The right way and the wrong way to use evidence
(Draft, 11 April 2000)

    Solving the JFK assassination is easy once you accept the fact that there is a right way and a wrong way to deal with its evidence. Those who use the evidence correctly get the right answer; those who use it wrongly don’t.
    Why do these statements sound so strange and harsh? Because standards, prescriptions, and rights and wrongs have fallen out of favor in contemporary life and have been replaced by relatives and multiplicities: “You do it your way; I’ll do it mine,” or “What’s your opinion about the case?” or “Personally, I find this theory appealing (or unenlightening).” This is all wrong. At the risk of offending many researchers, I must note two facts that should be obvious: there is only one correct explanation of the JFK assassination (although many perspectives from which to view it), and there is only one closest degree to which we can approach that answer from the available evidence. We can find the closest approach and the answer it represents only when we deal with the evidence correctly. If we deal with the evidence incorrectly, we doom ourselves to being forever confused and uncertain, as has happened to the great majority of current JFK researchers.
    The right way to deal with evidence can be reduced to a few operating principles:

1. Avoid evidence that you aren’t sure about. If you must use this kind of evidence, remember that every conclusion you draw from it will be at least as uncertain as the evidence itself.

2.  All else being equal, direct evidence to a crime is preferred over indirect (circumstantial), but a web of indirect evidence can be stronger than individual pieces of direct evidence.

3. Physical evidence is in principle far stronger than testimonial (witness) evidence, because only the former can be tested objectively. [“Physical evidence” as used below means “validated physical evidence.”]

4. (Consequence of Point 3) All else being equal, physical evidence ranks above witness evidence, although some witness evidence can be stronger than others.

5. Thus in order of decreasing importance, the four basic types of evidence rank: direct physical, indirect physical, direct testimonial, and indirect testimonial. Evidence should ordinarily be used in this sequence. The reason for this ranking may be seen better from this simple table:

6. Whenever possible, use only physical evidence. Testimonial evidence may be used when insufficient physical evidence is available, provided the user understands that conclusions drawn from it will be probabilistic rather than conclusive.

    These principles are accepted by police departments and the judicial community because they have been confirmed by experience.