Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

The hair by itself, like Steve’s photo, needed to be combined with other evidence to become more persuasive.

So, Scott Peterson didn't get sentenced to death based on one piece of hair after all?

Most of the other evidence was highly circumstantial and there was evidence manipulation and problems with the jury in that case as well. The prosecution argued that Laci's hair could only have gotten on the boat after her death as she was never near that boat while alive. However, a police officer was found to have excluded from his report that a witness he talked to had said that she saw Laci near the boat a day before her death. Apparently, the jury did not find that a big deal.

In court, things are very seldomly black and white.
As far as circumstantial cases go, what it basically means is that the prosecutor is using (very often) scant physical evidence to tell a story that might convince the jury. Very often the pieces of physical evidence can be interpreted in more ways than one which also allows for a different story to be told using the same evidence.

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but just in case I am wrong, why don't you tell us in simple terms what point you are trying to make?

[Rick Plant]

If you look back a bit in this thread, I pointed out that the perceived “issues” with some of the evidence is pure speculation and that not a spec of evidence that supports the “issues” has been brought up.

Right, but I wanted to know which specific "evidence" you citied as pure speculation.     

[Rick Plant]

Here's a photo of some of the classified documents found at Trump's home/residence/Mar-a-Lago. Is it really his residence? It possibly could be another place. Are they really classified documents? It possibly could be innocuous/personal material and not secrets. Is the photo real? Not faked? It possibly could be faked or photo shopped. Are the documents the ones requested by the government, by the National Archives? They may be different ones.

We could speculate again and again about the evidence here. About the photo and its authenticity and what it shows. But we have more than just the photo. We have a record that shows that Trump kept classified documents. And he stored them at Mar-a-Lago. And in a bathroom/unsecured place. If all you use is this photo - and speculate about it and say there's a *possibility* it's faked - then the evidence can be made to disappear. Trump didn't illegally keep classified materials because the evidence is just speculation and claims. The evidence could be this or that, the evidence could be faked, it could be staged. Do this for each piece. Presto, it disappears.

This is how the Oswald defenders look at the evidence. They characterize it as speculation, as possibly being corrupt or not authentic (obviously, many say it is corrupt and faked), and then wave it away. And *then* ignore the corroborating evidence. Which is also isolated and dismissed as speculation as well. This is not how you reconstruct an event, at how you look at one. You look at the totality of evidence and reconstruct what happened.

Trying to compare Criminal Donald stealing and hoarding top secret classified documents and refusing to give them back to Lee Harvey Oswald is comparing apples to oranges.

Criminal Donald had months to give back the top secret classified documents and he refused. So, the FBI had no other choice to go in to his residence and retrieve the classified documents stored all over the place. Donnie was caught red handed with the goods and he's also on tape admitting that the documents were still classified. The DOJ has solid evidence against Donnie.

In the case of Lee Harvey Oswald, he was not found at the scene of the crime with the "smoking gun" in his possession. There is no tape of Oswald admitting he was the assassin. So, you can't compare these two situations.         

People have every right to ask questions about what it being presented to them as evidence, and once it checks out, then it can be confirmed as legitimate.         

[John Mytton]

What exactly is your point?

There was a truckload of evidence against O.J. Simpson, yet he walked free due to a glove that did not fit (over his plastic gloves) and a catchy punchline.

That's a bit simplistic, isn't it?

There was a plethora of reasons why Simpson walked free and yes the glove not fitting was a great TV moment but there was also the Rodney King incident the year before, the location of the trial, the proportion of black jurors, Mark Fuhrman, the many omissions by the Prosecution, the DNA evidence being allegedly contaminated, the woeful effort of the prosecution, Johnny Cochrane, the perceived "dream team" etc etc.

And yes it's a cautionary tale and under the right similar conditions, a clever Defence team could again manipulate, divert and twist the truth and have Oswald acquitted, But would that be Justice?

JohnM

[John Mytton]

You've always had poor judgment, John

Btw, it didn't take long for you to return to being the childish nasty invidual we all know.

You've always had poor judgment, John

Huh?, Read the thread title "Who killed J D Tippit?" and then read the last few pages.

Btw, it didn't take long for you to return to being the childish nasty invidual we all know.

How is stating a fact childish or nasty?

If I was being childish I would say "Charles is kicking your Ass, you pooh pooh bumhead"
If I was being nasty I would say "Charles is kicking your Ass, Pathetic"

With Charles presenting real evidence of how the court system works as compared to your fantasies the only conclusion that can be derived is, "Charles is kicking your Ass", you might not like it but it is a rock solid fact.

I rest my case.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Yes, but when we say evidence shows that, for example, a rifle belonging to Oswald was found in the building they dismiss it as speculation.

Because that's what it is. If you want to claim that the rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald, you need to prove that.

We show the evidence, e.g., paper trail, photos, prints on it, for this and they again reply "Speculation, speculation, speculation."

The so-called "paper trail" is ambivalent and inconclusive. But even if it wasn't how does paperwork dated in March 1963 prove that Oswald is owner of the rifle found at the TSBD in November 1963?

