Oswald line up
davidma...@yahoo.com
arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
yeuhd
If Oswald wasn't the person Scoggins saw at the Tippit shooting,
having a black eye and arguing with officers at the lineup wasn't
going to make him look like the person Scoggins saw.
Anthony Marsh
And Oswald was the only man in the line-up wearing only a T-shirt.
His rights were violated and he complained about it. So they killed him.
jbarge
line up, you would want your line up run the same as Lee Harvey
Oswald's?
This is about constitutional processes, not lone nuts and
conspiracies.
I bet, innocent or guilty, you'd want to have an objective and
professional police line up.
You know - where you're not the only one with a black eye, with people
roughly your age and somewhat dressed the same.
Or maybe not - feel free to fill me in.
Maggsy
The idea of ID line ups is that you have similar people . Not some one who
is obviously different.No is saying that Scoggins is going to deliberately
pick Oswald, but the line up is supposed to be fair so people are not
influenced on a subconscious level.
Anthony Marsh
Any stranger who had not been at any crime scene could have easily picked
out Oswald as the suspect. Based on nothing more than his physical
appearance and attitude. How many people would ignore someone in a line-up
shouting,"I didn't kill nobody"?
yeuhd
> On Feb 26, 11:23 am, yeuhd <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > How could any one fail to id Oswald when he had a black eye and was
> > > arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
> > > hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
>
> > If Oswald wasn't the person Scoggins saw at the Tippit shooting,
> > having a black eye and arguing with officers at the lineup wasn't
> > going to make him look like the person Scoggins saw.
>
> Okay....so if you have the unfortunate experience of being in a police
> line up, you would want your line up run the same as Lee Harvey
> Oswald's?
If I were in a police lineup, and I didn't want to stick out like a
sore thumb, I sure as hell wouldn't be acting loud and belligerent
before the eyewitnesses who are about to make an identification.
> You know - where you're not the only one with a black eye, with people
> roughly your age and somewhat dressed the same.
Why should they be dressed the same?
As for age, the other people in the police lineup for witnesses
William Scoggins and William Whaley were 17, 18, and 26. Oswald was
24.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0104b.htm
You still haven't explained how, if Oswald was not the person whom
Scoggins and Whaley saw, having a black eye and in a T-shirt was going
to make him look like the person they saw.
Anthony Marsh
You are talking about a proper line-up. Not a Texas line-up.
In a Boston line-up there is one black man and 5 white detectives and
the witness is told that the suspect is a black man.
Bud
>
> > <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > How could any one fail to id Oswald when he had a black eye and was
> > > arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
> > > hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
>
> > If Oswald wasn't the person Scoggins saw at the Tippit shooting,
> > having a black eye and arguing with officers at the lineup wasn't
> > going to make him look like the person Scoggins saw.
>
> Okay....so if you have the unfortunate experience of being in a police
> line up, you would want your line up run the same as Lee Harvey
> Oswald's?
I`d expect to be standing in a row with other people.
> This is about constitutional processes, not lone nuts and
> conspiracies.
Who made Oswald create a fuss and draw attention to himself?
> I bet, innocent or guilty, you'd want to have an objective and
> professional police line up.
Either the witness can make an identification or they can`t.
> You know - where you're not the only one with a black eye, with people
> roughly your age and somewhat dressed the same.
> Or maybe not - feel free to fill me in.
It isn`t an attempt to get the witness to select someone similar.
Bud
> On Feb 26, 4:23 pm, yeuhd <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > How could any one fail to id Oswald when he had a black eye and was
> > > arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
> > > hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
>
> > If Oswald wasn't the person Scoggins saw at the Tippit shooting,
> > having a black eye and arguing with officers at the lineup wasn't
> > going to make him look like the person Scoggins saw.
>
> The idea of ID line ups is that you have similar people
No, it isn`t. The idea is so the police don`t drag one person in
front of the witness, and ask "Is this the guy?".
Bud
Are you making the case that Oswald was an idiot for drawing
attention to himself in this way?
Bud
> On 2/25/2009 10:59 PM, davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > How could any one fail to id Oswald when he had a black eye and was
> > arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
> > hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
>
> And Oswald was the only man in the line-up wearing only a T-shirt.
Which would be relevant, if the witnesses were there to pick out the
person wearing a T-shirt. But they weren`t, they were there to pick
out the person they saw. It`s called making an identification, and
when you have multiple people doing so, it`s called corroboration.
> His rights were violated and he complained about it.
Yah, criminals do this a lot, claim the system is picking on them.
> So they killed him.
Ruby probably wasn`t even there when he was complaining.
jbarge
That's because I'm not explaining that.
I'm saying police line-ups should be run in a professional objective
manner.
The evidence before us indicates that LHO could be identified as the
suspect whether or not you saw him at the scene of the crime, due to
his behavior and the difference between him and the others in the line
up.
Perhaps Scoggins and Whaley saw LHO exactly as they say they did.
But the flawed line up process (and I'm only talking about the
specific flawed line up process - not other testimony) doesn't add
much to the evidence.
I should also note that the constitutional process should be followed
for the innocent and guilty alike.
This might all be a little bit subtle.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 26, 8:22 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/25/2009 10:59 PM, davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> How could any one fail to id Oswald when he had a black eye and was
>>> arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
>>> hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
>> And Oswald was the only man in the line-up wearing only a T-shirt.
>
> Which would be relevant, if the witnesses were there to pick out the
> person wearing a T-shirt. But they weren`t, they were there to pick
> out the person they saw. It`s called making an identification, and
> when you have multiple people doing so, it`s called corroboration.
>
Any cop familiar with line-ups will notice the problem right away. See
the 48 Hours special on witnesses and the explanation about how NOT to
arrange a line-up.
>> His rights were violated and he complained about it.
>
> Yah, criminals do this a lot, claim the system is picking on them.
>
Well, in fact criminals do it just as innocent people do it.
Anthony Marsh
No, you seem to have no way to pay attention to what is being said.
