned a lot, if not about the assassination, about each other. But I would prefer to pursue the other form of forensics, which involves research and investigation, and takes what is known about a subject, adds new information and develops evidence and witnesses that can be used in a legal setting – whether it be a Congressional hearing, grand jury or trial. While the former uses facts and evidence as an argument in order to promote a theory or position, the latter is more objective, and is geared more towards determining the truth. Those who debate a subject, usually break down into easily understood categories, like liberals or conservatives, Democrats or Republicans, right wing or left wing, while those looking for evidence and witnesses that can be introduced into a court of law or Congress, do not look at the world as black or white or in the same way as those who debate an issue. The assassination of President Kennedy has provided much fodder for those who want to debate an issue, whether it is the single-bullet theory or Moorman in the Street, but it also is a fabulous area of forensic inquiry, even though there is not a legal venue to present the evidence and witnesses, as of now. The truth or fallacy of the single-bullet theory will be easily determined when the remains of President Kennedy are given a full and proper forensic autopsy, and that debate will be made mute. None of the reports, X-rays or photos of the original autopsy, which merely determined the cause of death – bullet to the head – homicide, can be officially used in a court of law because they have lost their provenance, as those who took the photos cannot even identify them. So a proper forensic autopsy would be conducted to create new photos and x-rays that can be introduced in court. Moorman in the Street on the other hand, is a significant issue because it is one of the issues that determines the falsification or the validity of the Zapruder film and whether or not it can be used as forensic evidence in a court of law. Photos and film cannot be introduced in court except as exhibits that acompany the testimony of the photographer or someone who can verify the provenance of the photos/film. The provenance and unbroken chain of custody is one of the concepts that Tink Thompson has been trying to maintain with his tenacious attacks on the Moorman in the Street issue and defense of the Zapruder film as an accurate portrayal of the assassination, as it happened. Of course, maintaining that special status only counts if there is a legal venue at which the Zapruder film can be introduced as evidence, but that day may still happen, even though time is not on the side of Justice in this case. Rather than debate issues, I have long been a proponent of forensic research of investigative leads, many of which actually lead to new records, new witnesses, real suspects and actual crimes related to the assassination, and adds to our knowledge of what really happened at Dealey Plaza. People will always debate issues like the JFK assassination and 9/11, but there is a limited amount of time, maybe a year or two more, during which forensic evidence, witnesses and records can still be utilized in a court of law or Congress, before it will all slip in to history and debate forever. We are now in the home stretch run, the final leg of a 50 year marathon, and those who want to end the debates by determining the truth through the proper utilization of the legal system of Justice in the USA, must do so soon. I think we are closer than ever to figuring out how President Kennedy was murdred, who did and why, and it would be a great travesty if it was not properly pursued and resolved while we have the chance to do so. Bill Kelly Edited March 14, 2009 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 There's only one thing I can think of except to bump this succinct topic post #1 again and again and again. New technologies exist that involve various non invasive scans of objects, often used in the field of archaeology, that can produce true detailed 3D images that can be digitally manipulated, dissected and analyzed. Perhaps this can even be done in situ with regards to JFK's coffin with various suibmerged probes that build the image of the contents of the coffin to a great degre of exactitude. This might make it more acceptable to the Kennedy family and people in general?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry J.Dean Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 There's only one thing I can think of except to bump this succinct topic post #1 again and again and again.New technologies exist that involve various non invasive scans of objects, often used in the field of archaeology, that can produce true detailed 3D images that can be digitally manipulated, dissected and analyzed. Perhaps this can even be done in situ with regards to JFK's coffin with various suibmerged probes that build the image of the contents of the coffin to a great degre of exactitude. This might make it more acceptable to the Kennedy family and people in general?? Let it be done, now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 A thoughtful post, Bill. You wrote: "Moorman in the Street on the other hand, is a significant issue because it is one of the issues that determines the falsification or the validity of the Zapruder film and whether or not it can be used as forensic evidence in a court of law. Photos and film cannot be introduced in court except as exhibits that acompany the testimony of the photographer or someone who can verify the provenance of the photos/film. The provenance and unbroken chain of custody is one of the concepts that Tink Thompson has been trying to maintain with his tenacious attacks on the Moorman in the Street issue and defense of the Zapruder film as an accurate portrayal of the assassination, as it happened." Abraham Zapruder and Mary Moorman testified at the Shaw trial in 1969 that the Z film and Moorman film were taken by them. The hearsay rule requires that the admissibility of a photo be established by testimony or documentation that the photo was taken at a particular place and a particular time. Zapruder's and Moorman's testimony sufficed to gain the admission of the film and photo into evidence in New Orleans. Whether their testimony then is sufficient to gain the admissibility of the photo and film today is a legal question I'm not competent to answer. Fetzer completely misunderstands this rather elementary legal point. He quotes McCormick in an attempt to show that photos have less probative value than eyewitness testimony. He's got it reversed. Photos have much more probative value than eyewitness testimony. Why? Because eyewitness testimony changes over time... details are forgotten other details substituted and, finally, there is no way to distinguish what is really there. Juries and judges understand this. Fetzer's McCormick quote refers to admissibility not probative value. Hence, the films and photos from Dealey Plaza form a bedrock of evidence in the case that future historians can use to evaluate eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. This will happen even if the films and photos from Dealey Plaza are not used in a future legal proceeding. Josiah Thompson Debate vs. Research Forensics I & II Having taken our form of justice from the English, the United States adopted the adversarial system in which two sides debate an issue