Revisiting the JFK Assassination: Applying Legal Standards to a Homicide Case

Thirty-eight years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the events surrounding his death continue to captivate and confound. Most discussions of the assassination are shrouded in conjecture, prejudice, and an illogical application of evidence. This article aims to revisit the case from the perspective of a legal and forensic inquiry, demanding proof and evidence that would hold up in a court of law.

The Assassination as a Homicide Case

The death of JFK is a classic case of homicide. It involves two distinct murders: the assassination of President Kennedy and the killing of Police Officer J.D. Tippit shortly thereafter. In any criminal case, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The standard of proof required is beyond a reasonable doubt, a level of certainty that must be achieved through rigorous examination of evidence and testimony.

Conflict of Evidence and Legal Standards

Consider the standard case against Lee Harvey Oswald. Numerous pieces of evidence are often cited as proof of Oswald's guilt, but each point is either factually false or subject to reasonable doubt. For example, the Warren Commission's so-called "magic bullet" has no verifiable chain of custody, and the match between the rifle found in the book depository and ammunition found near the scene is highly questionable.

Moreover, when the Tippit case is examined, the procedural flaws and lack of clear evidence are glaring. Evidence often presented as fact, such as the rifling found at the scene, lacks a proper chain of custody. This means that without a reliable way to determine the origin of the evidence, any assertion of its authenticity falls short of the necessary legal standard.

The Role of Testimony and Cross-Examination

In a court of law, all testimony must be subject to cross-examination. Any piece of evidence presented must be proven to be genuine and not tampered with. For instance, the claim that Oswald was seen leaving the scene of the Tippit shooting is not evidence of guilt. Simply claiming to have seen someone near the scene is not sufficient. Such evidence must be corroborated and withstand scrutiny. Testimonies like those from the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, no matter how many people they involve, do not constitute credible evidence without detailed and verifiable information.

Similarly, the smirk of Lee Harvey Oswald, often cited as evidence of his guilt, is nothing more than a character assassination. Emotions and facial expressions are not sufficient to convict a person of a crime. They are, at best, subjective and open to interpretation. In a homicide case, emotional evidence must be backed by concrete, verifiable, and legally sound testimony.

The Suspect in Question: Allen Dulles

Given the complexity and the involvement of the CIA, it is not unreasonable to consider other suspects, such as Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA at the time. Dulles's motives and the opportunity to plot against Kennedy are undeniable. His hatred for Kennedy, the CIA's role in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and their involvement in other assassinations all suggest a deep-seated interest in seeing Kennedy gone. However, without concrete evidence linking Dulles to the assassination, he remains a suspect, not a proven culprit.

It is disconcerting to note that Dulles, who opposed Kennedy, was a member of the Warren Commission. His influence on the commission and his desire to cover up his agency's involvement further complicate the matter. While his involvement is intriguing, it has not been sufficiently substantiated to hold him responsible.

Conclusion: The Need for Legally Admissible Evidence

In the pursuit of justice, it is crucial to apply legal standards of evidence and proof. The JFK assassination case lacks the necessary evidence to support the standard narrative. Hearsay and speculation are insufficient to hold anyone accountable for the President's death. By demanding a higher standard of proof, we honor the memory of President Kennedy and uphold the principles of justice and due process.

As a society, we must question what constitutes evidence and proof. We should not be satisfied with hearsay or incomplete information. Instead, we should insist on concrete, verifiable, and legally admissible evidence. This is the only way to ensure that the truth is uncovered and justice is served.