Anthony Marsh
>> On Feb 26, 4:23 pm, yeuhd<NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com"
>>> <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> How could any one fail to id Oswald when he had a black eye and was
>>>> arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
>>>> hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
>>> If Oswald wasn't the person Scoggins saw at the Tippit shooting,
>>> having a black eye and arguing with officers at the lineup wasn't
>>> going to make him look like the person Scoggins saw.
>> The idea of ID line ups is that you have similar people
>
> No, it isn`t. The idea is so the police don`t drag one person in
> front of the witness, and ask "Is this the guy?".
>
Yes, it is. The idea of the line-up is that you can't make the choice
obvious to anyone who was not really at the crime scene. See the 48
Hours special on witnesses.
Anthony Marsh
>> On Feb 26, 11:23 am, yeuhd<NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com"
>>
>>> <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> How could any one fail to id Oswald when he had a black eye and was
>>>> arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
>>>> hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
>>> If Oswald wasn't the person Scoggins saw at the Tippit shooting,
>>> having a black eye and arguing with officers at the lineup wasn't
>>> going to make him look like the person Scoggins saw.
>> Okay....so if you have the unfortunate experience of being in a police
>> line up, you would want your line up run the same as Lee Harvey
>> Oswald's?
>
> I`d expect to be standing in a row with other people.
>
Other people? You are really a male aren't you? Or are you really Ann
Coulter in drag? So, you are the only male in the line-up and everyone
else is a woman and the witness is asked to pick out the rapist. How many
tries do you think she needs to select YOU, the only male?
>> This is about constitutional processes, not lone nuts and
>> conspiracies.
>
> Who made Oswald create a fuss and draw attention to himself?
>
Because his rights were being violated and he did not have a lawyer to
complain on his behalf.
>> I bet, innocent or guilty, you'd want to have an objective and
>> professional police line up.
>
> Either the witness can make an identification or they can`t.
>
Any witness can make an identification with a little help from the
police. Like the case of Willie Bennet.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 26, 8:24 pm, jbarge<anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 11:23 am, yeuhd<NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com"
>>
>>> <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> How could any one fail to id Oswald when he had a black eye and was
>>>> arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
>>>> hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
>>> If Oswald wasn't the person Scoggins saw at the Tippit shooting,
>>> having a black eye and arguing with officers at the lineup wasn't
>>> going to make him look like the person Scoggins saw.
>> Okay....so if you have the unfortunate experience of being in a police
>> line up, you would want your line up run the same as Lee Harvey
>> Oswald's?
>
> If I were in a police lineup, and I didn't want to stick out like a
> sore thumb, I sure as hell wouldn't be acting loud and belligerent
> before the eyewitnesses who are about to make an identification.
>
There you go again, injecting what you think is logical.
>> You know - where you're not the only one with a black eye, with people
>> roughly your age and somewhat dressed the same.
>
> Why should they be dressed the same?
>
Correct procedure for a proper line-up.
> As for age, the other people in the police lineup for witnesses
> William Scoggins and William Whaley were 17, 18, and 26. Oswald was
> 24.
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0104b.htm
>
> You still haven't explained how, if Oswald was not the person whom
> Scoggins and Whaley saw, having a black eye and in a T-shirt was going
> to make him look like the person they saw.
>
Anyone could pick out Oswald when he was the only one wearing just a
T-shirt.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 27, 7:23 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> You are talking about a proper line-up. Not a Texas line-up.
>> In a Boston line-up there is one black man and 5 white detectives and
>> the witness is told that the suspect is a black man.
>
As if the Kennedys control everything in Boston?
yeuhd
> > You still haven't explained how, if Oswald was not the person whom
> > Scoggins and Whaley saw, having a black eye and in a T-shirt was going
> > to make him look like the person they saw.
>
> Anyone could pick out Oswald when he was the only one wearing just a
> T-shirt.
Were the witnesses asked to pick which man was wearing a T-shirt?
Did either of the witnesses describe the suspect as wearing a only a T-
shirt when they first saw him?
To the contrary:
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if the number 3 man in the lineup [Oswald]
was wearing the same clothes that the man you saw at the Tippit
shooting wore?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had on a different shirt, and he didn't have a jacket
on. He had on kind of a polo shirt.
Bud
> On 2/27/2009 11:10 PM,Budwrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 8:22 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/25/2009 10:59 PM, davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>> How could any one fail to id Oswald when he had a black eye and was
> >>> arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
> >>> hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
> >> And Oswald was the only man in the line-up wearing only a T-shirt.
>
> > Which would be relevant, if the witnesses were there to pick out the
> > person wearing a T-shirt. But they weren`t, they were there to pick
> > out the person they saw. It`s called making an identification, and
> > when you have multiple people doing so, it`s called corroboration.
>
> Any cop familiar with line-ups will notice the problem right away. See
> the 48 Hours special on witnesses and the explanation about how NOT to
> arrange a line-up.
What can you produce that shows this line-up was conducted outside
of the norm for legally conducted line-ups in 1963?
> >> His rights were violated and he complained about it.
>
> > Yah, criminals do this a lot, claim the system is picking on them.
>
> Well, in fact criminals do it just as innocent people do it.
So his complaints (like his claims of being a patsy and having not
killed anyone) are not evidence of anything.
Bud
> On 2/27/2009 11:10 PM,Budwrote:
>
>
>
> >> On Feb 26, 4:23 pm, yeuhd<NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com"
> >>> <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> How could any one fail to id Oswald when he had a black eye and was
> >>>> arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
> >>>> hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
> >>> If Oswald wasn't the person Scoggins saw at the Tippit shooting,
> >>> having a black eye and arguing with officers at the lineup wasn't
> >>> going to make him look like the person Scoggins saw.
> >> The idea of ID line ups is that you have similar people
>
> > No, it isn`t. The idea is so the police don`t drag one person in
> > front of the witness, and ask "Is this the guy?".
>
> Yes, it is. The idea of the line-up is that you can't make the choice
> obvious to anyone who was not really at the crime scene. See the 48
> Hours special on witnesses.
What channel was that on in the sixties?
