Lack Of Damage To CE-399

[Andrew Mason]

In your example, there is no reasonable doubt that the accused was "driving a red pickup truck with a damaged right tail-light", right?  And there's no reasonable doubt that a video exists of him drinking with the deceased earlier in the evening, right (although I'm not sure how that's relevant unless he claimed to not know the victim at all, or he had an alibi that was contradicted by the video)?

In my scenario, yes. But it is not required. At some point you have to arrest the accused.  Let's call him "Dave".  There could have be a friend who said he saw his friend Dave (whom he knew) driving his red pickup truck and noticed that the truck had a damaged right tail light.  You could question whether he was correct.  And there could be doubt that the video shows "Dave" with the accused - it could be poor resolution and just show a guy with a beard who could be Dave.  It doesn't matter if you have enough pieces of independent evidence.

If there is reasonable doubt of these things, then it's a whole different conversation.

Not at all. First of all, it is a mistake to apply reasonable doubt to a piece of evidence.  Say you have a picture of Dave killing the victim. Would you say "oh, it is just a digital picture and show the jury one pixel at a time and ask: does this look like Dave?". The jury  would say, "no it doesn't but when you put them all together I see Dave killing the victim".  That is an extreme example but it is kind of how evidence works.

Instead, let's say for example that the cops claimed he was arrested "driving a red pickup truck with a damaged right tail-light", but they lost the truck, or they produce a photo of the truck but it doesn't have a broken tail-light.  Or there are witnesses to the arrest who say he was arrested in a blue car...

It all depends on what the other evidence shows.  But these things really don't happen that way.  When someone drives away in a red truck, two minutes later they are likely still in the red truck.  If a person is stopped in the blue truck, they are probably not going to fit the description because they are not the culprit.  You can make up anything you want and say "what if a guy fitting the exact description is stopped but he is in a blue truck" but that is very unlikely to actually occur.   

[John Iacoletti]

Say you have a picture of Dave killing the victim. Would you say "oh, it is just a digital picture and show the jury one pixel at a time and ask: does this look like Dave?". The jury  would say, "no it doesn't but when you put them all together I see Dave killing the victim".  That is an extreme example but it is kind of how evidence works.

It's not just extreme, it's a faulty analogy.  A more appropriate analogy is me holding up a bunch of random pixels and just claiming that they combine to form the picture of Dave killing the victim.  Then losing the pixels.

  You can make up anything you want and say "what if a guy fitting the exact description is stopped but he is in a blue truck" but that is very unlikely to actually occur.   

No, what I'm saying is that you have 4 witnesses.  One says yellow bus, one says blue car, one says red truck, and one says orange SUV.  The prosecutor says well, the police said they arrested a guy in a red truck, so obviously the other 3 were mistaken.

[Andrew Mason]

It's not just extreme, it's a faulty analogy.  A more appropriate analogy is me holding up a bunch of random pixels and just claiming that they combine to form the picture of Dave killing the victim.  Then losing the pixels.

Then you aren't going to be able to present the pixels as evidence. What evidence was lost?

No, what I'm saying is that you have 4 witnesses.  One says yellow bus, one says blue car, one says red truck, and one says orange SUV.  The prosecutor says well, the police said they arrested a guy in a red truck, so obviously the other 3 were mistaken.

If you have 4 witnesses and all saying 4 different things, there may be a much better chance that they are deliberately lying and making it up than honestly relating what they saw. Honest witnesses are just not that wildly different in recalling events. As I said, you can make up anything. It doesn't mean it happens in real life.

[John Iacoletti]

Then you aren't going to be able to present the pixels as evidence. What evidence was lost?

Arjan Hut had a thread on the old forum called "Erasing the past to protect a fairytale" in which he compiled hundreds of examples of evidence that should exist but for whatever reason is now "missing".  He's resurrected the list on another forum.  But to give you a few examples, the Klein's microfilm, the negative for the CE133A backyard photo, and the alleged prints on the CE142 large paper bag.

If you have 4 witnesses and all saying 4 different things, there may be a much better chance that they are deliberately lying and making it up than honestly relating what they saw. Honest witnesses are just not that wildly different in recalling events. As I said, you can make up anything. It doesn't mean it happens in real life.

Ok, so what does it mean if different witnesses near say a police officer shooting describe a man wearing a white jacket, a dark wool coat, a long coat, a brown jacket, a gray jacket, and a tan jacket?

[Bill Chapman]

LOL

You just didn't
  

[Bill Chapman]

Are you claiming that CE399 only hit flesh?  Interesting...

Are you claiming that I said that?  Interesting...

[Andrew Mason]

Arjan Hut had a thread on the old forum called "Erasing the past to protect a fairytale" in which he compiled hundreds of examples of evidence that should exist but for whatever reason is now "missing".  He's resurrected the list on another forum.  But to give you a few examples, the Klein's microfilm, the negative for the CE133A backyard photo, and the alleged prints on the CE142 large paper bag.

This is not exactly missing evidence. In each case, there is evidence of what they showed.  Marina said that she took the photos and there were, in fact, at least two identical prints that turned up.  There is no rule of evidence that one has to produce a negative of every photograph that is entered or that a court is required to order production if asked to do so. The Klein's microfilm was used to produce the records using a process that simply copied the information. I think it is the original documents that were missing.  The large paper bag was subjected to destructive fingerprint processes so they made a similar bag to show what the original looked like.  But before it was damaged, it was photographed (with a ruler).

With a big investigation like this, I am surprised there weren't more things that have gone missing. If it was part of a plot by law enforcement, I am not sure why these items would have been chosen to get "lost".

Ok, so what does it mean if different witnesses near say a police officer shooting describe a man wearing a white jacket, a dark wool coat, a long coat, a brown jacket, a gray jacket, and a tan jacket?

My recollection is that there was reasonable consistency in the description of what he was wearing.  Having said that "white", "tan" and "gray" could be just a semantic difference in description - they all refer to a light colour.  I would be interested to know who said he wore a long coat or a dark wool coat though.  Can you provide me with the source of your information with citations to the actual statements? 

[John Iacoletti]

Marina said that she took the photos

Marina said that she took one photo with a black camera that you hold up to your face.  Then she changed that to two photos.

  There is no rule of evidence that one has to produce a negative of every photograph that is entered or that a court is required to order production if asked to do so.

If one wants to claim that a certain camera took a certain photo, I think one does. Or if an examination of an enlargement of a purported area of said negative is conducted without having the negative to validate it.

The Klein's microfilm was used to produce the records using a process that simply copied the information. I think it is the original documents that were missing.

The microfilm itself is missing too.  So we're left with having to take somebody's word for it that the copies reflect what was actually on the film and that the film reflects the original documents.

  The large paper bag was subjected to destructive fingerprint processes so they made a similar bag to show what the original looked like.  But before it was damaged, it was photographed (with a ruler).

So we're left with having to take somebody's word for it that the now destroyed prints were those of a particular person.

I would be interested to know who said he wore a long coat or a dark wool coat though.  Can you provide me with the source of your information with citations to the actual statements?

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. [Barbara] DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.


Frank Wright interview:

"I looked around to see what had happened. I knew there had been a shooting. I saw a man standing right in front of the car. He was looking toward the man on the ground. He stood there for a while and looked at the man. The man who was standing in front of him was about medium height. He had on a long coat. It ended just above his hands." 

Marrs, Crossfire,
Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy