"Evidence" that was never identified

[Denny Zartman]

I haven't seen anyone counter the fact that the manlicher carcano had "made Italy" and "cal 6.5" printed on it. It's simply impossible for me to believe anyone handled that rifle and got both the make and the caliber wrong. If they did examine the rifle and still got it so wrong that they were willing to sign incorrect affidavits attesting to it, why in the world would anyone trust their investigation skills in anything else? It seems to me to believe a Mauser was not found one would have to also believe that the Dallas police could not read.

[David Josephs]

8 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

To be clear, David, the question is not whether or not we should trust the DPD, FBI or military. My point is that for years certain people have been claiming the evidence prepared by the DPD, FBI, and military, could not be admitted at trial. This is nonsense. As in the O.J. case, ti could be admitted. The defense could then hack away at it. That's the way the system works.

You're mistaken my friend.  The fact the FBI removed all the evidence from Dallas Friday evening and returned more items than they took should be easy enough to grasp and even easier for a defense attorney to make it inadmissible. 

Add further the trial transcripts were rewritten to remove the specific evidence of that which I just described.  Cadigan's desilver-ing of the evidence to make it appear it was not taken and returned - why else desilver non-latent fingerprint evidence?

Cadigan answers "I could only speculate" and basically destroys the Chain
Dulles deletes the answer, reverses it and removes key chain of custody evidence.  

If the FBI only needed to send an expert witness to substantiate the Chain of custody, why change the man's testimony Pat?

Edited July 14, 2023 by David Josephs

[Pat Speer]

14 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 Dr. Admiral George Burkley, JFK's personal physician observed the body at Parkland and Bethesda, wrote on the Death Certificate that the back wound was "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra."

Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett wrote in his notes on the afternoon of 11/22/63:

<quote on>

I saw a shot hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder. </q>

4 inches below the right shoulder. Fact: the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar. 

In his notes mortician Thomas Robinson wrote: "And wound 5-6 inches below the shoulder".

In their report for the FBI, James Sibert and Francis O’Neill wrote the back wound “was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.”

O’Neill clarified the location for the HSCA:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md86/html/md86_0011a.htm

James Jenkins filled out the autopsy sheet and placed a dot in a location consistent with the bullet holes in the clothes.

Then for good measure there was SS SA Clint Hill who went to the morgue to make mental notes on the wounds.  He told the WC:.  “...I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column.”</q>

These are back wound witnesses.  Carrico and Jones were throat wound witnesses.

Dr. Charles Carrico’s contemporaneous note: “small penetrating wound of ent. neck".

Ronald Jones’ contemporaneous note:       “a small hole in anterior midline of neck thought to be a bullet entrance wound” 

T3 back wound, throat entrance.  

Get over it, Pat.

You missed my point, as usual. Someone describing something in a manner not entirely consistent with how it is depicted in photos is not the same as their saying they are 100% sure of their recollection and that the photos of this something are fakes. 

None of your witnesses ever said the back wound photos were fakes nor that they measured the wound and were absolutely positive of its location and that it could not be an inch higher or lower. And if they did say something like that they were full of it. People are incapable of that kind of accuracy. I suspect you know it. But if you don't, well, you should spend some time reading books and articles on cognition and memory. It's eye-opening. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

You missed my point, as usual.

And as usual you’re obfuscating the overwhelming evidence of a T3 wound.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Someone describing something in a manner not entirely consistent with how it is depicted in photos is not the same as their saying they are 100% sure of their recollection and that the photos of this something are fakes. 

“Not entirely consistent”?  The 15 total back wound witness statements are consistent with the bullet holes in the clothes.  According to you all these witnesses got it wrong — and JFK’s clothing moved in a manner contrary to the nature of reality.

Fox 5 shows a wound at least two inches higher.  

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

None of your witnesses ever said the photos were fakes nor that they measured the wound and were absolutely positive of its location and that it could not be an inch higher or lower.

They weren’t commenting on the photos, Pat.  15 witness statements and the bullet holes in the clothes are consistent with T3.  That you deny this is unbelievable.

