1964 Chain Of Custody

[Martin Weidmann]

The issue that will not die!

Bill's 2024 post is essentially correct.

I can cheerfully stipulate that seemingly critical items of evidence MIGHT have been ruled inadmissible at a criminal trial and that Oswald MIGHT have been found not guilty. And so what?

Once again: The point of a criminal trial is to determine whether the prosecution can meet its burden of proof that the accused is guilty. The purpose is not to determine "what really happened" or to write history.

As Bill suggests, before moving to introduce evidence at trial the prosecution would have recognized any defects in the chain of custody and attempted to rehabilitate them with testimony at trial. The judge could either find the defects fatal and rule the evidence inadmissible or allow the evidence while instructing the jury that the defects could be considered in weighing its probative value.

History is not bound by legal niceties. There are no formal burdens of proof, rules of evidence or rules of procedure. Historians - and us, as laymen - simply assess the evidence as we have it, warts and all. Ditto for the WC. If we think they erred in their admission and evaluation of evidence, that's fair game for discussion.

But outside the context of a criminal trial, squawking about "chain of custody" and "admissibility" is just a distraction, a red herring.

The issue that will not die!

So, what you are saying is that outside the context of a criminal trial, you can just ignore evidence you don't like, use questionable evidence and declare somebody guilty and then pretend that's the final verdict?

That's what LNs are doing here all the time. Yet, at the same time, they defend their position with cherry picked parts of the evidence and complain when non-believers call them out on their misrepresentation of the facts.

Isn't it just nice to be able to create your own case against Oswald and declare it to be the only correct opinion.

Too bad that in the 2017 mock trial more than 80% of the viewers considered the case against Oswald wasn't proven!

[John Iacoletti]

It's clean enough for reasonable people

Everybody thinks their own BS is "reasonable".

[John Iacoletti]

I said clean enough, dum-dum. And sufficiently plausible for rational people who realize that accepting the alternative is to accept the ludicrous proposition that oodles and gobs of bad guys and bad gals were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

[John Iacoletti]

Once again: The point of a criminal trial is to determine whether the prosecution can meet its burden of proof that the accused is guilty. The purpose is not to determine "what really happened" or to write history.

Forget the criminal trial.  How do you determine "what really happened" without reliable evidence?

[Lance Payette]

Forget the criminal trial.  How do you determine "what really happened" without reliable evidence?

You make a judgment as to what evidence is most reliable and what inferences are most reasonable.

Your posts all seem to be in the vein that we can't really know anything about anything insofar as the JFKA is concerned, which is an interesting quasi-Kantian philosophical position but not really a useful one.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

You make a judgment as to what evidence is most reliable and what inferences are most reasonable.

Your posts all seem to be in the vein that we can't really know anything about anything insofar as the JFKA is concerned, which is an interesting quasi-Kantian philosophical position but not really a useful one.

He said, when he dropped his mask, that McDonald planted a "throw down" gun on Oswald in the theater. He's perfectly willing to reject idealism and make judgments when he wants to. But only if it doesn't involve Oswald in a crime. I guess Oswald didn't yell and complain about this framing because he wasn't into small talk.

His problem isn't that he's a weasel; it's that he's bad at it.

[John Iacoletti]

You make a judgment as to what evidence is most reliable and what inferences are most reasonable.

Which always seems to match your pre-existing bias.  Go figure!

Your posts all seem to be in the vein that we can't really know anything about anything insofar as the JFKA is concerned, which is an interesting quasi-Kantian philosophical position but not really a useful one.

It's even less useful to equate "makes sense to me" with "what really happened".  What's wrong with just admitting that you don't know what you don't know?

[John Iacoletti]

He said, when he dropped his mask, that McDonald planted a "throw down" gun on Oswald in the theater.

Please cite me ever stating that.