The 402 Hearings on the autopsy pictures

[Guest]

On 1/30/2023 at 6:20 PM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Lance,

Actually, the admissibility issue would be the initial burden of the government in its case-in-chief and defense would have had a good chance at either having some of the government's evidence excluded or allow the evidence but then give the jury an instruction that the challenges or questions to the evidence be considered when deciding how much weight to give particular evidence. Before the 2017 mock trial, Bill Simpich and I had prepared lots of motions to object to admissibility of evidence. However, because of the time constraints, the mock trial team ultimately decided to allow all of the government's evidence to be introduced with instructions to the jury.

The autopsy photos could be relevant as to the question if there were any frontal shots, particularly for the fatal head shot. The chain of custody on CE399 is a mess and of the the sixth floor evidence would also be exposed to admissibility issues for many reasons that I don't have time to discuss here.  The testimony of the FBI experts on the ballistics evidence (e.g. toolmarks, shirt and paperbag fibers  was very problematic.   And then there is the shaky testimony of the key witnesses (e.g., Brennan, Markham, etc) who would have crumbled under cross-examination.  

This is why 6 of 7 mock trials conducted by law schools and bar associations since 1967 have resulted in acquittals or hung juries. Oswald was unconvictable which was why he had to be murdered.     

 

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[James DiEugenio]

To add to Larry's comments about mock trials:

The only reason that one London defense was unsuccessful is this:

Instead of hiring Lane or Tanenbaum, the logical choices, they got a guy who knew very little or nothing about the JFK case, namely Spence.

What makes that whole proceeding even more puzzling is the two main consultants were Hoch and Summers.  And I got that from Hoch.

Whew.

 

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Guest]

On 1/30/2023 at 7:37 PM, James DiEugenio said:

To add to Larry's comments about mock trials:

The only reason that one London defense was unsuccessful is this:

Instead of hiring Lane or Tanenbaum, the logical choices, they got a guy who knew very little or nothing about the JFK case, namely Spence.

What makes that whole proceeding even more puzzling is the two main consultants were Hoch and Summers.  And I got that from Hoch.

Whew.

 

 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Charles Blackmon]

9 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Remember, folks, Jim has me on Ignore. But he apparently has a pet hamster who whispers the contents of my posts into his ear.

Whew indeed.

Yes thanks for reminding us  ITS ALL ABOUT LANCE

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Lance,

You have not seen the other mock trials and dont know how they were conducted or held so you. I studied them in preparation for the 2017 mock trial. Each mock trial had teams of lawyers who vigorously engaged. After all, no trial lawyers who represented the prosecution did not want to be embarrassed by not obtaining a conviction of the person the Warren Commission claims to have acted alone.    

The  Bugliosi-Spence trial was more a television spectacle than a trial. The jurors were flown in from Dallas but were not screened for their views on the assassination and there was no voir dire. It was the only mock trial that resulted in conviction which was largely because Spence was playing to the TV audience by doing his old country lawyer routine. He was not prepared for the event and did not understand the evidence. As a lawyer, it was very frustrating to watch him not ask the right questions and not introduce relevant evidence. Vince definitely out-lawyered him.

There was a two-day mock trial in San Francisco conducted by the American Bar Association in 1992 before two federal district judges with real jurors. Unlike the other mock trials, the jurors were screened about their views of the assassination. most of the potential jurors indicated there questionnaires that they were neutral or believed  Oswald acted alone. Also unlike other mock trials, the attorneys were allowed to use voir dire to exclude up to five jurors. This trial also used expert testimony that went beyond the clown show of the Bugliosi-Spence show trial. After several ballots, the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The five jurors that were removed during voir dire constituted a surrogate or shadow jury. They sat through the trial and saw the same evidence as the jury. This group of dismissed jurors voted 3 to 2 for acquittal.  Earlier that year, the jury in a mock trial by the Arts & Entertainment network, found Oswald innocent

Three one-day mock trials were held in Texas in 2013. One was by the State Bar of Texas, one by the Dallas Bar Association and one by the Bench Bar Conference for the Eastern District of Texas.  Because of time constraints, the defense counsel were limited to cross-examining prosecution witnesses and were not able to put on their own witnesses or experts. Nevertheless, all three of these mock trials resulted in hung juries. Interestingly, three-fourths of the 150 who watched the Dallas trial in Old Criminal
Courts Building indicated by a show of hands that they did not believe the gunman acted alone.   

