Presumption of Innocence
Subject: Presumption of Innocence
Date: 26 Dec 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19981226104832.29669.00002470@ng-ft1.aol.com>
I'm going to raise an abstract intellectual point here. I hope I'm not denounced for simply pointing out a paradox.
In the American justice system, all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty. We correctly start our analysis of Lee Harvey Oswald with a presumption of innocence. Even though the empirical evidence seems formidable and damning, we consider the possibility that some or all of it may have been manufactured by conspirators or law enforcement agents, or have been distorted by law enforcement agents.
Yet, we do not seem to start with a presumption of innocence for those against whom evidence of an actual connection to the assassination seems less formidable and damning. People like William Guy Banister, David William Ferrie, Sergio Vicente Arcacha Smith, Clay Lavergne Shaw, Carlos Jose Bringuier and Gordon Dwane Novel were or are real people who have families and friends who have to live with a cloud of suspicion, based on evidence that is not always conclusive. Why do very few seem willing to extend to these people the same presumption of innocence we [rightly] extend to Lee Harvey Oswald? Why do we accept any allegation against them while contesting any allegation made about Oswald?
Okay, go ahead, flame away...
oo
David Blackburst