Marcus Fuller Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 I've been thinking about this a lot lately so I thought I'd start a thread and hopefully get the thoughts and opinions of those on the forum. I'm not referring here to the all the various discussions and bones of contention within the JFK Assassination topic, just the overall claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut assassin and killed President Kennedy and Patrolman J.D Tippit. As far as I'm aware the burden of proof here lies with those who insist Oswald was guilty, or at least those on the side of the would-be prosecution. But even with my fairly limited knowledge of the subject I don't think that the burden of proof has been met. Since I started to look into the topic in an attempt to learn more about it I've noticed a lot of arguments online where those who support the lone gunman theory seem to make various assertions, not back any of them up and then insist that if their opposition cannot come up with a suitable alternative, they 'win' the argument by default. You then have various people who don't accept the standard explanation trying to argue the tiny points and wasting their own time, instead of just saying, 'prove it'! I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 (edited) 11 hours ago, Marcus Fuller said: I've been thinking about this a lot lately so I thought I'd start a thread and hopefully get the thoughts and opinions of those on the forum. I'm not referring here to the all the various discussions and bones of contention within the JFK Assassination topic, just the overall claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut assassin and killed President Kennedy and Patrolman J.D Tippit. As far as I'm aware the burden of proof here lies with those who insist Oswald was guilty, or at least those on the side of the would-be prosecution. But even with my fairly limited knowledge of the subject I don't think that the burden of proof has been met. Since I started to look into the topic in an attempt to learn more about it I've noticed a lot of arguments online where those who support the lone gunman theory seem to make various assertions, not back any of them up and then insist that if their opposition cannot come up with a suitable alternative, they 'win' the argument by default. You then have various people who don't accept the standard explanation trying to argue the tiny points and wasting their own time, instead of just saying, 'prove it'! I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. There are so many hugely intriguing suspicious and contrary facts and background histories surrounding not just the main characters involved in the JFKA but also the 1st, 2nd and even 3rd level peripheral ones that a normally curious and contemplative person ( especially fans of true crime novels ) could almost not help wanting to know more about the whole affair. The event was, still is and always will be one of the greatest unsolved criminal act mysteries ever. Yet, trying to get a somewhat informed grasp of the entire event story could be compared to chasing a ghost. A daunting and often times consuming effort that could take up years of one's life. There's just too much there! In my case, at times I felt I was under a curiosity feeding drug ( like not being able to put the greatest crime novel I've ever read down" that compelled me to delve into the larger picture of all these actors. Many of which had some direct and/or indirect involvement with and connections to not just massively wealthy and powerful JFK hating groups but also to many branches of our own government - city, state and national, especially ones of security, military and intelligence. And as known - other governments as well. I would warn any young person thinking about seriously studying the JFKA and perhaps even the RFK and MLK ones as well...do you really want to go there? The first time main reason I was infected with great interest and especially suspicion about the JFKA was when I personally watched Jack Ruby shoot Oswald "live" on TV on 11,24,1963 right inside the Dallas PD building as I laid on my bed watching the transfer. When the BANG loudly boomed out I involuntarily leaped off my bed in one 12 year old athletic feat motion and ( again involuntarily ) yelled out to no one "NO WAY", "NO WAY", "NO WAY" over and over. Oswald's live on national TV broadcast shooting was dramatically so powerful and deeply traumatizing as well to a serious degree. Not just for me...but the entire country! My gut was only 12 years old when Jack Ruby blew Lee Oswald away but even at that young age it instantly told me there was something very, very wrong ( even sinister ) with that picture. To this day 60 years later I am just as suspicious of Oswald's killing right inside of the Dallas PD building packed with 70 armed security personnel as I was as a 12 year old. Oswald was not only the most threatened criminal suspect in American history, but the most important one as well...as long as he was alive. How the Dallas PD chose