Bud
> On 2/27/2009 11:10 PM,Budwrote:
>
>
>
> >> On Feb 26, 11:23 am, yeuhd<NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com"
>
> >>> <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> How could any one fail to id Oswald when he had a black eye and was
> >>>> arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
> >>>> hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
> >>> If Oswald wasn't the person Scoggins saw at the Tippit shooting,
> >>> having a black eye and arguing with officers at the lineup wasn't
> >>> going to make him look like the person Scoggins saw.
> >> Okay....so if you have the unfortunate experience of being in a police
> >> line up, you would want your line up run the same as Lee Harvey
> >> Oswald's?
>
> > I`d expect to be standing in a row with other people.
>
> Other people? You are really a male aren't you? Or are you really Ann
> Coulter in drag? So, you are the only male in the line-up and everyone
> else is a woman and the witness is asked to pick out the rapist. How many
> tries do you think she needs to select YOU, the only male?
You do realize that a witness does not have to select one of the
people in the line-up as the person they saw, right? In order to make
a positive identification, the witness would need to say "that is who
I saw", regardless of who is standing on either side.
> >> This is about constitutional processes, not lone nuts and
> >> conspiracies.
>
> > Who made Oswald create a fuss and draw attention to himself?
>
> Because his rights were being violated
Criminals and CTers don`t get to decide when rights are violated,
courts do. What court at that time ruled that line-ups such as the one
Oswald was in were in violation of his rights?
>and he did not have a lawyer to
> complain on his behalf.
He was offered one, and he declined.
> >> I bet, innocent or guilty, you'd want to have an objective and
> >> professional police line up.
>
> > Either the witness can make an identification or they can`t.
>
> Any witness can make an identification with a little help from the
> police. Like the case of Willie Bennet.
Just because you would obey the cops and select who they told you to
does not mean everyone would.
Bud
> On 2/27/2009 11:10 PM,Budwrote:
You seem to say nothing worth paying attention to.
But I`m really not understanding the position expressed by some CTers
here. Oswald attacks the police, and in the scuffle gets a black eye.
CTers complain Oswald has a black eye in the line-ups. I don`t see what
the cops should do, attempt to conceal his injuries with make- up, wait
until they heal, what? Oswald is shouting "I didn`t kill nobody", what
should the cops do, gag him? Wouldn`t that draw even more attention to
him?
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 28, 10:24 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> You still haven't explained how, if Oswald was not the person whom
>>> Scoggins and Whaley saw, having a black eye and in a T-shirt was going
>>> to make him look like the person they saw.
>> Anyone could pick out Oswald when he was the only one wearing just a
>> T-shirt.
>
> Were the witnesses asked to pick which man was wearing a T-shirt?
>
Stop acting stupid. I never suggested any such thing. The point is that
such a vivid difference made it obvious who the suspect was.
> Did either of the witnesses describe the suspect as wearing a only a T-
> shirt when they first saw him?
>
For which crime? At the Tippit murder he was wearing an Eisenhower
jacket, so in the line-up everyone should have been wearing an
Eisenhower jacket.
> To the contrary:
>
> Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if the number 3 man in the lineup [Oswald]
> was wearing the same clothes that the man you saw at the Tippit
> shooting wore?
> Mr. SCOGGINS. He had on a different shirt, and he didn't have a jacket
> on. He had on kind of a polo shirt.
>
Polo shirt? Perjury. We have the film footage of Oswald being led away
in his T-shirt and complaining about the line-up when he was wearing
only his T-shirt.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 28, 10:12 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/27/2009 11:10 PM,Budwrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 26, 8:28 pm, Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 26, 4:23 pm, yeuhd<NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com"
>>>>> <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> How could any one fail to id Oswald when he had a black eye and was
>>>>>> arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
>>>>>> hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
>>>>> If Oswald wasn't the person Scoggins saw at the Tippit shooting,
>>>>> having a black eye and arguing with officers at the lineup wasn't
>>>>> going to make him look like the person Scoggins saw.
>>>> The idea of ID line ups is that you have similar people
>>> No, it isn`t. The idea is so the police don`t drag one person in
>>> front of the witness, and ask "Is this the guy?".
>> Yes, it is. The idea of the line-up is that you can't make the choice
>> obvious to anyone who was not really at the crime scene. See the 48
>> Hours special on witnesses.
>
> What channel was that on in the sixties?
>
It may even be on Youtube by now and is probably available on DVD.
Anthony Marsh
>> On 2/27/2009 11:10 PM,Budwrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 26, 8:22 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2/25/2009 10:59 PM, davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> How could any one fail to id Oswald when he had a black eye and was
>>>>> arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
>>>>> hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
>>>> And Oswald was the only man in the line-up wearing only a T-shirt.
>>> Which would be relevant, if the witnesses were there to pick out the
>>> person wearing a T-shirt. But they weren`t, they were there to pick
>>> out the person they saw. It`s called making an identification, and
>>> when you have multiple people doing so, it`s called corroboration.
>> Any cop familiar with line-ups will notice the problem right away. See
>> the 48 Hours special on witnesses and the explanation about how NOT to
>> arrange a line-up.
>
> What can you produce that shows this line-up was conducted outside
> of the norm for legally conducted line-ups in 1963?
I didn't say anything about it being outside the norm for 1963.
I said it was improper and Oswald's rights were violated.
Bud
> On 2/27/2009 11:10 PM,Budwrote:
>
>
>
> >> On Feb 26, 4:23 pm, yeuhd<NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com"
> >>> <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> How could any one fail to id Oswald when he had a black eye and was
> >>>> arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
> >>>> hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
> >>> If Oswald wasn't the person Scoggins saw at the Tippit shooting,
> >>> having a black eye and arguing with officers at the lineup wasn't
> >>> going to make him look like the person Scoggins saw.
> >> The idea of ID line ups is that you have similar people
>
> > No, it isn`t. The idea is so the police don`t drag one person in
> > front of the witness, and ask "Is this the guy?".
>
> Yes, it is. The idea of the line-up is that you can't make the choice
> obvious to anyone who was not really at the crime scene. See the 48
> Hours special on witnesses.
Well, I know how impressed you are by what the TV tells you to think,
but you aren`t really explaining how that how pertains to these line-ups.
