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
This is really a long overdue point. The conspiracists and Oswald defenders like to raise questions about the evidence based solely on speculation and disagreement and think that and that alone means the evidence can be dismissed or waved away. Outside a court or inside of one. As in: "It's possibly planted" or "Chain of custody was insufficient." As your quote shows, it can't. They want to use a legal standard against the lone assassin believers and evidence and then abandon that legal standard when it comes to their arguments or response to that evidence.
If they want to use the courtroom standard in judging evidence against Oswald then they need to use that standard when it comes to their claims too. Defense attorney can't just make things up and think it's sufficient to eliminate the evidence. It's not.
Thanks Charles and Steve, you have both nailed it.
CT's continually demand that LNers prove whatever fact to some impossible standard yet they can speculate till the cows come home and then insist that we must consider their fantasies. For instance I have presented evidence linking Hidell to Oswald, like the New Orleans PO box application, the Hidell Identification which Oswald had the retouched negatives used to create the fake ID in his possessions, numerous examples where Oswald used the name Hidell as reference for Job applications and that Oswald's nickname in Russia was Alek.
Yet I am asked to consider without a shred of evidence that Oswald was being manipulated by someone called A J Hidell. Yes, seriously!
And Iacoletti with a wave of his hand discards the uniquely specific retouched negatives because it doesn't have the name Hidell, while knowing full well that the name Hidell was typed onto the created faked ID, again an impossible standard of proof is required.
In the past I have asked precisely what evidence beyond purchase orders addressed to Oswald's PO Box, hand written coupons and envelopes addressed to Oswald's PO Box, photographs with the exact type of rifle and etc would be considered proof that Oswald bought and owned the rifle and am met with the usual silence or they will let me know when the evidence is produced and obviously again to some impossible standard, where they will further split the already split hairs. Ironically in the post directly preceding mine we are told that "I'll gladly bow to superior evidence that shows I am wrong", but beyond the Mountain of evidence already presented what this "superior evidence" is supposed to entail is never explained. -sigh-
What I have never seen from the CT's is a reasonable refutation of why the rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box, they claim that the Kleins business document(Waldman 7) doesn't prove it was sent and demand that the despatcher should have been called to testify but what would he/she/they say? Are they supposed to remember someone named Hidell, absurd. And DiEugenio and others have demanded that some postal worker at the Dallas Post Office eight months later should have remembered the Hidell rifle order, another absurdity in the real world where a worker handles many orders every single day.
Again, it's prove this impossible standard to my(CT's) satisfaction because of course they(CT's) have set themselves up as The Ultimate Arbiter, or whatever piece of evidence that links Oswald to the crime, simply isn't true.
Another example is when the undeniable overwhelming physical evidence linking Oswald to the crime is presented it's faked or when Police testify there is some sort of "law enforcement grapevine" LOL and "Group think psyche" LOL!
And yet another example is the Tippit murder where Oswald shoots Tippit in front of eyewitnesses, leaves exclusively matching shells, is seen in front of more eyewitnesses leaving the scene with his revolver on full display, leaves his Jacket in a parking lot and then tries to kill more Police with the exact same weapon that left shells at the Tippit crime scene. But at every point the CT's disgustingly attempt to defend this Cop Killer.
JohnM