to move Oswald in broad daylight ( ignoring serious and wise advice to do this at night and away from the press ) and to ALSO BROADCAST THE MOVING TIME ( even in a general time frame ) to the general public was literally crazy and shouted out logical and common sense thought suspicion. And THEN to parade Oswald so openly on his perp walk by the last risk factor packed crowd of press who were within feet of the transport car and which provided cover for the gun toting Ruby who was able to get within inches of Oswald's gut again "forces" anyone of common sense to doubt the official story and want to know more. Like 200 million other Americans I knew that the JFKA truth was destroyed that day. And at the hands of a sleazy Dallas strip joint owner who "claimed" he did what he did to prove Jews had guts and to avenge Jackie Kennedy and to save her any more grief by having to deal with an inevitable trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. Edited October 23, 2023 by Joe Bauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 (edited) 5 hours ago, Marcus Fuller said: As far as I'm aware, the burden of proof here lies with those who insist Oswald was guilty, or at least those on the side of the would-be prosecution. But even with my fairly limited knowledge of the subject, I don't think that the burden of proof has been met. .... I've noticed a lot of arguments online where those who support the lone gunman theory seem to make various assertions, not back any of them up and then insist that if their opposition cannot come up with a suitable alternative, they 'win' the argument by default. I guess it comes down to each person's own definition of "proof". As we all know, the definition and scope of that particular word varies (greatly) from one person to the next. And when you say that "various assertions" that have been made by certain Lone Assassin believers have not been "backed up", can you provide a specific example or two? Frankly, I just don't see how a person (namely Mr. Oswald) can have this much evidence pointing toward his guilt (in two separate murders that occurred within 45 minutes of each other on 11-22-63) and yet still be innocent.... http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com http://drive.google.com / Summary Of Oswald's Guilt (By Vincent Bugliosi) (All 53 Items) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com Edited October 22, 2023 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted October 23, 2023 Share Posted October 23, 2023 9 hours ago, Marcus Fuller said: I've been thinking about this a lot lately so I thought I'd start a thread and hopefully get the thoughts and opinions of those on the forum. I'm not referring here to the all the various discussions and bones of contention within the JFK Assassination topic, just the overall claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut assassin and killed President Kennedy and Patrolman J.D Tippit. As far as I'm aware the burden of proof here lies with those who insist Oswald was guilty, or at least those on the side of the would-be prosecution. But even with my fairly limited knowledge of the subject I don't think that the burden of proof has been met. Since I started to look into the topic in an attempt to learn more about it I've noticed a lot of arguments online where those who support the lone gunman theory seem to make various assertions, not back any of them up and then insist that if their opposition cannot come up with a suitable alternative, they 'win' the argument by default. You then have various people who don't accept the standard explanation trying to argue the tiny points and wasting their own time, instead of just saying, 'prove it'! I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. MF--Interesting questions. There are even further wrinkles to this line of inquiry. As New Orlean DA Garrison said, the court system may be flummoxed in trying to get to the truth about the Deep State. That is, suppose LHO had lived and was found "not guilty" in a court of law. OK, does that tell us what happened, and who were the perps of the JFKA? And, there is difference between LHO being found not guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, and being totally uninvolved in the JFKA, or even innocent. (Indeed, if I were a juror on some ordinary murder case, I might suspect the defendant was guilty. But suspicions vs. beyond reasonable doubt are two standards. With great reluctance, I might have to vote to set a likely murderer free. In this case, the truth and the legal result may not be in tune.) A court of law, with the adversarial process, might well have rendered the "not guilty" verdict on LHO (although politics can influence juries, and LHO might have been found guilty anyway). More information would have come out with the adversarial process than with the Warren Commission, which was essentially a posthumous show trial. Still, the answer to the JFKA might well have remained hidden, even with an excellent trial, a good judge, and a well-financed defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted October 23, 2023 Share Posted October 23, 2023 (edited) Marcus Fuller writes: Quote As far as I'm aware the burden of proof here lies with those who insist Oswald was guilty, or at least those on the side of the would-be prosecution. Not necessarily. The burden-of-proof idea is simply the fact that anyone who makes a positive claim takes on the burden of having to justify that claim, using a combination of logical argument and objectively verifiable evidence. It's up to them to demonstrate that their claim is justified; it isn't up to anyone else to disprove their claim. So if your claim is that Oswald killed JFK and Tippit, it's up to you to demonstrate that Oswald did in fact kill JFK and Tippit. If your claim is that Oswald was completely innocent, it's up to you to demonstrate that he was completely innocent. If your claim is that Oswald, let's say, brought the sixth-floor rifle into the book depository but didn't fire any shots himself, it's up to you to demonstrate that that was what happened. As you point out, the correct response to any claim is "Prove it!" If someone who makes a claim fails to provide sufficient evidence for that claim, belief in that claim is not justified. This doesn't mean that the claim thereby becomes disproved. It just means that until better evidence or argument is brought forward, there is no good reason to believe that claim. The default state is always "I don't know". No claim wins by default. As you point out, lone-gunman advocates are prone to shifting the burden of proof ("You can't prove that Oswald didn't do it, therefore Oswald did it!"), although conspiracy theorists, especially believers in the more fanciful theories, do this too. Trawl through the old threads on this forum, and you'll see plenty of examples of this particular logical fallacy. There's also the point that the strength of one's belief in a claim should be in proportion to the strength of the evidence. This is particularly relevant to the JFK assassination, which is full of contradictory and ambiguous evidence. Even after six decades of research and discussion, none of the main theories have been proven beyond doubt, and very few substantive claims are immune to reasonable criticism. At the moment, the only important contested element in the case that has a chance of being resolved beyond any doubt is Oswald's location during the shooting. The official case that he was on the sixth floor has never come close to meeting its burden of proof, and there is credible evidence suggesting (but not proving) that he was on the first floor a few minutes before the shooting (at the same time as a gunman was seen on the sixth floor) and on the front steps during or shortly after the shooting. It's possible that something very close to definitive proof of his location might exist, in the form of two news films sitting in the vaults of NBC. Efforts are being made to liberate these films. Edited October 23, 2023 by Jeremy Bojczuk Added a link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted October 23, 2023 Share Posted October 23, 2023 Lee Harvey Oswald could never, ever been allowed to have a trial. I can't even imagine how much his testimony would have implicated countless nefarious others and in what ways, beginning with his defection to Russia to his crazy doings in New Orleans the Summer of 1963 and with his strange trip to Mexico City. George De Mohrenschildt alone would have probably had a heart attack worrying how much he and his wife Jeannie would have been pulled into such a trial. Just a for-instance, George De M might have been asked why he even joked to Lee Oswald about taking a pot shot at General Walker? And why he didn't report his suspicions at the time? Anyone Oswald dealt with in New Orleans...same thing. Oswald's murder just two days after JFK's was the ultimate gift to all those who feared him living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Fite Posted October 23, 2023 Share Posted October 23, 2023 23 hours ago, Marcus Fuller said: As far as I'm aware the burden of proof here lies with those who insist Oswald was guilty, or at least those on the side of the would-be prosecution. But even with my fairly limited knowledge of the subject I don't think that the burden of proof has been met. Hi Marcus Personally, I think this should be approached another way by applying the scientific method: * State a hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis * Evaluate the evidence to see if you should reject the hypothesis * If you reject the hypothesis start again with the simplest hypothesis that agrees with all the evidence you looked at. The simplest, next hypothesis is the one with the fewest assumptions. So - Hypothesis - Someone acted alone, making all the shots in the JFK murder from the window on the TSBD. Alternative Hypothesis - There were more than 1 person involved / shots came from other locations. Personally I reject the hypothesis based on angles & trajectories, physics and experimental