Our two- day 2017 mock trial involved a real Texas state judge, real jurors selected by a jury consultant and we used expert witnesses. we did not use voir dire but had the jury consultant select neutral jurors.  The jurors deliberated for 2 hours and were unable to reach a verdict.    

Vince's book that was a prosecution "brief". He made numerous fatal errors in his book. One example was relying on NAA which had been discredited by the time Vince wrote the book. If you want to know why Vince believed to his dying day that Oswald was the lone assassin, take a look at pages 986-88. Vince was a patriot who felt he was defending America's honor. He wrote on those pages that it the conspiracy theorists were right, it would mean that our country was different that the Europeans and that our institutions were no better that those of a third world country. His belief was well-intentioned but his bias colored his analysis.   

[Micah Mileto]

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

The smoking nipple

...

From David Mantik: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/thomas-donald-byron-hear-no-evil-social-constructivism-and-the-forensic-evidence-in-the-kennedy-assassination-two-reviews-2-part-1

It is strange that Thomas should be so certain that this is not a posterior view, despite never viewing this photo at NARA. I have not only done so, but have viewed it repeatedly in stereo. The upper left hand corner cannot be appreciated in reproductions, but it is highly relevant. In that corner, part of the abdomen is visible: the subcutaneous fat is seen folded out (as it was during the autopsy) and even a nipple is visible. Until the recent review by the ARRB, I was the only observer to note these features. Now, however, I am not alone: one of the ARRB experts, Robert Kirschner (a forensic pathologist, no less), saw the same anatomy in this corner of the photo. (See my Dallas lecture, slide 58.) Those specific anatomic landmarks in that corner can mean only one thing: this is a posterior view of the skull.

 

David Mantik's 11/21/2009 presentation slides: http://assassinationscience.com/JFK_Skull_X-rays.htm

 

From an ARRB staff report on a consultation with forensic pathologist Dr. Robert H. Kirschner: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280#relPageId=230tab=page

(7) Photographs of ARRB "View 7," (#s 17, 18, 44, and 45) could not be oriented or identified with any precision. Dr. Kirschner did say that he could not visualize this photograph as being the rear of the head, and that the curvature of the exterior surface of the skull in the photo could represent frontal bone, but that he could not be sure. The "ripples" inside the cranial cavity were interpreted as probably being the base of the skull. The notch in the photograph was opined to be too large to be an entrance wound; it was further observed to exhibit external beveling. However, because of the lack of clearly identifiable anatomic landmarks, this photograph ultimately could not be definitely oriented.  The "yellow spot" in the color photos near the skull was thought to be muscle and fat which had possibly been exposed by the reflection of skin pulled back as a result of the Y-incision during the autopsy. The artifact in the photograph which appears to be made of glass was tentatively identified by Dr. Kirschner as a formaldehyde bottle.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The problem, Micah, is that these are the recollections of someone 34 years after an event. To be admitted into evidence--should someone have wished to admit the photos into evidence--the photos would have to be attested to by a witness that these were authentic photographs of the President taken during his autopsy. Stringer, Humes, and Boswell would have done this, no problem, with the possible exception of the brain photographs--which the prosecution would almost certainly not want on the record. 

There really isn't much dispute on this issue. While the defense could counter the conclusions of the prosecution's witnesses (Humes, Boswell, Stringer) with witnesses of its own, the odds of a defense attorney preventing the introduction of a piece of evidence because someone tangential to the case had their doubts about it, is practically nil. Look at the O.J. case. Dr. Henry Lee was allowed to express doubts about the blood evidence. But there is no way the blood evidence would have been held back because of his doubts. It just doesn't work that way. 

Wouldn't it be better to allow the evidence to be admitted, just so that the jury can be subject to a lengthy discussion about the questionable authenticity of things like the autopsy photographs? My point was that the public has no knowledge of any solid, surviving information that explains how the autopsy camera film was developed.

[Micah Mileto]

13 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

 

If it is absolutely true that the autopsy photographs show a nipple there (This may be possible to verify by having trained observers view the full-quality images from the official autopsy collection, including the original color positive film frames, which contain the full-quality images, unlike the negative color film frames which are just copies of the positives),

then...