before a decision is made. While this works in most instances, it has also evolved into the two party system of politics, which also has its positive and negative attributes. Forensics has two definitions. One is like the school forensic society in which two sides of an issue are debated; while the other definition is strictly reserved for evidence and testimony that can be introduced into a court of law. As a teacher, in establishing the Education Forum, John Simkin named the section on the JFK assassination the JFK Assassination Debate, under the more general heading of Controversial Issues in History, and there have been some outstanding debates here, and despite some deteriating into mud slinging bouts, we've all learned a lot, if not about the assassination, about each other. But I would prefer to pursue the other form of forensics, which involves research and investigation, and takes what is known about a subject, adds new information and develops evidence and witnesses that can be used in a legal setting – whether it be a Congressional hearing, grand jury or trial. While the former uses facts and evidence as an argument in order to promote a theory or position, the latter is more objective, and is geared more towards determining the truth. Those who debate a subject, usually break down into easily understood categories, like liberals or conservatives, Democrats or Republicans, right wing or left wing, while those looking for evidence and witnesses that can be introduced into a court of law or Congress, do not look at the world as black or white or in the same way as those who debate an issue. The assassination of President Kennedy has provided much fodder for those who want to debate an issue, whether it is the single-bullet theory or Moorman in the Street, but it also is a fabulous area of forensic inquiry, even though there is not a legal venue to present the evidence and witnesses, as of now. The truth or fallacy of the single-bullet theory will be easily determined when the remains of President Kennedy are given a full and proper forensic autopsy, and that debate will be made mute. None of the reports, X-rays or photos of the original autopsy, which merely determined the cause of death – bullet to the head – homicide, can be officially used in a court of law because they have lost their provenance, as those who took the photos cannot even identify them. So a proper forensic autopsy would be conducted to create new photos and x-rays that can be introduced in court. Moorman in the Street on the other hand, is a significant issue because it is one of the issues that determines the falsification or the validity of the Zapruder film and whether or not it can be used as forensic evidence in a court of law. Photos and film cannot be introduced in court except as exhibits that acompany the testimony of the photographer or someone who can verify the provenance of the photos/film. The provenance and unbroken chain of custody is one of the concepts that Tink Thompson has been trying to maintain with his tenacious attacks on the Moorman in the Street issue and defense of the Zapruder film as an accurate portrayal of the assassination, as it happened. Of course, maintaining that special status only counts if there is a legal venue at which the Zapruder film can be introduced as evidence, but that day may still happen, even though time is not on the side of Justice in this case. Rather than debate issues, I have long been a proponent of forensic research of investigative leads, many of which actually lead to new records, new witnesses, real suspects and actual crimes related to the assassination, and adds to our knowledge of what really happened at Dealey Plaza. People will always debate issues like the JFK assassination and 9/11, but there is a limited amount of time, maybe a year or two more, during which forensic evidence, witnesses and records can still be utilized in a court of law or Congress, before it will all slip in to history and debate forever. We are now in the home stretch run, the final leg of a 50 year marathon, and those who want to end the debates by determining the truth through the proper utilization of the legal system of Justice in the USA, must do so soon. I think we are closer than ever to figuring out how President Kennedy was murdred, who did and why, and it would be a great travesty if it was not properly pursued and resolved while we have the chance to do so. Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Josiah Thompson quote: "Hence, the films and photos from Dealey Plaza form a bedrock of evidence in the case that future historians can use to evaluate eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. This will happen even if the films and photos from Dealey Plaza are not used in a future legal proceeding." Math will rule the day. It is admissible in a court of law. The Towner camera FPS / Myer's individual film frames sync contradiction awaits. What type of movie camera's filmed at 24FPS back in 1963? Surely not Towner's 8mm. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 That's an intriguing point you make, Chris. I had heard earlier that Myers got the frame rate wrong but I had never heard of what film he got wrong. Thanks for the update. Josiah Thompson Josiah Thompson quote:"Hence, the films and photos from Dealey Plaza form a bedrock of evidence in the case that future historians can use to evaluate eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. This will happen even if the films and photos from Dealey Plaza are not used in a future legal proceeding." Math will rule the day. It is admissible in a court of law. The Towner camera FPS / Myer's individual film frames sync contradiction awaits. What type of movie camera's filmed at 24FPS back in 1963? Surely not Towner's 8mm. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Williams Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 That's an intriguing point you make, Chris. I had heard earlier that Myers got the frame rate wrong but I had never heard of what film he got wrong. Thanks for the update.Josiah Thompson Josiah Thompson quote:"Hence, the films and photos from Dealey Plaza form a bedrock of evidence in the case that future historians can use to evaluate eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. This will happen even if the films and photos from Dealey Plaza are not used in a future legal proceeding." Math will rule the day. It is admissible in a court of law. The Towner camera FPS / Myer's individual film frames sync contradiction awaits. What type of movie camera's filmed at 24FPS back in 1963? Surely not Towner's 8mm. chris Hey did anyone find any evidence related to the claim(i believe it was in TMWKK) that there was a shooter in the next building from the Depository? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Hey did anyone find any evidence related to the claim(i believe it was in TMWKK) that there was a shooter in the next building from the Depository? Are you referring to the Daltex building, Ian? Bests, Barb :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Williams Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Hey did anyone find any evidence related to the claim(i believe it was in TMWKK) that there was a shooter in the next building from the Depository? Are you referring to the Daltex building, Ian? Bests, Barb :-) i believe so, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now