Lack Of Damage To CE-399

[John Iacoletti]

Seems you find putting the pieces (of evidence) together somewhat frightening

Seems that you are wrong again.

[Andrew Mason]

How is this a "well established principle of law"?

I would have to check the US authorities but the Supreme Court of Canada has stated this on many occasions, the leading case is The Queen v. Morin [1988] 2 SCR 345.  The court stated the point this way (p. 362):

"The jury should be told that the facts are not to be examined separately and in isolation with reference to the criminal standard. This instruction is a necessary corollary to the basic rule referred to above. Without it there is some danger that a jury might conclude that the requirement that each issue or element of the offence be proved beyond a reasonable doubt demands that individual items of evidence be so proved."

If each piece of evidence individually doesn't meet a reasonable doubt standard, then how could they possibly meet it when combined?

It is very simple, common sense.  One can reach a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt about a fact based on many independent pieces of evidence that point to guilt but do not individually prove guilt.

For example, suppose the issue is identity of the killer and 16 witnesses independently describe 8 different things about the identity of the person who committed the crime (he wore a baseball cap, he had a beard, he had a bleeding cut on his left hand, he spoke with a french accent, he had blonde medium length hair, he wore blue running shoes, he had a blue denim jacket and he drove away in a red pickup truck with a damaged right tail-light). None of the witnesses were 100% sure that they made correct observations.  Now it so happens that a man fitting that description was stopped about a mile from the scene of the crime within a two minutes of the crime being committed, driving a red pickup truck with a damaged right tail-light.   It also turns out that the accused had been captured on video in a bar drinking with the deceased earlier in the evening.

Each one of those pieces of evidence cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by itself nor can a single piece of evidence prove the identity of the accused as the killer beyond a reasonable doubt. But together they form the basis on which a jury could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused was the killer.

[Jerry Freeman]

This is getting a bit [out there for me]
Are we still discussing a bullet that appears to have no visible damage?

[Denis Pointing]

I would have to check the US authorities but the Supreme Court of Canada has stated this on many occasions, the leading case is The Queen v. Morin [1988] 2 SCR 345.  The court stated the point this way (p. 362):

"The jury should be told that the facts are not to be examined separately and in isolation with reference to the criminal standard. This instruction is a necessary corollary to the basic rule referred to above. Without it there is some danger that a jury might conclude that the requirement that each issue or element of the offence be proved beyond a reasonable doubt demands that individual items of evidence be so proved."
It is very simple, common sense.  One can reach a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt about a fact based on many independent pieces of evidence that point to guilt but do not individually prove guilt.

For example, suppose the issue is identity of the killer and 16 witnesses independently describe 8 different things about the identity of the person who committed the crime (he wore a baseball cap, he had a beard, he had a bleeding cut on his left hand, he spoke with a french accent, he had blonde medium length hair, he wore blue running shoes, he had a blue denim jacket and he drove away in a red pickup truck with a damaged right tail-light). None of the witnesses were 100% sure that they made correct observations.  Now it so happens that a man fitting that description was stopped about a mile from the scene of the crime within a two minutes of the crime being committed, driving a red pickup truck with a damaged right tail-light.   It also turns out that the accused had been captured on video in a bar drinking with the deceased earlier in the evening.

Each one of those pieces of evidence cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by itself nor can a single piece of evidence prove the identity of the accused as the killer beyond a reasonable doubt. But together they form the basis on which a jury could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused was the killer.

Hi Andrew, so if I'm understanding you correctly you're stating that, in at least some cases, it can come down to the shear quantity of evidence rather than the quality of each individual piece of evidence, is that correct? If so, this would seem to be exactly what Bugliosi, arguably the greatest prosecutor of his time, was basing his case on in his book. Very interesting. Thank you.
May I ask if you have any legal training?

[Rob Caprio]

You have to go where the evidence takes you. The evidence leads to the SBT.

LOL.

[Andrew Mason]

Hi Andrew, so if I'm understanding you correctly you're stating that, in at least some cases, it can come down to the shear quantity of evidence rather than the quality of each individual piece of evidence, is that correct? If so, this would seem to be exactly what Bugliosi, arguably the greatest prosecutor of his time, was basing his case on in his book. Very interesting. Thank you.

Yes. If there is enough independent evidence for the trier of fact to be satisfied that it could not reasonably fit together, as it does, without the ultimate conclusion advanced by the prosecution being correct, then the prosecution has proven the case. 

It is not so much the absolute quantity of evidence but the fact that there are many independent pieces of evidence that fit together that makes the case.  The more such pieces one has, and the more unlikely it is that each piece would fit by chance, the easier it is to dispel all reasonable doubt about the overall conclusion.  It is the way that evidence fits together that ultimately gives one the assurance that the sources of evidence are reliable (eg. the fact that multiple witnesses made similar observations and this fit with the accused's description upon arrest and with the connection to the accused) that dispels all reasonable doubt about the overall conclusion (which, in the example I gave, was the identity of the killer).

The key is the independence of the evidence.  The nature and quantity of evidence may help dispel doubt about the independence of the pieces of evidence (for example: if the only other conclusion is that there would have to have been an elaborate scheme of collusion between a large number of people, all of whom lied under oath, and that the scheme was perfectly planned and executed - a conclusion rejected as being unreasonable).

May I ask if you have any legal training?

35 years as a criminal defence lawyer (Canada).

[Jerry Freeman]

Hi Andrew, so if I'm understanding you correctly you're stating that, in at least some cases, it can come down to the shear quantity of evidence rather than the quality of each individual piece of evidence, is that correct? If so, this would seem to be exactly what Bugliosi, arguably the greatest prosecutor of his time, was basing his case on in his book. Very interesting. 

Yes that is very interesting. It comes down to who can write the thickest book.   
Bugliosi, arguably the greatest prosecutor of his time 

[Denis Pointing]

Yes. If there is enough independent evidence for the trier of fact to be satisfied that it could not reasonably fit together, as it does, without the ultimate conclusion advanced by the prosecution being correct, then the prosecution has proven the case. 

It is not so much the absolute quantity of evidence but the fact that there are many independent pieces of evidence that fit together that makes the case.  The more such pieces one has, and the more unlikely it is that each piece would fit by chance, the easier it is to dispel all reasonable doubt about the overall conclusion.  It is the way that evidence fits together that ultimately gives one the assurance that the sources of evidence are reliable (eg. the fact that multiple witnesses made similar observations and this fit with the accused's description upon arrest and with the connection to the accused) that dispels all reasonable doubt about the overall conclusion (which, in the example I gave, was the identity of the killer).

The key is the independence of the evidence.  The nature and quantity of evidence may help dispel doubt about the independence of the pieces of evidence (for example: if the only other conclusion is that there would have to have been an elaborate scheme of collusion between a large number of people, all of whom lied under oath, and that the scheme was perfectly planned and executed - a conclusion rejected as being unreasonable).35 years as a criminal defence lawyer (Canada).

Thanks for replying Andrew, and making your argument so clearly. What makes this so relevant to the JfK assassination is that any reasonable CT (not the kooks) can't deny the huge amount of individual pieces of evidence against Oswald. Of course, he/she may not accept that evidence on the grounds it mostly circumstantial but even so, in a court of law, that wouldn't necessarily be enough for an acquittal. It would be good to know if the same rule is applied in the US. If it did/does, then I can see no-way Oswald could have failed to have been found guilty.
Thanks again, fascinating post.