The "smirk"

[John Iacoletti]

Pretty sure Dallas is in Texas. The Texas Penal Code does not provide a clear definition of probable cause.

“Pretty sure” the US bill of rights supersedes any state law, Canuck.

[Jack Trojan]

Revisit the OP

And? I've seen that exact same smirk before, which I'm coining the "patsy smirk". Oswald is thinking to himself, those SOBs sold me out! And I'm not even a mind-reading psychologist illustrator, like you.

[Jerry Freeman]

... it doesn't matter how close the description is.... go figure.

Yeah...I know--Oswald's smirk proves his guilt.

[Bill Chapman]

Yeah...I know--Oswald's smirk proves his guilt.

No, Oswald's smirk ONLY proves he had a smirk
Now stop crying

[Bill Chapman]

“Pretty sure” the US bill of rights supersedes any state law, Canuck.

There's also the spirit of the law to consider here... Tex.

To wit:
https://brettpodolsky.com
"Probable cause is an abstract concept of law. The finite definition of probable cause is evasive. Courts must determine whether sufficient probable cause was available for an arrest on a case by case basis."  - Brett Podolsky

[Charles Collins]

There's also the spirit of the law to consider here... Tex.

To wit:
https://brettpodolsky.com
"Probable cause is an abstract concept of law. The finite definition of probable cause is evasive. Courts must determine whether sufficient probable cause was available for an arrest on a case by case basis."  - Brett Podolsky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text


In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal or the issuing of a search warrant. It is also the standard by which grand juries issue criminal indictments. The principle behind the standard is to limit the power of authorities to perform random or abusive searches (unlawful search and seizure), and to promote lawful evidence gathering and procedural form during criminal arrest and prosecution. The standard also applies to personal or property searches.

The term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Probable in this case may relate to statistical probability or to a general standard of common behavior and customs. The context of the word probable here is not exclusive to community standards, and could partially derive from its use in formal mathematical statistics as some have suggested; but cf. probō, Latin etymology.

In U.S. immigration proceedings, the “reason to believe” standard has been interpreted as equivalent to probable cause.


The Bill of Rights originally only restricted the federal government, and went through a long initial phase of "judicial dormancy"; in the words of historian Gordon S. Wood, "After ratification, most Americans promptly forgot about the first ten amendments to the Constitution." Federal jurisdiction regarding criminal law was narrow until the late 19th century when the Interstate Commerce Act and Sherman Antitrust Act were passed. As federal criminal jurisdiction expanded to include other areas such as narcotics, more questions about the Fourth Amendment came to the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court responded to these questions by outlining the fundamental purpose of the amendment as guaranteeing "the privacy, dignity and security of persons against certain arbitrary and invasive acts by officers of the Government, without regard to whether the government actor is investigating crime or performing another function". In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Exigent circumstance: Law enforcement officers may also conduct warrantless searches in several types of exigent circumstances where obtaining a warrant is dangerous or impractical. One example is the Terry stop, which allows police to frisk suspects for weapons.

A Terry stop in the United States allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest



So, going by my layman's memory of what I learned many years ago in school:

The U.S. Supreme Court, or any part of the judicial branch, does not create laws. It only interprets laws which are created by the legislative branch, and sometimes decides whether or not they violate the Constitution. Therefore, the Supreme Court rulings in 1961 or 1968, for example, did not change the law, they clarified the intent of the law. Based on this, it appears to me that the Terry stop (which had been common practice for a long time in 1963) was not illegal.

[Michael Walton]

Getting back to the point of this thread - how Oswald's smirk *somehow* in some way signifies his guilt when he:

Went to work that day
Said, "Oh..." when a co-worker explained what all of the commotion was about in DP
Hid a gun
Built a nest
Put the gun together but didn't fire the gun to test the scope
Fired 3 shots
Hid the gun
Went down and bought a Coca Cola
Left the building
Walked down the street
Caught a bus
Got off the bus and walked over to a cab stand
Took a cab
Got out away from his destination and walked back
Changed clothes and got his pistol
Walked down the street
Shot a cop
Ejected his shells
Threw his coat down on the ground
Snuck into a theater
Fought with police and was arrested
Said, "The only reason why this happened was because I lived in Russia. I'm a patsy."
Reminded his wife to buy his daughter new shoes
Told police he was down on the first floor to watch the P. Parade.
Was murdered

Further, Oswald's mouth shape was narrow with kind of an overbite. Like this guy's mouth. Cover up this guy's face except for the mouth and you can't tell them apart. I have yet to hear if this guy has been arrested because of his smirk - LOL

[Charles Collins]

Getting back to the point of this thread - how Oswald's smirk *somehow* in some way signifies his guilt when he:

Went to work that day
Said, "Oh..." when a co-worker explained what all of the commotion was about in DP
Hid a gun
Built a nest
Put the gun together but didn't fire the gun to test the scope
Fired 3 shots
Hid the gun
Went down and bought a Coca Cola
Left the building
Walked down the street
Caught a bus
Got off the bus and walked over to a cab stand
Took a cab
Got out away from his destination and walked back
Changed clothes and got his pistol
Walked down the street
Shot a cop
Ejected his shells
Threw his coat down on the ground
Snuck into a theater
Fought with police and was arrested
Said, "The only reason why this happened was because I lived in Russia. I'm a patsy."
Reminded his wife to buy his daughter new shoes
Told police he was down on the first floor to watch the P. Parade.
Was murdered

Further, Oswald's mouth shape was narrow with kind of an overbite. Like this guy's mouth. Cover up this guy's face except for the mouth and you can't tell them apart. I have yet to hear if this guy has been arrested because of his smirk - LOL

I don’t believe that I have indicated that the “smirk” implied guilt. I thought that it was interesting that some of the witness comments included seeing the perpetrator smile or grin, etc. And I asked if anyone knew of other such witness comments. One of the two that I bought up in the first post, from Ms Davis, tends to suggest that the “smile” of the  Tippit murderer, that she saw  running away from the scene, could have been Oswald’s infamous “smirk.” And makes the suggestion that the murderer was someone else less likely to be true.