Thoughts on a bus trip

[David Josephs]

I appreciate you taking the time to respond Drew...

Suffice to say I don't need a lesson in what the process of AUTHENTICATION requires for Evidence or that the items we have never went thru the process in a court of law.

Yes, everything in the possession of the law entities involved may be considered EVIDENCE. Admissability and Authentication are two completely different things...
In most cases the court does little to substantiate the AUTHENTICATION process but takes the word of those presenting the evidence...

That still does not prove the evidence itself is authentic, only that it was admissible. And once again Drew, please stop incorrectly paraphrasing my words.
The word "Admissible" is contained within a discussion/definition of REAL Evidence. If REAL EVIDENCE is neither relevent, material or competent is is NOT admissible...

Authenticating the evidence is where the DPD/FBI/CIA/SS evidence all falls to pieces. A quality Defense Attorney would focus on this authentication to show how 1) the object is NOT unique
2) how it was not made unique by some process and 3) by illuminating the COC.... If these hold up, the evidence is good.

Drew - if a cop puts forth a report which is accepted as evidence of what occurred AND admissible, it still may not be Authentic if a video is shown which contradicts all the evidentiary points in the report. Agree?
The problem we have in most circumstances is the court accepts the evidence as Real without going thru the authentication process - it is simply accepted as such with corroborating evidence provided by the same people offering the inital evidence... (FBI says one thing with authenticating documents when the exact opposite is true. WCD298 says one thing. CE875, CE884 all say something which was accepted as true, when it wasn't. Evidence? yes Admissible? yes
Authentic? Not by a long shot, but unknown at the time)


I am not talking about admissibility as badly as you would like me to be. If you can please stick to the topic - the process of AUTHENTICATION - it would be greatly appreciated.

Since there wasn't actually a trial, I'm presuming all the tangible evidence seized by Dallas PD, and/or the FBI and/or the SS, had there been a trial, would have been duly "authenticated" by officers/agents of these organizations who wrote either reports, or sworn statements, concerning the recovery of the tangible evidence. (By this last sentence I do not mean to imply that all such testimony would have necessarily been truthful, nor does it mean that the tiny "authentication" hurdle offered by the rules of evidence (then or now) means that the trier of fact will believe that the item in question has, or has not been forged, or otherwise procured by deceit.)

I freely admit we are not talking "court of law" here yet it seems to me we MUST proceed with examining and accepting the evidence as if it was a court of law... as that would be the standard to be met.
How many "sworn statements" are shown to be inauthentic after the fact...

How about the WCR transcripts themselves? Authentic? Uh, not so much Drew. Dulles here changes the FBI expert's testimony in the drafts completely changing the meaning of the testimony and evidence involved... The FBI had ALL the evidence in DC that night with more coming back than was taken... The Chain of Custody for every item in evidence cannot be established as the FBI attempted to hide the fact they took all the items and returned more.

So once again Cadigan's testimony is both Evidence and Admissible... it just isn't Authentic.



You referring to authenticating the evidence as some "tiny hurdle" shows me you are somehow mixing your terms.

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

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

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

If you so choose to accept the FBI's word that Oswald bought the rifle then the Klein's Order Form is admissible evidence...

But I can prove it inauthentic by using the Corroborating evidence which shows that the Item # refers to a different rifle and the Chain of possession of the Microfilm on which this order was archived and from which the order is printed is in conflict with other evidence this piece of "admissible evidence" is rendered useless and would be removed from consideration when reaching a verdict.


The FBI/DPD/SS established Authenticated Real Evidence by fraudulently meeting 1, 2 and/or 3 of the above criteria. But until someone called them on their Authentication, the evidence stands.

That is what my project and my work after all these years is focused upon.

I know Oswald did not kill JFK or Tippit based on the evidence and learning how it was constructed. I do not try and prove what happened since the evidence for that is not available.
I simply focus on the evidence provided which is designed to corroborate and authenticate the evidence as Real and Admissible.

If I can show it to not meet any of those three criteria, that evidence is no longer Real or Admissible.

In back to back pages - WCD87 p187, 188, 189 are 2 reports about the exact same thing - the Kleins microfilm. In one, three FBI SA's tell us that Waldman keeps the microfilm. In the Next, SA DOLAN alone tells us that he and he alone takes the Microfilm and provides Waldman a receipt and subsequently provides Waldman a copy of his own microfilm back - 2 weeks later.

The Chain of custody for this microfilm is broken and in conflict BASED ON THE EVIDENCE.
The microfilm is missing from its box at the Archives...
We've never seen another Order Blank for a single one of the other 99 rifles in that shipment... The paperwork which attempts to prove Kleins even got that rifle in Feb 1963 is a mess and also renders the item of evidence inauthentic...



Drew - we don't have to pursue this any longer. When and if you can present evidence in support of ANY evidence in this case which incriminates Oswald, you would.

I know you want Bledsoe to be telling the truth - yet how again does she see his torn shirt at the elbow under the jacket?
I know you want the transfer to be authentic...

If that be the case and you can authenticate the transfer... do so. So far all you do is take issue with how I approach the work I am doing which illustrates how each and every item of evidence gathered to prove Oswald did these deeds is a fraud regardless of its importance or significance in the grand scheme of things.

Nothing is left to chance Drew... you can't provide Authentic evidence of a crime someone did not commit - by definition.
And we cannot use evidence which cannot be authenticated to come to any conclusion regarding the assassination other than it was a Conspiracy and the evidence is worthless.


so I'll ask for one last time of you or anyone else... Post an item of evidence which you feel Authentically incriminates Oswald of either crime... and I'll show you how it isn't.

Thanks for the conversation Drew... you obviously know your stuff - just not, it seems, what I am attempting to accomplish with my essays on the Evidence.

DJ