Oswald mock trial drop box of CLE course materials

[Pat Speer]

The trial was discussed at Lancer by some of those involved, and I discussed it with a number of them outside their presentation.

Here's a few points of interest..

1. The trial was limited to two days. The prosecution agreed to limit their case to one witness. But in return the defense had to agree to limit their responses to the prosecution's questions of their witnesses. Some saw this as a mistake, as there was not enough time to respond to the challenges of the prosecution.

2. The deliberation time for the jury was also limited. Word has it that it started out 8-3 in favor of conviction, and that 2 jurors were turned to acquittal during the limited deliberation. The thinking is that more would have turned with a longer deliberation.

3. The jurors were filmed and the response of the jurors to the defense witnesses are going to be studied.

4. It is hoped that this is the first of a series of mock trials to be performed at a number of law schools. The defense team plans to use what they've learned from this mock trial to improve their performance.

5. There was much discussion over the direction of the defense. There was a movement by some of those involved to let the doctors make their case for conspiracy, that won the day. But the next go-round will probably be different, as some of those involved felt the science was much too much for the jury.

6. Some felt it was a mistake to spend so much of the opening statement discussing ethics. Some wanted this on the record, but others felt this was too boring for the jury. Should this same team perform another mock trial, this opening salvo will probably be re-focused.

7. The feeling was that the defense did much better with the seniors, than it did with millennials. An effort will be made to address this.

 

In short, this mock trial was kind of like an experiment. For decades, a certain group of doctors and experts--you know who they are--have been dying to present their case to a jury. With this mock trial, they finally got their chance.  Only it didn't go as well as they planned. So corrections will be made.

[Sandy Larsen]

Thanks for the detailed information, Pat. It's good to know that there (hopefully) will be a series of mock trials.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

8 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

FWIW, photos are admissible if a witness is willing to say the photo is an accurate representation of what they remember.

There are many more witnesses who dispute the back wound location in the BOH autopsy photo, and without a proven chain of ossession that photo would not be admissible.

Quote

 

In this case, the autopsy doctors did that, on numerous occasions. While I presume a judge would allow counter-testimony, that is, the testimony of other witnesses who say the photos don't show what they remember., that would not prevent the photos from being introduced in the first place.

With no chain of possession?  With an autopsy photo the HSCA declared deficient as scientific evidence?

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that was the body of JFK in that photo.

And maybe Pat Speer would like to demonstrate how casual movement causes shirt and jacket fabric to displace multiple inches.

Which is physically impossible, easily demonstrated to a jury.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

From Vol 7 of the HSCA report re the autopsy photos:

(quote on)

...(U)nder ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable

and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such

poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.

Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about

using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than

informative.

(quote off)

This was before we found out there is no chain of possession for the autopsy photos! 

The physical evidence trumps these dodgy photos, period.

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Hey Pat, care to explain how the Elm St. photos show a normal amount of shirt collar exposed at the back of JFK's neck?

According to you multiple inches of both shirt and jacket were elevated entirely above T1 -- how could that occur if the jacket collar were in a normal position at the base of JFK's neck?

[cue Final Jeopardy tune]

Edited November 20, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thanks for the detailed information, Pat. It's good to know that there (hopefully) will be a series of mock trials.

 

They need to study the first Gaeton Fonzi interview with Arlen Specter, June 28, 1966.

https://www.maryferrell.or g/pages/Featured_Fonzi-Specter_Interviews.html

Start about the 15:17 mark.

 Fonzi weaponized the clothing evidence and reduced the smooth Arlen Specter into a babbling idiot. -- "I gotta look at that shirt!"

[James DiEugenio]

I do not think this was a promotion by people like Cheeser, and Mantik as Pat seems to imply.  Those guys are not activists in any sense.  They just do their work and get published willy nilly.

From my info this was a CAPA production, that is people like Andrew Krieg and Bill Kelly and Wecht etc.  The witnesses were chosen by the lawyers, just as they would be in a real case.  And what the witnesses testified to was also proscribed by the lawyers.  As any lawyer or judge will tell you, the presentation's effectiveness is as much determined by the examiner as by the witness.  

There will be a DVD of this put out and those who did not subscribe to the Livestream can then see what the procedure was themselves.

Having watched the whole thing over two days, I stand by what I said. There was too much information, which needed more explication, for a jury to digest in two days.  In a real trial, you can do that since you have much more time to do so.  But considering the limitations of this proceeding, I would have streamlined it and spent more time on explication of a few central points, than on presenting a welter of material to a layman.  

The other thing is, you also had to go right after the circumstantial case against Oswald. I don't think that was done.  Only Bill Simpich tried to explain the Oswald profile and that was on the second day.  And as I said, the Craig-Robinson testimony was not introduced at all, even though you had Thompson there.

As I said, I think former police officer Brian Edwards was the most effective witness, but he went last.  If he had gone first, and if he had been allowed to expound more on a few key points, I think the result may have been different.

[Cliff Varnell]

On 11/20/2017 at 1:35 AM, Pat Speer said:

7. The feeling was that the defense did much better with the seniors, than it did with millennials. An effort will be made to address this.

If they're not willing to make the prima facie case for conspiracy based on the verified, genuine evidence, then at best they are wasting everyone's time and at worst they are perpetuating the cover-up.

To claim that JFK was shot at T1 is an easily debunked Big Lie.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

21 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Having watched the whole thing over two days, I stand by what I said. There was too much information, which needed more explication, for a jury to digest in two days.