Being an LN, my approach is "What is reasonable to believe?" I`m pretty
sure that a number of these witnesses expressed certitude about their
identifications (Whaley, Scoggins and Callaway especially). Now, since
many CT don`t like the witnesses pointing their fingers at their poor
patsy, they must contrive a way to disregard the information these
witnesses supplied. But, is it reasonable to believe that it was the
manner that the line-up were conducted that caused so many witnesses to be
sure Oswald was the person they saw, or is it more reasonable to believe
that they at least believed it was Oswald they saw?
David Von Pein
>>> "CTers complain Oswald has a black eye in the line-ups. I don`t see
what the cops should do, attempt to conceal his injuries with make- up,
wait until they heal, what?" <<<
Yeah...I guess CTers think that the cops should have belted all other
line-up participants in the face to give them each a shiner...just to make
everybody look the same in front of the witnesses. (LOL.)
Bud
> On 3/1/2009 12:18 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 10:12 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/27/2009 11:10 PM,Budwrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 26, 8:22 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 2/25/2009 10:59 PM, davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>> How could any one fail to id Oswald when he had a black eye and was
> >>>>> arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
> >>>>> hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
> >>>> And Oswald was the only man in the line-up wearing only a T-shirt.
> >>> Which would be relevant, if the witnesses were there to pick out the
> >>> person wearing a T-shirt. But they weren`t, they were there to pick
> >>> out the person they saw. It`s called making an identification, and
> >>> when you have multiple people doing so, it`s called corroboration.
> >> Any cop familiar with line-ups will notice the problem right away. See
> >> the 48 Hours special on witnesses and the explanation about how NOT to
> >> arrange a line-up.
>
> > What can you produce that shows this line-up was conducted outside
> > of the norm for legally conducted line-ups in 1963?
>
> I didn't say anything about it being outside the norm for 1963.
That is only a portion of the concept I expressed. I said "legally
conducted line-ups". How did these line-ups differ from the legal line-
ups done routinely?
> I said it was improper and Oswald's rights were violated.
What specific statutes do you believe the Dallas police were in
violation of when they conducted these line-ups? Not some vague "due
process" claim, a specific statute pertaining to the conducting of
line-ups.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 28, 10:12 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/27/2009 11:10 PM,Budwrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 26, 8:28 pm, Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 26, 4:23 pm, yeuhd<NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com"
>>>>> <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> How could any one fail to id Oswald when he had a black eye and was
>>>>>> arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
>>>>>> hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
>>>>> If Oswald wasn't the person Scoggins saw at the Tippit shooting,
>>>>> having a black eye and arguing with officers at the lineup wasn't
>>>>> going to make him look like the person Scoggins saw.
>>>> The idea of ID line ups is that you have similar people
>>> No, it isn`t. The idea is so the police don`t drag one person in
>>> front of the witness, and ask "Is this the guy?".
>> Yes, it is. The idea of the line-up is that you can't make the choice
>> obvious to anyone who was not really at the crime scene. See the 48
>> Hours special on witnesses.
>
> Well, I know how impressed you are by what the TV tells you to think,
> but you aren`t really explaining how that how pertains to these line-ups.
TV has interviews with real experts, cops and detectives who deal with
these issues every day.
> Being an LN, my approach is "What is reasonable to believe?" I`m pretty
That is your flaw. Being a denialist you think the reasonable thing is
cover-up.
> sure that a number of these witnesses expressed certitude about their
> identifications (Whaley, Scoggins and Callaway especially). Now, since
The Innocence Project has thousands of cases where the the witness was
120% certain, but the DNA evidence proves them 100% wrong. Never rely in
witnesses.
> many CT don`t like the witnesses pointing their fingers at their poor
> patsy, they must contrive a way to disregard the information these
> witnesses supplied. But, is it reasonable to believe that it was the
Funny how when witnesses say anything conspiratorial, you and your WC
defenders dismiss them as kooks.
Anthony Marsh
I don't care what you think about a handful of CTers who complain about
Oswald having a black eye. That is not what I was complaining about.
Anthony Marsh
> On Mar 1, 9:51 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 3/1/2009 12:18 PM, Bud wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 28, 10:12 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/2009 11:10 PM,Budwrote:
>>>>> On Feb 26, 8:22 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/25/2009 10:59 PM, davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> How could any one fail to id Oswald when he had a black eye and was
>>>>>>> arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
>>>>>>> hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
>>>>>> And Oswald was the only man in the line-up wearing only a T-shirt.
>>>>> Which would be relevant, if the witnesses were there to pick out the
>>>>> person wearing a T-shirt. But they weren`t, they were there to pick
>>>>> out the person they saw. It`s called making an identification, and
>>>>> when you have multiple people doing so, it`s called corroboration.
>>>> Any cop familiar with line-ups will notice the problem right away. See
>>>> the 48 Hours special on witnesses and the explanation about how NOT to
>>>> arrange a line-up.
>>> What can you produce that shows this line-up was conducted outside
>>> of the norm for legally conducted line-ups in 1963?
>> I didn't say anything about it being outside the norm for 1963.
>
> That is only a portion of the concept I expressed. I said "legally
> conducted line-ups". How did these line-ups differ from the legal line-
> ups done routinely?
>
In a legal line-up people would not be dressed so dissimilarly.
>> I said it was improper and Oswald's rights were violated.
>
> What specific statutes do you believe the Dallas police were in
> violation of when they conducted these line-ups? Not some vague "due
> process" claim, a specific statute pertaining to the conducting of
> line-ups.
>
Jeez, what else we got? It is always about due process.
Bud
This is just you saying something. You need to cite some law from
the period pertaining to line-ups supporting your claims about the
legality of the line-ups.
> >> I said it was improper and Oswald's rights were violated.
>
> > What specific statutes do you believe the Dallas police were in
> > violation of when they conducted these line-ups? Not some vague "due
> > process" claim, a specific statute pertaining to the conducting of
> > line-ups.
>
> Jeez, what else we got? It is always about due process.
What part of "specific statute" were unable to grasp?