evidence. I haven't got to the second round yet with another hypothesis, sorry. But I have rejected the stated hypothesis and believe there was a conspiracy. In other words, start with disproving the lone nut hypothesis to your satisfaction then move on to the next explanation until you are satisfied or can't disprove it or find a simpler (less assumptions) explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 23, 2023 Share Posted October 23, 2023 (edited) In a new book I have contributed to, The JFK Assassination Chokeholds, Canadian lawyer Andrew Eiler examines this question in a rather full way. Marcus is correct, the prosecution would have the burden of proof in this case. And since it was a homicide, the necessary standard would be beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the highest legal standard there is. And it has to be unanimous. Andrew goes though what both the Commission and HSCA did and shows that those two proceedings would not even match the lower standards of proof, that is the clear and convincing standard or the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. The reason they were able to do what they did was because they completely stripped the defendant of his rights, there was no procedure to determine rules of evidence and testimony and there was no plea or rebuttal to a jury. As Oliver Stone showed in JFK Revisited there is much crucial evidence that would be argued as inadmissible at a pre trial evidentiary hearing. (Bugliosi was passing gas when he tried to ignore this problem in his book.)And there were several witnesses who would have been blown off the stand during cross examination. But the HSCA and the Commission allowed these exhibits and witnesses to be used against Oswald. (BTW, Brennan refused to testify for the HSCA under any circumstances.). And, in fact, Specter simply told the Commission, we either go with the SBT or we have to start looking for a second assassin. Which is not a valid legal proposal, its one made up out of necessity. Recall, Joe Ball called Markham an utter screwball. Scobey said that Marina should not have been allowed to testify. The above could only be done in complete defiance of any fairness or equity to the defendant. And make no mistake, as noted above, the Commission lawyers were aware of this problem, just read the Liebeler Memorandum. When Ray Marcus asked Liebeler to admit the Commission was wrong in 1967, the UCLA law professor said "Ray. sometimes we get involved in things that are bigger than ourselves." Edited October 23, 2023 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Griffith Posted October 23, 2023 Share Posted October 23, 2023 20 hours ago, David Von Pein said: I guess it comes down to each person's own definition of "proof". As we all know, the definition and scope of that particular word varies (greatly) from one person to the next. And when you say that "various assertions" that have been made by certain Lone Assassin believers have not been "backed up", can you provide a specific example or two? Frankly, I just don't see how a person (namely Mr. Oswald) can have this much evidence pointing toward his guilt (in two separate murders that occurred within 45 minutes of each other on 11-22-63) and yet still be innocent.... http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com http://drive.google.com / Summary Of Oswald's Guilt (By Vincent Bugliosi) (All 53 Items) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com Every single one of those alleged items of evidence against Oswald has either been debunked or explained. Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos Did Oswald Shoot Tippit? Hasty Judgment Reclaiming History? Or Re-Framing Oswald? Debugging Bugliosi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 23, 2023 Share Posted October 23, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said: Every single one of those alleged items of evidence against Oswald has either been debunked or explained. Nonsense. You're living in Conspiracy Fantasy World [CFW]. You can't have that much evidence against you and still be Not Guilty (unless you reside in CFW, of course). Edited October 23, 2023 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 24, 2023 Share Posted October 24, 2023 There are two concepts that are at play here. First, Burden of Proof, which means the prosecution has the responsibility of convicting the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. They must a bring a case and the jury must accept it 12-0. Standard of proof refers to the degree to which the prosecution must convince the jury with evidence that 1.) Must be accepted by the court as being relevant, legally obtained, and not tampered with throughout chain of custody, and 2.) With witnesses who can withstand the attempt at impeachment by the defense. The Commission felt that they could use any evidence or testimony they liked in order to convict Oswald. It got so bad that the junior lawyers on the staff objected to certain witnesses like Brennan, Marina, and Markham. But, as