Sure.  Why bore the lights out of a jury over 2 days when you can induce mind-numbing boredom with complex "proofs of conspiracy" over a 5 day period, say, or 10 days?

 

[Cliff Varnell]

22 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Hey Pat, care to explain how the Elm St. photos show a normal amount of shirt collar exposed at the back of JFK's neck?

According to you multiple inches of both shirt and jacket were elevated entirely above T1 -- how could that occur if the jacket collar were in a normal position at the base of JFK's neck?

[cue Final Jeopardy tune]

...Pat?

Maybe CAPA would like to take a crack at it?

Why is there a normal amount of shirt collar visible in all the Elm St photos if the shirt and jacket were jacked up multiple inches?

Edited November 21, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

On 11/19/2017 at 8:33 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

 I once pointed out to a millennial friend of mine that her generation didn't appear all that interested in the Kennedy assassination.

"That's because they make it so boring," she said, and the subject dropped.

A couple weeks later she asked me what I'd been up to and I said --"Giving people hell about the central question of the JFK assassination."  This was in the late summer of 2013.

"What is the central question of the JFK assassination?"

"You don't want to know--"

"No, tell me.," she said, or words to that effect.

JFK was shot in the back, there was no exit wound and no bullet found in the autopsy; he was shot in the throat, no exit, no bullet found in the autopsy.  The central question is --what happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?

She thought for a second, then said -- "But was it a real autopsy?"

"A lot of problems with the autopsy, but that was the situation...Some people think the bullets were removed prior to the autopsy--"

"Or it was some government shi* that dissolved!" she said with an air of triumph.

About a year later I told this story to another millennial friend of mine and when I got to the line "or some government shi* that dissolved--" she said-- "That's what I was gonna say!"

These kids are ahead of the JFKA Critical Community by a mile.

Bump, emphasis added.

The JFKA Critical Community is losing the young generations because when younger folks go to on-line forums to check out the JFK murder case -- mostly they see boomers bickering over bullshi*.

It's time to cut to the chase, ala the Vincent Salandria School.

Hire Salandria!

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Micah Mileto]

25 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

...Pat?

Maybe CAPA would like to take a crack at it?

Why is there a normal amount of shirt collar visible in all the Elm St photos if the shirt and jacket were jacked up multiple inches?

Wouldn't a T3-T1 difference just be two or three inches?

Also I can't help but think that a shirt and jacket could just become stiff enough to uniformly raise a couple of inches. The fabric of the shirt and jacket could maybe stick together. Maybe sweatiness and climate were involved. I know big heavy winter jackets are stiff like that, I don't own a suit. If the fabric of the jacket and shirt could be stiff enough to raise a couple of inches like that, you wouldn't miss any "shirt collar", it would just cover a couple inches of the base of the neck. 

Edited November 21, 2017 by Micah Mileto

[Cliff Varnell]

51 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Wouldn't a T3-T1 difference just be two or three inches?

The term of art in clothing design for "bunching" of fabric is -- "ease."

There is "vertical ease", where the fabric moves upwards/downwards, there is "horizontal ease" where the fabric moves sideways, and "diagonal ease" where the fabric moves diagonally.

"Ease" comes in two sizes according to body movement.  There is "normal" body movement and thus "normal ease" when we move casually, like JFK in the  motorcade.

When we reach or stretch ourselves in some manner it's called -- "gross" body movement, "gross ease.".

Normal ease involves fractions of an inch of fabric.  Every time.  It's axiomatic in clothing design that a casual body movement will ONLY result in fractions of an inch of fabric movement.

It's like an elderly tailor told me years ago about shirt movement --"One inch, maybe-- two inches, never!"

Quote

Also I can't help but think that a shirt and jacket could just become stiff enough to uniformly raise a couple of inches.

Of course you can't help but think that -- at least one of your Pet Theories is getting gored.

Quote

The fabric of the shirt and jacket could maybe stick together. Maybe sweatiness and climate were involved.

Sure. The shirt sticks to the skin, further preventing the movement of the shirt fabric!

Thank you for helping me make my case, good sir!

Quote

I know big heavy winter jackets are stiff like that, I don't own a suit. If the fabric of the jacket and shirt could be stiff enough to raise a couple of inches like that

Like what?

Quote

 

, you couldn't miss any "shirt collar", it would just cover a couple inches of the base of the neck. 

 

So the jacket collar + 2 inches of jacket back + 2 inches of shirt back all occupied the exact same physical space at the same time?...no dude, sorry.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

To claim that JFK was shot at T1 is an easily debunked Big Lie.

I agree. Problem is, you have to convince the jury that the autopsy photo was doctored. It doesn't matter what the best evidence is or the integrity of the chain of custody. All that matters is what you can convince the jury to believe.

 

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 

Like what?

 

I am not talking about the actual fabric folding or creasing. Imagine Kennedy as a turtle, with his hypothetically stiff shirt and jacket clinging together like a shell. Perhaps this "shell" could move a couple of inches above the base of his neck? Like if the ends of his shoulders raised the shirt+jacket while it raises above the position of the center of his back?

Like this gif, but less ridiculous.

Shirt collar still exposed, yet the jacker+shirt is adequately raised for this gentleman to have been shot at T1 while the bullet hole in the clothing would appear at T3.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Micah Mileto