26-09-2013, 01:37 AM
Chris -
can you factor in acceleration? If the limo was STILL or less than 3mph at 313... yet covered that ground in that # of frames (which I believe is where we lose the argument as we have no idea the actual # of frames that were there before alteration....) it would have to accelerate to what speed in order to average the 13 and change you mention... and the 2nd shot is closer to 375 than 391...
Phil -
thanks... while this thread remains about LEE/HARVEY.. I was making minutia points for CS... to juxtapose FACTS and OFFICIAL DOCS
CS...
As I reread your posts I fail to find much evidence of any kind in them at all... you refute DVP with opinions and questions of credulity... whereas I showed you why Brennan for example is a strong witness FOR the defense of Oswald's innocence... that when you address DVP's statement about Brennan's ID, it takes you, a thinking and interested JFK researcher completely away from discussing the FACTS and instead DVP now has set the tone and direction of the discussion.
Please CS, let's be done with this... POST the unbiased EVIDENCE of which you speak. I for one am very interested in the nuggets others find.
Are you saying that REASONABLE DOUBT is the primary reason Oswald can be judged innocent... that the prosecution could not prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
If so, then I see our problem - the only thing the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt is the existence of the conspiracy including the form and actions involved.. the detailed proof is IN THE EVIDENCE, in the minutia. So you can see, defending reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt let's you suppose Oswald was at all guilty within the conspiracy to begin with... THAT is what we are waiting for from you CS...
Which evidence do YOU see proves Oswald was involved IN the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. For THAT remains one of the keys in understanding the deeper aspects of the killing.
Reasonable Doubt A standard of proof that must be surpassed to convict an accused in a criminal proceeding.
Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If the juryor the judge in a bench trialhas a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty
If I have lost my way with this discussion I apologize. I simply wish to understand what CS here means by REASONABLE DOUBT and what he is applying it to...
Stating that there is REASONABLE DOUBT in FRAUDULENT EVIDENCE completely scrambles my mind...
DJ
can you factor in acceleration? If the limo was STILL or less than 3mph at 313... yet covered that ground in that # of frames (which I believe is where we lose the argument as we have no idea the actual # of frames that were there before alteration....) it would have to accelerate to what speed in order to average the 13 and change you mention... and the 2nd shot is closer to 375 than 391...
Phil -
thanks... while this thread remains about LEE/HARVEY.. I was making minutia points for CS... to juxtapose FACTS and OFFICIAL DOCS
CS...
As I reread your posts I fail to find much evidence of any kind in them at all... you refute DVP with opinions and questions of credulity... whereas I showed you why Brennan for example is a strong witness FOR the defense of Oswald's innocence... that when you address DVP's statement about Brennan's ID, it takes you, a thinking and interested JFK researcher completely away from discussing the FACTS and instead DVP now has set the tone and direction of the discussion.
Quote:I do not seek to defend the other side, but to point out that reasonable doubt as a legal standards carry more weight than endless points about the minutiae of the case
---------------
I find evidence not bias to be more enduring
Please CS, let's be done with this... POST the unbiased EVIDENCE of which you speak. I for one am very interested in the nuggets others find.
Are you saying that REASONABLE DOUBT is the primary reason Oswald can be judged innocent... that the prosecution could not prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
If so, then I see our problem - the only thing the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt is the existence of the conspiracy including the form and actions involved.. the detailed proof is IN THE EVIDENCE, in the minutia. So you can see, defending reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt let's you suppose Oswald was at all guilty within the conspiracy to begin with... THAT is what we are waiting for from you CS...
Which evidence do YOU see proves Oswald was involved IN the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. For THAT remains one of the keys in understanding the deeper aspects of the killing.
Reasonable Doubt A standard of proof that must be surpassed to convict an accused in a criminal proceeding.
Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If the juryor the judge in a bench trialhas a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty
If I have lost my way with this discussion I apologize. I simply wish to understand what CS here means by REASONABLE DOUBT and what he is applying it to...
Stating that there is REASONABLE DOUBT in FRAUDULENT EVIDENCE completely scrambles my mind...
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter