On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald and Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence

[John Mytton]

Completely irrelevant as to whether these things are evidence or not.  Nice false appeal to authority though.

You can child play being a Defence Lawyer all you like but Lance along with Bugliosi were real life lawyers and Lance told you what actual real evidence is, whereas your biased concept of what constitutes evidence is sadly misguided and frankly laughable.
BTW if it was me I would probably have removed one or two pieces Bugliosi's pieces of evidence, but the rest stays!

JohnM

[Lance Payette]

Evidence of what, exactly?

A circumstantial case is a made up story where anything is used that might be detrimental for the defendant and create bias in the jury.
It's nothing more than throwing mud against the wall and hoping some of it will stick.

Exactly.  It's rhetoric and theater.  Nothing more.

It would appear that Martin's and John's real objection is to the very nature of our justice system.

Not only does the defendant not have to testify, not only must guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not only does the hearsay rule block vast amounts of highly relevant testimony, but Martin and John would insist upon direct evidence even though the large majority of criminal cases are circumstantial. I need to stop calling CTers Oswald's defense counsel, because Martin and John go beyond that - Oswald's pom-pom waving cheerleaders, perhaps?

[Lance Payette]

You can child play being a Defence Lawyer all you like but Lance along with Bugliosi were real life lawyers and Lance told you what actual real evidence is, whereas your biased concept of what constitutes evidence is sadly misguided and frankly laughable.
BTW if it was me I would probably have removed one or two pieces Bugliosi's pieces of evidence, but the rest stays!

JohnM

I should make clear that I was primarily a civil lawyer, although I did prosecute some criminal zoning and code violation cases. Suffice it to say, I was not even a minor-league Bugliosi. These concepts are pretty basic, however. I'm not saying all 53 of B's items would have been admitted - merely that they are evidence and would at least survive the threshold standard of relevancy.

[Martin Weidmann]

It would appear that Martin's and John's real objection is to the very nature of our justice system.

Not only does the defendant not have to testify, not only must guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not only does the hearsay rule block vast amounts of highly relevant testimony, but Martin and John would insist upon direct evidence even though the large majority of criminal cases are circumstantial. I need to stop calling CTers Oswald's defense counsel, because Martin and John go beyond that - Oswald's pom-pom waving cheerleaders, perhaps?

Martin and John would insist upon direct evidence even though the large majority of criminal cases are circumstantial.

So you agree that Oswald leaving his wedding ring in a cup after Marina basically left him with the impression that his marriage was over is circumstantial evidence that has no causality to a murder?

Or even worse, how can circumstantia evidence like getting of a bus or not being chatty with a taxi driver be reasonably be connected to a murder that has already happened?

I need to stop calling CTers Oswald's defense counsel, because Martin and John go beyond that - Oswald's pom-pom waving cheerleaders, perhaps?

Can I, in turn call you a fanatical closed minded LN zealot? Or will you grow up and present arguments without attacking people you don't know who don't share your opinions?

[Martin Weidmann]

I should make clear that I was primarily a civil lawyer, although I did prosecute some criminal zoning and code violation cases. Suffice it to say, I was not even a minor-league Bugliosi. These concepts are pretty basic, however. I'm not saying all 53 of B's items would have been admitted - merely that they are evidence and would at least survive the threshold standard of relevancy.

merely that they are evidence and would at least survive the threshold standard of relevancy.

Anything that's presented to a court is evidence, but not all of it is actual proof of anything.
It's up to the judge to determine what is relevant or not and in some cases it actually serves the defense not to object to a particular piece of evidence being introduced by the prosecutor.

A trial isn't about the truth. It's a battle between two parties who each fight for a desired outcome, often regardless of the truth.

[John Mytton]

I should make clear that I was primarily a civil lawyer, although I did prosecute some criminal zoning and code violation cases. Suffice it to say, I was not even a minor-league Bugliosi. These concepts are pretty basic, however. I'm not saying all 53 of B's items would have been admitted - merely that they are evidence and would at least survive the threshold standard of relevancy.

