On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Getting back to the evidence... a thing that believers HATE:
>
> "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
> railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
> or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
> (WCR 61)
>
> Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
> a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does*
> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
> lying...
>
> Henry jokes again: "Stop right there. There is no such thing as the
> U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible
> evidence" as you claim."
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9
>
> This link no longer works, but I'm sure Henry will acknowledge that
> I've quoted him correctly.
>
> Notice that Henry flat lied. He claimed that I'd stated that the U.S.
> Judicial system accepts **ALL** eyewitness testimony as "credible
> evidence."
My point was, which you omit, that it's up to the jury (in a jury
trial) or the judge, or in this case, the Warren Commission to
determine whether the witness(es) is credible or not. They are not automatically assumed to be credible by the judicial systen, which
is your claim.
My claim holds with or without the "all". But since you didn't limit
your claim in any way, I pointed out it doesn't apply to "all" witnesses.
I could have just as easily made the same point with the use of the word
"any":
== QUOTE ==
Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
accepting *any* eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim.
== UNQUOTE ==
or without any qualifier whatsoever:
== QUOTE ==
Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
accepting eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim.
== UNQUOTE ==
Eyewitness testimony can be presented at the hearing, the trial, the grand jury proceeding, whatever.
It's not deemed credible by the judicial system.
It's still up to the trier of fact to make that determination
whether it's credible or not.
The Warren Commission made the determination that the witnesses
to shots anywhere but the Depository weren't credible, as is their
right. That's what they said. That's what you quoted.
Argue against the points I made, not the ones you wish to pretend
I made.
>
> But that's clearly not true. Henry simply lied in order to disagree
> with my post.
>
> What I stated is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The U.S. Judicial system does indeed
> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence."
Not true. The judge, the jury, or in this case, the Warren
Commissioners get to decide on an individual basis how much credibility
to grant to each witness. They are not assumed to be credible, and
the judicial system doesn't accept them as credible automatically.
That's been my point all along.
Argue against the point I made, not the one you wish to pretend I made.
>
> And since Henry couldn't publicly disagree with the truth, he was
> forced to lie about what I'd clearly stated in order to disagree.
I wasn't forced to lie about anything. I didn't lie. I pointed out
you claimed that witnesses were granted credibility by the
U.S. judicial system, and that's simply not so.
Hank