Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald

[Barry Krusch]

EXCERPT #3: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD"

At that point, you could choose one of the elements (for example, “America had the capacity to launch a rocket into outer space by July 20, 1969.”), and gather all the relevant evidence, whether it supports or contradicts your element. This evidence could be comprised of the following evidence types:

• Witness testimony (e.g., witnesses who saw a rocket take off from the launchpad, testimony of astronauts, testimony of engineers in the control room, etc.)
  
• Photographs (of the launching pad, taken from outer space, taken on the moon, etc.)
  
• Audio records
  
• Taped video
  
• Physical Evidence
  
• Documentation (e.g., internal memoranda prepared by NASA)
  

[Barry Krusch]

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.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Barry Krusch

[Barry Krusch]

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.

[Barry Krusch]

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.

[Barry Krusch]

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.

[Dawn Meredith]

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.

They could not have ever proved any of the above in court. Therefore he had to die.

[Barry Krusch]

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

[Barry Krusch]

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.

[Barry Krusch]

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).

[Gil Jesus]

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.

They could not have ever proved any of the above in court. Therefore he had to die.

That's pretty much the answer as to Ruby's motive for killing Oswald. It wasn't to keep Oswald from talking, it was because they didn't have a case against him and a trial would have revealed the corruption of the Dallas County presecutory system. They framed people for crimes they did not commit and that was the deep, dark secret an Oswald trial would have exposed. That's why Ruby couldn't tell the truth in Dallas.

[Paul Baker]

Hi Barry,

I've been reading your book on my Kindle. I think there are assorted flaws in your argument, but the biggest is your dependency on being able to quantify reasonable doubt.

We can say with near certainty that after JFK's head exploded, Lee Harvey Oswald left the Texas School Book Depository (a building which overlooks the spot where JFK's head exploded, and into which he took his rifle earlier that day), then went home to get his revolver, which he used to murder a policeman before being captured. I fail to see how your pernickety analysis of a tiny proportion of the available documentary evidence negates this.

I also think your reasoning is a little flimsy, exemplified by this passage:

'... [it] is easier to conceive of a proposition in terms of confidence level rather than that of doubt (e.g. “80% confident that it will rain” is easier to conceptualize than “20% doubtful that it will not rain,” since the latter utilizes a double negative), even though the two statements are essentially the same ...' (Kindle Locations 1096-1098)

I believe this is incorrect. Is it, or am I being stupid here? It happens ...

Paul.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Paul Baker

[Barry Krusch]

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?

[Paul Baker]

Hi Barry,

The fact that no-one has accepted any of your challenges doesn't add any weight to your argument.

I was asking if this is logically sound:

'... [it] is easier to conceive of a proposition in terms of confidence level rather than that of doubt (e.g. “80% confident that it will rain” is easier to conceptualize than “20% doubtful that it will not rain,” since the latter utilizes a double negative), even though the two statements are essentially the same ...' (Kindle Locations 1096-1098)

Is "80% confident that it will rain" equivalent to "20% doubtful that it will not rain"? I think these are essentially opposite statements. So, even if it is possible to quantify reasonable doubt and analyse this problem in a mathematical way, I have to wonder whether you're qualified to do that.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Paul Baker

[Barry Krusch]

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!

[Barry Krusch]

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.