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/1/2009 10:02 PM, Bud wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 10:12 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/27/2009 11:10 PM,Budwrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Feb 26, 8:28 pm, Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 26, 4:23 pm, yeuhd<NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>> <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> How could any one fail to id Oswald when he had a black eye and was
> >>>>>> arguing with officers before the line up and the eyewitnesses could
> >>>>>> hear him?Scoggins and other witnesses couldn't fail to id Oswald.
> >>>>> If Oswald wasn't the person Scoggins saw at the Tippit shooting,
> >>>>> having a black eye and arguing with officers at the lineup wasn't
> >>>>> going to make him look like the person Scoggins saw.
> >>>> The idea of ID line ups is that you have similar people
> >>> No, it isn`t. The idea is so the police don`t drag one person in
> >>> front of the witness, and ask "Is this the guy?".
> >> Yes, it is. The idea of the line-up is that you can't make the choice
> >> obvious to anyone who was not really at the crime scene. See the 48
> >> Hours special on witnesses.
> >
> > Well, I know how impressed you are by what the TV tells you to think,
> > but you aren`t really explaining how that how pertains to these line-ups.
>
> TV has interviews with real experts, cops and detectives who deal with
> these issues every day.
They have commercials also, but that still doesn`t explain how that
pertains to these line-ups.
> > Being an LN, my approach is "What is reasonable to believe?" I`m pretty
>
> That is your flaw. Being a denialist you think the reasonable thing is
> cover-up.
I think you say things you can`t support, and when you are called
on them, you spout nonsense like the above.
> > sure that a number of these witnesses expressed certitude about their
> > identifications (Whaley, Scoggins and Callaway especially). Now, since
>
> The Innocence Project has thousands of cases where the the witness was
> 120% certain, but the DNA evidence proves them 100% wrong. Never rely in
> witnesses.
What witnesses relate is still evidence, even if it isn`t as
flawless as DNA. If you have DNA that you can prove Oswald left
elsewhere at around 1:15 that day, I`d say that trumps these
witnesses. Until then, multiple corroborating witnesses identifying a
person is still pretty strong evidence.
> > many CT don`t like the witnesses pointing their fingers at their poor
> > patsy, they must contrive a way to disregard the information these
> > witnesses supplied. But, is it reasonable to believe that it was the
>
> Funny how when witnesses say anything conspiratorial,
Most of the time "say anything conspiratorial" means something a
CTer construes as indicating conspiracy. I doubt there is a word
spoken or a piece of evidence that a CTer somewhere hasn`t put a
conspiracy spin on.
> you and your WC
> defenders dismiss them as kooks.
I think a number of the witnesses are flakes. Markham, Doughtery,
Roberts, to name a few.
Bud
It was you that said Oswald shouted "I didn`t kill nobody". So
instead of addressing what did apply to you, you addressed what
didn`t. At least you are consistent, Tony.
Maggsy
What about the others? Are they not credible? If not ? Why not?
>
>
> > > manner that the line-up were conducted that caused so many witnesses to be
> > > sure Oswald was the person they saw, or is it more reasonable to believe
> > > that they at least believed it was Oswald they saw?
>
> > >>>> . Not some one who
> > >>>> is obviously different.No is saying that Scoggins is going to deliberately
> > >>>> pick Oswald, but the line up is supposed to be fair so people are not
> > >>>> influenced on a subconscious level.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
No, I didn't. I just asked if you would notice that if he did.
Learn to read.
Anthony Marsh
It is pertinent because experts were talking about these very issues. But
of course you would never know that because you refuse to watch the
program for fear of learning something.
>>> Being an LN, my approach is "What is reasonable to believe?" I`m pretty
>> That is your flaw. Being a denialist you think the reasonable thing is
>> cover-up.
>
> I think you say things you can`t support, and when you are called
> on them, you spout nonsense like the above.
>
It's not nonsense. It's spot on, diagnosing your problem.
>>> sure that a number of these witnesses expressed certitude about their
>>> identifications (Whaley, Scoggins and Callaway especially). Now, since
>> The Innocence Project has thousands of cases where the the witness was
>> 120% certain, but the DNA evidence proves them 100% wrong. Never rely in
>> witnesses.
>
> What witnesses relate is still evidence, even if it isn`t as
> flawless as DNA. If you have DNA that you can prove Oswald left
> elsewhere at around 1:15 that day, I`d say that trumps these
> witnesses. Until then, multiple corroborating witnesses identifying a
> person is still pretty strong evidence.
>
Again you fail to understand the underlying point and focus on creating a
false comparison. I never said anything about Oswald and DNA. The point
remains that witness identifications are often dead wrong.
>>> many CT don`t like the witnesses pointing their fingers at their poor
>>> patsy, they must contrive a way to disregard the information these
>>> witnesses supplied. But, is it reasonable to believe that it was the
>> Funny how when witnesses say anything conspiratorial,
>
> Most of the time "say anything conspiratorial" means something a
> CTer construes as indicating conspiracy. I doubt there is a word
> spoken or a piece of evidence that a CTer somewhere hasn`t put a
> conspiracy spin on.
>
Well, it may be something which you thought supports your side, but we
can see that it suggests conspiracy.
>> you and your WC
>> defenders dismiss them as kooks.
>
> I think a number of the witnesses are flakes. Markham, Doughtery,
> Roberts, to name a few.
>
Brennan, Givens, Jarman.
Bud
Who saw anything? Brennan. Rowland. Edwards. A handful of others.
The witnesses that actually saw a gunman/rifle isolated on the area a
rifle and spent shells were found.
Bud
Some people prefer to have the boob tube spoon feed them
information.
> >>> Being an LN, my approach is "What is reasonable to believe?" I`m pretty
> >> That is your flaw. Being a denialist you think the reasonable thing is
> >> cover-up.
>
> > I think you say things you can`t support, and when you are called
> > on them, you spout nonsense like the above.
>
> It's not nonsense. It's spot on, diagnosing your problem.
Of course it`s nonsense. You can`t show me ever advocating a
position where cover-up in this case is a reasonable thing. If your
facts are wrong, how can your conclusion be right?
> >>> sure that a number of these witnesses expressed certitude about their
> >>> identifications (Whaley, Scoggins and Callaway especially). Now, since
> >> The Innocence Project has thousands of cases where the the witness was
> >> 120% certain, but the DNA evidence proves them 100% wrong. Never rely in
> >> witnesses.
