Buell Wesley Frazier

[Martin Weidmann]

I think you mean Mitch Todd? But that is neither here or there.

In response to John Iacoletti inane criticisms of Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence, a very real lawyer set Iacoletti straight about what evidence actually is, because what people learn through TV and gossip isn't necessarily correct.

Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

Notes
(Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1931; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)

Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules

Problems of relevancy call for an answer to the question whether an item of evidence, when tested by the processes of legal reasoning, possesses sufficient probative value to justify receiving it in evidence. Thus, assessment of the probative value of evidence that a person purchased a revolver shortly prior to a fatal shooting with which he is charged is a matter of analysis and reasoning.

The variety of relevancy problems is coextensive with the ingenuity of counsel in using circumstantial evidence as a means of proof. An enormous number of cases fall in no set pattern, and this rule is designed as a guide for handling them. On the other hand, some situations recur with sufficient frequency to create patterns susceptible of treatment by specific rules. Rule 404 and those following it are of that variety; they also serve as illustrations of the application of the present rule as limited by the exclusionary principles of Rule 403.

Passing mention should be made of so-called “conditional” relevancy. Morgan, Basic Problems of Evidence 45–46 (1962). In this situation, probative value depends not only upon satisfying the basic requirement of relevancy as described above but also upon the existence of some matter of fact. For example, if evidence of a spoken statement is relied upon to prove notice, probative value is lacking unless the person sought to be charged heard the statement. The problem is one of fact, and the only rules needed are for the purpose of determining the respective functions of judge and jury. See Rules 104(b) and 901. The discussion which follows in the present note is concerned with relevancy generally, not with any particular problem of conditional relevancy.

Relevancy is not an inherent characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a relation between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case. Does the item of evidence tend to prove the matter sought to be proved? Whether the relationship exists depends upon principles evolved by experience or science, applied logically to the situation at hand. James, Relevancy, Probability and the Law, 29 Calif.L.Rev. 689, 696, n. 15 (1941), in Selected Writings on Evidence and Trial 610, 615, n. 15 (Fryer ed. 1957). The rule summarizes this relationship as a “tendency to make the existence” of the fact to be proved “more probable or less probable.” Compare Uniform Rule 1(2) which states the crux of relevancy as “a tendency in reason,” thus perhaps emphasizing unduly the logical process and ignoring the need to draw upon experience or science to validate the general principle upon which relevancy in a particular situation depends.

The standard of probability under the rule is “more * * * probable than it would be without the evidence.” Any more stringent requirement is unworkable and unrealistic. As McCormick §152, p. 317, says, “A brick is not a wall,” or, as Falknor, Extrinsic Policies Affecting Admissibility, 10 Rutgers L.Rev. 574, 576 (1956), quotes Professor McBaine, “* * * t is not to be supposed that every witness can make a home run.” Dealing with probability in the language of the rule has the added virtue of avoiding confusion between questions of admissibility and questions of the sufficiency of the evidence.

The rule uses the phrase “fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action” to describe the kind of fact to which proof may properly be directed. The language is that of California Evidence Code §210; it has the advantage of avoiding the loosely used and ambiguous word “material.” Tentative Recommendation and a Study Relating to the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Art. I. General Provisions), Cal. Law Revision Comm'n, Rep., Rec. & Studies, 10–11 (1964). The fact to be proved may be ultimate, intermediate, or evidentiary; it matters not, so long as it is of consequence in the determination of the action. Cf. Uniform Rule 1(2) which requires that the evidence relate to a “material” fact.

The fact to which the evidence is directed need not be in dispute. While situations will arise which call for the exclusion of evidence offered to prove a point conceded by the opponent, the ruling should be made on the basis of such considerations as waste of time and undue prejudice (see Rule 403), rather than under any general requirement that evidence is admissible only if directed to matters in dispute. Evidence which is essentially background in nature can scarcely be said to involve disputed matter, yet it is universally offered and admitted as an aid to understanding. Charts, photographs, views of real estate, murder weapons, and many other items of evidence fall in this category. A rule limiting admissibility to evidence directed to a controversial point would invite the exclusion of this helpful evidence, or at least the raising of endless questions over its admission. Cf. California Evidence Code §210, defining relevant evidence in terms of tendency to prove a disputed fact.

Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment

The language of Rule 401 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401

JohnM

Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

No matter how much you google "arguments" the basic fact still remains that you do not have a shred of evidence to show there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.

So, there is no point in discussing if evidence is relevant, as there is no evidence to begin with.

Care to try again?

[Tom Sorensen]

Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage.

