David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[Martin Weidmann]

I wasn't saying that they were the same. I was suggesting that your statement is not correct  ie:
"Of course there are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. In fact, when a suspect or accused dies the investigation or prosecution instantly dies with him. Everything stops that very moment and the case remains unresolved and you can not declare that the dead man is guilty of anything."

I take it that you would agree that your statement is not correct.

I wasn't saying that they were the same.

Really? Then why bring it up in the first place?

I take it that you would agree that your statement is not correct.

Not sure on which planet you live or what you have been smoking, but my statement was and still is absolutely correct.
I'm sorry that you seem to not understand what I said.

[Charles Collins]

Your above original question ties this discussion to the JFK assassination case.



Indeed it does and you still haven't answered the question.

The WC used the resources of the FBI to investigate this case, and that by itself makes it a criminal investigation. So, my question is just as valid as your answer is elusive.

Utter BS. As soon as a criminal allegation is made in a civil case, the judge will have no other remedy but to refer the matter to law enforcement and prosecutors. It then becomes a criminal case. "Wrongdoing" (whatever than means) is not a crime. When I renege on a contract, I am doing something wrong and I violate the terms of that contract but I do not violate a criminal law.

One example would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771.

Wrong example. This investigation was conducted by investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board. They are by law obliged to investigate all plane crashes and they use the resources of the F.B.I. to do it. The purpose of their investigation was to determine what caused the crash. It was not a criminal investigation, even though, at the end, they concluded that a lone gunman caused the crash.

Another example is url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Lee_Smith]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Lee_Smith[/url].

I could be missing something here, but I see nothing about a criminal investigation after the suspect's death on this page.

Oh yes you did. You are saying exactly what I have been telling you all along. You brought civil cases into this, when I was talking about Kennedy's and Tippit's murder, which is and always has been a criminal case. And in every criminal case the persumption of innocence applies, except of course, it would seem for Oswald.

Again, exactly what I have been telling you all along. Don't you feel silly now, bringing civil cases into this conversation?

Already debunked. See above.

I didn't ask you to prove a negative. Again, show us a case where they didn't continue the investigation until the evidence was collected and analyzed and they had tried to determine what had happened.

Hilarious. You deny asking me to prove a negative and then proceed to ask me to prove a negative.   

I am beginning to understand why you are a LN. In the civil case the burden of proof was much lower and Simpson wasn't tried for or even charged with murder. All the plaintiffs in the civil case needed to do was convince the jury that it was plausible that Simpson had something to do with the murders. Many factors come it to play in such a case, such as, for instance, likability, as we have seen recently in the Depp vs Heard case. By the time the civil case against Simpson played out he had no likability left.

Many people believed he was actually guilty but his clever lawyers had gotten him off. I don't agree with that. It was in fact the prosecution that failed to meet it's burden of proof. So, although I do think that Simpson did commit the two murders, the verdict of the jury in the criminal trial was IMO the correct one.

Having said that, the dynamics in a jury in a civil case are completely different from those in a criminal case. And at the end of the day, Simpson was not found guilty of a crime at the civil case.

Now, how can I best explain this so you will understand. Let's say I challenge a youngster to throw a brick to a window and he does it. He's the one committing the criminal act of willful destruction of property, because he decided to throw the brick. However, in civil court (provided there is sufficient evidence) I could be held responsible for the damage cause by the crime. Get it now?

The bottom line is that in a criminal case the prosecution failed to prove that Simpson was guilty. No ruling by a civil court changes that one bit.

...........

Indeed it does and you still haven't answered the question.


I am discussing the law. You appear to be discussing a general philosophical way of thinking about justice. You need to clarify whether or not you are asking about the law. If you are discussing the law, then I have already answered your question.


The WC used the resources of the FBI to investigate this case, and that by itself makes it a criminal investigation. So, my question is just as valid as your answer is elusive.

The FBI investigated the criminal (and other aspects of this case). However, there were no criminal charges ever brought to trial (due to the murder of LHO). If you are asking about the law, then my original answer (A presumption of innocence applies to an adversarial criminal trial with prosecution and defense cases being presented.) still stands.


