WHEN does Oswald crystallize into the patsy?

[Jason Ward]

32 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You mean you honestly believe that circumstantial evidence is never, or rarely, or only to a small extent used in court cases?

I'm a Wikipedia editor too and I know it's written and edited by the public. I quoted it because it's convenient and it's usually right. If you wanted to check its accuracy regarding what it ways about circumstantial evidence, all you'd have to do is look around a little.

I just did that and found pretty much the same information on the official New York State court system website, www.nycourts.gov. In this article:

The law draws no distinction between circumstantial
evidence and direct evidence in terms of weight or importance.
Either type of evidence may be enough to establish guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt, depending on the facts of the case as the
jury finds them to be.

The article cites the following source for that paragraph:

See People v Benzinger, 36 N.Y.2d 29, 31-32 (1974); People v
Cleague, 22 N.Y.2d 363, 367 (1968).

(Surprisingly, this article also has an analogy regarding whether it rained or not!)

So are you finally going to agree with me regarding the use of circumstantial evidence in court rooms?

I have a Hypothesis: The reason Jason is getting a chilly reception has very little to do with CTers having big egos, trying to keep followers with worshipful obedience, blah, blah, blah... and more to do with Jason putting CTers and their scholarship down. (And in my case, not conceding where concession is due. But I'll get over it.)

 

 I'm not getting a chilly reception. I'm getting wonderful reception. There's exactly two who are hostile and in love with themselves to the degree that literally every single post they make includes some irrelevant attack on me personally. A dozen others are happy to explore the actual assassination and are the true value to this forum.  You aren't interested in the assassination problem as much as you are interested in winning an argument - and the wonderful ego gratification you would get if I would concede to mindless inanity.  There are those who want to work on the assassination together and there are those who seek adoring admirers or respect.  I don't care whether you believe in my ideas or not, yet you and Jim are emotionally damaged that I have precisely no respect for those who rely mainly on their own opinions and violently attack those who disagree.

 Can we talk about the subject matter now ? Is it your belief that Oswald is the designated patsy around the time of the Mexico trip or do you pinpoint an earlier date ? 

 

Jason

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Sandy Larsen]

18 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

The ambassador is an example of a witness who might be called in any trial related to the assassination .  He can testify to certain facts in dispute -and- he's a credible expert on the matter in question so it's very likely he can also advance his opinions with high gravitas.

You, however, are not a witness.

 

The ambassador and I are witnesses to the very same things regarding the letter Oswald sent to the Soviet Embassy in Washington... which include the letter itself and the hand written letters Oswald sent prior to that.

I'm not relying upon what anyone has said. I've seen the letters.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

33 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

.... your circumstantial evidence has to be compiled by non-witness conspiracy theorists like yourself , you've got what perhaps goes into a conspiracy book - it really does nothing new to bring the assassination into persuasive clarity in the mind of the general public.

So what if the circumstantial evidence is compiled by non-witness CTers? A non-witness lawyer does the same thing when preparing a court case.

 

[Jason Ward]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The ambassador and I are witnesses to the very same things regarding the letter Oswald sent to the Soviet Embassy in Washington... which include the letter itself and the hand written letters Oswald sent prior to that.

I'm not relying upon what anyone has said. I've seen the letters.

 

 A doctor looks at an x-ray and pronounces the patient healthy.   Conspiracy theorist Sandy looks at the x-ray and pronounces the patient healthy.

 The doctor convinces most everyone on the planet - while Sandy convinces only other conspiracy theorists.  Your qualifications to make a diagnosis remains zero even though you happen to arrive at the correct diagnosis in this case.   

[Jason Ward]

11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So what if the circumstantial evidence is compiled by non-witness CTers? A non-witness lawyer does the same thing when preparing a court case.

 

 No . 

 A lawyer cannot call himself to the witness stand and present his conspiracy theory or circumstantial evidence .  He must rely on the witnesses or, if the matter is complex enough, court-approved experts . You are neither witness nor expert .

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Sandy Larsen]

39 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

I'm not saying that circumstantial evidence is ruled out. I'm saying that in a court of law you would never be able to get in your testimony as to your circumstantial evidence in the Payne question because no witness is going to testify to it.

I don't need to produce the witness and question him or her... I already have his or her sworn testimony.

 

[Jason Ward]

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't need to produce the witness and question him or her... I already have his or her sworn testimony.

 

 Really? Who is this previously unknown witness you have discovered that has sworn to Ruth Paine's involvement in conspiracy ? 

[Sandy Larsen]

45 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

You aren't interested in the assassination problem as much as you are interested in winning an argument - and the wonderful ego gratification you would get if I would concede to mindless inanity.

Hey, I wasn't the only one digging in my heals. And the only reason I did so was because you kept saying I was wrong when in fact I was right. (I'm speaking only of the circumstantial evidence thing.) I don't get ego trips on such things but I do get irritated when a person says I'm wrong when clearly I'm right.

 

[Jason Ward]

44 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Hey, I wasn't the only one digging in my heals. And the only reason I did so was because you kept saying I was wrong when in fact I was right. (I'm speaking only of the circumstantial evidence thing.) I don't get ego trips on such things but I do get irritated when a person says I'm wrong when clearly I'm right.

