Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The defence lawyers have to present evidence that is credible to be classed as reasonable doubt. The prosecution lawyers have to present credible evidence that proves someone is guilty. Much of the witnesses/evidence suggested over Oswald would never be submitted, or accepted by the judge, in a court.
So these nine witnesses who say they saw Oswald shoot Tibbit, most would never get into court dismissed by the prosecution lawyers as flaky. The few that did would be against more solid evidence for Oswald, who was sitting next to a man in the cinema and the lady at the box office - at close quarters. Reasonable doubt appears to be there.
I have been in juries. I always repeated guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, when in the jury room, writing it on the board, and pointing to it when I had to. A jury can easily lose its path forgetting what their prime duty is - for e.g. they are not professional social workers, they should leave that to the professionals. They are the judges, they decide who is guilty or not guilty, not the 'judge' (a misnomer) who is an admin person who can give out sentences.
In a trial of Oswald, those witnesses would all testify. It would be up to the jury to evaluate the credibility of their testimony and give whatever weight to it they chose.
Oswald would have been convicted because the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that he shot JD Tibbets.
He shot Tibbets and than was arrested in a theater with a handgun. The police were able to arrest Oswald because of the identifications they got from eyewitnesses and the fact he was seen fleeing into the movie theater.
If nine eyewitnesses seeing Oswald shoot Tibbets and than finding him with a gun in the theater he was seen fleeing into isn't evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" than there is no such thing as a case proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We might as well just let all criminal defendants go. Honestly, one of the things lost in all this was that the Dallas Police Department was doing its job that day and doing it under pressure. The President had just been shot and killed and yet officers were able to arrest Oswald pretty quickly.
A judge can refuse to accept certain witnesses and evidence. They do not want trials over long and cluttered, creating confusion.
Witness observations of the shooting varies so much, that many of them can be pretty well dismissed. Not so, in the cinema, where positive IDs of Oswald were observed at close quarters, giving more than reasonable doubt. The prosecution have to prove Oswald was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The movements of the police is also suspect. The posse of 30 policemen, in a suburb, not downtown where most Dallas police were called to, and the president was shot, went to a church first.
A half decent defence lawyer would rip the prosecution to pieces.
A judge can refuse to accept certain witnesses and evidence. They do not want trials over long and cluttered, creating confusion.
Witness observations of the shooting varies so much, that it can be pretty well dismissed. Not so, in the cinema, where positive IDs of Oswald were observed at close quarters, giving more than reasonable doubt. The prosecution have to prove Oswald was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The movements of the police is also suspect. The posse of 30 went to a church first.
A half decent defence lawyer would rip the prosecution to pieces.
Eyewitness testimony would be rarely excluded from a case and there are few grounds for doing so.
I find the notion that there was no proof of Oswald killing Tibbets beyond a reasonable doubt to be literally laughable.
A half decent "defense lawyer" would have tried to obtain a guilty plea for Oswald because of the overwhelming nature of the evidence. Perhaps, a guilty plea could have spared him the death penalty which was the penalty at that time for killing a police officer in the line of duty.
Why don't you tell me what evidence you would find "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"? I would truly like to know.
I find the notion that there was no proof of Oswald killing Tibbets beyond a reasonable doubt to be literally laughable.
The witnesses of Tibbit being shot mainly came up with different stories and also saw the incident from afar. Three solid witnesses at close quarters saw Oswald in the cinema at the time Tibbits was being shot. That is more than reasonable doubt for sure.
The witnesses of Tibbit being shot mainly came up with different stories and also saw the incident from afar. Three solid witnesses at close quarters saw Oswald in the cinema at the time Tibbits was being shot. That is more than reasonable doubt for sure.
Perhaps you do not see proof beyond a reasonable doubt here I am saying rational people would find that proof beyond a reasonable doubt existed establishing Oswald killed Tibbets.
Again, what evidence would you say would establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt in this case? Twenty eyewitnesses? Thirty? DNA evidence which did not exist in 1963?
And what was Oswald doing in that theater with a handgun?
Among other reasons, because the controversy has existed at least since the Warren Report was released in September of 1964. In those 58 years, there have been hundreds of books written, several investigations conducted, numerous television programs broadcast, and multiple movies produced. The controversy is part of our History.
There were numerous movies about yetis and sasquatches. See The Golden Age of Bigfoot Movies | Den of Geek. I remember my (soon to be) stepfather taking me to see one in 1974, probably Bigfoot or the Legend of Bigfoot. You as moderator are in charge but I think this thread belongs in Paranormal.
Perhaps you do not see proof beyond a reasonable doubt here
The onus for the prosecution to prove guilt, not the defence. The defence only has to counter. They do not have to go out of their way to prove innocence. If the Jury sees seasonable doubt in the allegation(s) they have to declare not guilty. Three people giving positive IDs at close range would tip it (pardon the pun).
The defence would only call witnesses who have stories that align. So most of the nine would not be called up, as their stories differed so much, which would make the prosecution look foolish. The defence could have witnesses lines up of the shooting that differ wildly, using this as prooff of confusion on the prosecution side.
Oswald had a gun rammed into his stomach earlier in the day. He had good reason to arm himself. In Texas in those days carrying a gun was not out of the ordinary.
Last edited by Dave Davis; 03-09-2022 at 11:43 AM..
That last part may not be the case. Oswald left his rooming house and started walking, encountered Tippet, then changed direction and walked to the Texas Theater. Nobody knows where he was headed before he encounter, but it is interesting (to me) that the route he was on would have taken him to Jack Ruby's apartment. Maybe the Texas Theater location was a "Plan B."
It seems to me that it is highly improbable that nobody took any notes of any of the interviews.
There is no way they didn’t have a stenographer and audio, and it’s very likely they had video, too.
Oswald obviously blew up the narrative they were trying to craft, so they suppressed the whole thing. I’d be shocked if any of it still existed.
That’s why I never get excited when they say they are going to release documents. I’m not naive enough to believe that the smoking guns still exist within the classified records.
There is no way they didn’t have a stenographer and audio, and it’s very likely they had video, too.
Oswald obviously blew up the narrative they were trying to craft, so they suppressed the whole thing. I’d be shocked if any of it still existed.
That’s why I never get excited when they say they are going to release documents. I’m not naive enough to believe that the smoking guns still exist within the classified records.
I'm fairly certain that it was common in 1963 for police departments to record interviews, particularly in important cases. They probably did it with a big, bulky reel to reel tape recorder in another room with microphone cables run into the interview room.
Certainly, somebody was taking notes.
I think it was extremely unlikely that the Dallas Police Department was able to video record interviews in 1963.
It's impossible to know what's in the documents they haven't released. We won't even be told why, but it is often when information gathering methods would be compromised.
I'm fairly certain that it was common in 1963 for police departments to record interviews, particularly in important cases. They probably did it with a big, bulky reel to reel tape recorder in another room with microphone cables run into the interview room.
Certainly, somebody was taking notes.
I think it was extremely unlikely that the Dallas Police Department was able to video record interviews in 1963.
It's impossible to know what's in the documents they haven't released. We won't even be told why, but it is often when information gathering methods would be compromised.
I read somewhere that they won't release the documents because there are still people alive who would be affected. Maybe some are those who were actually involved (they would be pretty old by now, but still alive) or younger people who somehow knew about it or ???) If they ever release all the documents, it will be well after most of us are dead and no living person will even care anymore.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
