Perhaps they do, but that doesn’t make it evidence.
I'm completely baffled by this comment.
Of course a juries' choice of "narrative" is not evidence.
How could it be considered evidence?
I wrote:
"Juries use common sense all the time to determine which "narrative" is the most realistic/probable.
The narrative emerges from the totality of evidence available for any particular case, it determines (and is determined by) how each piece of evidence is interpreted."
The "narrative" is an interpretation of the totality of the evidence in a particular case.
Conversely, any new evidence that emerges is then interpreted in the light of the "narrative".
A jury must then use it's common sense to determine which narrative is more realistic/probable.
But why you would then have to point out that this determination, made by the jury, is not, in and of itself "evidence", is completely baffling.
I've never made such a suggestion and would never think to do so.
I'm clearly missing the point you are making.
This is why it’s important to distinguish actual evidence from assumptions made about the evidence. The WC narrative is not conclusively supported by the totality of the evidence.
There is no "narrative" that is
conclusively supported by the totality of the evidence in this case. I'd wager there are many cases where the narrative isn't
conclusively supported by the evidence. Yet a determination must still be made.
At the heart of any criminal case are competing "narratives" from which the jury must choose. This is why Common Sense is of fundamental importance.
No, that doesn’t absolve the people who make up a narrative from demonstrating that it’s actually true. The burden of proof always lies on the person making the positive claim. The only thing that’s required to reject a claim is to show that it has not met that burden. For example it was not rational to accept as true the claim that the moon is made of cheese prior to humans visiting it. There wasn’t any conclusive evidence to support that — it was just a narrative made up by somebody who considered it “common sense”. Sure, it’s better to keep investigating and come up with a correct answer, but it’s not a requirement for rejection. The point in showing that the proffered evidence is either not evidence at all (ring in a cup), questionable/tainted (lineups), or not pointing to a specific person (shells by the window) is to show why the burden of proof has not been met.
This isn't a trial.
There is no "burden of proof".
Nit-picking at the details is meaningless.
It is a question of competing narratives and which, however imperfect, fits best with the evidence related to this case.
We have very different ideas about what "common sense" is.
You seem to think "common sense" is the same as a belief system - people believing the moon is made of cheese because they've been told to believe that.
In my opinion, it is an intuitive rationalising based on our experiences as human beings.
"What goes up must come down", is a good example of common sense. There's no need to have studied physics or have even heard of the concept of gravity to appreciate this as a general "truism".
Right. And the best answer that fits all the known evidence is “undetermined”. I know that doesn’t satisfy people who would rather have an answer, even if they have to make one up, but it is what it is.
I didn't mention "answers". Why are you suddenly talking about "answers"?
What is the best narrative?
Is there a better narrative than the LNer one.
What is the best "Defense Narrative" to the LNers "Prosecution Narrative".
Also agreed. Which is why the legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not just “story makes sense to me”.
Reasonable Doubt is not an empirical measure, it is a measure of Common Sense. It is a subjective measure.
Logic is not interested in Reasonable Doubt, it is only interested in Zero Doubt.
That’s not the same kind of assumption as the previous two. In fact it has no evidentiary basis at all. And even if it happens to be correct, that doesn’t mean his watch was precise or that he remembered it properly. A photo carries much more weight.
I agree that a photo carries more weight but this does not negate the weight of the testimony of someone like Powers.
It is easily argued that, as the assistant Appointments Secretary to the President of the United States, Powers is an expert in timekeeping. It is the basis of his job. His job is specifically related to keeping a track of time. And not just for anyone, it's for the most powerful man on the planet at that time. And the key piece of equipment for this job must be his watch, which, one would imagine, has to be incredibly reliable.
His testimony on this matter must be considered credible.
You have given no basis for declaring this as his custom.
He states this himself:
"
In accordance with my custom, I was very much concerned about our timing and at just about that point I looked at my watch and noted that it was almost exactly 12:30 p.m."
He is talking about something that is second nature to him - to keep track of the time.
The problem with this is that it’s hearsay. Greer didn’t see what Kellerman’s watch said. There’s a reason that hearsay testimony is generally not permitted in a trial.
Greer is testifying to seeing Kellerman look at his watch and say "12:30". That's it.
It can be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Kellerman's watch read 12:30pm as:
a) This is what Kellerman states
b) This is the time on the Hertz clock
c) This is the time on Powers' watch
d) This is the timestamp on the DP tapes
It may not be an Absolute Truth but it is a reasonable conclusion.
But the only one you have physical evidence for is the Hertz clock. And there’s no compelling reason to believe it must be more accurate than any other timepiece.
It doesn't need to be "more accurate", just the same accuracy.
Absolutely. Because Curry’s 12:30 announcement was on channel 2 and all the Tippit related timechecks were on channel 1. Different dispatcher, different clock. And besides that, the time of the Tippit shooting is not captured on the police recordings at all — only the aftermath.
The impression given here is that the two dispatchers are somehow isolated from each other.
I don't know what the physical set-up of the dispatchers was but the testimony of Gerald Henslee gives a different impression:
Mr. Belin: Could you Just describe your duties there as to what they included?
Mr. Henslee: Well, in this instance, I was not only supervising the channel 1 radio and the incoming radio calls, but was the police dispatcher for channel 2, covering the special event of the arrival of the President of the United States, President Kennedy.From this I get the impression Henslee was across both channels.
