"Evidence" that was never identified

[Gil Jesus]

In a normal criminal trial, the prosecution would be required to establish an item as evidence BEFORE a judge would allow it to be submitted as an exhibit.
Before a chain of possession could be established, the item would have to be identified by the first witness who came in contact with it in order to establish its relevance to the case. After such identification, the prosecution would then ask the court to accept the evidence as an exhibit.
 

But in this case, although the Warren Commission's agenda was to present the evidence in such a way that Oswald "would have been convicted at trial", it did not follow normal judicial protocol.
Instead, it accepted items as exhibits without so much as an identification from the person who found them. This could not have been an oversight, because they did this time and time again.
 

Among those items which were accepted WITHOUT identification from the people who found them were:

Commission Exhibit 139 - the C2766 rifle was never identified by the person who found it ( Dallas Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone ) as the rifle he found on the sixth floor.

Commission Exhibit 162 - the "tannish grey" jacket found under a car in a parking lot a block from the Tippit murder scene was never identified by the person who reported it found ( Off. J.T. Griffin ) as the jacket he reported.

Commission Exhibit 399 - the alleged "stretcher bullet" was never identified by the person who found it ( Darrell Tomlinson ) as the bullet he found.

Commission Exhibits 543, 544 and 545 - the three 6.5 rifle shells were never identified by the person who found them ( Dallas Deputy Luke Mooney ) as the shells he found on the sixth floor.

Commission Exhibit 573 - the "Walker Bullet" was never identified by the person who found it ( B.G. Norvell ) as the bullet he found.

Commission Exhibit 594 - the four shells found at the Tippit murder scene were never identified by the witnesses who found them ( Domingo Benavides and Barbara and Virginia Davis ) as the shells they found.

All of these items were accepted by the Warren Commission as Exhibits without any positive identifcation from the people who found them.
Had this case gone to criminal trial, without the positive identifcation from the people who found them, none of these items would have been admitted as evidence.
 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Mark Ulrik]

Boone and others guarded the rifle (CE 139) until Day came over and took possession, marked it, etc. This is fairly well documented. The notion that it wouldn't have been admitted into evidence in a criminal trial is just bizarre.

As has been mentioned in recent threads, Norvell did identify CE 573 as the bullet he found (CE 2011).

[Gil Jesus]

52 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Boone and others guarded the rifle (CE 139) until Day came over and took possession, marked it, etc. This is fairly well documented. The notion that it wouldn't have been admitted into evidence in a criminal trial is just bizarre.

 

I notice that you didn't cite any source for your information.

Maybe in Denmark it might be bizarre, but in an American court, without the person who found the evidence positively identifying the item as the one he found, there's no proof that the evidence wasn't substituted.

His mere presence for however long on the sixth floor isn't relevant in proving the rifle in evidence is the rifle he found.

In fact, as I said, during his testimony he could not positively identify the CE 139 rifle as the rifle he found.

Mr. BALL. I show you a rifle which is Commission Exhibit 139. Can you tell us whether or not that looks like the rifle you saw on the floor that day ?

Mr. BOONE. It looks like the same rifle. I have no way of being positive. ( 3 H 294 )

 

[Paul Cummings]

2 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

I notice that you didn't cite any source for your information.

Maybe in Denmark it might be bizarre, but in an American court, without the person who found the evidence positively identifying the item as the one he found, there's no proof that the evidence wasn't substituted.

His mere presence for however long on the sixth floor isn't relevant in proving the rifle in evidence is the rifle he found.

In fact, as I said, during his testimony he could not positively identify the CE 139 rifle as the rifle he found.

Mr. BALL. I show you a rifle which is Commission Exhibit 139. Can you tell us whether or not that looks like the rifle you saw on the floor that day ?

Mr. BOONE. It looks like the same rifle. I have no way of being positive. ( 3 H 294 )

 

Also Gill, Day took the gun back to his office and locked it up and headed back to TSBD. I believe the gun was in his office for three hours before he returned.

[Pat Speer]

A couple of points. 

Gil is probably correct in that if the WC were an actual trial, the prosecutors would have been more diligent in establishing the chains of evidence.

But, having read a number of books on evidence, etc, I have to point out that evidence prepared by the prosecution is almost always admitted into evidence, even if the FIRST person on the scene could not ID it later. What matters is that someone who was proven to be on the scene IDs it. Now, if, in fact, the first responders refuse to ID and even express doubts about the authenticity of a piece of evidence, this could be used to raise doubt about that piece of evidence. But I don't see it preventing the introduction of that evidence. 

(This applies to the medical evidence as well. While some claim the autopsy photos and x-rays would not be admitted into evidence for this reason or that they are flailing--the reality is that they would be admitted because the creators of these items IDed them as photos and x-rays they'd made of JFK. The only possible exception would be the brain photos--which Stringer failed to recognize while in his late 70's, but which he'd viewed a number of times previously without comment.) 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

. (This applies to the medical evidence as well. While some claim the autopsy photos and x-rays would not be admitted into evidence for this reason or that they are flailing--the reality is that they would be admitted because the creators of these items IDed them as photos and x-rays they'd made of JFK.

And IF these military men had refused to authenticate the “autopsy photos” they would have implicated the US Navy in the cover-up of the JFKA.

Military men acting under orders to protect the military.  The model of credibility, right?

Edited July 11, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Gil Jesus]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

But, having read a number of books on evidence, etc, I have to point out that evidence prepared by the prosecution is almost always admitted into evidence, even if the FIRST person on the scene could not ID it later. What matters is that someone who was proven to be on the scene IDs it.

I haven't read any books on evidence, but I've helped build cases against defendants before. And I can tell you that courts ( in my state anyways ) require the prosecution to authenticate evidence before it is admitted as an exhibit.

