Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (17 page)
Read Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald Online
Authors: Barry Krusch
Tags: #Non-Fiction, #History
This is a classic case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, where the
simultaneous
presence of the lack of
credibility
and
comprehensiveness
reduce confidence level even more than each would have done on its own!
There is an inevitable conclusion that one can draw from the previous examples. A fact that many people are not aware of is that
Oswald’s defense could now be centered exclusively on the
inadequacy
of the evidence offered by the prosecution,
and evidence of violations of procedures, and/or manipulation or destruction of evidence, with no need to offer any additional counter-evidence!
This is because the burden of proof is on the prosecution, which can only meet its burden with
legitimate
evidence, and
if it is shown
that that prosecution-generated evidence is for one reason or another
illegitimate
, the case for the prosecution
is not
, and
cannot
, be made, and a verdict of not guilty must be returned solely on that basis.
Now let’s look at the remaining categories.
Sufficient
Insufficient evidence for the primary proposition
Due process of law, and, in fact, logic, demand that every proposition be justified by evidence. If the evidence for a proposition is insufficient, then
by definition
there is reasonable doubt, because there is always doubt for propositions without adequate evidence.
There are some surprising implications derived from this requirement. For example, in the Kennedy case, it is said that Governor Connally was struck by a bullet at virtually the same time as President Kennedy, but Connally (unlike Kennedy) did not immediately react, a “delayed reaction” hypothesis postulated to add credence to the single bullet theory. Well, that is one thing to claim, but it is another to prove.
The need to offer evidence for the alleged delayed reaction by Connally is obvious, but what may not be obvious is that evidence must
also
be offered to prove that
Kennedy
did
not
have a similar delayed reaction, because obviously if they
both
had a reaction identically delayed, the central point would not hold!
Of course, you will quickly note that to prove this latter point regarding Kennedy the prosecution is going to have to enter evidence contradictory to its central point regarding Connally, which will leave the prosecution with completely contradictory testimony, one by one doctor stating that there was a delayed reaction, and one by another doctor, stating that there wasn’t!
Perhaps because of this reason, no evidence for the point was offered, which is a telltale sign that the conclusion is not justified.
Irrelevant evidence (evidence which does not relate to the conclusion [(non-sequitur)])
Some evidence does not relate to a conclusion. For example, offering into evidence the notion that Oswald was a member of the Communist Party supposedly implicates him in the crime of murder. But Oswald was also a Marine. Should that implicate him in the crime of murder as well? If evidence such as this is offered, then the prosecution must also offer evidence that Communists (or Marines) are more likely to assassinate Presidents than other groups of people. As it stands, the evidence on its own is irrelevant.
Evidence that can support multiple conclusions
Some evidence can support multiple conclusions, surprisingly enough. And, when evidence can support
multiple
conclusions, it obviously is not sufficient to support just
one
conclusion. Take this example: a witness sees a man who “looks like Oswald” get into a station wagon. A second witness sees a man who “looks like Oswald” board a bus. These sightings are so close in time that at least one of these sightings cannot be Oswald himself. From this evidence, we could conclude:
- Oswald entered a station wagon, and an Oswald
look-alike
boarded a bus. - An Oswald
look-alike
entered a station wagon, and Oswald boarded a bus. - An Oswald
look-alike
entered a station wagon, and an Oswald
look-alike
boarded a bus.
In supporting
all
these conclusions, the evidence does not truly support any
one
of them.
Having examined these three criteria, let’s look at our final criterion.
Consistent
Contradictory Evidence
We have finally arrived at the evidence which undoubtedly provided the rationale for the image of the scales of justice: evidence which is inconsistent with or conflicts with another piece of evidence.
By definition, this situation automatically creates doubt
. Let’s say you are accused of shooting a man, and the evidence presented is that you fired
two
bullets. However,
four
bullets are found. That’s two bullets short! It’s contradictory — and confidence-reducing.
If the case is centered around a
lone
assassin, this discrepancy
automatically
creates reasonable doubt regarding the proposition related to a “lone” assassin.
Other examples of contradictory evidence include:
- Multiple eyewitness testimony deviating from the proffered conclusion
(
Example
: if the proffered conclusion is that there was only one murderer (located
behind
the victim), and there are multiple witnesses who can testify that they saw shots fired from the
front
of the victim, reasonable doubt is created). - Fundamental change in testimony (vacillating testimony)
(
Example
: a doctor testifies that the shot which killed the victim entered in the
chest
, and later
changes
his testimony and now says that the shot which killed the victim entered in the
head
).
