02-02-2011, 05:59 PM
Jack, I am not indignant, only frustrated at the rejection of direct evidence, authentic evidence, by a smart and sensible guy like you. A trifle this dispute is not if only because if our reasoning and methods of gathering and evaluating evidence cannot establish the truth in this case, what can we prove going forward?
What standard of proof are you imposing? The civil law standard is a preponderance of evidence and that clearly identifies the figure as Adams in this case. The proof is so compelling IMO that it meets the criminal law standard of proved beyond reasonable doubt. The alternative to Imogene Adams' explanation for the man in the photo being her husband would prove unreasonable, that is, improbable in the extreme, laughable in fact. Vince Bugliosi or any competent attorney would have a field day ridiculing the anti-Imogene theory in court. That is why the alternative explanation is not spelled out, it is kept in the closet, mostly concealed from my close inspection.
Let me state again that neither Allan nor I ever disputed the proposition that if it is Adams in the pic, then it is not Conein, a necessary but not sufficient condition to prove Conein was absent from Dealey Plaza that day. That is obvious and to keep reiterating it as a distinction of your conclusion is tiresome, to put it as politely as I can.
To drop Imogene's direct, unimpeachable evidence down the memory hole is wholly unacceptable to me and most anyone I can think of. It constitutes poor criminal investigative practice and impedes discovery of the truth. Hence, Morgan's frustration.
Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.[1] Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, directly supports the truth of evidence, from which the truth of the assertion may be inferred.
For example: a witness who testifies that he saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A forensics expert who says that ballistics proves that the defendant's gun shot the bullet that killed the victim gives circumstantial evidence, from which B's guilt may be inferred.
In direct evidence a witness relates what he or she directly experienced. (Usually the experience is by sight or hearing, though it may come though any sense, including touch or pain. State v Famber, 358 Mo 288, 214 SW2d 40.)
What standard of proof are you imposing? The civil law standard is a preponderance of evidence and that clearly identifies the figure as Adams in this case. The proof is so compelling IMO that it meets the criminal law standard of proved beyond reasonable doubt. The alternative to Imogene Adams' explanation for the man in the photo being her husband would prove unreasonable, that is, improbable in the extreme, laughable in fact. Vince Bugliosi or any competent attorney would have a field day ridiculing the anti-Imogene theory in court. That is why the alternative explanation is not spelled out, it is kept in the closet, mostly concealed from my close inspection.
Let me state again that neither Allan nor I ever disputed the proposition that if it is Adams in the pic, then it is not Conein, a necessary but not sufficient condition to prove Conein was absent from Dealey Plaza that day. That is obvious and to keep reiterating it as a distinction of your conclusion is tiresome, to put it as politely as I can.
To drop Imogene's direct, unimpeachable evidence down the memory hole is wholly unacceptable to me and most anyone I can think of. It constitutes poor criminal investigative practice and impedes discovery of the truth. Hence, Morgan's frustration.
Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.[1] Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, directly supports the truth of evidence, from which the truth of the assertion may be inferred.
For example: a witness who testifies that he saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A forensics expert who says that ballistics proves that the defendant's gun shot the bullet that killed the victim gives circumstantial evidence, from which B's guilt may be inferred.
In direct evidence a witness relates what he or she directly experienced. (Usually the experience is by sight or hearing, though it may come though any sense, including touch or pain. State v Famber, 358 Mo 288, 214 SW2d 40.)