There is a common misunderstanding regarding evidence against an accused
among many people who are not familiar with the law. Now, I'm no attorney,
but I have researched this basic principle of the law. Of course, lawyers
know this but your average person does not. From a common sense
standpoint, most people know this, intuitively.
Let me first give you an example from the O.J. Simpson criminal trial.
During final summations, Barry Scheck and Johnnie Cochran (two members of
Simpson's Dream Team) kept telling the jurors that if they had reasonable
doubt about any one piece of evidence, they would have to find Simpson
"not guilty" based on that reasonable doubt. The prosecution should have
immediately objected when that point was made. In Vincent Bugliosi's book
on the Simpson trial, "Outrage", he made this point. The reason this was
objectionable is because that is in direct contradiction to Judge Ito's
instructions to the jury. That is not the standard by which jurors should
make their decision.
Reasonable doubt has to do with the a juror's OVERALL view of the case
presented against the defendant. It does not necessarily hinge on any
single piece of evidence. In fact, a juror can totally reject or have
doubts about a particular aspect of the prosecution's case; however, on
the preponderance of other evidence, they can still decide that the
defendant is guilty.
If all it took was for the jury to have doubts about one piece (or, maybe
even two pieces) of the evidence, it would behoove the prosecution to not
present their lesser evidence because, if this standard were applied
(which it's not!), then the more evidence they presented the more likely
the defendant will be acquitted because of the failure of just one piece
of evidence.
Before I go on any further - I do not like discussing the Kennedy
assassination case in the context of technical courtroom standards. Many
of those courtroom restrictions are there to protect the defendant's
rights and are heavily slanted toward the presumption of innocence. After
all, the defendant's life or liberty is at stake. This was not the case in
the Warren investigation. This was not a courtroom hearing. This was a
fact-finding investigation. Fact-finding investigations are much better at
getting to the truth because they are not encumbered by anybody's
presumption of innocence and nobody has their life or liberty at stake.
All that matters are the facts. This is why Marina was permitted to
testify, for instance.
In Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History", he outlines 53 pieces of
evidence indicating Oswald's guilt. In every prosecution case some
evidence is more compelling and more damning than others. Such is the case
with Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence.
It has been said by some conspiracy kooks that if just one piece of
evidence is found to be faulty then all of it has to be thrown out. Now,
seriously, does that make any sense? I can see how convenient that is for
them. But that's not the way the real world works and it is also not the
courtroom standard for a reason.
I'm looking over Bugliosi's "53 pieces" as I have the book sitting in
front of me. I'm going to page through it and find what I think is one of
the weaker pieces. I'm not going to give this a great deal of thought.
There may be something that is even weaker. I'll just pick one.
I'm going to pick #4. Here's the way it reads in "Reclaiming History"
(p.955 from "Reclaiming History")
Oswald and his wife, Marina, shared an abiding interest in President
Kennedy and his family and spoke of them often. Yet on Thursday evening,
the night before the assassination, when Marina brought up in conversation
with Oswald the president's scheduled visit to Dallas the next day, she
said, "He just ignored a little bit, you know, to talk about [it] ...
maybe changed subject and talking about ... newborn baby or something like
that ... It was quite unusual that he did not want to talk about President
Kennedy being in Dallas that particular evening. That was quite peculiar."
(end of citation)
Even I consider that a bit weak. I can see the significance of it when you
balance it against everything else; but I can certainly see how a
conspiracy-leaning person might say, "How can you find him guilty based on
that?" OK, fair enough. Like I've always said, it's a tapestry built of
many pieces.
Now, according to many kooks, if just one piece of Bugliosi's "53 pieces"
is rejected - you have to reject all of them.
Why?
Then we have #33. Here's the way it reads in "Reclaiming History"
(p. 962 from "Reclaiming History")
A Mannlicher-Carcano, serial number C2766, was found on the sixth floor of
the Book Depository Building shortly after the shooting in Dealey Plaza.
