Comments on the papers from the legal community

    The page "Reactions to the Warren Report" lists these three articles from the academic legal community that discuss the conclusions of the report:

"A Measure of the Achievement" (Herbert L. Packer, The Nation, 2 November 1964)
"A Lawyer's Notes on the Warren Commission Report" (Alfredda Scobey [staff member of WC], American Bar Association Journal, January 1965)
"Death of a President: The Established Facts" (Lord Devlin, Atlantic Monthly, March 1965)

    Individually and collectively, these articles are excellent. Herbert L. Packer was a distinguished professor of law at Stanford University. His article constructs a "minimal case" against Oswald, consisting of five main points based solely on physical evidence, and shows how none of the critics by that time had confronted any of these core conclusions. In what will surely be salt in the wounds of the critics, he emphasizes that none of these points require eyewitness testimony or any evidence from the subsequent killing of Patrolman Tippit. (What a pity that high-quality analysis like this has long since disappeared from the JFK "debate.") Alfredda Scobey, a former lawyer for the Warren Commission, discusses the evidentiary aspects of the Warren Report, and makes the strong point that even if all the witness testimony were impeached, the remaining physical and documentary evidence would leave Oswald's basic guilt unaffected. With this argument, she is agreeing with Professor Packer. Lord Devlin is, an eminent judge in the British legal system, also is highly complimentary to the Warren Report. After summarizing the eyewitness and physical evidence against Oswald, he strips all the uncertain evidence away (essentially all the witness evidence) and lists the (highly persuasive) core evidence that remains. He thus duplicates the main conclusion presented by Packer and Scobey, but gets there in a slightly different way. But as with those roads and Rome, all three of these lines of reasoning arrive at the same conclusion.
    For a more-detailed discussion of these three articles, see "The three jurists and the physical evidence."

Back to Reactions to the WC Report
Back to WC Period