Utter BS. As soon as a criminal allegation is made in a civil case, the judge will have no other remedy but to refer the matter to law enforcement and prosecutors.

I said nothing about any criminal allegation.


"Wrongdoing" (whatever than means) is not a crime.

I didn't say that it is.


When I renege on a contract, I am doing something wrong and I violate the terms of that contract but I do not violate a criminal law.


Agreed. However you are being charged in civil court with violating the terms of the contract. That is a "wrongdoing" but not a crime. I think that we both agree on this.


Wrong example. This investigation was conducted by investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board. They are by law obliged to investigate all plane crashes and they use the resources of the F.B.I. to do it. The purpose of their investigation was to determine what caused the crash. It was not a criminal investigation, even though, at the end, they concluded that a lone gunman caused the crash.


You are completely wrong (again). It is a prime example, and the FBI has jurisdiction whenever it appears that a crime may have taken place in an aviation incident. Once it became known that a crime had likely occurred, the FBI was called into the investigation, took control, and the NTSB worked under the direction of the FBI in this case, not the other way around as you falsely claim. In a aviation incident where no apparent crime was committed, the NTSB does conduct the investigation. The FBI didn't drop it's investigation when it became apparent that the gunman was dead. They continued their investigation to try to find out how it happened and why (motive, etc.).


I could be missing something here, but I see nothing about a criminal investigation after the suspect's death on this page.

How do you propose that the authorities know the details of what happened in that case? Read the newspaper article linked to that page. The police gave the newspaper some details and said that they are still trying to piece it all together. That is an investigation that did not stop the instant the MF died. If your claim that the criminal investigation stops immediately after the death of the accused, then the police would have said: This MF is dead, no need to investigate how all of this happened, called the morgue and closed their investigation. Then I suppose you think that the tooth fairy appeared and told everyone what happened. Yes, I believe you are missing "something".



Oh yes you did. You are saying exactly what I have been telling you all along.

Please clarify specifically what it is that you have been trying to tell me all along. Are you talking about how the law is applied to criminal cases (which is my interpretation of your original question) or are you talking about general philosophical ways of thinking about justice?



And in every criminal case the persumption of innocence applies, except of course, it would seem for Oswald

You are wrong again, it did apply for LHO (until the upcoming criminal trial(s) were made impossible by his death). An investigation is not the same as a trial.



Already debunked. See above.


It is pathetically sad that you think you have debunked anything. See above.


Hilarious. You deny asking me to prove a negative and then proceed to ask me to prove a negative.   

If your claim that all criminal investigations are immediately dropped when a suspect dies is correct, then you should be able to provide an example. There is no request for you to prove a negative. Just show us an example. I don't believe that you can.



I am beginning to understand why you are a LN. In the civil case the burden of proof was much lower and Simpson wasn't tried for or even charged with murder. All the plaintiffs in the civil case needed to do was convince the jury that it was plausible that Simpson had something to do with the murders. Many factors come it to play in such a case, such as, for instance, likability, as we have seen recently in the Depp vs Heard case. By the time the civil case against Simpson played out he had no likability left.

You are wrong again. They had to present evidence that outweighed the defense's evidence pertaining to whether or not OJ was responsible for the murders.


Having said that, the dynamics in a jury in a civil case are completely different from those in a criminal case. And at the end of the day, Simpson was not found guilty of a crime at the civil case.

Correct, he wasn't charged with a crime. However, he was found to be responsible for the murders.



Now, how can I best explain this so you will understand. Let's say I challenge a youngster to throw a brick to a window and he does it. He's the one committing the criminal act of willful destruction of property, because he decided to throw the brick. However, in civil court (provided there is sufficient evidence) I could be held responsible for the damage cause by the crime. Get it now?

If it went to criminal court (where crimes must go) then you could also be convicted of conspiring to commit the crime. However, the standard of proof would be much higher than in civil court. Also, in the criminal court you could not be required to testify (the 5th amendment), this is part of the protections afforded to us in the presumption of innocence concept. In a civil court you would not be charged with a crime and therefore the protections would not apply. Get it now?


