02-12-2017, 07:05 AM
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Cliff:
You aren't a lawyer are you. I am not either, but I have sat through some trials and read up on procedure and been schooled by some good attorneys.
The prosecution would introduce the autopsy photos of the back.
Not without a chain of possession.
Besides, the State of Texas used the WC SBT -- shot to the back of the neck. The autopsy photo shows a shot to the top of the back, a couple of inches lower.
On the other hand, the FBI report on the autopsy put the back wound below the shoulders, consistent with the Death Certificate, the holes in the clothes, the autopsy face sheet, the testimonies of SS SA Clint Hill and Glenn Bennett -- all record a wound two inches lower than the one in the autopsy photo.
Quote:These would have powerful prejudicial value against your case.
Not at all. Does not help one bit the State's claim JFK was shot in the back of the neck.
Quote:[You would then have to do what you could to keep them out.
And the way courts operate today, I doubt you could. The HSCA report was written many, many years ago. Forty years of GOP control through the Federalist Society and the likes of Scalia and Rehnquist have altered the criminal system. Plus at a mock trial, those kinds of things are easier to admit.
But that kind of thing is fine for forum talk, which you seem to relish.
The State opened by claiming Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK thru the back of the neck with a 6.5mm FMJ.
In defense I would present the heavily corroborated FBI report on the autopsy -- shallow wound, destroys the case against Oswald, destroys the SBT.
How is the State going to counter that?
With an autopsy photo showing a wound inches lower than previously claimed?