Thanks for being humble but it's nice to have someone here who understands the basic concepts of Law and and can teach us all. Members like the "pom pom waving cheerleaders" above have been doing this for years and try to separate each and every piece of evidence without regard for the entire picture, for instance for just the rifle alone;

1) The rifle order was faked.
2) The money order was faked.
3) Kleins internal order was faked
4) Kleins didn't send the rifle.
5) Oswald didn't receive the rifle
6) The rifle in the backyard photos which is the same make and model as the sent rifle, was a different rifle.
7) Marina lied about taking the backyard photos of Oswald holding the rifle.
8] de Mohrenschildt saw a different rifle or lied
9) The rifle butt that Marina saw could be a block of wood.
10) The rifle was never in the blanket.
11) The rifle could have been planted
12) The prints on Oswald rifles were faked.
13) The 3 matching shirt fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt which matched the rifle fibers could have come from anywhere.

And that's only a brief summary because each of those points gets divided into numerous strands like the rifle carry bag.

But in the real World all that evidence is undeniable proof, so our Oswald apologists have no choice but to dismantle this evidence piece by piece and try to convince anyone listening that behind each piece of evidence was a massive conspiracy conducted by many unconnected sources, for example Kleins was involved by faking their microfilm and the rifle record, the money order was inserted into the system, Police officer lied about taking the rifle lift ETC. ETC.

When on the other hand using Occam's razor it was just Oswald and masses of evidence didn't need manufacturing, and nobody needed to lie, Case Solved!

JohnM

[David Von Pein]

Pray tell, how does Oswald leaving his wedding ring in a cup, after Marina basically left him with the impression that his marriage was over, become direct evidence with a causality to a murder?

Or even worse, how can getting [off] a bus or not being chatty with a taxi driver reasonably be connected to a murder that has already happened[?]

You'll never be able to figure out that the things you just highlighted in your post above are indeed relevant because you continue to ISOLATE every single thing Oswald did instead of ADDING THOSE THINGS TOGETHER.

Martin must be related to an ultra-rabid conspiracy clown named Ben Holmes, because in dozens of past Internet exchanges, I was constantly having to remind Holmes to "add things up" as well. [See the link below.]



For some reason, JFKA CTers just refuse to add together all of the various out-of-the-ordinary things that Lee Harvey Oswald did on November 21 and 22, 1963.

When added together (as a unit!), Oswald's unusual movements and actions on those two days in November most certainly paint an incriminating picture when examined through a post-assassination lens. Most conspiracy theorists know this already, of course. They just don't want to admit what such a simple act of "addition" actually reveals.

[Martin Weidmann]

Good Lord! Can your Thick-Headedness Disease get any worse?

You'll never be able to figure out that the things you just highlighted in your post above are indeed relevant because you continue to ISOLATE every single thing Oswald did instead of ADDING THOSE THINGS TOGETHER.

Martin must be related to an ultra-rabid conspiracy clown named Ben Holmes, because in dozens of past Internet exchanges, I was constantly having to remind Holmes to "add things up" as well. [See the link below.]

For some reason, JFKA CTers just refuse to add together all of the various out-of-the-ordinary things that Lee Harvey Oswald did on November 21 and 22, 1963.

When added together (as a unit!), Oswald's unusual movements and actions on those two days in November most certainly paint an incriminating picture when examined through a post-assassination lens.

When added together (as a unit!), Oswald's unusual movements and actions on those two days in November most certainly paint an incriminating picture when examined through a post-assassination lens.

What unusual movements and actions are you talking about?

Oswald only drove to Irving with Buell Frazier on a couple of times. A week earlier he did not go at all.... why isn't that an unusual movement but going on a thursday is?

Since when is it unusual not to talk with a taxi driver or leave a wedding ring behind when you believe your marriage is over?

I could of course be wrong, but isn't it simply that you consider some movenments and actions unusual just because you want them to be just that?

A circumstantial case that's based on weak individual pieces of evidence, doesn't get any stronger by adding on more weak pieces of evidence!