31-05-2014, 12:52 AM
(This post was last modified: 31-05-2014, 03:31 AM by Drew Phipps.)
probably gonna take me a few edits to work through all this stuff. please be patient.
First, it appears that you hijacked your own thread. This was originally just about the gun. Now it looks like an omnibus survey of the evidence. I'll work my way through it though. Your challenge was not to "prove the state's case", it was to "offer a single authenticated bit of Warren Commission evidence that leads us toward Oswald's guilt"...which I did. As I cautioned earlier, I was merely answering your challenge. You asked for evidence. There it is.
'Innocent till proven guilty" is a rephrasing of the way the Constitution works in a court of law. It applies to the way a jury or judge is supposed to rule after being presented some evidence. It doesn't help when deciding IF something is evidence, or analysing the caliber, or the admissibility, of evidence.
Anomalous behavior after a criminal act is evidence of guilt, yes. Not anything more specific than that. It often serves to rebut a claim by the defense that the accused had no knowledge if the crime, or lacked a specific intent. Decades and decades of criminal law behind that one.
About changing clothes: I never said "shirt." Oswald claimed to have changed his pants, and also claimed to have changed his shirt and pants at 2 different times. You said "authenticated". Since it is still an open question specifically about the shirt, I didn't say "shirt". I note that the statement you attached above says he claimed he changed his shirt too. It seems uncontested, at least, that he changed his pants and donned a jacket.
(It would be interesting to present the "changed shirt" evidence to the folks who claim that Altgens caught a pic of "Oswald", wearing the shirt he was arrested in, in front of the TSBD at the time of the shooting, and see what they say.)
The cop that got hit in the face went to the doctor. There were a number of cops that saw Oswald draw the gun. Oswald admitted carrying a gun to the movie theater. He had a gun. That is evidence. Doesn't matter if the government can produce that gun now, or not; the police officers' observations of the gun are "evidence".
It doesn't matter who drove the cab, or the bus, it is uncontested that he did both on that day. There was a bus transfer in his pocket at arrest.
Oswald had unfired bullets in his pocket when arrested. That is uncontested.
State of mind, or intent, is ONE element of the offense and does not require corroborating evidence or proof of any kind, in Texas, so long as a jury could reasonably infer the proper intent from the other evidence. "Motive" is an entirely different animal and is not required for proof, although if you do establish a motive, it usually supports whatever is the required intent. All of the other elements of the offense must also be supported by some evidence, and in fact must be supported by enough evidence to convince a judge or jury that they are true.
Officers', and other witnesses', in-court statements (as well as most testimony) do not need to be separately "authenticated." I assume that if there had been a trial, most of what we read in written form now would actually have been offered in court with live testimony, and would not have needed separate authentication. Physical objects, and written statements (of witnesses that don't testify) do require some form of authentication; usually asking a witness what Item X is, is sufficient. In cases where evidence has passed through several hands on its way to court, or had scientific testing done on it, or the evidence is the result of some sort of test, that requires more complicated authentication.
You asked for "evidence." Statements made by an accused under arrest are considered "admissible evidence" whether or not they are recorded or written. Admissions by an accused are specifically exempt from the definition of "hearsay." I'm not going to teach you all about the hearsay rule, it would take a long time and be boring. Basically, though, 'hearsay" is stuff that other people heard someone say. Courts take a dim view of it for a number of reasons. However, a suspect who makes admissions to a cop isn't protected by the "hearsay" rule, even if the suspect doesn't know that what he is talking about might wind up being an admission.
Oswald changed his story about the clothes and the transportation. That fact is incriminating evidence.
Yes, the speed and the path of the motorcade (plus the lack of window securing, lack of advance work, etc.) would be considered "evidence" that the Secret Service had something to do with the assassination.
We didn't get a trial. So we are left with analying everything the government could throw at the case. Some of it is admissible evidence, some of it wouldn't be admissible. Much of it might be admissible evidence but wouldn't be very convincing either way. Some of it is fabricated, and we'd hope, that a defense team could have prevented it from seeing the inside of the courtroom (unless they had a sneaky reason for wanting the jury to hear the state's witnesses swear to the validity of the faked evidence).
The standard for what constitutes evidence is pretty loose. (Fortunately for lawyers, or we would hardly have anything to talk about.) Whether its convincing evidence is a whole 'nother story.
You asked for evidence. You got some. You might, or might not, agree that it proves what Specter or Bugliosi or Hoover says it proves. Your disagreement with the weight, or importance, of the evidence, doesn't change its character as evidence. That's why we have juries. 12 people got to agree that the State's evidence is convincing enough to overcome any of their reasonable doubts. That is WAY shy of a perfect, airtight case. And it shouldn't have to be a perfect case to get a verdict.
