1992 ABA mock trial: Are there any transcripts or videos of testimony available?

[Martin Nee]

I’ve come across quite a few articles and books quoting the Mock Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald done in 1992 for the American Bar Association. I know Posner used failure Analysis Associates work as a basis for some of his claims and I see it brought up quite a bit in regards to reconstructions. Im looking to get transcripts or clips from some of the expert witnesses, specifically the likes of Dr Martin Fackler to check some claims. Does anyone know if any of these are available online? 
I’ve been able to find a few clips on YouTube (but they’re mostly highlight reels), and text of the closing arguments from places like the Weisberg archive.
Any links to these or additional info on the background of the trial and the individuals involved is greatly appreciated.

[Cory Santos]

 I am aware of a video copy.  

[Martin Nee]

11 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

 I am aware of a video copy.  

Do you have a link or know where it might be accessible? 

[Tom Gram]

13 hours ago, Martin Nee said:

specifically the likes of Dr Martin Fackler to check some claims.

I don’t have the trial video, but you might be interested in this 2001 Wound Ballistics Review by Fackler: 

http://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/2001-Vol5No2.pdf

On page 38 is a wound profile of 6.5 mm MC ammo and brief discussion of the assassination. Fackler’s test showed that the ammo didn’t tumble until ~60cm of penetration in ballistics gel, which is interesting because he testified at the 1992 mock trial that the bullet did tumble before hitting JBC. We know from JBC’s clothing that the bullet was not tumbling when it hit him. 

A human torso followed by air is very different than pure gelatin, but Fackler’s test could be spun as support for the SBT if it could be shown that the bullets retain stability in air after ~30cm of tissue passage. Tests have been conducted suggesting the opposite, however. 

I do not know if the wound profile published in the 2001 review is the same test Fackler performed for the mock trial. @Pat Speermight know. Pat’s website discusses Fackler’s testimony a bit and mentions articles he wrote in 1992 on the tests conducted for the trial: 

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter11thesingle-bullettheory

Edited March 26 by Tom Gram

[Martin Nee]

22 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I don’t have the trial video, but you might be interested in this 2001 Wound Ballistics Review by Fackler: 

http://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/2001-Vol5No2.pdf

On page 38 is a wound profile of 6.5 mm MC ammo and brief discussion of the assassination. Fackler’s test showed that the ammo didn’t tumble until ~60cm of penetration in ballistics gel, which is interesting because he testified at the 1992 mock trial that the bullet did tumble before hitting JBC. We know from JBC’s clothing that the bullet was not tumbling when it hit him. 

A human torso followed by air is very different than pure gelatin, but Fackler’s test could be spun as support for the SBT if it could be shown that the bullets retain stability in air after ~30cm of tissue passage. Tests have been conducted suggesting the opposite, however. 

I do not know if the wound profile published in the 2001 review is the same test Fackler performed for the mock trial. @Pat Speermight know. Pat’s website discusses Fackler’s testimony a bit and mentions articles he wrote in 1992 on the tests conducted for the trial: 

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter11thesingle-bullettheory

Thanks a lot, I’ll definitely check this out. I’ve found some of the articles he wrote along with Dr John Lattimer and I’ve been looking into some critiques such as the one written by Millicent Cranor. @Pat Speer’s work has been very helpful and informative in this area and part of the reason I’m asking is because I believe he quotes Dr. Fackler’s testimony where he erroneously describes the size and shape of Connolly’s back wound and how Dr Shaw testified. Not that I doubt the quotes (they seem consistent and are reproduced by authors I trust) but I’m trying to gather some material for a potential project so I’d just like to see and be able to cite the primary source of this instead of a second hand one if possible.

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, Martin Nee said:

Thanks a lot, I’ll definitely check this out. I’ve found some of the articles he wrote along with Dr John Lattimer and I’ve been looking into some critiques such as the one written by Millicent Cranor. @Pat Speer’s work has been very helpful and informative in this area and part of the reason I’m asking is because I believe he quotes Dr. Fackler’s testimony where he erroneously describes the size and shape of Connolly’s back wound and how Dr Shaw testified. Not that I doubt the quotes (they seem consistent and are reproduced by authors I trust) but I’m trying to gather some material for a potential project so I’d just like to see and be able to cite the primary source of this instead of a second hand one if possible.

You may have seen this already, but found this on YouTube: 

It’s only a 35 minute video so I’m not sure it has what you’re looking for. 

[Martin Nee]

On 3/26/2024 at 5:10 PM, Tom Gram said:

You may have seen this already, but found this on YouTube: 

It’s only a 35 minute video so I’m not sure it has what you’re looking for. 

I think I may have seen this already but thanks a lot for sending it on anyway. I’ll give it another look just in case