Redlich said, the Commissioners wanted them. When the HSCA started, experienced prosecutors Sprague and Tanenbaum knew that the Commission's case was full of holes, plus there were vast areas where they did no inquiry, plus a lot of exculpatory evidence was left out. Sprague was very puzzled as to why the WC did not buy Odio since she seemed to him to be a most credible witness. And both of them realized that the Commission had whiffed on Mexico City. In his interview on Out of the Blank, Blakey seems to admit that he bought the Warren Commission. He has been slowly backing away from that ever since. The Commission's case could not have withstood cross examination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted October 24, 2023 Share Posted October 24, 2023 Here is a question: Suppose there had been a Texas jury back in 1963-4, and the jury concluded that there was reasonable doubt regarding LHO's role in the JFKA. So, he is set free. Suppose LHO denied in court he is part of any conspiracy or government organization, foreign or domestic. Then, due to the excellent work by John Newman and others, it appears LHO was a CIA asset in 1963. Moreover, due to the work of Garrison in 1967-8, it appears reasonable to suspect the CIA in the JFKA. Let us say it becomes known Clay Shaw as also a CIA asset. Would LHO be re-tried? After all, LHO appears to have been involved in the JFKA. He was a CIA asset inside the TSBD during a CIA regime change op. And shot were fired from the TSBD. LHO then goes home and gets a revolver and decides to watch movies (not the news, and LHO had a deep interest in politics). As Garrison said, the jury system and courts are likely flummoxed by the Deep State. Even a jury finding of LHO as not guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the JFKA, a good legal result, hardly truly exonerates LHO, or explains the JFKA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted October 24, 2023 Share Posted October 24, 2023 On 10/22/2023 at 11:45 AM, Marcus Fuller said: I've been thinking about this a lot lately so I thought I'd start a thread and hopefully get the thoughts and opinions of those on the forum. I'm not referring here to the all the various discussions and bones of contention within the JFK Assassination topic, just the overall claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut assassin and killed President Kennedy and Patrolman J.D Tippit. As far as I'm aware the burden of proof here lies with those who insist Oswald was guilty, or at least those on the side of the would-be prosecution. But even with my fairly limited knowledge of the subject I don't think that the burden of proof has been met. Since I started to look into the topic in an attempt to learn more about it I've noticed a lot of arguments online where those who support the lone gunman theory seem to make various assertions, not back any of them up and then insist that if their opposition cannot come up with a suitable alternative, they 'win' the argument by default. You then have various people who don't accept the standard explanation trying to argue the tiny points and wasting their own time, instead of just saying, 'prove it'! I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Welcome Marcus, the forum needs objective new perspectives. LHO was not a lone nut, for starters, "didn't shoot at anybody". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 24, 2023 Share Posted October 24, 2023 11 hours ago, Bill Fite said: Hi Marcus Personally, I think this should be approached another way by applying the scientific method: * State a hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis * Evaluate the evidence to see if you should reject the hypothesis Hypothesis: JFK was fired upon from at least two directions because the bullet holes in the back of his shirt and jacket are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars, and Dealey Plaza photos show a normal amount of visible shirt collar. The clothing defects are too low to associate with the wound in his throat. Alternative hypothesis: To line up with the SBT trajectory, 2+” jacket and 2+” shirt elevated above the wound at the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 24, 2023 Share Posted October 24, 2023 1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said: Hypothesis: JFK was fired upon from at least two directions because the bullet holes in the back of his shirt and jacket are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars, and Dealey Plaza photos show a normal amount of visible shirt collar. The clothing defects are too low to associate with the wound in his throat. Alternative hypothesis: To line up with the SBT trajectory, 2+” jacket and 2+” shirt elevated above the wound at the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck. JFK had a shallow back wound in soft tissue. 6.5mm FMJ rounds never leave shallow wounds in soft tissue. The claim Oswald struck JFK with the rifle attributed to him is demonstrably False. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now