Do we know anymore at 60 years?

[Royell Storing]

A witness can have character issues and still be credible. There are many factors involved in deciding whether or not to believe certain aspects of a witness’ account. Character is only one of the factors that should be considered.

    Even a Serial Killer does Not kill every single person they meet. Bearing this in mind, would you choose to chum around with a Serial Killer even though they do not Kill everyone they come into contact with? To a far lesser degree and with the "character" issue in mind, would you trust the testimony of a "Jailhouse snitch"? 

[Fergus O'Brien]

Perhaps the reasons why someone (either LN or CT or whatever, it doesn’t matter) would believe part of a witness’ account, but not believe another part of the same witness’ account, were not fully explained to you. Maybe you didn’t ask for their reasons. Or you are simply ignoring those reasons and trying to imply that they are using faulty logic. Remember that a jury is instructed that they must consider all of the evidence. While I agree that a forum isn’t the same as an online court room, I think that the application of some courtroom practices makes sense in our judgements as to what we think happened. After all, those practices are in place to help insure a fair trial takes place.

i am not implying faulty logic on the part of LN .now i have spoken with LN who were reasonable enough in their approach , that is to say they were willing to debate , and do so in a friendly manner. but in my experience that is a rarity , i can probably count these LN cases on one hand . and as i believe it was Royell  who pointed out there is a difference between fallible and credible . all humans err , its part of being human .a person simply shown to have been in error does not lack credibility . However if a person embellishes , deceives or lies they at best lack credibility and at worse lose any credibility they might have had . i am talking about witnesses now , not anyone on this site .

but we must have good and valid reasons for dismissing any witness . LN are far too quick to dismiss any witness who is problematic to their stance .of course some witnesses do have credibility issues , some have been discussed recently here such as Jean Hill , and i understand the reasons why . so my point is that LN seem to feel that they are the ones who decide what witness is credible OR NOT and whether evidence is credible or not . when an LN says there is no credible evidence that differs greatly from there being NO EVIDENCE . and yes a witness MAY be accurate and truthful and also simply err . and a witness may be truthful in the majority of what they say , but then embellish or even lie . and if so whether it be here or in a court of law i believe the same question should be asked . IF THEY EMBELLISHED OR LIED ABOUT EVEN ONE THING CAN /SHOULD WE TRUST ANYTHING THEY SAID ? . and if we whether CT or LN are applying levels and standards to decide credibility of witnesses , well we MUST apply those same standards equally across the board . meaning if an LN says for example that a witness lied once so they are not credible , that that same logic applies to their witnesses .

[Charles Collins]

i am not implying faulty logic on the part of LN .now i have spoken with LN who were reasonable enough in their approach , that is to say they were willing to debate , and do so in a friendly manner. but in my experience that is a rarity , i can probably count these LN cases on one hand . and as i believe it was Royell  who pointed out there is a difference between fallible and credible . all humans err , its part of being human .a person simply shown to have been in error does not lack credibility . However if a person embellishes , deceives or lies they at best lack credibility and at worse lose any credibility they might have had . i am talking about witnesses now , not anyone on this site .

but we must have good and valid reasons for dismissing any witness . LN are far too quick to dismiss any witness who is problematic to their stance .of course some witnesses do have credibility issues , some have been discussed recently here such as Jean Hill , and i understand the reasons why . so my point is that LN seem to feel that they are the ones who decide what witness is credible OR NOT and whether evidence is credible or not . when an LN says there is no credible evidence that differs greatly from there being NO EVIDENCE . and yes a witness MAY be accurate and truthful and also simply err . and a witness may be truthful in the majority of what they say , but then embellish or even lie . and if so whether it be here or in a court of law i believe the same question should be asked . IF THEY EMBELLISHED OR LIED ABOUT EVEN ONE THING CAN /SHOULD WE TRUST ANYTHING THEY SAID ? . and if we whether CT or LN are applying levels and standards to decide credibility of witnesses , well we MUST apply those same standards equally across the board . meaning if an LN says for example that a witness lied once so they are not credible , that that same logic applies to their witnesses .

I think you are trying to simplify and generalize a process that isn’t conducive to either one. Each aspect of a witness’ account should be considered individually.

[Charles Collins]

    Even a Serial Killer does Not kill every single person they meet. Bearing this in mind, would you choose to chum around with a Serial Killer even though they do not Kill everyone they come into contact with? To a far lesser degree and with the "character" issue in mind, would you trust the testimony of a "Jailhouse snitch"?

I wouldn’t automatically dismiss testimony of a jailhouse snitch simply because he was a jailhouse snitch. I would consider it along with the rest of the evidence.

[Royell Storing]

I wouldn’t automatically dismiss testimony of a jailhouse snitch simply because he was a jailhouse snitch. I would consider it along with the rest of the evidence.

    I believe it is now time to discuss "naivette".

[Charles Collins]

    I believe it is now time to discuss "naivette".

It is what is required and expected of a jury. Naïveté is an assumption on your part. If you think I am naive, you are grossly in error.

[Zeon Mason]

What we need is a real person who is the same height and body mass to JC with legs of the same length , to sit in the actual jump seat of the JFK  limo and determine the most probable angle of JCs legs in relation to his upper torso and shoulders which appear imo to be at an angle NOT parallel exactly with the side door, per as in the Z-224-225 frames

( Maybe Mr.Collins can do another actual empirical test like he has done before , when he demonstrated how a shooter in the 6th floor SN window could have sat on the box next to the pipes and be out if sight during the Hughes film)

The Knotts laboratory experiment (judging from their video graphic ) has what appears to me to be both of JCs  legs basically parallel to the side door , such that his Knees would be pressing into the back of Kellerman seat.