Handwriting experts determined that the writing on the purchase order and
money order for the rifle was Oswald's. And the seller shipped the rifle
to Oswald's post office box in Dallas. So Oswald owned the Carcano. Also,
photographs taken by Oswald's wife, Marina, in April of 1963 show Oswald
holding the Carcano, and Oswald's right palm print was found on the
underside of the rifle barrel following the assassination. So we know that
Oswald not only owned put possessed the subject rifle.
In the same vein, a tuft of several fresh, dark blue, gray-black, and
orange-yellow cotton fibers was found in a crevice between the butt plate
of the Carcano and the wooden stock. The FBI laboratory found that the
colors, and even the twist of the fibers, perfectly matched those on the
shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest. Though such fibers
could theoretically have come from another identical shirt, the
prohibitive probability is that they came from Oswald's shirt. (end of
citation)
He owned the murder weapon! He handled the murder weapon! The murder
weapon is at the crime scene!
A juror could reject #4 above and yet find #33 very indicative of his
guilt. Then, of course, there are 52 additional pieces of evidence. It
makes no sense, either from a technical legal standpoint of from a common
sense standpoint to reject 52 pieces of evidence because you didn't find
#4 particularly compelling.
That's the way reality works in the world where people have rational
minds. That's why the finder-of-fact needs to be a "reasonable man".
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Ralph Cinque:
Handwriting experts? Whose? Certainly not ones hired by Oswald's defense team. He didn't have a defense team. Remember? He wasn't granted one.
And no, the Warren Commission investigation was not a fact-finding mission; it was a Stalinist show trial.
Oswald denied owning the rifle. He denied owning any rifle. He denied bringing anything to work except his lunch.
Ruth Paine denied knowing anything about the rifle in her garage, although for some reason, she claimed to know that Marina knew it was there.
So, we're stuck having to believe that Oswald left his rifle in someone's garage without telling that person that he was doing it. And presumably not only the rifle, but the ammunition along with it.
So, according to Ruth Paine, Oswald and Marina must have had this conversation:
"Listen, Honey, I'm going to leave my rifle and ammunition here. I'll leave them in the garage. We don't have to tell Ruth because she might not like it."
"Sure, go ahead. It's fine with me. What's the worst that can happen?"
Ever hear of Gil Jesus, David? He was a policeman, and he knows weapons. He wrote a piece explaining how the rifle seen in the window could not have been a Carcano.
http://www.giljesus.com/evidence-rifle-in-window-wasn-t-a-carcano.html
Ever hear of Buell Frazier? He said and still says that the bag he saw could not possibly have been big enough to contain a rifle. He also said and says that it was a grocery bag. Does this look like a grocery bag to you?
http://tinypic.com/r/s6i2yo/8
Ever hear of Jack White? He proved that Oswald's face in the Backyard photos was implanted there. And note that Oswald himself said the same thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S531gzx0rG4
Question: On the evening of November 23, FBI agents stormed Billy Lovelady's home to show him the Altgens photo and supposedly ask him whether it was him in the doorway, so why didn't do they same with Oswald? Why didn't they show him the Altgens photo and ask him whether it was him in the doorway?
How come Lee Harvey Oswald was not asked his opinion about the Altgens photo and who the Man in the Doorway was?
How come the palm print only showed up after Oswald's death? How could Oswald pass the paraffin test if he shot a rifle that afternoon?
How could Oswald have been eating lunch in the domino room, in sight of Junior Jarman and Harold Norman, in the 12:15 to 12:25 time frame and still have time to get up to the 6th floor in time to assemble the rifle using a dime as a screwdriver?
And how come Bugliosi made no mention of the Fritz Notes in which he wrote down that Oswald said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front"? The Fritz Notes were released during the ARRB in the late 1990s, and Bugliosi's book didn't come out until 2007.
It's very easy to poke holes in Point 33, which you cited, but the same is true of all the other 52 points as well. None of them hold up. Not a one.
That's because Oswald was framed and innocent. And he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots. And this image alone, totally exonerates him.
http://tinypic.com/r/24v7dr6/8
That's the way reality works in the world where people have rational minds, David. OH, and by the way, I'm making you famous.
Ralph Cinque
Buda TX
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.