EVALUATING WITNESS TESTIMONY (LOGICALLY)
David Von Pein
EVALUATING WITNESS STATEMENTS/TESTIMONY........
==========================================
A reasonable person (e.g., an "LNer", usually) will evaluate and weigh
the eyewitness/earwitness testimony to see if it's worthy of belief or
disbelief.
If the witness saw or heard things that are corroborated by OTHER
(harder, physical) evidence, then it's much more likely that that
witness is correct. (I think we're all in agreement there, right?
Maybe even the kooks.)
Example:
All of the Tippit witnesses who fingered Oswald (approx. 13 of them in
total). They saw something (Oswald at the murder scene) that is backed
up by other evidence (i.e., Oz's bullet shells strewn on the Davis
lawn). It's therefore very unlikely that those witnesses are wrong
about what they saw.
Example:
Howard Brennan. He saw something (Oswald shooting a rifle at JFK's
car) that is backed up by TONS of other, harder evidence....gun,
shells, bullets, prints, fibers, and flight from the murder scene.
Given this non-Brennan evidence, the odds that Howard saw anyone up in
that window with a gun OTHER than Lee Harvey Oswald are almost non-
existent.
An example in the other direction (i.e., toward NOT believing certain
witnesses):
The Parkland "BOH" witnesses. These witnesses have ZERO pieces of
solid, hard evidence to back them up (regardless of how many such
"BOH" witnesses there are).
The autopsy X-rays, the autopsy photos, the autopsy report, the
autopsists themselves, the Zapruder Film, and the ballistics evidence
(which all leads to one gun--Oswald's--which was to the REAR of
President Kennedy when the head shot occurred) tell a reasonable
person that, amazing as it might seem, ALL of the Parkland "BOH"
witnesses (and, incredibly, the few Bethesda "BOH" witnesses too),
were 100% wrong about there being a big, gaping hole in the back of
JFK's cranium on November 22, 1963.
aeffects
we getting closer to the bottom folks...... no its opinion on
evaluating evidence..... talk about Lone Nut nonsense
Gil Jesus
ALL of the LN case is based on:
Substituted evidence
Altered testimony
a "seriously flawed" FBI "investigation"
opinion
conjecture
theories
None of which would be enough to convict
Oswald in a REAL court of law.
That's why he was never going to make it to trial.
justm...@gmail.com
And you know this for a fact, do you Gilda? This sounds like something
who was a failure in law enforcement would come out with. The above
descriptions of witness testimony, sound like every one of your posts.
Thanks for proving that eye witness testimony is worthless. It's the
CTs who depend on it and scream it was all altered, not the LN's. We
have real evidence not fly by night testimony like what you provide.
The evidence against LHO would have been enough to send him to trial
without the witnesses who you keep referring everyone too on your
youtube channel.
Nice touch lol proving you're an idiot!
Ben Holmes
From time to time I enjoy demonstrating what nonsense troll arguments are. And
even though I do, DVP will *NOT* respond to the points I raised - he'll slip,
slide, and duck all around them... That's why he's made the killfile list - he
simply refuses to support his own words.
In article <d7bca766-1504-4df9...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 8, 12:51 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> EVALUATING WITNESS STATEMENTS/TESTIMONY........
>>
>> ==========================================
>>
>> A reasonable person (e.g., an "LNer", usually) will evaluate and weigh
>> the eyewitness/earwitness testimony to see if it's worthy of belief or
>> disbelief.
So far, so good...
>> If the witness saw or heard things that are corroborated by OTHER
>> (harder, physical) evidence, then it's much more likely that that
>> witness is correct. (I think we're all in agreement there, right?
>> Maybe even the kooks.)
The "kooks" *are* in agreement, you just stated that you were...
"Other evidence" can also be other eyewitnesses. What DVP is afraid to say is
that when a few DOZEN people all say the same thing, it has quite a bit more
credibility than when only one or two people say something. Particularly when
you don't have credible contradicting evidence.