[Pat Speer]

2 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

You're mistaken my friend.  The fact the FBI removed all the evidence from Dallas Friday evening and returned more items than they took should be easy enough to grasp and even easier for a defense attorney to make it inadmissible. 

Add further the trial transcripts were rewritten to remove the specific evidence of that which I just described.  Cadigan's desilver-ing of the evidence to make it appear it was not taken and returned - why else desilver non-latent fingerprint evidence?

Cadigan answers YES
Dulles deletes the answer, reverses it and removes key chain of custody evidence.  

If the FBI only needed to send an expert witness to substantiate the Chain of custody, why change the man's testimony Pat?

You're just wrong, David. One guy months later said something that wasn't backed up by the rest of the evidence. Judges don't disallow evidence by one statement by one guy months later. if that were the case, well, pretty much every prisoner in America would be set free. 

I mean, just picture it. A man's fingerprints are found on a murder weapon. He has motive, means, and opportunity. But the fingerprint examiner, when questioned at trial, says he received the prints on a Thursday, when the record indicates they were received on a Friday. Well, GOTCHA! The judge steps in and tells the jury they must disregard the fingerprint evidence.

That's just not how it works, my friend. The defense on cross would probably point out that the examiner's recollections are in opposition to the record. The examinier would then correct himself. And the defense would then use this against him--telling the jury that they can't trust this guy because he doesn't even know what day it is.

[David Josephs]

4 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You missed my point, as usual.

The discussion we are having is specific, not general.  The only way any of that junk gets to be entered as evidence is to present lying DPD or FBI members to override the non-existent chain of custody.

They marked the pistol and shells at the DPD ffs. The wallet in evidence is described as being from Irving with no items of evidence described as either ARREST WALLET or TIPPIT SCENE WALLET yet these are the wallets were evidence shos DPD personnel saw and announced what was in these two wallets.

And now those wallets are simply gone with 16 items of evidence - 2 of them HIDELL RELATED - offered as evidence without a shred of authentication they came from anything ever touching our little Oswald.

We are not talking about pictures Pat... we were talking about CE139 which wouldn't have had a chance in hell to be allowed in a court of law as real, authenticated evidence.

If you can name an item of evidence that attempts to establish Oswald's guilt, whose authenticity I can't destroy, I'd love to see it. 

News bulletin Pat - OSWALD DIDN'T DO IT.  

Ergo, evidence establishing his guilt is by definition inauthentic.

 

4 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

None of your witnesses

What the fruitcake are you jabbering on about? 

When did any of the witnesses ever become mine?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

None of your witnesses ever said the photos were fakes nor that they measured the wound and were absolutely positive of its location and that it could not be an inch higher or lower. And if they did say something like that they were full of it. People are incapable of that kind of accuracy. I suspect you know it. But if you don't, well, you should spend some time reading books and articles on cognition and memory. It's eye-opening. 

But somehow this didn’t apply to Humes and Stringer when they said Fox 5 showed the wound as they remembered.  Those two were like Gods in their perfect recall!

Never mind they were military men protecting the military...

[David Josephs]

2 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You're just wrong, David. One guy months later said something that wasn't backed up by the rest of the evidence. Judges don't disallow evidence by one statement by one guy months later. if that were the case, well, pretty much every prisoner in America would be set free. 

I mean, just picture it. A man's fingerprints are found on a murder weapon. He has motive, means, and opportunity. But the fingerprint examiner, when questioned at trial, says he received the prints on a Thursday, when the record indicates they were received on a Friday. Well, GOTCHA! The judge steps in and tells the jury they must disregard the fingerprint evidence.

That's just not how it works, my friend. The defense on cross would probably point out that the examiner's recollections are in opposition to the record. The examinier would then correct himself. And the defense would then use this against him--telling the jury that they can't trust this guy because he doesn't even know what day it is.

Being obtuse doesn't help make you any more right than when you started.

Your middle paragraph is just a joke.  Get SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE.