Evidence inconsistent with a conclusion
Some evidence positively
disproves
a conclusion (for example, an FBI report says a bullet did not transit, but the conclusion of the investigatory body was that it did). And, though it is extremely rare, you will occasionally find introduced into the record evidence which completely disproves the proposition that it seeks to support!
For example, a ballistic panel reports that a wound
could not
be caused by a pristine bullet, and the conclusion of the investigatory body accepting that report is that the wound
was
caused by a pristine bullet.
Summary
We just seen numerous examples of how categories of evidence and meta-evidence can easily reduce confidence level. While I have attempted to categorize these categories of evidence and meta-evidence in relationship to the criteria I believe are most relevant, the reader should not get too hung up on which category corresponds with which criterion. The bottom line is this:
When you come across
suppressed evidence
, it
reduces
confidence level;
when you come across
destroyed evidence
, it
reduces
confidence level;
when you come across
altered evidence
, it
reduces
confidence level;
when you come across
contradictory evidence
, it
reduces
confidence level;
when you come across
evidence based on data of suspect validity
, it
reduces
confidence level;
when you come across
evidence derived from deviations from accepted procedure
, it
reduces
confidence level;
when you come across
evidence inconsistent with a conclusion
, it
reduces
confidence level;
when you come across
evidence that can support multiple conclusions
, it
reduces
confidence level;
when you come across
evidence which violates the laws of physics
, it
reduces
confidence level;
when you come across
insufficient evidence for the primary proposition
, it
reduces
confidence level;
when you come across
irrelevant evidence (evidence which does not relate to the conclusion)
, it
reduces
confidence level;
when you come across
non-evidence: phenomena seen as evidence which are not
, that
reduces
confidence level;
when you come across
tests not performed which would have the capability to exonerate the defendant
, that
reduces
confidence level!
Remember these categories, because as we proceed through this book, you're going to see further examples of all of them.
Now, as damaging as these categories are to confidence level, they are pikers compared to the next and final category we will discuss, a category so devastating it deserves a chapter all its own.
Chapter 6
Essential Background:
Government-Manufactured Reality
We have just seen several examples of categories of evidence that
must
reduce confidence. However, there is one category we did not explore, because its seismic impact raises entirely new issues. The category is that of
manufactured evidence
.
This is another area where the Bible steps in with words of wisdom. The 9th commandment says “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” The manufacturer of evidence says, “try to stop me!”
There is perhaps one thing that everyone can agree on, no matter what their orientation in terms of the Kennedy assassination, and that is when the government is
shown
to have manufactured evidence, it positively
obliterates
the prosecution’s case. Because it demonstrates malicious intent, manufactured evidence has a radioactive, toxic quality that spreads to
all
evidence:
Where there is malicious intent on the part of the prosecution, how can
any
evidence be trusted?
Just as a counterfeiter who passes counterfeit money devalues the real money he passes, so do prosecutors who pass along counterfeit evidence devalue any real evidence they happened to possess.
As it turns out, there are two types of manufactured evidence: evidence manufactured
after
a crime has been committed (to make convictions more probable), and, much worse, evidence manufactured
before
a crime has been committed (which demonstrates intent on the part of the fabricators not just to put an innocent person in jail, but also to commit the crime itself!).
Even the least of these is devastating to the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court held in
Napue v. Illinois
, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) that
[I]t is established that a conviction obtained through use of false evidence, known to be such by representatives of the State, must fall under the Fourteenth Amendment
,
Mooney v. Holohan
, 294 U. S. 103;
Pyle v. Kansas
, 317 U. S. 213;
Curran v. Delaware
, 259 F.2d 707.
See
New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson
, 318 U. S. 688, and
White v. Ragen
, 324 U. S. 760.
Compare
Jones v. Kentucky
, 97 F.2d 335, 338, with
In re Sawyer’s Petition
, 229 F.2d 805, 809. Cf.
Mesarosh v. United States
, 352 U. S. 1.
The same result obtains when the State
,
although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears.
Alcorta v. Texas
, 355 U. S. 28;
United States ex rel. Thompson v. Dye
, 221 F.2d 763;
United States ex rel. Almeida v. Baldi
, 195 F.2d 815;
United States ex rel. Montgomery v. Ragen
, 86 F.Supp. 382. See generally annotation, 2 L.Ed.2d 1575.