But if JCs upper torso and shoulder line was turned somewhat towards viewing umbrella man and DC man as it seems to appear to my own human eyeballs viewing the individual frames of Z223 -Z225 then it seems to me that JC trying to keep his legs parallel , while his upper torso is having to twist slightly , would have been an uncomfortable position for JC, especially if he was holding the hat upside down with the well  of the hat hanging off the outer (left) side of his left thigh , with his right  hand holding the rim of the hat pressed against the upper part of his left leg.

And if that’s the position the laboratory guys were using then that explains why they cannot align the exit wound from JCs right side of his chest with the wrist wound in his right hand and   with the left thigh wound.

I think theres probably only one way the SBT  trajectory alignment is possible, and that requires both of JCs  legs to be turned at some diagonal angle towards the right side door to the same degree his upper torso and chest and shoulder line seem to be in Z223-225.  I have to speculate that would probably have been a more comfortable position for JCs legs having a bit more room due to that diagonal angle.

However, if there’s some follow up by other scientific methodologists whom can absolutely determine which way JCs legs were oriented relative to his upper torso and shoulder angle , which winds up matching the leg position  the Knotts lab graphics show, then it would be a refutation of the Myers computer trajectory line and thus would prove the SBT is improbable.

The actual experiment in the 2003 Beyond Conspiracy to attempt to prove Myers computer model trajectory FAILED to prove the trajectory because the bullet that exited from the JFK replica , exited from the right side chest , in effect would have gone thru JFKs right lung rather than the throat.

Also Dr. Wecht, has NOT been refuted regarding his opinion on the slight deformation of CE 399 being highly improbable for a bullet that traversed thru thru 2 human body and ribs bones  plus having entered thru  the wrist bone of JCs hand BACKWARDs!.

[Charles Collins]

What we need is a real person who is the same height and body mass to JC with legs of the same length , to sit in the actual jump seat of the JFK  limo and determine the most probable angle of JCs legs in relation to his upper torso and shoulders which appear imo to be at an angle NOT parallel exactly with the side door, per as in the Z-224-225 frames

( Maybe Mr.Collins can do another actual empirical test like he has done before , when he demonstrated how a shooter in the 6th floor SN window could have sat on the box next to the pipes and be out if sight during the Hughes film)

The Knotts laboratory experiment (judging from their video graphic ) has what appears to me to be both of JCs  legs basically parallel to the side door , such that his Knees would be pressing into the back of Kellerman seat.

But if JCs upper torso and shoulder line was turned somewhat towards viewing umbrella man and DC man as it seems to appear to my own human eyeballs viewing the individual frames of Z223 -Z225 then it seems to me that JC trying to keep his legs parallel , while his upper torso is having to twist slightly , would have been an uncomfortable position for JC, especially if he was holding the hat upside down with the well  of the hat hanging off the outer (left) side of his left thigh , with his right  hand holding the rim of the hat pressed against the upper part of his left leg.

And if that’s the position the laboratory guys were using then that explains why they cannot align the exit wound from JCs right side of his chest with the wrist wound in his right hand and   with the left thigh wound.

I think theres probably only one way the SBT  trajectory alignment is possible, and that requires both of JCs  legs to be turned at some diagonal angle towards the right side door to the same degree his upper torso and chest and shoulder line seem to be in Z223-225.  I have to speculate that would probably have been a more comfortable position for JCs legs having a bit more room due to that diagonal angle.

However, if there’s some follow up by other scientific methodologists whom can absolutely determine which way JCs legs were oriented relative to his upper torso and shoulder angle , which winds up matching the leg position  the Knotts lab graphics show, then it would be a refutation of the Myers computer trajectory line and thus would prove the SBT is improbable.

The actual experiment in the 2003 Beyond Conspiracy to attempt to prove Myers computer model trajectory FAILED to prove the trajectory because the bullet that exited from the JFK replica , exited from the right side chest , in effect would have gone thru JFKs right lung rather than the throat.

Also Dr. Wecht, has NOT been refuted regarding his opinion on the slight deformation of CE 399 being highly improbable for a bullet that traversed thru thru 2 human body and ribs bones  plus having entered thru  the wrist bone of JCs hand BACKWARDs!.

Probably about 10-years ago I experimented with a chair tilted back at about the same angle as the jump seat. I simulated the height of the jump seat off the floor of the limo by placing an object of the appropriate height on the floor in front of the chair (where the feet would rest on the object). And I was able to demonstrate to myself how I would have sat in the seat, how it felt, and how I would have turned to look over my right shoulder (as JBC said he did). Anyone can do this experiment for themselves without very much trouble. And I do recommend it. What I found is that, mostly due to the backward tilt of the seat and the low height of the seat above the floor of the limo and the short distance to the front seat, the knees are elevated and gravity tends to “pin” you to the seat back. When turning to look back over the right shoulder, I found it natural that I would lift my torso slightly in order to twist it to the right. And when I settled back onto the seat back my right shoulder would end up near the center (side to side) of the seat back. Also, the legs naturally would be turned to the right and pinned up against the right side if the limo interior. And when one considers that JBC was photographed often with his torso and shoulders turned at an angle to the right, it appears to me that his legs would most likely have also been turned to a similar angle. The reasons are that it would have been uncomfortable and required an effort for him to maintain his torso twisted in relation to his legs for an extended period of time such as the length of time it took for the motorcade to travel through Dallas, and there is more room for his long legs to extend out away from him if he has them turned toward the right side of the limo. If you don’t want to go to the trouble of setting up a chair, just try sitting in the front (bucket) seat of a car and turn around to look over your right shoulder to see the passenger seated behind you. I think you will find out for yourself that JBC probably had his legs turned to the right.