>
> > What witnesses relate is still evidence, even if it isn`t as
> > flawless as DNA. If you have DNA that you can prove Oswald left
> > elsewhere at around 1:15 that day, I`d say that trumps these
> > witnesses. Until then, multiple corroborating witnesses identifying a
> > person is still pretty strong evidence.
>
> Again you fail to understand the underlying point and focus on creating a
> false comparison.
Actually, it was you who tried to move the focus from this case onto
others. Then, when I address the issues you bring up, you claim they
are off topic.
> I never said anything about Oswald and DNA. The point
> remains that witness identifications are often dead wrong.
The point remains that what witnesses relate is still evidence. You
pointing out that DNA is better evidence, or that witnesses identification
is not flawless and absolute doesn`t change the fact that it is still
evidence.
> >>> many CT don`t like the witnesses pointing their fingers at their poor
> >>> patsy, they must contrive a way to disregard the information these
> >>> witnesses supplied. But, is it reasonable to believe that it was the
> >> Funny how when witnesses say anything conspiratorial,
>
> > Most of the time "say anything conspiratorial" means something a
> > CTer construes as indicating conspiracy. I doubt there is a word
> > spoken or a piece of evidence that a CTer somewhere hasn`t put a
> > conspiracy spin on.
>
> Well, it may be something which you thought supports your side, but we
> can see that it suggests conspiracy.
Exactly my point, CTers see justification and support for what they
want to believe everywhere.
> >> you and your WC
> >> defenders dismiss them as kooks.
>
> > I think a number of the witnesses are flakes. Markham, Doughtery,
> > Roberts, to name a few.
>
> Brennan, Givens, Jarman.
Certainly, this was a situation that these people where not familiar
with. But certain witnesses (the ones I names especially) needed questions
phased and rephrased to elicit information, they couldn`t follow
questions, and they often answered what they thought the question was
instead of what was actually asked.
Bud
You said "How many people would ignore someone in a line-up
shouting "I didn`t kill nobody"?"
>I just asked if you would notice that if he did.
> Learn to read.
This discussion is about a particular person, and particular line-
ups.
Anthony Marsh
You only like the witnesses who support your lone nut conclusion.
Bud
I like information that leads to a supportable and reasonable
destination. Let CTers chase their tails.
Anthony Marsh
So, I can make comparisons to other cases.
Anthony Marsh
You don't say that when your WC defender buddies cite the WC defender TV
shows.
>>>>> Being an LN, my approach is "What is reasonable to believe?" I`m pretty
>>>> That is your flaw. Being a denialist you think the reasonable thing is
>>>> cover-up.
>>> I think you say things you can`t support, and when you are called
>>> on them, you spout nonsense like the above.
>> It's not nonsense. It's spot on, diagnosing your problem.
>
> Of course it`s nonsense. You can`t show me ever advocating a
> position where cover-up in this case is a reasonable thing. If your
> facts are wrong, how can your conclusion be right?
>
You always advocate the WC cover-up position.
>>>>> sure that a number of these witnesses expressed certitude about their
>>>>> identifications (Whaley, Scoggins and Callaway especially). Now, since
>>>> The Innocence Project has thousands of cases where the the witness was
>>>> 120% certain, but the DNA evidence proves them 100% wrong. Never rely in
>>>> witnesses.
>>> What witnesses relate is still evidence, even if it isn`t as
>>> flawless as DNA. If you have DNA that you can prove Oswald left
>>> elsewhere at around 1:15 that day, I`d say that trumps these
>>> witnesses. Until then, multiple corroborating witnesses identifying a
>>> person is still pretty strong evidence.
>> Again you fail to understand the underlying point and focus on creating a
>> false comparison.
>
> Actually, it was you who tried to move the focus from this case onto
> others. Then, when I address the issues you bring up, you claim they
> are off topic.
>
Your comparison is bogus.
I never said anything about Oswald's DNA. It was proof of witnesses
being wrong.
>> I never said anything about Oswald and DNA. The point
>> remains that witness identifications are often dead wrong.
>
> The point remains that what witnesses relate is still evidence. You
> pointing out that DNA is better evidence, or that witnesses identification
> is not flawless and absolute doesn`t change the fact that it is still
> evidence.
>
It may not be evidence at all.
Bud
Those discussions are often discussing the shows in question. When I
asked you how that particular show pertains to the particular line-ups we
are discussing, you`ve offered nothing but "watch the show yourself". Is
it likely I will process and consider the information on that show the
same way you did if I did watch it, or apply the information to Oswald`s
line-ups the same as you have?
> >>>>> Being an LN, my approach is "What is reasonable to believe?" I`m pretty
> >>>> That is your flaw. Being a denialist you think the reasonable thing is
> >>>> cover-up.
> >>> I think you say things you can`t support, and when you are called
> >>> on them, you spout nonsense like the above.
> >> It's not nonsense. It's spot on, diagnosing your problem.
>
> > Of course it`s nonsense. You can`t show me ever advocating a
> > position where cover-up in this case is a reasonable thing. If your
> > facts are wrong, how can your conclusion be right?
>
> You always advocate the WC cover-up position.
You always erroneously conclude that the WC had a cover-up position.
> >>>>> sure that a number of these witnesses expressed certitude about their
> >>>>> identifications (Whaley, Scoggins and Callaway especially). Now, since
> >>>> The Innocence Project has thousands of cases where the the witness was
> >>>> 120% certain, but the DNA evidence proves them 100% wrong. Never rely in
> >>>> witnesses.
> >>> What witnesses relate is still evidence, even if it isn`t as
> >>> flawless as DNA. If you have DNA that you can prove Oswald left
> >>> elsewhere at around 1:15 that day, I`d say that trumps these
> >>> witnesses. Until then, multiple corroborating witnesses identifying a
> >>> person is still pretty strong evidence.
> >> Again you fail to understand the underlying point and focus on creating a
> >> false comparison.
>
> > Actually, it was you who tried to move the focus from this case onto
> > others. Then, when I address the issues you bring up, you claim they
> > are off topic.
