|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 23, 2009 23:51:34 GMT -4
No, the real killer was Dr. Sam Beckett. He "quantum leaped" into Oswald's body and killed JFK. However, in the original timeline Jackie was also killed so it's an improvement. Minor correction: Sam leaped out of Oswald and into one of the Secret Service escort just before the shot. Ah, yes, I forgot that part. I just remembered him being in the window ready to take the shot and struggling to resist or something. That episode was on TV the other day and I should have watched it.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 24, 2009 2:45:15 GMT -4
Heh. They used to play the show at noon on the USA Network when I was in high school. Senior year, I had four classes, the last of which was journalism, and I was able to get home by noon even given my half-hour bus ride. And then the first half of the Lee Harvey Oswald episode played the day before my grandfather's funeral. I was busy during the reception fending off any advances my cousins could make toward the TV so I could watch the second half.
To be fair, my grandfather had had a stroke several years earlier, and I had done my mourning already. I'm not that callous!
Oh, and it never ceases to amaze how people will persist in arguing ahead of their research.
|
|
|
Post by macapple on Nov 24, 2009 8:28:50 GMT -4
I don't disagree, however the fact remains that much of the testimony for both sides of the story would simply not stand up in a court of law under cross examination. There would be inconsistencies, which could form the basis of reasonable doubt.
Taking Banners account, which is key testimony linking Oswald to the snipers perch.
Taking your approach that he could have got the colour wrong as it was dark would lead to a line of questioning about the other aspects of his statement. If he got the colour wrong due to the lack of light, how accurate is the rest of his statement on the height, colour of skin and hair of the individual. Equally this method is easily used to discount the CT points which equally have many inconsistencies.
If the questioning led the jury to believe there was doubt in the accuracy of the testimony it would probably be discarded.
Therefore destroying one element of the chain of evidence.
Well leaving the building then walking to a bus stop , getting a bus that goes back the way he came, then getting a cab isn't really fleeing. Many people were not accounted for in the book depository after the shooting.
There is little to deny he was the gun man here. The only issue I have with the Tippet shooting is the arrest and the potential inadmissible nature of the gun used. Without the murder weapon it would be much harder to get a prosecution.
Whilst thats an easy thing to say it would not stand up. Innocent until proven guilty in court of law.
The reason I am looking into this particular aspect of the Assassination is to understand how , theoretically, this would stand in court under cross examination.
I have a close friend who is Judge and both of us debate this on a regular basis. We are both agreed in the single shooter scenario and that in all probability Oswald was the trigger man. However as we both practice in the legal arena we wanted to test the evidence in an appropriate manner to see if a good defence lawyer could have challenged some of the statement and evidence. Equally was the prosecution case as water tight as many feel it is.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 24, 2009 9:01:03 GMT -4
Right, except that a court of law uses evidence as proof. If the available evidence points to you and the only thing you can say in your defence is "I didn't do it" you will most likely be convicted. With much against and none for, you are in trouble, regardless of whether you actually did it; this is a known flaw which is why we try to mitigate by requiring high standards of evidence and "beyond reasonable doubt".
Given the evidence, I doubt he'd have been convicted of murder in the first degree due to his mental state, excepting that there would be almost no chance of an unbiased jury given the extremely public nature of the crime and its victim. However, we will never know now, will we?
My problem is not with whether Oswald shot Kennedy; its with why. I would have very much liked to have known what his testimony would have been; in particular whether it would have included any interesting names, but that's mostly for my own curiosity. Were it not for the nature of his target, Oswald's crime would have barely made the papers, much less spawned a dozen conspiracy theories, each more far-fetched than the last. I think that says more about conspiracy theorists than anything else, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by macapple on Nov 24, 2009 9:03:29 GMT -4
I don't think I have started to argue yet, I am simply questioning elements of evidence to construct the appropriate legal argument. If you perceive questioning elements and challenging facts as arguments then that is your prerogative.
A legal argument has a different definition in my line of work.
You do not need to be possession of the full facts to construct a legal argument or persuasive outcome.
To develop a legal argument you must at first weigh and balance any legal principles. Defeasibility and normative conflict in terms of argument and counter argument are the aspects I am trying to look at. (Prakken 1997)
The Prima facia evidence in this case has been presented but not cross examined in court. It does establish some minor malice aforethought, however there are glaring omissions from a legal stand point. The defendant could have chosen an affirmative defence therefore admitting some if not all the charges but arguing insanity etc etc. There are many ways this could have been challenged from how evidence was gathered to how people could have been cross examined.