The bottom line is that in a criminal case the prosecution failed to prove that Simpson was guilty. No ruling by a civil court changes that one bit.

I would revise that statement a little bit. The bottom line is that in a criminal case the prosecution failed to prove [to that jury] that Simpson was [legally] guilty. No ruling by a civil court changes that one bit.

[Martin Weidmann]

Indeed it does and you still haven't answered the question.


I am discussing the law. You appear to be discussing a general philosophical way of thinking about justice. You need to clarify whether or not you are asking about the law. If you are discussing the law, then I have already answered your question.


The WC used the resources of the FBI to investigate this case, and that by itself makes it a criminal investigation. So, my question is just as valid as your answer is elusive.

The FBI investigated the criminal (and other aspects of this case). However, there were no criminal charges ever brought to trial (due to the murder of LHO). If you are asking about the law, then my original answer (A presumption of innocence applies to an adversarial criminal trial with prosecution and defense cases being presented.) still stands.


Utter BS. As soon as a criminal allegation is made in a civil case, the judge will have no other remedy but to refer the matter to law enforcement and prosecutors.

I said nothing about any criminal allegation.


"Wrongdoing" (whatever than means) is not a crime.

I didn't say that it is.


When I renege on a contract, I am doing something wrong and I violate the terms of that contract but I do not violate a criminal law.


Agreed. However you are being charged in civil court with violating the terms of the contract. That is a "wrongdoing" but not a crime. I think that we both agree on this.


Wrong example. This investigation was conducted by investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board. They are by law obliged to investigate all plane crashes and they use the resources of the F.B.I. to do it. The purpose of their investigation was to determine what caused the crash. It was not a criminal investigation, even though, at the end, they concluded that a lone gunman caused the crash.


You are completely wrong (again). It is a prime example, and the FBI has jurisdiction whenever it appears that a crime may have taken place in an aviation incident. Once it became known that a crime had likely occurred, the FBI was called into the investigation, took control, and the NTSB worked under the direction of the FBI in this case, not the other way around as you falsely claim. In a aviation incident where no apparent crime was committed, the NTSB does conduct the investigation. The FBI didn't drop it's investigation when it became apparent that the gunman was dead. They continued their investigation to try to find out how it happened and why (motive, etc.).


I could be missing something here, but I see nothing about a criminal investigation after the suspect's death on this page.

How do you propose that the authorities know the details of what happened in that case? Read the newspaper article linked to that page. The police gave the newspaper some details and said that they are still trying to piece it all together. That is an investigation that did not stop the instant the MF died. If your claim that the criminal investigation stops immediately after the death of the accused, then the police would have said: This MF is dead, no need to investigate how all of this happened, called the morgue and closed their investigation. Then I suppose you think that the tooth fairy appeared and told everyone what happened. Yes, I believe you are missing "something".



Oh yes you did. You are saying exactly what I have been telling you all along.

Please clarify specifically what it is that you have been trying to tell me all along. Are you talking about how the law is applied to criminal cases (which is my interpretation of your original question) or are you talking about general philosophical ways of thinking about justice?

And in every criminal case the persumption of innocence applies, except of course, it would seem for Oswald

You are wrong again, it did apply for LHO (until the upcoming criminal trial(s) were made impossible by his death). An investigation is not the same as a trial.

Already debunked. See above.

It is pathetically sad that you think you have debunked anything. See above.

Hilarious. You deny asking me to prove a negative and then proceed to ask me to prove a negative.   

If your claim that all criminal investigations are immediately dropped when a suspect dies is correct, then you should be able to provide an example. There is no request for you to prove a negative. Just show us an example. I don't believe that you can.

I am beginning to understand why you are a LN. In the civil case the burden of proof was much lower and Simpson wasn't tried for or even charged with murder. All the plaintiffs in the civil case needed to do was convince the jury that it was plausible that Simpson had something to do with the murders. Many factors come it to play in such a case, such as, for instance, likability, as we have seen recently in the Depp vs Heard case. By the time the civil case against Simpson played out he had no likability left.

