The Tippit Case in the New Millenium

[David Josephs]

In synthesyzing and building on the work of the research giants from the past, I personally do not adhere to the criminal law standard of proof. Rather, the better standard in my opinion is not proof beyond a doubt. The better test is "which is the most probable explanation?"

While Occam's razor is nice, it is not a legal standard...

Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial. The process whereby a lawyer establishes these basic prerequisites is called laying a foundation, accomplished by calling witnesses who establish the item's chain of custody.

If the item cannot be rendered AUTHENTIC then it cannot be permitted as real evidence in a trial.... while "the most probable" sounds good - wouldn't a well planned event leave evidence that lead the layman to the most probable explanation... ie Oswald did it. as opposed to showing how the rifle as evidence of Oswald shooting anyone is not authentic... there is no way to legally place or maintain that rifle in Oswald's possession... the attempts at uniqueness are easily rebutted...

You see, I'd rather agree on a standard for evidence... that the rifle was "found" in the TSBD is not a priori evidence that Oswald bought it, retrieved it, took it to work, etc.... until those steps are authenticated... which most of us here can do in most every area of the case to show that in the end, The Evidence IS the Conspiracy....


Real evidence may be authenticated in three ways--by identification of a unique object, by identification of an object that has been made unique, and by establishing a chain of custody. You only have to be able to use one of these ways, though it is prudent to prepare to use an alternate method in case the court is not satisfied with the one you have chosen. https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation...dence.html