>
> Your comparison is bogus.
You started it. You brought up cases where one type of evidence (DNA)
was used to trump another type of evidence (witness identification). I
pointed out that since there was no DNA in this case, your comparison was
bogus.
> I never said anything about Oswald's DNA. It was proof of witnesses
> being wrong.
Why would you need such proof if never took the position that the
witnesses were infallible?
> >> I never said anything about Oswald and DNA. The point
> >> remains that witness identifications are often dead wrong.
>
> > The point remains that what witnesses relate is still evidence. You
> > pointing out that DNA is better evidence, or that witnesses identification
> > is not flawless and absolute doesn`t change the fact that it is still
> > evidence.
>
> It may not be evidence at all.
DNA or witness identification? I think both are widely accepted as
evidence.
Bud
It would be useful if you could name them and say how they apply to the
instances we are discussing. Or, if you were talking hypothetically, you
might try phrasing it clearer, like "If a person shouted "I didn`t kill
nobody"...". Then I would still ask you what you propose the cops should
do about such a thing occurring.
yeuhd
> On 3/1/2009 12:14 PM, yeuhd wrote:
> >> Anyone could pick out Oswald when he was the only one wearing just a
> >> T-shirt.
>
> > Were the witnesses asked to pick which man was wearing a T-shirt?
>
> Stop acting stupid. I never suggested any such thing. The point is that
> such a vivid difference made it obvious who the suspect was.
How does it do that? If Oswald did not resemble the suspect the
witnesses saw, wearing or not wearing a T-shirt is not going to make
him look like the suspect. Especially since neither witness described
the suspect as being dressed in a T-shirt.
Anthony Marsh
No, I specifically told you that one of the segments was about the
problem of line-ups.
>>>>>>> Being an LN, my approach is "What is reasonable to believe?" I`m pretty
>>>>>> That is your flaw. Being a denialist you think the reasonable thing is
>>>>>> cover-up.
>>>>> I think you say things you can`t support, and when you are called
>>>>> on them, you spout nonsense like the above.
>>>> It's not nonsense. It's spot on, diagnosing your problem.
>>> Of course it`s nonsense. You can`t show me ever advocating a
>>> position where cover-up in this case is a reasonable thing. If your
>>> facts are wrong, how can your conclusion be right?
>> You always advocate the WC cover-up position.
>
> You always erroneously conclude that the WC had a cover-up position.
>
They had a cover-up position from day one.
>>>>>>> sure that a number of these witnesses expressed certitude about their
>>>>>>> identifications (Whaley, Scoggins and Callaway especially). Now, since
>>>>>> The Innocence Project has thousands of cases where the the witness was
>>>>>> 120% certain, but the DNA evidence proves them 100% wrong. Never rely in
>>>>>> witnesses.
>>>>> What witnesses relate is still evidence, even if it isn`t as
>>>>> flawless as DNA. If you have DNA that you can prove Oswald left
>>>>> elsewhere at around 1:15 that day, I`d say that trumps these
>>>>> witnesses. Until then, multiple corroborating witnesses identifying a
>>>>> person is still pretty strong evidence.
>>>> Again you fail to understand the underlying point and focus on creating a
>>>> false comparison.
>>> Actually, it was you who tried to move the focus from this case onto
>>> others. Then, when I address the issues you bring up, you claim they
>>> are off topic.
>> Your comparison is bogus.
>
> You started it. You brought up cases where one type of evidence (DNA)
> was used to trump another type of evidence (witness identification). I
> pointed out that since there was no DNA in this case, your comparison was
> bogus.
>
It not a comparison. It was an example to prove that witness
identifications are often wrong even when the witness is sure.
>> I never said anything about Oswald's DNA. It was proof of witnesses
>> being wrong.
>
> Why would you need such proof if never took the position that the
> witnesses were infallible?
>
You have been babbling on and on about how your witnesses were so sure
and how they corroborated each other. As if you could prove a fact based
only on witnesses.
>>>> I never said anything about Oswald and DNA. The point
>>>> remains that witness identifications are often dead wrong.
>>> The point remains that what witnesses relate is still evidence. You
>>> pointing out that DNA is better evidence, or that witnesses identification
>>> is not flawless and absolute doesn`t change the fact that it is still
>>> evidence.
>> It may not be evidence at all.
>
> DNA or witness identification? I think both are widely accepted as
> evidence.
>
Well, you can claim that everything is accepted as evidence. But not all
are given the same weight and some are dismissed.
tomnln
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa829ca0-6f9b-4e27...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Brennan gave a clothing description of the shooter. Truly gave the name of
a missing employee.
Officer #261 aske the dispatcher for a colthiung description.
The APB contained THER ! ! !
Bud
By all means, apply the information you gleaned from that show to
these specific line-ups.
> >>>>>>> Being an LN, my approach is "What is reasonable to believe?" I`m pretty
> >>>>>> That is your flaw. Being a denialist you think the reasonable thing is
> >>>>>> cover-up.
> >>>>> I think you say things you can`t support, and when you are called
> >>>>> on them, you spout nonsense like the above.
> >>>> It's not nonsense. It's spot on, diagnosing your problem.
> >>> Of course it`s nonsense. You can`t show me ever advocating a
> >>> position where cover-up in this case is a reasonable thing. If your
> >>> facts are wrong, how can your conclusion be right?
> >> You always advocate the WC cover-up position.
>
> > You always erroneously conclude that the WC had a cover-up position.
>
> They had a cover-up position from day one.
If this were true, they would do as CTers do, and cover-up Oswald`s
guilt.
> >>>>>>> sure that a number of these witnesses expressed certitude about their
> >>>>>>> identifications (Whaley, Scoggins and Callaway especially). Now, since
> >>>>>> The Innocence Project has thousands of cases where the the witness was
> >>>>>> 120% certain, but the DNA evidence proves them 100% wrong. Never rely in
> >>>>>> witnesses.
> >>>>> What witnesses relate is still evidence, even if it isn`t as
> >>>>> flawless as DNA. If you have DNA that you can prove Oswald left
> >>>>> elsewhere at around 1:15 that day, I`d say that trumps these
> >>>>> witnesses. Until then, multiple corroborating witnesses identifying a
> >>>>> person is still pretty strong evidence.