If the Judge had instructed the jury to reach a verdict without a shadow of doubt then the burden of proof would need to be water tight. It is not. So far in 18 key witness statements and testimony on the assassination, I can find elements you could cross examine and create doubt.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 24, 2009 14:06:32 GMT -4
You are arguing legally ahead of your evidence. Or, rather, expertise.
|
|
|
Post by nedd on Nov 24, 2009 15:27:21 GMT -4
If the defendant pleads insanity, it doesn't really matter if you manage to establish any doubt, does it?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 24, 2009 15:54:40 GMT -4
If the Judge had instructed the jury to reach a verdict without a shadow of doubt then the burden of proof would need to be water tight. It is not. So far in 18 key witness statements and testimony on the assassination, I can find elements you could cross examine and create doubt. But the requirement is not "beyond a shadow of a doubt" it is "reasonable doubt". In a trial the prosecutor isn't going to just put a witness on the stand and leave it at that, if they did, no one would ever get convicted of murder or anything else unless they were caught on camera. They will include expert testimony by memory and perception experts who will discuss things like witnesses ability to determine colours at distance, they would include sound experts that would be able to discuss the difficulty of determining where the sound came from. They would have been able to introduce Oswald's past deeds of attempting to assassinate General Walker. If all the defence has is, well perhaps it wasn't my client because you can't recall the colour of his shirt exactly right, they are in serious trouble. Without a plausible explaination of Oswald's gun being used, who used it and why Oswald did what he did afterwards (and the gun wasn't required to get him on Tippet, there were enough witnesses to do that without it, as there were enough to the attempted shooting in the theatre) the jury is not going to go with the defence. The prosecution can give a plausable narrative that explains the evidence, I have yet to see anyone construct one for the defence. Juries are going to go with what makes sense to them, and that will be the prosecutor's case. Courtrooms aren't like CT's, just asking questions and trying to cast doubt on the evidence get seen through very quickly because there is someone there to help point out those tricks. If you want to really look at the evidence I'd suggest getting it from sources and people that really have done indepth research into it. Try Reclaiming History or McAdams JFK site.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 24, 2009 18:22:30 GMT -4
If the defendant pleads insanity, it doesn't really matter if you manage to establish any doubt, does it? This depends on your jurisdiction, and I don't know much about how it works in Texas. For one thing, just pleading insanity isn't enough for that to be the legal determination. At bare minimum, a hearing must be held to determine whether the person was legally responsible for the act as defined by that state's standards of legal sanity. (Usually that the person didn't know that society thought their actions were wrong, which is kind of an oversimplification, but gets the point across at least.) Generally, however, at least so far as I know, there is still an actual legal investigation--hearing or trial--into the person's actual guilt, if for no other reason than that it will change exactly what hospital the person ends up in. In my personal opinion, for what it's worth, Oswald would not have gotten off on an insanity plea. Too many of his actions show clear consciousness of guilt--fleeing the scene at all, taking a taxi when the bus wasn't moving fast enough, shooting Tippit, and so forth. (And, yes, the taxi is actually suspicious, given his means and expenses.) I think it might have mitigated against the death penalty, but I do not think we can be sure even there. And after all, Charles Guiteau shouldn't have gotten the death penalty for killing Garfield, given his mental state, but he did. Killing Presidents kind of influences people's opinion of you.
|
|
|
Post by macapple on Nov 24, 2009 20:27:04 GMT -4
You are arguing legally ahead of your evidence. Or, rather, expertise. It is standard practice to look at the legal framework and the specific elements of existing of case law when you have a brief. If anyone was to defend Oswald the task would be to look at how to legally discredit the presented information, or evidence, based on previous case law as a start. If its discredited, or doubt cast upon the evidence then it is not a clear case. In many cases I have worked on, the jury are directed by the Judge to ignore any testimony which has be discredited or has been show to create reasonable doubt. However you are right in that the detail of the specifics do hold ground when defending a case and obtaining a standard legal position on the them is appropriate. The only evidence I am choosing to use here is what has been officially filed and recorded. The law firm i work for in the UK has access to the original 26 volumes of the original Warren commission report as published in 1964, which i am slowly fighting through as start. On the Charles Guiteau conviction, this maybe down to how the law was interpreted. In the 19th Century in the US you could be as mad as hell, however if it could be proved by the court that you knew your actions were illegal then you were found guilty. There are many cases in the US of this interpretation of guilt whilst insane in the 19th century.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 25, 2009 0:00:46 GMT -4
Guiteau didn't plead insanity; he thought he was perfectly okay. On the other hand, he killed Garfield because God told him to. I think he was allowed to represent himself, even, which meant he had no lawyer sane enough to argue an insanity plea for him. The point was that, even had the proper representation and gone through the proper steps, he almost certainly still would have been executed, because he'd killed a President.
|
|
|
Post by EdmondDantes on Apr 7, 2010 14:51:45 GMT -4
My understanding from the info ive found to date is that there was no positive identification of Oswald at the 6th floor window. There were witness statements saying that there was " someone" at the window but due to the nature of the firing position it would have been difficult to see a face. Do you have any sources or witness statements that could help out here? There is really no way anyone could have seen him from the firing position as it was away and to the rear mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce504.jpgYes, there was a positive identification by Howard L. Brennan. Here is his full account. karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/history/the_deed/brennan/Brennan_book.html
|
|