07-05-2018, 08:24 PM
There may be some confusion about principles of evidence which I will try to clarify as follows:
Any evidence which is relevant is potentially equally good evidence. However, some relevant evidence is not admissiblein court due to having too much of a history of being deceptive (like hearsay), or because of social policy (like physician-client privilege, etc).
When describing evidence as "real evidence" or evidence which has been "authenticated", these adjectives are not used legally in the same sense as the public use of the terms. Hence, "real evidence" is like "real estate". That is not the same usage as saying "the United States is a real country' or that "the Communist threat is a real' threat."
"Authenticated evidence" only refers to physical evidence which has been "authenticated." That means it is proven to be what it is claimed to be. Thus, we look at the proof of the "chain of custody" which only applies to physical evidence.
That does not mean that physical evidence "is more authentic" than other evidence. It may be authentic, but then eyewitness testimony may be "authentic" or circumstantial evidence may be "authentic." The latter two types do not have to be "authenticated" like physical evidence because they are on the face of it, either authentic or not authentic.
For circumstantial or eyewitness evidence, chain of custody does not make any sense and is not necessary, (unless it has been reduced to physical form like an affidavit signed by a witness).
Quoting from Wikipedia:
Physical evidence (also called real evidence or material evidence) is any material object that plays some role in the matter that gave rise to the litigation, introduced as evidence in a judicial proceeding (such as a trial) to prove a fact in issue based on the object's physical characteristics.
Quoting the Federal Rules of Evidence:
Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence. (a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.
From Wikipedia: Evidence
Types of evidence:
Digital evidence
Personal experience
Scientific evidence
Testimonial evidence
Physical evidence
Trace evidence
Relationship evidence
I would add:
Eyewitness Evidence
Expert Testimony
Declaration of party
Declaration against interest
Business records
Newspapers and publications
Judicial Notice
Circumstantial Evidence
Dying declarations
Best Evidence
Statistics Evidence
Admissible Hearsay Evidence
Forensic Evidence
In my opinion, some JFK researchers are awaiting for some item of physical evidence to appear (such as a photo or signed confession). This will likely never happen. And that's not a problem because we have such a wide array of types of evidence, that one does not have to rely only on physical or "real" evidence in the sense of legal "real evidence." In that context, "real" means "physical."
The other major issue discussed above is the "burden of proof." Many assume that since we are talking about a murder, that the standard of proof against Oswald (or the killers) should be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." What is forgotten is that Jackie Kennedy could have sued Oswald's estate for wrongful death. In that civil proceeding, the test is "the preponderance of evidence" and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's why OJ Simpson was proven guilty in his wrongful death case, but not guilty in his criminal case.
Really, I don't see either test as necessary for a JFK researcher. Probably the closest test to that which is useful to the JFK researcher is the "motive, means and opportunity test." That is a tool used by murder investigators. The JFK researcher is closer to the role of the detective than he is to prosecutor, judge or jury.
It is sometimes said that to prove a conspiracy, usually the only evidence you will have will be circumstantial evidence.
James Lateer
Any evidence which is relevant is potentially equally good evidence. However, some relevant evidence is not admissiblein court due to having too much of a history of being deceptive (like hearsay), or because of social policy (like physician-client privilege, etc).
When describing evidence as "real evidence" or evidence which has been "authenticated", these adjectives are not used legally in the same sense as the public use of the terms. Hence, "real evidence" is like "real estate". That is not the same usage as saying "the United States is a real country' or that "the Communist threat is a real' threat."
"Authenticated evidence" only refers to physical evidence which has been "authenticated." That means it is proven to be what it is claimed to be. Thus, we look at the proof of the "chain of custody" which only applies to physical evidence.
That does not mean that physical evidence "is more authentic" than other evidence. It may be authentic, but then eyewitness testimony may be "authentic" or circumstantial evidence may be "authentic." The latter two types do not have to be "authenticated" like physical evidence because they are on the face of it, either authentic or not authentic.
For circumstantial or eyewitness evidence, chain of custody does not make any sense and is not necessary, (unless it has been reduced to physical form like an affidavit signed by a witness).
Quoting from Wikipedia:
Physical evidence (also called real evidence or material evidence) is any material object that plays some role in the matter that gave rise to the litigation, introduced as evidence in a judicial proceeding (such as a trial) to prove a fact in issue based on the object's physical characteristics.
Quoting the Federal Rules of Evidence:
Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence. (a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.
From Wikipedia: Evidence
Types of evidence:
Digital evidence
Personal experience
Scientific evidence
Testimonial evidence
Physical evidence
Trace evidence
Relationship evidence
I would add:
Eyewitness Evidence
Expert Testimony
Declaration of party
Declaration against interest
Business records
Newspapers and publications
Judicial Notice
Circumstantial Evidence
Dying declarations
Best Evidence
Statistics Evidence
Admissible Hearsay Evidence
Forensic Evidence
In my opinion, some JFK researchers are awaiting for some item of physical evidence to appear (such as a photo or signed confession). This will likely never happen. And that's not a problem because we have such a wide array of types of evidence, that one does not have to rely only on physical or "real" evidence in the sense of legal "real evidence." In that context, "real" means "physical."
The other major issue discussed above is the "burden of proof." Many assume that since we are talking about a murder, that the standard of proof against Oswald (or the killers) should be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." What is forgotten is that Jackie Kennedy could have sued Oswald's estate for wrongful death. In that civil proceeding, the test is "the preponderance of evidence" and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's why OJ Simpson was proven guilty in his wrongful death case, but not guilty in his criminal case.
Really, I don't see either test as necessary for a JFK researcher. Probably the closest test to that which is useful to the JFK researcher is the "motive, means and opportunity test." That is a tool used by murder investigators. The JFK researcher is closer to the role of the detective than he is to prosecutor, judge or jury.
It is sometimes said that to prove a conspiracy, usually the only evidence you will have will be circumstantial evidence.
James Lateer