The photos only prove that Oswald was holding a rifle in March 1963.

There were no prints on the rifle, according to the FBI, who examined the rifle within 24 hours after the crime.

So, if not speculation, how exactly does the paper trail, photos and an alleged print on the rifle prove that the rifle found at the TSBD actually belonged to Oswald?


The two sides may use the same words, terms, ideas but they have a fundamentally different idea as to what they mean and how to apply them.

Indeed. One side frequently calls assumptions "evidence" and the other side doesn't.

If you want to claim that the rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald, you need to prove that.

Again with this nonsense? As demonstrated oh so painfully in the last few pages, is that you clearly don't know how this works, let me set you straight.
The presented evidence is that Oswald buying C2766 was proved beyond all doubt, the fact that the same rifle(C2766) that was sent to Oswald was discovered on the 6th floor of where Oswald worked doesn't need to be proved because it's an undeniable fact. In court you could try and poke holes in Kleins business records or claim the rifle was planted etc but so far you haven't generated even the slightest doubt.   
The reality is that a competent defence would have no other option than to accept this evidence and try to free Oswald on some other legal technicality.

JohnM

[Charles Collins]

Right, but I wanted to know which specific "evidence" you citied as pure speculation.   

The point I am trying to make is that speculation is disallowed by the courts. By definition speculation is the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. If you want an example here is one where a photo taken about 50-years after the assassination of some items loaned by the national archives to a temporary exhibit is being used to suggest the fake ID was not in LHO’s possession when he was arrested.

It appears to me that the photo of the contents of the wallet was taken of an exhibit of the actual items. This exhibit was in 2013. Speculation that these items represent a complete accounting of all that was in the wallet when LHO was arrested is pure speculation.


As part of a new exhibit called Three Shots Were Fired marking the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination, the Newseum in Washington DC put on display several never-before-seen artifacts from that fateful day in November, including personal items that were in Oswald's possession on the day of his arrest.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307792/Inside-assassins-wallet-Never-seen-pictures-Lee-Harvey-Oswalds-personal-items-display.html

See post #312 in this thread if you need further information. My point is that this type of speculation (theorizing and conjecture) would not be allowed in a courtroom. It isn’t difficult to find other such instances in this thread that I pointed out. You can do it….

[Martin Weidmann]

That's a bit simplistic, isn't it?

There was a plethora of reasons why Simpson walked free and yes the glove not fitting was a great TV moment but there was also the Rodney King incident the year before, the location of the trial, the proportion of black jurors, Mark Fuhrman, the many omissions by the Prosecution, the DNA evidence being allegedly contaminated, the woeful effort of the prosecution, Johnny Cochrane, the perceived "dream team" etc etc.

And yes it's a cautionary tale and under the right similar conditions, a clever Defence team could again manipulate, divert and twist the truth and have Oswald acquitted, But would that be Justice?

JohnM

That's a bit simplistic, isn't it?

Sure, it was intented to be, so that people like you would understand.
 
It's just as simplistic as Charles Collins saying: "Ask how Scott Peterson got sentenced to death based on one piece of hair (that matched some hair on Laci’s brush) which was found on a pair of pliers in Scott’s boat."


And yes it's a cautionary tale and under the right similar conditions, a clever Defence team could again manipulate, divert and twist the truth and have Oswald acquitted, But would that be Justice?

Yes, that would be justice. Because a trial is not really about right or wrong, guilt or innocent, it's about who has the best narrative to convince the jury.

Huh?, Read the thread title "Who killed J D Tippit?" and then read the last few pages.

How is stating a fact childish or nasty?

If I was being childish I would say "Charles is kicking your Ass, you pooh pooh bumhead"
If I was being nasty I would say "Charles is kicking your Ass, Pathetic"

With Charles presenting real evidence of how the court system works as compared to your fantasies the only conclusion that can be derived is, "Charles is kicking your Ass", you might not like it but it is a rock solid fact.

I rest my case.

JohnM

Huh?, Read the thread title "Who killed J D Tippit?" and then read the last few pages.

That's not what I was talking about, which once again confirms your poor judgment. You don't even understand what I was talking about.

How is stating a fact childish or nasty?

What "fact" would that be?

If I was being childish I would say "Charles is kicking your Ass, you pooh pooh bumhead"
If I was being nasty I would say "Charles is kicking your Ass, Pathetic"

Why are you so desperate to clean up your childish nasty remarks?

With Charles presenting real evidence of how the court system works as compared to your fantasies the only conclusion that can be derived is, "Charles is kicking your Ass", you might not like it but it is a rock solid fact.

Except, Charles wasn't presenting any evidence at all. He is only quoting from standard jury instructions (anybody who is on line can do that) and I agreed with most of his interpretations. Which means that your "conclusion" is nothing more than your usual BS.

I rest my case.

I wish you would. It would be beneficial to many people.

Btw, your desperate attempt to justify your own pathetic comments is hilarious. You just can't help yourself, right?