Also, he seems to have forgotten that if the "physical evidence" has no chain of
custody, indeed, is even discounted by the eyewitnesses, then you need to take
that into consideration ... yet DVP doesn't take that road... the only
consideration for DVP is "Does it support the WCR's theory?" If the answer is
yes, then a particular eyewitness or piece of evidence is solid. If not, it's
to be discounted.
So this whole post is a lie - since his concept of what's valid evidence and
what's not - is *NOT* judged by the standards he's putting forth.
>> Example:
>>
>> All of the Tippit witnesses who fingered Oswald (approx. 13 of them in
>> total).
Untrue. When you have to lie, all you've done is prove that you're a liar.
>> They saw something (Oswald at the murder scene) that is backed
>> up by other evidence (i.e., Oz's bullet shells strewn on the Davis
>> lawn). It's therefore very unlikely that those witnesses are wrong
>> about what they saw.
It's pretty sad when all you have are lies to support your faith.
>> Example:
>>
>> Howard Brennan. He saw something
Yep... he did indeed see "something."
>> (Oswald shooting a rifle at JFK's car)
Actually, no. He in fact explicitly DENIED that he'd seen Oswald. Supported,
of course, by the fact that his original description DID NOT MATCH OSWALD
WHATSOEVER. And certainly, he could have been mistaken about the weight or
height of the assassin... but intelligent lurkers realize that when he described
the COLOR OF THE CLOTHING ... he was far more unlikely to have been mistaken.
>> that is backed up by TONS of other, harder evidence....gun,
>> shells, bullets, prints, fibers, and flight from the murder scene.
Nearly every word is an implied lie. That's pretty good, DVP!
>> Given this non-Brennan evidence, the odds that Howard saw anyone up in
>> that window with a gun OTHER than Lee Harvey Oswald are almost non-
>> existent.
That's your faith speaking, not the evidence.
>> An example in the other direction (i.e., toward NOT believing certain
>> witnesses):
>>
>> The Parkland "BOH" witnesses. These witnesses have ZERO pieces of
>> solid, hard evidence to back them up (regardless of how many such
>> "BOH" witnesses there are).
Yep... this kook believes that dozens of eyewitnesses can all corroborate each
other, and do so without getting together to consolidate their stories
beforehand.
>> The autopsy X-rays, the autopsy photos, the autopsy report, the
>> autopsists themselves, the Zapruder Film, and the ballistics evidence
Again, DVP lies, and he *KNOWS* he lies.
He knows that the photos don't match the X-rays, and neither match the autopsy
report. He knows that he DOES NOT believe the autopsy report, yet he's too
dishonest to admit it. He cannot believe the autopsists - and he knows it. He
knows he can't believe the majority opinion of the ballistics experts, and he
knows it.
Embarrassing when all you have are lies...
>> (which all leads to one gun--Oswald's--which was to the REAR of
>> President Kennedy when the head shot occurred) tell a reasonable
>> person that, amazing as it might seem, ALL of the Parkland "BOH"
>> witnesses (and, incredibly, the few Bethesda "BOH" witnesses too),
Be so kind as to name the Bethesda eyewitnesses who did *NOT* confirm a BOH
wound.
You won't, of course...
>> were 100% wrong about there being a big, gaping hole in the back of
>> JFK's cranium on November 22, 1963.
Sadly, only faith can support this.
>> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
>we getting closer to the bottom folks...... no its opinion on
>evaluating evidence..... talk about Lone Nut nonsense
This *IS* Lone Nut Nonsense. It's amusing when they detail it - for of course
even average people without detailed knowledge of the evidence in this case can
see the weird problems that LNT'ers have... and the unique way that they "judge"
the evidence.
aeffects
> From time to time I enjoy demonstrating what nonsense troll arguments are. And
> even though I do, DVP will *NOT* respond to the points I raised - he'll slip,
> slide, and duck all around them... That's why he's made the killfile list - he
> simply refuses to support his own words.
>
absolutely......
aeffects
there are some ex-jurists who feel the majority of evidence gathered
(against LHO) failed to meet standards for trial...
The Lone Nut wankers have been pissing in the wind for years...
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Holmes? Why must an honest man lie?