Is there any conceivable way that a nipple would still be visible if the official story is true, that the camera is pointed at Kennedy's forehead, not the rear of his head? Could Kennedy's disconnected neck or head arrange themselves in such a way on the autopsy table, perhaps with the doctors holding him up like that are in some photos?

Or would a nipple automatically mean the camera is pointed at the rear of the head?

Edited January 31, 2023 by Micah Mileto

[James DiEugenio]

Although Pat has a point about the time factor for Spencer, I would argue: is this her fault?

To me it argues just how bad the WC and HSCA were that they never found her.

It is really astonishing that the WC never questioned either Stringer or Knudsen.

I mean that is utter negligence.

[Guest]

On 1/30/2023 at 9:09 PM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Lance,

You have not seen the other mock trials and dont know how they were conducted or held so you. I studied them in preparation for the 2017 mock trial. Each mock trial had teams of lawyers who vigorously engaged. After all, no trial lawyers who represented the prosecution did not want to be embarrassed by not obtaining a conviction of the person the Warren Commission claims to have acted alone.    

The  Bugliosi-Spence trial was more a television spectacle than a trial. The jurors were flown in from Dallas but were not screened for their views on the assassination and there was no voir dire. It was the only mock trial that resulted in conviction which was largely because Spence was playing to the TV audience by doing his old country lawyer routine. He was not prepared for the event and did not understand the evidence. As a lawyer, it was very frustrating to watch him not ask the right questions and not introduce relevant evidence. Vince definitely out-lawyered him.

There was a two-day mock trial in San Francisco conducted by the American Bar Association in 1992 before two federal district judges with real jurors. Unlike the other mock trials, the jurors were screened about their views of the assassination. most of the potential jurors indicated there questionnaires that they were neutral or believed  Oswald acted alone. Also unlike other mock trials, the attorneys were allowed to use voir dire to exclude up to five jurors. This trial also used expert testimony that went beyond the clown show of the Bugliosi-Spence show trial. After several ballots, the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The five jurors that were removed during voir dire constituted a surrogate or shadow jury. They sat through the trial and saw the same evidence as the jury. This group of dismissed jurors voted 3 to 2 for acquittal.  Earlier that year, the jury in a mock trial by the Arts & Entertainment network, found Oswald innocent

Three one-day mock trials were held in Texas in 2013. One was by the State Bar of Texas, one by the Dallas Bar Association and one by the Bench Bar Conference for the Eastern District of Texas.  Because of time constraints, the defense counsel were limited to cross-examining prosecution witnesses and were not able to put on their own witnesses or experts. Nevertheless, all three of these mock trials resulted in hung juries. Interestingly, three-fourths of the 150 who watched the Dallas trial in Old Criminal
Courts Building indicated by a show of hands that they did not believe the gunman acted alone.   

Our two- day 2017 mock trial involved a real Texas state judge, real jurors selected by a jury consultant and we used expert witnesses. we did not use voir dire but had the jury consultant select neutral jurors.  The jurors deliberated for 2 hours and were unable to reach a verdict.    

Vince's book that was a prosecution "brief". He made numerous fatal errors in his book. One example was relying on NAA which had been discredited by the time Vince wrote the book. If you want to know why Vince believed to his dying day that Oswald was the lone assassin, take a look at pages 986-88. Vince was a patriot who felt he was defending America's honor. He wrote on those pages that it the conspiracy theorists were right, it would mean that our country was different that the Europeans and that our institutions were no better that those of a third world country. His belief was well-intentioned but his bias colored his analysis.   

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[James DiEugenio]

All in all, I think its pretty clear that the 402 hearing over the autopsy pictures would be a battle royal.

And that is indicative of many things in this case.

As Larry says, if somehow they did get in, man, the prosecution would have a serious problem in presenting them.

[Micah Mileto]

There is no known documentation that explains how the autopsy photos ended up in the custody of the National Archives. No piece of paper, no witness taking responsibility. Mrs. Evelyn Lincoln claimed that the autopsy photos and body specimens were taken by Angelo Novello, while Novello herself later claimed she had no knowledge of having anything to do with the autopsy materials. It took Dr. Wecht to notice that the specimens were missing even if the photographs weren't.