First, it appears that you hijacked your own thread. This was originally just about the gun. Now it looks like an omnibus survey of the evidence. I'll work my way through it though. Your challenge was not to "prove the state's case", it was to "offer a single authenticated bit of Warren Commission evidence that leads us toward Oswald's guilt"...which I did. As I cautioned earlier, I was merely answering your challenge. You asked for evidence. There it is.
'Innocent till proven guilty" is a rephrasing of the way the Constitution works in a court of law. It applies to the way a jury or judge is supposed to rule after being presented some evidence. It doesn't help when deciding IF something is evidence, or analysing the caliber, or the admissibility, of evidence.
Anomalous behavior after a criminal act is evidence of guilt, yes. Not anything more specific than that. It often serves to rebut a claim by the defense that the accused had no knowledge if the crime, or lacked a specific intent. Decades and decades of criminal law behind that one.
About changing clothes: I never said "shirt." Oswald claimed to have changed his pants, and also claimed to have changed his shirt and pants at 2 different times. You said "authenticated". Since it is still an open question specifically about the shirt, I didn't say "shirt". I note that the statement you attached above says he claimed he changed his shirt too. It seems uncontested, at least, that he changed his pants and donned a jacket.
(It would be interesting to present the "changed shirt" evidence to the folks who claim that Altgens caught a pic of "Oswald", wearing the shirt he was arrested in, in front of the TSBD at the time of the shooting, and see what they say.)
The cop that got hit in the face went to the doctor. There were a number of cops that saw Oswald draw the gun. Oswald admitted carrying a gun to the movie theater. He had a gun. That is evidence. Doesn't matter if the government can produce that gun now, or not; the police officers' observations of the gun are "evidence".
It doesn't matter who drove the cab, or the bus, it is uncontested that he did both on that day. There was a bus transfer in his pocket at arrest.
Oswald had unfired bullets in his pocket when arrested. That is uncontested.
State of mind, or intent, is ONE element of the offense and does not require corroborating evidence or proof of any kind, in Texas, so long as a jury could reasonably infer the proper intent from the other evidence. "Motive" is an entirely different animal and is not required for proof, although if you do establish a motive, it usually supports whatever is the required intent. All of the other elements of the offense must also be supported by some evidence, and in fact must be supported by enough evidence to convince a judge or jury that they are true.
Officers', and other witnesses', in-court statements (as well as most testimony) do not need to be separately "authenticated." I assume that if there had been a trial, most of what we read in written form now would actually have been offered in court with live testimony, and would not have needed separate authentication. Physical objects, and written statements (of witnesses that don't testify) do require some form of authentication; usually asking a witness what Item X is, is sufficient. In cases where evidence has passed through several hands on its way to court, or had scientific testing done on it, or the evidence is the result of some sort of test, that requires more complicated authentication.
You asked for "evidence." Statements made by an accused under arrest are considered "admissible evidence" whether or not they are recorded or written. Admissions by an accused are specifically exempt from the definition of "hearsay." I'm not going to teach you all about the hearsay rule, it would take a long time and be boring. Basically, though, 'hearsay" is stuff that other people heard someone say. Courts take a dim view of it for a number of reasons. However, a suspect who makes admissions to a cop isn't protected by the "hearsay" rule, even if the suspect doesn't know that what he is talking about might wind up being an admission.
Oswald changed his story about the clothes and the transportation. That fact is incriminating evidence.
Yes, the speed and the path of the motorcade (plus the lack of window securing, lack of advance work, etc.) would be considered "evidence" that the Secret Service had something to do with the assassination.
We didn't get a trial. So we are left with analying everything the government could throw at the case. Some of it is admissible evidence, some of it wouldn't be admissible. Much of it might be admissible evidence but wouldn't be very convincing either way. Some of it is fabricated, and we'd hope, that a defense team could have prevented it from seeing the inside of the courtroom (unless they had a sneaky reason for wanting the jury to hear the state's witnesses swear to the validity of the faked evidence).
The standard for what constitutes evidence is pretty loose. (Fortunately for lawyers, or we would hardly have anything to talk about.) Whether its convincing evidence is a whole 'nother story.
You asked for evidence. You got some. You might, or might not, agree that it proves what Specter or Bugliosi or Hoover says it proves. Your disagreement with the weight, or importance, of the evidence, doesn't change its character as evidence. That's why we have juries. 12 people got to agree that the State's evidence is convincing enough to overcome any of their reasonable doubts. That is WAY shy of a perfect, airtight case. And it shouldn't have to be a perfect case to get a verdict.