Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald

[Barry Krusch]

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.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Barry Krusch

[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?

Edited June 25, 2012 by Barry Krusch

[Barry Krusch]

EXCERPT #26: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD"

Let’s go to the first question. You should know that even authentic evidence does not necessarily achieve what its proponents claim that it does. Take these two examples of evidence provided as proof that Oswald was located on the floor of the depository at 12:30 p.m.:

1. A witness claimed to observe Oswald at the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Depository at 12:30 p.m..

2. One or more fingerprints of Oswald were on the boxes in that area of the depository.

[Barry Krusch]

EXCERPT #27: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD"

Looks pretty bad for Oswald, doesn’t it? Well, not so fast. To understand why, it is helpful to first understand the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence.

The distinction is fairly simple: direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly, i.e., without an intervening inference. Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, requires one or more intervening inference(s) to support the truth of the assertion.

[Ian Kingsbury]

Take the SBT ..........please....... A theory untested is the worst kind of evidence

It's in the history books as a fact .... Who can I sue?.

[Barry Krusch]

EXCERPT #28: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD"

Below are two examples of direct evidence:

• Eyewitness Identifications
  
• Confessions
  

And here are examples of circumstantial evidence:

• Fingerprints
  
• Videotape
  
• Photographs
  
• Sound Recordings
  
• DNA evidence
  

[Mike Rago]

EXCERPT #28: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD"

Below are two examples of direct evidence:

• Eyewitness Identifications
  
• Confessions
  

And here are examples of circumstantial evidence:

• Fingerprints
  
• Videotape
  
• Photographs
  
• Sound Recordings
  
• DNA evidence
  

Interesting.

We have videotape evidence that Jack Ruby shot , and killed, Lee Harvey Oswald. Are you saying that evidence alone was not enough to convict him of the crime?

That same videotape evidence does record many eye witnesses to the crime who can provide direct evidence.

I think I know what you are saying. You are saying that with videotape evidence there has to be a showing that the videotape is genuine and has not been altered in any way and accurately reflects the events that are recorded on the tape.

Using your definition, I think there is more direct evidence that a shot came from the Grassy Knoll than from the TSBD. There are no eye witness reports of the smell of gun powder on the sixth floor of the TSBD or of a flash of light or puff of smoke from that location. However, there are several such eye witness reports for the Grassy Knoll.

Is the finding of a rifle on the sixth floor and 3 spent shell casings considered direct evidence or circumstantial evidence? Clearly it is circumstantial evidence?

I see where you are headed....There is no direct evidence that a shot was fired from the 6th floor of the TBSD.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Barry Krusch]

Mike, at this point I am simply describing the distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence, as commonly classified by the law. To be clear, I'm not saying that I agree with the distinction, by the way, or the system of classification.

[Barry Krusch]

EXCERPT #29: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD"

So, for example, if a witness sees Oswald in the “sniper’s nest” at 12:30 p.m., that is direct evidence Oswald was at the “sniper’s nest” at 12:30 p.m., evidence which does not require a direct intervening inference from which to draw a conclusion (though, as we are about to see, it does require one or more intervening inferences related to the authentication of that direct evidence).

On the other hand, if Oswald’s fingerprints were on the boxes in the “sniper’s nest”, that is circumstantial evidence he was at the “sniper’s nest” at 12:30 p.m, evidence which does require an intervening inference. We have to make the inductive leap that the fact that a fingerprint was placed on a box could somehow logically be linked to the time it was placed on the box.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Barry Krusch

[Barry Krusch]

EXCERPT #30: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD"

There are problems with both these types of evidence. For example, the direct evidence could be problematic if the witness had poor vision, or had excellent vision but was located too far away to make a proper identification, or if in fact at the police lineup the witness first identified someone else as being in the “sniper’s nest” (or otherwise refused to make the identification), or if at the lineup Oswald had on a dirty T-shirt while the others in the lineup were in three-piece suits, or a witness provided an identification that would have been physically impossible given the geometric relationship of witness, witnessee, and surrounding reality in three-dimensional space (i.e. the witness reported a standing shooter when a very short opening in a window would only support a sitting shooter), or the witness had made other identifications that turned out later to be erroneous, or the witness was bribed, or was threatened, or was unduly influenced by the media, or was induced to make the claim by a group of detectives at the lineup, or had his testimony misreported.

[Barry Krusch]

EXCERPT #31: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD"

Hmmmm . . . not as solid as we thought!! I guess now you know why a proper trial has a technique known as cross-examination, which allows the defense to probe these areas for any points of weakness.

Circumstantial evidence has its own problems. You will note that circumstantial evidence requires one or more intervening inferences: for example, to conclude that “Oswald’s fingerprints on the boxes were evidence that Oswald was located at the ‘sniper’s nest’ at 12:30 p.m.,” your intervening inference would have to be that the only time those fingerprints could have been put on the boxes by Oswald was if in fact he was located at the nest at 12:30 p.m.

[Barry Krusch]

EXCERPT #32: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD"

However, since Oswald worked at the Depository on a day-to-day basis, he could have handled those boxes at a different time, and, additionally, we cannot be absolutely certain that those fingerprints were Oswald’s, we only assume that they were. For example, to believe that these fingerprints were Oswald’s, we would have to reject the hypotheses that the fingerprint analysis was incorrect, and/or that the fingerprints were planted on the boxes at a later time by either Dallas detectives or the FBI (and this evidence would be less likely to support the element if the fingerprints of others were also on the boxes, which could potentially implicate those others as either accomplices or “the” assassin himself).

[Barry Krusch]

EXCERPT #33: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD"

To reject the hypotheses that the analysis was incorrect and/or that the fingerprints were planted, the evidence would need to be properly authenticated, and that takes us to our second question, is the evidence authentic?

In this regard, Federal Rule Of Evidence 901 (a) provides as follows:

[Barry Krusch]

EXCERPT #34: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD"

As the rule states, the proponent of a claim “must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” In other words, the evidence must be genuine.

[Barry Krusch]

EXCERPT #35: FROM IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD, VOLUME ONE, CHAPTER 8, "ELEMENTS OF THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD"

If the prosecution says that a defendant used this knife to stab a victim, then the prosecution must produce this knife and not some other knife that looks like that knife, and be able to prove it. If the prosecution says that the defendant shot the victim with a .22 caliber pistol, then it had better not produce as evidence shotgun pellets. If the prosecution’s proof that a defendant murdered a victim is blood on the clothes, the material on the clothes should be blood, not paint. If the prosecution says that it is Oswald’s fingerprint on the box, it should be able to prove that it was Oswald’s fingerprint, and not someone else’s, and that even if it was Oswald’s fingerprint, it was placed there by Oswald, not someone else, and if it was Oswald’s fingerprint placed there by Oswald himself, it was placed there at 12:30 p.m.