Re: ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
David Von Pein
DVP SAID:
I like to occasionally point out the fact that the "stretcher
bullet" (CE399) WAS admitted as evidence at the television Docu-Trial
in London ("ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD"), which is something that
almost all conspiracists claim would be impossible to get admitted
into evidence at a "real" trial. But Judge Bunton allowed CE399 to be
talked about at various stages of the Mock Trial.
ANOTHER LNer SAID:
Interesting view, David. Two points occur to me:
1. In my view, CE399 would be admissible. The chain of evidence is
intact.
2. Wouldn't conspiranoids want the bullet to be admitted, just so they
can throw scorn on it and imply it's proof of a conspiracy? What are
your views?
Of course, when conspiranoids start talking about "admissibility", you
know they're feeling uncomfortable, and acting like shoddy public-
defenders, rather than people who are genuinely interested in the
truth.
DVP THEN SAID:
I doubt that any rabid CT-Kooks would want to see CE399 admitted as
evidence at ANY kind of a trial proceeding (of course, they
conveniently forget that 399 was admitted by Bunton at the TV Docu-
Trial, but, yes, that might be a tad different than a "real" trial),
because it would then shoot down their whole decades-long argument
about how that bullet "would never have been allowed in at LHO's
trial".
If it was allowed in at trial, then the CTers would be forced to wipe
a whole lot of egg off of their faces.
Re: Admissibility of evidence, I always enjoy repeating this quote
from Vince Bugliosi:
"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is
that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because
the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was
not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of
law. ....
"The first observation I have to make is that I would think
conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy,
not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.
"Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much
of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two
large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.
"Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a
practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an
ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I
believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be
admissible.
"I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence
at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the
exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain
is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless
admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to
"the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the
jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page
442 of "Reclaiming History" Endnotes (c.2007)
David Von Pein
IMDB.com Source Thread:
aeffects
> IMDB.com Source Thread:
>
> www.imdb.com/title/tt0102138/board/flat/134515826?p=1
your like stink on shit, hon -- you're everywhere and nowhere at the
same time, ALWAYS stating nothing but opinion! And of course left
holding Vinnie daBug's jockstrap.........
Carry on Dave Reitzes.... say as popular as you are, where can we find
a photo of you, hon?
justm...@gmail.com
Why junkie? Your daughter working a double shift tonight so you want a
picture of DVP to wank off to?
Hon???? ROFLMAO you gender confused idiot.