[Ben Holmes]

Henry Sienzant Wrote:There is a hierarchy to the evidence you cannot ignore. Hard evidence takes primacy, as it is immutable. This includes things like weapons recovered, the body of the victim, bullets and shells, any films of the crime, photos of the crime scene, fingerprints found on the weapon or in the area of the crime scene, etc. Expert testimony is next, as it relies on the expertise of the witness. Below that is eyewitness testimony and eyewitness statements, the closer to the time of the crime the better. Below that is hearsay, and below even that are recollections made decades after the fact. And below even that is claims garnered from books, and websites. If you are building an argument that something happened, the closer you are to the primary evidence the better. Your argument loses strength as you move away from the primary evidence.

Of course, Henry is leaving out a few things. His so called "hard evidence" requires a chain of custody - something that believers recoil at in abject fear...

They know that much of the evidence in this case had no chain of custody.

And he's certainly been made aware of the fact that the justice system does not place photos & films ahead of eyewitness testimony... quite the reverse!

Ben Holmes Wrote:I once stated: "For the same reason that the legal system gives precedence to eyewitness testimony over photographic or written evidence." and was promptly chastised by a believer that this was inaccurate.

A common refrain from believers is that physical evidence 'trumps' eyewitness testimony. Yet the facts are not quite what LNT'ers perceive them to be:

Normal legal procedure here in the U.S. permits photographs and motion pictures to be used as evidence in courts of law only when a foundation for their introduction has been established by eyewitness testimony. For example:

Quote:The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative drawings, maps and diagrams. Under this theory, a photograph is viewed merely as a graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by the witness." McCormick on Evidence, 3rd Edition (1984), Section 214.

It's interesting that only in the JFK case is photographic and x-ray evidence being used routinely to discount the eyewitness testimony... in direct contradiction to normal judicial process.

Nor will Henry even follow his own recommendations... he absolutely REFUSES to accept the earliest testimony & statements in this case, preferring later statements or testimony that supports his faith. Indeed, Henry was even caught lying about the Parkland Press Conference in his efforts to move favorable witness statements closer to the event.

But Henry knows all this... he's not ignorant or dumb... so the question is, why does he lie about this topic?