 

You are wrong, and in fact only you and Jim dug in her heels. Jim gave up and left because he has zero authority whatsoever in my book and this lack of worship on my part makes him completely nuts to the point he has nothing left but frothy ad hominem attacks . You are still desperately trying to establish your authority and employ great intensity in hopes  that I will accept your opinions as conclusive . 

 Circumstantial evidence that requires a conspiracy theorist to explain is probably not any kind of admissible evidence, and in any event it's unpersuasive to anyone but other conspiracy theorists . 

 

... And yes we can all see that you're irritated and not now addressing the JFK assassination at this point - but instead are trying to heal the painful tragedy caused when someone believes you are wrong.

 Are you ready to talk about the topic at hand yet? I say Oswald is not for certain a patsy til the time of the Tsb D job... where do you pinpoint his patsy status ? 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Sandy Larsen]

13 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

 A doctor looks at an x-ray and pronounces the patient healthy.   Conspiracy theorist Sandy looks at the x-ray and pronounces the patient healthy.

 The doctor convinces most everyone on the planet - while Sandy convinces only other conspiracy theorists.  Your qualifications to make a diagnosis remains zero even though you happen to arrive at the correct diagnosis in this case.   

Poor analogy.

Drawing conclusions from evidence is something most lay people can do... granted some better than others. I happen to be exceptional at doing that sort of thing. Which is why I have worked as a troubleshooter (problem solver) for most of my career. Mostly in electronic systems. I'm also a design engineer, which also requires a good deal of problem solving.

[Jason Ward]

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

...
I happen to be exceptional at doing that sort of thing. ...

 Exceptional in your own mind perhaps, but no one who is truly exceptional spends hour after hour trying to convince me of their exceptional status. ( Only unexceptional non-experts like me would do something like that. ) In the real world we require evidence or widely acknowledged expertise before we accept a controversial point . In your world you want us to confirm your expertise based entirely on your own opinion; you offer neither evidence nor documented proof of recognized expertise . 

 So, returning to the topic of the thread , when do you think it's obvious that Oswald is the designated patsy? I say it's around the time of the TSBD job while a few others place patsyhood at the time of Mexico City/Odio.

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Sandy Larsen]

27 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

32 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So what if the circumstantial evidence is compiled by non-witness CTers? A non-witness lawyer does the same thing when preparing a court case.

 

 No . 

Yes Jason, a  lawyer does compile circumstantial (and other) evidence when preparing for a court case. Just like a CTer compiles circumstantial (and other) evidence when preparing his presentation or paper. It's the same thing. (And neither has to be a witness. I say that because your original statement was that CTers couldn't do it because they weren't witnesses. Or something like that. I forget because it made no sense.))

 

 

27 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

 A lawyer cannot call himself to the witness stand and present his conspiracy theory or circumstantial evidence .  He must rely on the witnesses or, if the matter is complex enough, court-approved experts . You are neither witness nor expert

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Jason Ward]

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yes Jason, a  lawyer does compile circumstantial (and other) evidence when preparing for a court case. Just like a CTer compiles circumstantial (and other) evidence when preparing his presentation or paper. It's the same thing. (And neither has to be a witness. I say that because your original statement was that CTers couldn't do it because they weren't witnesses. Or something like that. I forget because it made no sense.))

 

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

 Sandy , a lawyer cannot call himself to the stand and start pontificating about circumstantial evidence or his conspiracy theories.  Only a witness to the matter in controversy can provide the evidence under consideration , or sometimes a court approved expert is necessary if the matter is complicated . But in no case can conspiracy theorists, lawyers, nor anyone else unconnected to the matter at hand stand up and outline their circumstantial evidence or conspiracy theories . As I've repeatedly said, my view is that after 50+ years we need to be aiming for something like a court conviction against the conspirators in terms of evidence quality . You are neither witness nor expert , but of course we want to hear your opinion , we just expect you to knowledge that it is only your opinion . Ruth Paine as a CIA operative is in no stretch of the imagination an established fact regardless of how many conspiracy theorists have incorporated that into their religion .

 

 Getting back to the topic at hand, when do you think the conspirators were certain Oswald would be the Patsy? 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Sandy Larsen]

38 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

43 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't need to produce the witness and question him or her... I already have his or her sworn testimony.

 Really? Who is this previously unknown witness you have discovered that has sworn to Ruth Paine's involvement in conspiracy ?

I was speaking hypothetically. You said I couldn't produce a witness (presumably because they are all dead) and I said I didn't need to produce a witness because I could produce the witness's sworn testimony.

As for evidence pointing to Ruth Paine as a CIA asset, you'd have to ask someone more familiar with that than I. The only evidence I know off the top of my head is what I've already told you.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

42 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

Circumstantial evidence that requires a conspiracy theories to explain is probably not any kind of admissible evidence and in any event it's unpersuasive to anyone but other conspiracy theorists . 

Jason,

There is nothing special about a conspiracy theory that makes it different than any other theory that a detective or prosecutor might come up with. Therefore the phrase "conspiracy theory" would have no bearing on whether its evidence would be admissible in court.

Conspiracies are commonplace.