> >>>> Again you fail to understand the underlying point and focus on creating a
> >>>> false comparison.
> >>> Actually, it was you who tried to move the focus from this case onto
> >>> others. Then, when I address the issues you bring up, you claim they
> >>> are off topic.
> >> Your comparison is bogus.
>
> > You started it. You brought up cases where one type of evidence (DNA)
> > was used to trump another type of evidence (witness identification). I
> > pointed out that since there was no DNA in this case, your comparison was
> > bogus.
>
> It not a comparison. It was an example to prove that witness
> identifications are often wrong even when the witness is sure.
You can claim that witness identification is "often wrong", but the
evidence you cited does not speak to how often witnesses are right.
> >> I never said anything about Oswald's DNA. It was proof of witnesses
> >> being wrong.
>
> > Why would you need such proof if never took the position that the
> > witnesses were infallible?
>
> You have been babbling on and on about how your witnesses were so sure
> and how they corroborated each other. As if you could prove a fact based
> only on witnesses.
It is a fact that some of the witnesses expressed surety that it was
Oswald they saw, and it is a fact that they corroborated one another.
> >>>> I never said anything about Oswald and DNA. The point
> >>>> remains that witness identifications are often dead wrong.
> >>> The point remains that what witnesses relate is still evidence. You
> >>> pointing out that DNA is better evidence, or that witnesses identification
> >>> is not flawless and absolute doesn`t change the fact that it is still
> >>> evidence.
> >> It may not be evidence at all.
>
> > DNA or witness identification? I think both are widely accepted as
> > evidence.
>
> Well, you can claim that everything is accepted as evidence.
Is that what you think I said? How does information you read come
out like this?
> But not all
> are given the same weight and some are dismissed.
But you would agree with what I actually wrote, that both DNA and
witness identification are both widely accepted as evidence, right?
tomnln
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa829ca0-6f9b-4e27...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
yeuhd
> "yeuhd" <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> How does it do that? If Oswald did not resemble the suspect the witnesses
>> saw, wearing or not wearing a T-shirt is not going to make him look like
>> the suspect. Especially since neither witness described the suspect as
>> being dressed in a T-shirt.
>
> Brennan gave a clothing description of the shooter. Truly gave the name of
> a missing employee.
>
> Officer #261 aske the dispatcher for a colthiung description.
>
> The APB contained THER ! ! !
Not sure what "THER" is. In any case, what does any of that have to do
with Scoggins and Whaley identifying Oswald in a lineup?
Did the police identify Oswald by name to Scoggins and Whaley in the
lineup? No, they did not.
Did Brennan describe the suspect as wearing a white T-shirt? No, he
did not.
Did the clothing Oswald wear at the lineup resemble those of the man
Howard Brennan saw in the 6th floor window? To the contrary, from the
WC testimony of Howard Brennan:
Mr. BELIN. Could you see the man's trousers at all?
Do you remember any color?
Mr. BRENNAN. I remembered them at that time as being similar to the
same color of the shirt or a little lighter. And that was another
thing that I called their attention to at the lineup.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by that?
Mr. BRENNAN. That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw
the man in the window.
Mr. BELIN. You mean with reference to the trousers or the shirt?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, not particularly either. In other words, he just
didn't have the same clothes on.
So, how was the way Oswald was dressed in a T-shirt in the lineup
supposed to remind the witnesses of the suspect thy saw? Please
explain.
Anthony Marsh
>
> "yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:aa829ca0-6f9b-4e27...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 1, 8:37 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 3/1/2009 12:14 PM, yeuhd wrote:
>> >> Anyone could pick out Oswald when he was the only one wearing just a
>> >> T-shirt.
>>
>> > Were the witnesses asked to pick which man was wearing a T-shirt?
>>
>> Stop acting stupid. I never suggested any such thing. The point is that
>> such a vivid difference made it obvious who the suspect was.
>
> How does it do that? If Oswald did not resemble the suspect the
> witnesses saw, wearing or not wearing a T-shirt is not going to make him
> look like the suspect. Especially since neither witness described the
> suspect as being dressed in a T-shirt.
>
Whether he resembled the shooter is irrelevant. Any stranger could have
picked out Oswald as the suspect just because he was dressed differently.
>
> Brennan gave a clothing description of the shooter. Truly gave the name
> of a missing employee.
>
> Officer #261 aske the dispatcher for a colthiung description.
>
> The APB contained THER ! ! !
Incoherent. What is the last sentence supposed to mean?
Anthony Marsh
The point remains that any stranger could have picked out Oswald as the
suspect even if he did not resemble the killer, based solely on his
different appearance in the line-up.
tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:%PGsl.483$r66...@newsfe08.iad...
Make that "NEITHER".
----------------------------------------------------
yeuhd
> The point remains that any stranger could have picked out Oswald as the
> suspect even if he did not resemble the killer, based solely on his
> different appearance in the line-up.
This still doesn't make any sense. The witnesses weren't asked to pick the
person in the lineup who looked "different". They were asked: Are any of
these men the person you saw? If the person the witness saw wasn't there
in the lineup, putting someone in an evening gown wasn't going to make him
look any more like the person the witness saw.
jbarge
If you are able to identify the suspect in a line-up due to how the
line-up is conducted, the value of the line-up evidence is
compromised.
The issue is not if a witness can identify someone correctly.
The issue is if the line-up is conducted in an objective, professional
and legally viable manner.
Let me illustrate:
A witness from the crime scene identifies Oswald in a line up.
But then take someone who was not at the crime scene and put them
through the exact same process.
If that person is able to easily identify the suspect because of how
the line up is conducted, then the value of the line-up is severaly
mitigated.
The reason why the courts don't allow such procedures is that
theoritically the police could conduct endless flawed line ups and
provide endless eyewitness accounts that are false.
That doesn't mean the original eyewitness is wrong.
It just means that as evidence it is compromised.
I hope this helps you understand this issue.
Anthony Marsh
It makes perfect sense to the cops who deal with this problem every day.