Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Charles Collins]

Anybody can try to create doubt about any authenticated evidence. However, courthouse rules provide that pure speculation is not reasonable doubt. Speculations are sometimes abundant outside the courthouse. Inside the courthouse the speculations would legitimately be quashed and could not be considered by the jury. The courthouse rules are there to try to ensure that a fair trial takes place. I think that we should keep them in mind when forming our own opinions about what happened on 11/22/63.

[Martin Weidmann]

Anybody can try to create doubt about authenticated evidence. Hence the ridiculous rabbit holes that the nay-sayers have been trying to lead people down for 59+ years. However, in a court of law, trying to create doubt about the admitted evidence based purely on speculation isn’t allowed. There has to be an allegation as to the alleged issue with the evidence and some authenticated evidence to support that allegation. The rules in place in the courts are there to try to ensure that a fair trial takes place. If we want to have a fair and unbiased opinion as to what happened on 11/22/63, I suggest that we at least consider those courthouse rules when forming our opinions.

However, in a court of law, trying to create doubt about the admitted evidence based purely on speculation isn’t allowed.

You seem to be under the impression that evidence which is admitted by the judge is somehow automatically authenticated. It isn't.

There has to be an allegation as to the alleged issue with the evidence and some authenticated evidence to support that allegation.

Wrong. There does not need to be an allegation of any kind to question or challenge the validity and veracity of a particular piece of evidence. In fact, it is the job of the defense to challenge the authenticity of evidence and they do not need to present an alternative narrative to do so.

[Martin Weidmann]

Anybody can try to create doubt about any authenticated evidence. However, courthouse rules provide that pure speculation is not reasonable doubt. Speculations are sometimes abundant outside the courthouse. Inside the courthouse the speculations would legitimately be quashed and could not be considered by the jury. The courthouse rules are there to try to ensure that a fair trial takes place. I think that we should keep them in mind when forming our own opinions about what happened on 11/22/63.

Anybody can try to create doubt about any authenticated evidence.

Authentication of evidence is part of normal court proceedings. When a prosecutor relies on a particular piece of evidence, he needs to be able to confirm it's authentic. That's why there are rules regarding chain of custody and evidence handling. The creating of doubt takes place prior to the evidence being authenticated.

However, courthouse rules provide that pure speculation is not reasonable doubt.

You don't have to speculate to question the authenticity of a piece of evidence. It is true that you can not simply make up a story without providing supporting evidence, but the defense always can and must insist that a particular piece of evidence is indeed proven to be authentic.

[Charles Collins]

Challenging the veracity of evidence based on pure speculation is not allowed. The speculation would be objected to and removed from the record and the jury instructed to ignore it.

[Rick Plant]

Challenging the veracity of evidence based on pure speculation is not allowed. The speculation would be objected to and removed from the record and the jury instructed to ignore it.

Which evidence are you referring to as speculation? 

[John Mytton]

I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule.

The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility".
" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 442 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

JohnM

[Charles Collins]

Which evidence are you referring to as speculation?

If you look back a bit in this thread, I pointed out that the perceived “issues” with some of the evidence is pure speculation and that not a spec of evidence that supports the “issues” has been brought up.

[Martin Weidmann]

Challenging the veracity of evidence based on pure speculation is not allowed. The speculation would be objected to and removed from the record and the jury instructed to ignore it.

You can say this a thousand times more and it still would be a meaningless comment and opinion.

The fact of the matter is simply that the veracity of evidence can not be assumed. It needs to be authenticated. A defendant always has the right to question the validity of any evidence that is presented against him in court. He does not have to have a reason for questioning the evidence.