The Following Was Posted in the McAdams Newsgroup

[Lawrence Schnapf]

the mock trial is primarily focusing on Lee Oswald. It will be the classic criminal case that would have been brought had he lived to stand trial. The criminal evidence that would have been used in a trial of Lee Oswald will be subject to the rigors of cross-examination and the defense will be able to challenge the evidence.  If Oswald is acquitted, it means a new investigation needs to be conducted.  

 We are carving out some time for an examination of the medical evidence but it is not the focus of the trial.

[Sandy Larsen]

How about this approach... The hole in the backs of the jacket and shirt clearly show a low wound. If it's an exit wound, then LHO didn't cause it. If it's an entrance wound, then it proves that the WC lied about it. (Because they claimed the bullet hit higher than where the clothing places it.) Right away the jury learns the WC can't be trusted.

Next, point out that there are no exit wounds for the back shot. This proves that the bullet must have been a high-tech one, one that was unavailable to LHO. A soluble or frangible bullet. This proves a conspiracy at the very least. Which again shows the WC cannot be trusted.

Then chip away at the next thing.

I agree with Cliff that the holes in the clothing are the best evidence. Easy for laymen to understand too.

The one fly in the ointment is that the prosecution will try to claim that the bullet fell out. You need to hire a ballistics expert who will say that a shallow wound is impossible. The reason it is impossible is because only a slow bullet can cause a shallow wonld. And a slow bullet would have dropped too far to have even hit Kennedy. (Only high-speed rifles are useful at greats distances because of that fact.)

 

Edited July 6, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

41 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

We are carving out some time for an examination of the medical evidence but it is not the focus of the trial.

Jeez Larry, It seems like there won't be much you can do with just the physical evidence. I mean, the Carcano was there in the sniper's nest. It was found to have Oswald's palm print on it. There were spent shells. How can you dispute that?

The only way I know is to impeach the integrity of the investigation and the WC.  Which would, in turn, impeach the integrity of the prosecutors at the trial, given that they will likely follow the official story. Make them out to be fools and you might win.

I'd love to know what your attack plan is. Though I suspect you're holding your cards tight.

 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

we do have our trial strategy:) 

 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

the medical defense team will address the issues you raised in your prior email,

[Cliff Varnell]

7 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

the mock trial is primarily focusing on Lee Oswald. It will be the classic criminal case that would have been brought had he lived to stand trial. The criminal evidence that would have been used in a trial of Lee Oswald will be subject to the rigors of cross-examination and the defense will be able to challenge the evidence.  If Oswald is acquitted, it means a new investigation needs to be conducted.  

 We are carving out some time for an examination of the medical evidence but it is not the focus of the trial.

There is a difference between exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald from the murder of JFK -- and exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald from the conspiracy to murder JFK..

The jury should know that a conspiracy existed as a prima facie fact given the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE -- not your dodgy "medical evidence".

Why do I get the feeling that you guys would rather have a root canal on your birthday than mention the actual physical evidence in the JFK murder case?

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

the medical defense team will address the issues you raised in your prior email,

Will these guys acknowledge the T3 back wound?

If not, they are incompetent.

[Cliff Varnell]

There are 2 kinds of JFK medical evidence: that which was properly collected/maintained/recorded/prepared according to the prevailing professional protocols, and that which was not properly produced.

The autopsy photos were not prepared according to proper protocols, and there is no chain of possession for them.

The back wound location described in the final autopsy report was not given the proper anatomical landmark.

The back wound measurements written on the autopsy face sheet in pen violated protocol which requires a face sheet filled out in pencil.

The part of the face sheet showing the wound well below the base of the neck was filled out and signed off as "verified" -- in pencil.

Admr. George Burkley's death certificate described the back wound s in the vicinity of T3, which was the proper way to record it.  This was also signed off as "verified."

The contemporaneous notes of two Parkland doctors, Carrico and Jones, describing the throat wound as an entrance were properly prepared.

The clothing was in the possession of the Secret Service until the FBI picked it up on Saturday.

Dr. David Mantik can tell us all about the problems with the head x-rays, but he insists the neck x-ray was genuine.

So we disregard the autopsy photos, the final autopsy report, the pen-recorded face sheet measurements, and the head x-rays.

We accept as evidence the clothing, the neck x-ray, the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil, the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors, Burkley's death certificate, and last but not least the properly prepared FBI report on the autopsy.

Properly produced evidence trumps improper.

The JFK medical evidence summarized in 5 words...

 

Edited July 6, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Cliff- I'm not involved in the medical testimony portion of the mock trial. but we have very good experts so I'm sure they know this