Thoughts on a bus trip

[David Josephs]

You specifically asked that I point out where I thought you were arguing that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I did that. To avoid a Scully-like response, I did not include material that was irrelevant to your specific request.

You ask for evidence. The bus ticket is evidence. You may not find it convincing. That doesn't change its character as evidence. Oswald said he took the bus (according to those witnesses whose credibility you might disagree with). That constitutes evidence, whether you believe the evidence or not is a different question.

I'm not going to argue the lone nut position; I don't believe it. But I have to get a clarification, since you asked for "authenticated evidence," what is that exactly? Evidence that was offered up at the Warren Commission? How about evidence offered up at the HSCA? No? Evidence that you personally find persuasive? Now, that's a great way to start an argument, limit the other side to evidence you agree with!

Drew - I don't know whose posts you're reading but I never said anything about "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence" - nor do I promote that statement in the least.

You claim the transfer is evidence that Oswald was on that bus. Please include any and every thing material to proving that as fact.... you have not done that in any post so far.
You don't find it suspect that YATES cannot provide proof that McWatters even used that transfer book that day when records of these things are easily available.

In my work on the Rifle Evidence I specifically talk about authentication of evidence:
Authenticatingevidence for a court of law creates what's called "REAL EVIDENCE": Evidence http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-...dence.html

Real evidence is a thingthe existence or characteristics of which are relevant and material. It is usually a thing thatwas directly involved in some event in the case

To be admissible, real evidence, like allevidence, must be relevant, material, and competent.

Real evidence may beauthenticated in three ways1) by identification of a unique object, 2) by identification ofanobject that has been made unique, and 3) by establishing a chain of custody.

It isunderstood that we are not trying this in a court of law yet these is no reasonnot to expect the evidence to reach that standard. If it cannot be authenticated, thatevidence's influence on the reader's conclusions as a judge would instruct should not be considered.


So Drew - with the evidence you claim to have please address these with evidence:

Can you prove that McWatters gave Oswald that transfer when McWatters says that he was never on the bus?
Can you prove the transfer was found on Oswald's person given what we know about the time between his arrest and the finding of this evidence?
Can you prove that McWatters was even issued that book of transfers that day?
Can you prove that Oswald did not change his clothes so that Bledsoe's statement is even possible?
Can you prove the buttons on his shirt were torn BEFORE the Theater scuffle?

What I fail to understand in your rebuttal here Drew is your dismissal of the evidence I present which shows the line-up for what it was and McWatters' evidence for what it says...

If you are going to start talking about BELIEF in Evidence we should stop here. Evidence does not require "belief"... the LNer believers Oswald is guilty based on believing the evidence offered rather than authenticating it.

Even "persuasive" evidence is a crock... I can show you evidence that will persuade you that FBI agent Dolan took the Kleins microfilm. I can also show you persuasive evidence that he did not. Which is REAL?


The job of the prosecutor is to PROVE GUILT, it is not the job of the Defense to prove innocence or offer up some alternative explanation.

Drew - I don't mind having these discussions - you have yet to offer anything in defense of your statement that the bus transfer is evidence that Oswald was on that bus. It is not. It is a piece of paper with information on it that needs to be authenticated and corroborated as REAL. If you want to see the Frontera Bus manifest with Oswald's name on it I have it... that doesn't prove he was on that bus sir... not by a long shot.

When the man who supposedly gave this piece of paper to the accused specifically says over and over that it WAS NOT OSWALD and has no motivation beyond honesty to make such a declaration...

What does this tell you about that slip of paper other than it was never given to Oswald by McWatters, and please back your answer with something convincing.

Thanks....