Our courts don't admit evidence on faith that the prosecutor is honest.

For example, during the Aaron Hernandez murder trial, the prosecution introduced the dead body as evidence by calling the kid who was jogging and found the body. They didn't rely on the cops or anyone else who showed up to the scene later to introduce the dead body as evidence.

And the body HAD to be introduced as evidence in order for the details of the autopsy to be introduced later.

Maybe in Texas its different, but in my experience in the court system authentication begins with the person who had first contact with the evidence, not the second, third or whatever.

If I'm the defense lawyer in this case, I call the persons who found this evidence to the stand and the first question I ask them is if they can positively identify the evidence as the item they found.

[Cliff Varnell]

HSCA Vol. 7 (emphasis added)

(quote on)

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The  deficiencies of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

 3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of theexamination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact, under 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. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of the autopsy.

 Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as scientific evidence. Some have questioned their very authenticity.  These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberatelymutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance.  As outlandish as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested with the prosecution.

 (quote off)

[Pat Speer]

18 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

HSCA Vol. 7 (emphasis added)

(quote on)

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The  deficiencies of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

 3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of theexamination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact, under 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. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of the autopsy.

 Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as scientific evidence. Some have questioned their very authenticity.  These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberatelymutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance.  As outlandish as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested with the prosecution.

 (quote off)

Yes, Cliff. You proved my point. They would ask Stringer if these were autopsy photos he'd taken. He'd say yes. And then for good measure they would ask Humes if the body in the photos was President Kennedy and reflect the wounds he saw on 11--22. He'd say yes. If the defense then so reckoned, they could call contrary witnesses, should any come forward. But no judge is gonna withhold evidence from the record because someone not tasked with gathering that evidence (such as the Parkland witnesses) had a contrary recollection. 

Say there was a hit and run accident, in which the driver was pulled over two blocks later by the cops, and where the DNA of the pedestrian was found on the car. Say the defense has witnesses who will say the car they saw hit the pedestrian was a different color. Is a judge gonna withhold all evidence related to the car? Nope. 

Now imagine if this wasn't so. Imagine that fingerprint evidence and DNA evidence linking someone to a crime scene could be excluded if the defendant found someone to lie for him and say he wasn't there. Not good. 

Now, as far as the "deficiencies" with the back wound photo...I think the HSCA FPP was greatly exaggerating these deficiencies to get their friends on the Clark Panel off the hook. 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, Cliff. You proved my point. They would ask Stringer if these were autopsy photos he'd taken. He'd say yes. And then for good measure they would ask Humes if the body in the photos was President Kennedy and reflect the wounds he saw on 11--22. He'd say yes.

You pretend these military men would have any credibility given the fact contrary testimony implicates the military in the JFKA cover-up.  Once the lack of any chain of possession for the “photos” was established the defense would have grounds to attack their testimony.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

 

If the defense then so reckoned, they could call contrary witnesses, should any come forward. But no judge is gonna withhold evidence from the record because someone not tasked with gathering that evidence (such as the Parkland witnesses) had a contrary recollection. 

Without a chain of possession no judge will allow such shoddy evidence.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Say there was a hit and run accident,

No, let’s not.  The context of this testimony you cite remains: military men protecting the military.

[Pat Speer]

20 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You pretend these military men would have any credibility given the fact contrary testimony implicates the military in the JFKA cover-up.  Once the lack of any chain of possession for the “photos” was established the defense would have grounds to attack their testimony.

Without a chain of possession no judge will allow such shoddy evidence.

No, let’s not.  The context of this testimony you cite remains: military men protecting the military.

For decades people have been claiming chain of possession this and chain of possession that. It's smoke. The reality is that with photos you can ignore chain of possession almost entirely if you have a witness who was there who is willing to say the photos reflect what he saw. That's it. And in this case you have numerous participants in the autopsy saying the phots are legit, and reflect what they saw. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

For decades people have been claiming chain of possession this and chain of possession that. It's smoke. The reality is that with photos you can ignore chain of possession almost entirely if you have a witness who was there who is willing to say the photos reflect what he saw.

“Almost entirely.”  And under what circumstances do we NOT ignore the chain of possession?

When the photo is contradicted by the physical evidence, the contemporaneous written accounts of witnesses in position of authority, the properly prepared medical evidence, and consensus witness statements.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

That's it. And in this case you have numerous participants in the autopsy saying the phots are legit, and reflect what they saw. 

Military men protecting the military.  That’s it.

 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Crane]

The brain,the gosh darn original brain.

Humes took the substitute brain from where James Jenkins left it.

Bobby stole the original and had it buried at sea with the damaged coffin or buried in the new coffin at the new site. 

Cyril Wecht says that the original brain would have determined the direction of the shots.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

30 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

The brain,the gosh darn original brain.

Humes took the substitute brain from where James Jenkins left it.

Bobby stole the original and had it buried at sea with the damaged coffin or buried in the coffin at the new site. 

Cyril Wecht says that the original brain would have determined the direction of the shots.

While we don't know what happened to the brain, there is no real evidence indicating Bobby disposed of it. There's an article in a medical journal from the mid-70's claiming it was recently discovered in the archives. This was around the same time the Rockefeller Commission medical experts were all asked if they felt the brain was necessary to figure out what happened. To a man they said "no." As this is ludicrous, it seems possible they were trying to cut off the brain's being studied by their panel and other panels. So it's possible it disappeared in the 70's and not while RFK was still alive. 

Now, the paper trail does support that it was handed over to the Kennedy's representative in 1966, if I recall, and that the Justice Dept. failed to ask for its return later, when it asked for a return for the photos and x-rays. But there is no record of anyone's calling up RFK and asking what he did with the brain, and his telling them he buried it or destroyed it. 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

I know Pat.

I'm just venting with an opinion.