Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

Wow, a Martin response without a vulgar insult, maybe there is hope for you.

JohnM

Thank for your sharing your unpredictable opinion.

[John Mytton]

Thank for your sharing your unpredictable opinion.

OMG, two civil responses in a row, you're well on your way to being a Lner, welcome to the club!

JohnM

[Charles Collins]

That's exactly right, Charles.  It shouldn't need to be pointed out, but....

What really needs to be pointed out is that speculation is not allowed to be considered when considering whether or not there is reasonable doubt. Only evidence (exhibits, sworn testimony, etc.) which is allowed to be introduced at a trial is allowed for consideration. All the speculation, in all the books, articles, web forum posts, etc., that tries to entice the readers to have doubts about LHO’s guilt would not be allowed at a trial (including a jury room).

From the US Courts for the Ninth Circuit:

3.5 REASONABLE DOUBT—DEFINED

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced the defendant is guilty. It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.

A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.

If after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty. On the other hand, if after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant guilty.

https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/338

[Martin Weidmann]

What really needs to be pointed out is that speculation is not allowed to be considered when considering whether or not there is reasonable doubt. Only evidence (exhibits, sworn testimony, etc.) which is allowed to be introduced at a trial is allowed for consideration. All the speculation, in all the books, articles, web forum posts, etc., that tries to entice the readers to have doubts about LHO’s guilt would not be allowed at a trial (including a jury room).

From the US Courts for the Ninth Circuit:

3.5 REASONABLE DOUBT—DEFINED

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced the defendant is guilty. It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.

A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.

If after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty. On the other hand, if after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant guilty.

https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/338

All the speculation, in all the books, articles, web forum posts, etc., that tries to entice the readers to have doubts about LHO’s guilt would not be allowed at a trial (including a jury room).

And the same goes of course for all the assumptions and speculations made to try to make at least some sort of coherent case against Oswald.

[Charles Collins]

Sadly, some people mistake and try to classify reasonable inferences for speculation. Here is more, this time from the US Courts for the Fifth Circuit:


In considering the evidence, you are permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits as you feel are justified in the light of common experience. In other words, you may make deductions and reach conclusions that reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts which have been established by the evidence.
Do not be concerned about whether evidence is “direct evidence” or “circumstantial evidence.” You
should consider and weigh all of the evidence that was presented to you.
“Direct evidence” is the testimony of one who asserts actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eye witness. “Circumstantial evidence” is proof of a chain of events and circumstances indicating that something is or is not a fact.
The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given either direct or circumstantial evidence. But the law requires that you, after weighing all of the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, be convinced of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt before you can find him guilty.

https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf

[Martin Weidmann]

Sadly, some people mistake and try to classify reasonable inferences for speculation. Here is more, this time from the US Courts for the Fifth Circuit:

In considering the evidence, you are permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits as you feel are justified in the light of common experience. In other words, you may make deductions and reach conclusions that reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts which have been established by the evidence.
Do not be concerned about whether evidence is “direct evidence” or “circumstantial evidence.” You
should consider and weigh all of the evidence that was presented to you.
“Direct evidence” is the testimony of one who asserts actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eye witness. “Circumstantial evidence” is proof of a chain of events and circumstances indicating that something is or is not a fact.
The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given either direct or circumstantial evidence. But the law requires that you, after weighing all of the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, be convinced of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt before you can find him guilty.

https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf

So predictable.

some people mistake and try to classify reasonable inferences for speculation.

One person's "reasonable inference" is another person's speculation.

Some people make the mistake of confusing a jury's albility to make a reasonable inference from the actual evidence with the ability of a prosecutor to introduce speculation to connect the dots during the trial under the guise of presenting circumstantial evidence.

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence!

Bottom line; a lot of what we discuss on this board would never get into a trial, for a number of reasons. One reason could be that the prosecutor may not want to risk putting witnesses like Markham, Bledsoe and Roberts on the stand for fear of them being destroyed by the defense. Another reason could be that a certain piece of evidence actually doesn't show what they want it to show and introducing it could massively backfire.

[Charles Collins]

There could never be a true trial for LHO. Jack Ruby made sure of that. However, the rules that the courts have in place are there to try to help insure that a fair trial takes place. I think that our opinions could possibly be made more fair if we at least consider what the courts would have done if LHO had lived to go to trial. Here is another snip from the Fifth Circuit:


As I told you earlier, it is your duty to determine the facts. To do so, you must consider only the evidence presented during the trial. Evidence is the sworn testimony of the witnesses, including stipulations, and the exhibits. The questions, statements, objections, and arguments made by the lawyers are not evidence.
The function of the lawyers is to point out those things that are most significant or most helpful to their side of the case, and in so doing to call your attention to certain facts or inferences that might otherwise escape your notice. In the final analysis, however, it is your own recollection and interpretation of the evidence that controls in the case. What the lawyers say is not binding upon you.

People can speculate about what might have happened all they want to for as long as they want to. Many conspiracy oriented books have been sold and read based on speculations. But that is all they are, speculation (which is not allowed in the courts).

[Martin Weidmann]

There could never be a true trial for LHO. Jack Ruby made sure of that. However, the rules that the courts have in place are there to try to help insure that a fair trial takes place. I think that our opinions could possibly be made more fair if we at least consider what the courts would have done if LHO had lived to go to trial. Here is another snip from the Fifth Circuit:


As I told you earlier, it is your duty to determine the facts. To do so, you must consider only the evidence presented during the trial. Evidence is the sworn testimony of the witnesses, including stipulations, and the exhibits. The questions, statements, objections, and arguments made by the lawyers are not evidence.
The function of the lawyers is to point out those things that are most signicant or most helpful to their side of the case, and in so doing to call your attention to certain facts or inferences that might otherwise escape your notice. In the final analysis, however, it is your own recollection and interpretation of the evidence that controls in the case. What the lawyers say is not binding upon you.

People can speculate about what might have happened all they want to for as long as they want to. Many conspiracy oriented books have been sold and read based on speculations. But that is all they are, speculation (which is not allowed in the courts).

I think that our opinions could possibly be made more fair if we at least consider what the courts would have done if LHO had lived to go to trial.

You say this and then you say;

Many conspiracy oriented books have been sold and read based on speculations. But that is all they are, speculation (which is not allowed in the courts).

Books like the WC report and Bug's doorstopper are full of speculation under the guise of an alleged preponderance of evidence which in most cases simply isn't there.

This is a sixty years old case, with the physical evidence locked away in the National Archives and not accessible for testing. Many of the witnesses are no longer with us. All there is left now is to make reasonable inferences from the available evidence, just like a jury would do at trial. So, let's keep it real, shall we?