How does dumped on the garage floor become "safely stored"?

ROFL

[Jack Nessan]

Incorrectly based on what a nutter (that is you) told me.  - I wont do that again.
You kicked yourself back to square one. Where did LMR say Lee used his left hand?

based on what a nutter (that is you) told me.

Sure, why would anyone doubt that you did. Actually, that has to be one of the stranger things you have posted.

You are denying LHO walked bent over, good choice LHO was walking erect with a 3 foot 6 inch bag. We all know, nobody would walk bent over with the 27 inch bag. You had the right answer and here you are now you are denying it. I don't know why you would want to do that. You personally have posted all of these. Did you not ever read them? Maybe subconsciously you just did not want to know what she said. She destroys the short bag nonsense and the whole conspiracy tripe that goes along with it.

Where did LMR say Lee used his left hand?

Let us review, Linnie gives two different descriptions of how each hand held the package. “Gripping or grabbing or grab” the top with the right hand and “hugging” the bottom with the other.

Right hand:

Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he? 

Mrs. RANDLE. That is right. 

Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package? 

Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.

 

Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

Left Hand:

Mr. BALL. I have one question, Mr. Chief Justice.
You used an expression there, that the bag appeared heavy.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he [i]hugged [/i]it in his hand. It was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward the top?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.


Both Hands:

I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.

Linnie shreds BWF testimony. It leaves you with two choices, one he deliberately misleads investigators or two as he said he just did not pay any attention. You should be happy. Your posting made a significant contribution to understanding how Linnie's bag recollections shed light on the question of LHO transporting the rifle to the TSBD.

 

[John Mytton]

Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage.

How does dumped on the garage floor become "safely stored"?

ROFL

Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage.

How does dumped on the garage floor become "safely stored"?

It was safely stored in the confines of a crowded garage as part of a house which was virtually occupied 24/7, that's a safe environment.
It wasn't stored outside behind a tree or leaning against a house.
The rifle itself was stored inconspicuously in a blanket, even Michael who interacted with the blanket numerous times thought that it contained pipes or a shovel. 
Is a thief going to back up a truck and empty the entire contents of the tightly stuffed garage and even if they did, a blanket on the floor wouldn't have a high priority.
BTW, out of the post you replied to, you edit out every other fact and then decide to fall on your sword with a misjudged, misguided easily refuted, assertion! Really?



Mr. LIEBELER - Did you think there was more than one tent pole in the package or just one tent pole?
Mr. PAINE - As I say, I moved it several times, and I think I thought progressively each time. I moved it twice. It had three occasions. And the first one was an iron, thought of an iron pipe and then I have drawn, I drew yesterday, a picture of the thing I had in mind. Then in order to fill out the package I had to add another object to it and there I added again I was thinking of camping equipment, and I added a folding shovel such as I had seen in the Army, a little spade where the blade folds back over the handle. This has the trouble that this blade was too symmetrical I disposed to the handle and to fit the package the blade had to be off center, eccentric to the handle. Also, I had my vision of the pipe. It had an iron pipe about 30 inches long with a short section of pipe going off 45 degrees. No words here, it just happened that I did have this image in my mind of trying to fill up that package in the back burner of my mind.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/paine_m1.htm

ROFL

For someone who is constantly "rolling on the floor laughing", you don't seem like a very funny guy, in fact you give the impression of an overly paranoid dude, with a permanent scowl on your face!

JohnM

[Tom Sorensen]

It was safely stored in the confines of a crowded garage as part of a house which was virtually occupied 24/7, that's a safe environment.
It wasn't stored outside behind a tree or leaning against a house.
The rifle itself was stored inconspicuously in a blanket, even Michael who interacted with the blanket numerous times thought that it contained pipes or a shovel. 
Is a thief going to back up a truck and empty the entire contents of the tightly stuffed garage and even if they did, a blanket on the floor wouldn't have a high priority.
BTW, out of the post you replied to, you edit out every other fact and then decide to fall on your sword with a misjudged, misguided easily refuted, assertion! Really?



Mr. LIEBELER - Did you think there was more than one tent pole in the package or just one tent pole?
Mr. PAINE - As I say, I moved it several times, and I think I thought progressively each time. I moved it twice. It had three occasions. And the first one was an iron, thought of an iron pipe and then I have drawn, I drew yesterday, a picture of the thing I had in mind. Then in order to fill out the package I had to add another object to it and there I added again I was thinking of camping equipment, and I added a folding shovel such as I had seen in the Army, a little spade where the blade folds back over the handle. This has the trouble that this blade was too symmetrical I disposed to the handle and to fit the package the blade had to be off center, eccentric to the handle. Also, I had my vision of the pipe. It had an iron pipe about 30 inches long with a short section of pipe going off 45 degrees. No words here, it just happened that I did have this image in my mind of trying to fill up that package in the back burner of my mind.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/paine_m1.htm



For someone who is constantly "rolling on the floor laughing", you don't seem like a very funny guy, in fact you give the impression of an overly paranoid dude, with a permanent scowl on your face!

JohnM

Wow, that took a lot of words attempting to back up your claim! By now you should know that I enjoy taking potshots at the weak Nutters. BTW, had you been one of the elite LNs, you would simply have argued that the bundle didn't include the ammo; hence, it was perfectly safe for even the children to slip into the garage. In fact, not even an empty ammunition box was anywhere to be found in the Paine residence. Not safe for the scope, though, to end up on the floor and being kicked around, ROFL.

[Tom Sorensen]

Your history here is an open book and there was nothing false about my observation, the fact that you are here freaking out, is very telling.

JohnM

I was not "responding for Martin". Another unsupported claim we can put on top of your existing pile of unsupported claims. Carry on, John!

[Tom Sorensen]

Yeah sure, combing through testimony and cross referencing archives is pre-school stuff? Did you discover this or did you rip off other researchers?

I referred to the dates, like looking them up in a 1963 calendar, but maybe I was too harsh saying preschool. Should have said 3rd grade; did you even make it past 3rd grade? Ripping off researchers sounds interesting; what was that all about?

See the problem here Tom, is that you appear to have no experience in the real World, human error out here is so prevalent that it's away of life.
Newspaper articles get locations, facts, times and etc, wrong all the time. Just witness the initial reports in this case alone, different rifles, agents killed, mistaken and/or misrepresented evidence and the list goes on and on.

What I conclude in this Paine curtain rod saga is the WC date of the curtain rod collection is in line with Day's fingerprint analysis and the subsequent Howlett collection, nuff said!
As I said at the start, this is months after the assassination and is a simple exercise in satisfying the public with every potential possibility.

BTW I asked you to "convince me if this is something beyond innocent human error" and where could this possibly be construed as something evil? But as usual you have no answers.

JohnM

I'm not here to convince you of anything. Day not being present and signing the form is pretty far out, even for a Nutter. Adding the 24th to your fantasy makes even less sense if the rods are dusted on the 25th. You've stopped making any sense, so I'll wait around for the more elite Nutters to chime in.

[John Mytton]

Wow, that took a lot of words attempting to back up your claim! By now you should know that I enjoy taking potshots at the weak Nutters. BTW, had you been one of the elite LNs, you would simply have argued that the bundle didn't include the ammo; hence, it was perfectly safe for even the children to slip into the garage. In fact, not even an empty ammunition box was anywhere to be found in the Paine residence. Not safe for the scope, though, to end up on the floor and being kicked around, ROFL.

Wow, that took a lot of words attempting to back up your claim!

And considering you couldn't refute a single point, makes my facts the only possible answers. Thanks for playing.

By now you should know that I enjoy taking potshots at the weak Nutters.

And this is the best you got, after I just humiliated you? Get real.

BTW, had you been one of the elite LNs, you would simply have argued that the bundle didn't include the ammo; hence, it was perfectly safe for even the children to slip into the garage.

What idiot stores his rifle with the ammo, you're not very good at this are you, Tom!

In fact, not even an empty ammunition box was anywhere to be found in the Paine residence.

Oswald didn't even have enough bullets to fill his clip, any ammo box was long gone.

Not safe for the scope, though, to end up on the floor and being kicked around, ROFL.

What proof have you got that the scope was attached or even in the Blanket, because at Neely street, Oswald's rifle didn't have the scope attached, Oops, so it's not a given that it was permanently attached. And considering the rifle was war surplus, you know designed to be used in a war, I don't think Oswald was too concerned about a few toddlers rummaging about around his blanket wrapped rifle. Hahahaha!

Mr. RANKIN. Was it out in the room at that time, as distinguished from in a closet in the room?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was open, out in the open. At first I think---I saw some package up on the top shelf, and I think that that was the rifle. But I didn't know. And apparently later he assembled it and had it in the room.
Mr. RANKIN. When you saw the rifle assembled in the room, did it have the scope on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it did not have a scope on it.



BTW I love smashing silly overconfident bully CT's, it makes each and every win extremely satisfying.

Next time bring your "A" game because so far making you look the fool is just way too easy. Now run along and do a little research so you can at least appear barely competent.

JohnM