Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Charles Collins]

Yes, but when we say evidence shows that, for example, a rifle belonging to Oswald was found in the building they dismiss it as speculation. It's speculation that the rifle belonged to Oswald et cetera. We show the evidence, e.g., paper trail, photos, prints on it, for this and they again reply "Speculation, speculation, speculation."

The two sides may use the same words, terms, ideas but they have a fundamentally different idea as to what they mean and how to apply them.

Exactly, it isn’t pure speculation if there is some probative evidence of it. It appears to me that most of their arguments do not consider probative evidence. If is isn’t direct conclusive evidence they want to ignore it. A jury is required to consider all of the evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

Exactly, it isn’t pure speculation if there is some probative evidence of it. It appears to me that most of their arguments do not consider probative evidence. If is isn’t direct conclusive evidence they want to ignore it. A jury is required to consider all of the evidence.

Simple question; what is the probative value of a photograph taken in late March 1963 of Oswald holding a rifle?

[Charles Collins]

It is up to a jury to determine the facts based only on the evidence that is admitted in the courtroom. No one can tell them how much weight to assign to any evidence. The probative evidence of a fact in question can be more than one piece of evidence. The weights can be combined such that the probability is very high. And if there isn’t any compelling opposing evidence,  the fact in question can be concluded to be beyond a reasonable doubt. But all of that is completely up to the jury.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

It is up to a jury to determine the facts based only on the evidence that is admitted in the courtroom. No one can tell them how much weight to assign to any evidence. The probative evidence of a fact in question can be more than one piece of evidence. The weights can be combined such that the probability is very high. And if there isn’t any compelling opposing evidence,  the fact in question can be concluded to be beyond a reasonable doubt. But all of that is completely up to the jury.

Here's a photo of some of the classified documents found at Trump's home/residence/Mar-a-Lago. Is it really his residence? It possibly could be another place. Are they really classified documents? It possibly could be innocuous/personal material and not secrets. Is the photo real? Not faked? It possibly could be faked or photo shopped. Are the documents the ones requested by the government, by the National Archives? They may be different ones.

We could speculate again and again about the evidence here. About the photo and its authenticity and what it shows. But we have more than just the photo. We have a record that shows that Trump kept classified documents. And he stored them at Mar-a-Lago. And in a bathroom/unsecured place. If all you use is this photo - and speculate about it and say there's a *possibility* it's faked - then the evidence can be made to disappear. Trump didn't illegally keep classified materials because the evidence is just speculation and claims. The evidence could be this or that, the evidence could be faked, it could be staged. Do this for each piece. Presto, it disappears.

This is how the Oswald defenders look at the evidence. They characterize it as speculation, as possibly being corrupt or not authentic (obviously, many say it is corrupt and faked), and then wave it away. And *then* ignore the corroborating evidence. Which is also isolated and dismissed as speculation as well. This is not how you reconstruct an event, at how you look at one. You look at the totality of evidence and reconstruct what happened.

[Charles Collins]

Ask how Scott Peterson got sentenced to death based on one piece of hair (that matched some hair on Laci’s brush) which was found on a pair of pliers in Scott’s boat. There was more evidence than just the piece of hair.

[Martin Weidmann]

It is up to a jury to determine the facts based only on the evidence that is admitted in the courtroom. No one can tell them how much weight to assign to any evidence. The probative evidence of a fact in question can be more than one piece of evidence. The weights can be combined such that the probability is very high. And if there isn’t any compelling opposing evidence,  the fact in question can be concluded to be beyond a reasonable doubt. But all of that is completely up to the jury.

Which brings us straight back to the difference of opinion about the veracity, validity, authenticity and probative value of the evidence, displayed on this forum on a daily basis.

[Martin Weidmann]

Ask how Scott Peterson got sentenced to death based on one piece of hair (that matched some hair on Laci’s brush) which was found on a pair of pliers in Scott’s boat. There was more evidence than just the piece of hair.

What exactly is your point?

There was a truckload of evidence against O.J. Simpson, yet he walked free due to a glove that did not fit (over his plastic gloves) and a catchy punchline.

[Charles Collins]

The hair by itself, like Steve’s photo, needed to be combined with other evidence to become more persuasive.