What happens to the prosecution when the defense destroys the item of evidence's authenticity by showing the witness to be lying about the item?  That the real Chain of custody looks nothing like what is testified to?

Even hear of Lying Under Oath?  Judges disallow evidence all the time.  You saying if new evidence surfaces that repudiates a chain of custody, that evidence is not allowed and will not cause the judge to disallow the original evidence and instruct the jury of same?  What ??

The day something is recorded is not what we are discussing and you really should know better than to offer this weak response as a coherent argument against the establishment of authentic evidence in the JFK case.

As I asked above.. stick to the case and offer any item of evidence which tries to establish Oswald's guilt that you'd like to enter as authentic in a court of law.  

Stop being obtuse and try a real example from the real situation from which we are dealing.

Thanks

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Being obtuse doesn't help make you any more right than when you started.

Your middle paragraph is just a joke.  Get SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE.

What happens to the prosecution when the defense destroys the item of evidence's authenticity by showing the witness to be lying about the item?  That the real Chain of custody looks nothing like what is testified to?

Even hear of Lying Under Oath?  Judges disallow evidence all the time.  You saying if new evidence surfaces that repudiates a chain of custody, that evidence is not allowed and will not cause the judge to disallow the original evidence and instruct the jury of same?  What ??

The day something is recorded is not what we are discussing and you really should know better than to offer this weak response as a coherent argument against the establishment of authentic evidence in the JFK case.

As I asked above.. stick to the case and offer any item of evidence which tries to establish Oswald's guilt that you'd like to enter as authentic in a court of law.  

Stop being obtuse and try a real example from the real situation from which we are dealing.

Thanks

 

Are you claiming to "know" what really happened?  

The screenwriter William Goldman famously said of Hollywood "No One Knows Anything."

The JFK research community--both sides, LN and CT--knows even less than that. 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

Pat, in Fox 5 there is a smaller artifact a couple of inches lower and a bit to the left of the artifact you claim was a T1 wound.

The location of the smaller artifact is consistent with the bullet holes in the clothes and 15 eyewitness statements.

For all you know Humes and Stringer signed off on the lower mark.

 

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[David Josephs]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Are you claiming to "know" what really happened?  

The screenwriter William Goldman famously said of Hollywood "No One Knows Anything."

The JFK research community--both sides, LN and CT--knows even less than that. 

 

So this means you have nothing from this case to offer as authentic which cannot be easily shown NOT to be authentic.

You can just say so rather than bend yourself into a pretzel NOT saying it.

5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

For all you know Humes and Stringer signed off on the lower mark.

While I appreciate the assist Cliff, "for all we know" is not really what I'm talking about.

Knowing, on the other hand, that this bullet rose 11 degrees to get from supposed entry to exit, back to front, while being shot at a much steeper downward angle, AND that Ford changed the Ryberg fantasy to adjust for that downward angle remains another example of easily refuted physical evidence (or cr@p representations thereof) and would never have been allowed as evidence in a trial.

The actual location of the bullet hole on the shirt superimposed onto Ryberg.

[Cliff Varnell]

13 hours ago, David Josephs said:

So this means you have nothing from this case to offer as authentic which cannot be easily shown NOT to be authentic.

You can just say so rather than bend yourself into a pretzel NOT saying it.

While I appreciate the assist Cliff, "for all we know" is not really what I'm talking about.

Knowing, on the other hand, that this bullet rose 11 degrees to get from supposed entry to exit, back to front, while being shot at a much steeper downward angle, AND that Ford changed the Ryberg fantasy to adjust for that downward angle remains another example of easily refuted physical evidence (or cr@p representations thereof) and would never have been allowed as evidence in a trial.

The actual location of the bullet hole on the shirt superimposed onto Ryberg.

Okay!  Now that that’s been settled for the umpteenth time, let’s reiterate:

JFK had a shallow soft tissue wound to the right of T3, and a soft tissue wound in his throat no exit.

What kind of firearm leaves shallow wounds in soft tissue?

I’ll give my favorite charity (Tami the Street Sheet Lady) a buck for every time this question is asked at any of the events surrounding the 60th.