The law on this point is clear, and requires no further elucidation. But would officers of Government, charged with upholding the constitution, intentionally violate it? The answer, sadly, is
yes
.
Category 1: Manufacturing Reality
After
The Fact
Yes, Virginia, reality can be manufactured, and that’s when you know you’re not in Kansas anymore, which is why we have a problem, Houston. We are going to look at a few examples at how the criminal justice system takes a page out of the Hollywood playbook, but before we do, let’s take a look at how the pros in Hollywood have perfected their dark arts. Consider this example:
You decide to watch a few “reality” shows on TV. The first show you turn to is
The
Dating Experiment
. You start watching just in time to see Jennifer say how much she loves Todd. Commercial. You flip the channel, and land on the show
Blind Date
, just in time to see how bored Frank is on his date with Yvette. But will love eventually conquer his temporary torpor? Tune in tomorrow!
You decide to abandon these scintillating narratives for the time being, and choose instead to surf the web, when you land on this eye-opening story, which introduces you to the buzz word of the week,
frankenbiting
:
1
The heart, Woody Allen said, wants what it wants. For the producers of the ABC reality show
The
Dating Experiment
, that was a problem. The heart of one of their female participants did not want what they needed it to want.
She disliked one of her suitors, but it would make a better story if she liked him. So they sat her down for an interview. Who’s your favorite celebrity? they asked. She replied that she really loved Adam Sandler. Later, in the editing room, they spliced out Sandler’s name and dropped in audio of her saying the male contestant’s name.
That’s love, reality-style. This trick, says Todd Sharp, who was a program consultant on the series, is called Frankenbiting. And it happens more often than you may suspect. . . .
[E]ven savvy viewers who realize that their favorite reality shows are cast, contrived and edited to be dramatic may have no idea how brazen the fudging can be.
Quotes are manufactured, crushes and feuds constructed out of whole cloth, episodes planned in multiact “storyboards” before taping, scenes stitched together out of footage shot days apart. . . .
[D]etails of how these shows manipulate reality have begun leaking out — because of a dispute with the employees hired to do the jiggering.
Those staff members — who create story lines, coach interview answers and cobble together video — say their work amounts to writing, and they are suing their networks and production companies, arguing that they deserve to be covered by the Writers Guild of America. . . .
It’s not that the shows have line-for-line scripts (although reality writers have charged that Paris Hilton was fed lines on
The Simple Life
). But Jeff Bartsch, a freelance reality-show editor, says there are many ways of using footage to shape a story. Bartsch worked on
Blind Date
, a syndicated dating show that features hookups gone right — and comically wrong. If a date was dull or lukewarm, the editors would juice the footage by running scenes out of order or out of context. To make it seem like a man was bored, they would cut from his date talking to a shot of him looking around and unresponsive —even though it was taken while she was in the restroom and he was alone.
“You can really take something black and make it white,” Bartsch says. . . .
Hooray for Hollywood?
Well, perhaps we expect
false
reality from Hollywood, but we expect
real
reality from our justice system. Unfortunately, when we survey the scene, we quickly learn that the American ideal of justice for
all
is as real as Jennifer’s love for Todd.
We can start by looking at a very basic, illustrative case. In 2009, a Georgetown student named Alexandra Torrens-Vilas was arrested in Florida for driving under the influence. But immediately before she was arrested, her car was rear-ended by a patrol car driven by Officer Joel Francisco, who apparently was not much of a Mario Andretti himself, since he collided with her after she had parked her car in the left lane of the roadway to retrieve a cat that had jumped out of her window. As Mike Celizic reported in August 3 of that year for
Today.com
,
2
In preparing her defense, Torrens-Vilas’ attorneys had requested copies of dash-cam videos from the patrol cars that responded. The videos showed Torrens-Vilas performing sobriety tests, but the attorneys realized there was missing material. Unable to get the missing video from Hollywood police, the attorneys finally obtained it from the state.
What they saw not only resulted in all charges against Torrens-Vilas being dropped, it also led to the suspension of five Hollywood police personnel.
Rather than admit to being responsible for rear-ending the woman’s car, police concocted a story that would make everything her fault.
“It confirmed everything that I thought,” Torrens-Vilas told Lauer. “I knew that that’s not what happened that night, and it just confirmed everything that I’ve been saying from the beginning.”
According to the tape, Officer Dewey Pressley took the lead in the plot, saying, “Well, I don’t lie and make things up ever because it’s wrong, but if I need to bend it a little to protect a cop, I’m gonna.”
He then tells another officer:
“I will write the narrative out for you. I will tell you exactly how to word it so it can get him off the hook. You see the angle of her car? You see the way it’s like this? As far as I’m concerned, I am going to word it she is in the left-hand lane. We will do a little Walt Disney to protect the cop
, because it wouldn’t matter because she was drunk anyway.”
“[D]o a little Walt Disney”: now that’s what I call
Mickey-Mouse justice
! This tale from the state of Disney (
Pinocchio
) actually teaches us some very important lessons which will be useful as we analyze Oswald’s case:
- Sometimes crimes are “pinned” on defendants on whom the charges can plausibly “stick” due to a seemingly related infraction;
- Some cops will lie if they feel they are justified, or if it “doesn’t matter”, or some other reason to which we are not privy;
- When evidence is missing (like the video in this case), it’s not necessarily due to
negligence
; sometimes it’s missing to
protect the guilty
.
That tale had a “happy” ending. Unfortunately, the roulette wheel of justice has only one green slot. An article in
The New York Times
in 2011 told a similar tale, unfortunately one far more common, whose “happy” ending was delayed by
decades
:
3
During his 30 years in prison, Cornelius Dupree Jr. twice rejected his chance for freedom because an admission of guilt for rape and robbery was the price of parole. “Whatever your truth is, you have to stick with it,” Mr. Dupree explained this month after a Texas judge exonerated him of the 1979 crime on the basis of DNA evidence kept in long-term county storage.
Mr. Dupree’s freedom highlighted the fact that Dallas County, unlike so many other jurisdictions, bothered to retain DNA samples across decades. No less a factor is an exemplary change in the attitude of the district attorney’s office. For the last four years, under the leadership of District Attorney Craig Watkins, it has cooperated in the DNA exoneration of 21 wrongly convicted citizens who lost decades of their freedom. All but one were convicted on the basis of incorrect eyewitness testimony.
30 years in jail for a crime he didn’t commit, convicted on false testimony! Mr. Dupree was far less lucky than Ms. Torrens-Vilas, serving decades in prison. However, he at least
was
released. But numerous innocent convicts not nearly as fortunate as Mr. Dupree have
not
been released, and even when there is telling evidence that the evidence which put them in prison was manufactured, they can still lose on appeal.
This latter phenomenon was demonstrated in the case of Kevin Cooper. Cooper was a convict formerly convicted of rape who had escaped from a minimum security prison on June 1. Four days later, on June 5, the family of Douglas Ryen was murdered (with the exception of Mr. Ryen’s eight-year-old son, Josh, who survived). Cooper had chosen as his hideout after the escape from prison the house next door to the Ryen’s, which made him the most likely suspect. Cooper was, in fact, convicted of the murders.
4
However, while Cooper would appear at first glance to have been the most likely perpetrator, there were grave issues with the way the trial proceeded, and in fact, it is entirely possible that he was innocent of the charges. Judge W. Fletcher discussed the issues in a dissent published on May 11, 2009 (
Cooper
at 5430):
The State of California may be about to execute an innocent man.
In his dissent, Judge Fletcher gave numerous examples of how the evidence in the case was
extremely
suspect. For example, testimony by the child had indicated that there were
several
murderers, not just one (
Cooper
at 5436; citations omitted):
Josh Ryen, the only survivor of the attack, first communicated to SBCSD Deputy Sharp that the murderers were three white men. This statement was the likely source of an entry in the police log during the afternoon of June 5, stating that the suspects were “three young males” driving the Ryens’ white station wagon.
But this obviously exculpating evidence was radically transformed at the time of the trial (
Cooper
at 5449):
Deputies misrepresented his recollections and gradually shaped his testimony so that it was consistent with the prosecution’s theory that there was only one killer.
There was further manipulation related to laboratory tests related to Cooper’s genetic profile (
Cooper
at 5449):
A single drop of blood in the hallway outside the Ryen master bathroom — several feet away from any of the victims — had characteristics consistent with Cooper’s genetic profile and inconsistent with the victims’. The crime lab conducted serological testing of this blood drop (entered into evidence as A-41) under suspicious circumstances. The criminologist who conducted the testing arrived at one result, and then altered his records to show a different result that conformed to Cooper’s known blood characteristics.