You are wrong again. They had to present evidence that outweighed the defense's evidence pertaining to whether or not OJ was responsible for the murders.


Having said that, the dynamics in a jury in a civil case are completely different from those in a criminal case. And at the end of the day, Simpson was not found guilty of a crime at the civil case.

Correct, he wasn't charged with a crime. However, he was found to be responsible for the murders.


Now, how can I best explain this so you will understand. Let's say I challenge a youngster to throw a brick to a window and he does it. He's the one committing the criminal act of willful destruction of property, because he decided to throw the brick. However, in civil court (provided there is sufficient evidence) I could be held responsible for the damage cause by the crime. Get it now?

If it went to criminal court (where crimes must go) then you could also be convicted of conspiring to commit the crime. However, the standard of proof would be much higher than in civil court. Also, in the criminal court you could not be required to testify (the 5th amendment), this is part of the protections afforded to us in the presumption of innocence concept. In a civil court you would not be charged with a crime and therefore the protections would not apply. Get it now?


The bottom line is that in a criminal case the prosecution failed to prove that Simpson was guilty. No ruling by a civil court changes that one bit.

I would revise that statement a little bit. The bottom line is that in a criminal case the prosecution failed to prove [to that jury] that Simpson was [legally] guilty. No ruling by a civil court changes that one bit.

When I renege on a contract, I am doing something wrong and I violate the terms of that contract but I do not violate a criminal law.


Agreed. However you are being charged in civil court with violating the terms of the contract. That is a "wrongdoing" but not a crime. I think that we both agree on this.

BS. In a civil court claims are filed. Nobody is being charged of anything.

Wrong example. This investigation was conducted by investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board. They are by law obliged to investigate all plane crashes and they use the resources of the F.B.I. to do it. The purpose of their investigation was to determine what caused the crash. It was not a criminal investigation, even though, at the end, they concluded that a lone gunman caused the crash.

You are completely wrong (again). It is a prime example, and the FBI has jurisdiction whenever it appears that a crime may have taken place in an aviation incident. Once it became known that a crime had likely occurred, the FBI was called into the investigation, took control, and the NTSB worked under the direction of the FBI in this case, not the other way around as you falsely claim. In a aviation incident where no apparent crime was committed, the NTSB does conduct the investigation. The FBI didn't drop it's investigation when it became apparent that the gunman was dead. They continued their investigation to try to find out how it happened and why (motive, etc.).

You should read the page that you linked to;

After the crash site was located by a CBS News helicopter piloted by Zoey Tur, investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board were joined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The FBI did not take over the investigation but instead worked jointly with the NTSB, as they always do!

And then you should really find out what the task of the National Transportation Safety Board actually is;

The NTSB originated in the Air Commerce Act of 1926, in which the U.S. Congress charged the U.S. Department of Commerce with investigating the causes of aircraft accidents. Later, that responsibility was given to the Civil Aeronautics Board's Bureau of Aviation Safety, when it was created in 1940.

In 1967, Congress consolidated all transportation agencies into a new U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and established the NTSB as an independent agency placed within the DOT for administrative purposes. In creating the NTSB, Congress envisioned that a single organization with a clearly defined mission could more effectively promote a higher level of safety in the transportation system than the individual modal agencies working separately. Since 1967, the NTSB has investigated accidents in the aviation, highway, marine, pipeline, and railroad modes, as well as accidents related to the transportation of hazardous materials.

In 1974, Congress reestablished the NTSB as a completely separate entity, outside the DOT, reasoning that " ...No federal agency can properly perform such (investigatory) functions unless it is totally separate and independent from any other ... agency of the United States. "

https://www.ntsb.gov/about/history/Pages/default.aspx

I could be missing something here, but I see nothing about a criminal investigation after the suspect's death on this page.

How do you propose that the authorities know the details of what happened in that case? Read the newspaper article linked to that page. The police gave the newspaper some details and said that they are still trying to piece it all together. That is an investigation that did not stop the instant the MF died. If your claim that the criminal investigation stops immediately after the death of the accused, then the police would have said: This MF is dead, no need to investigate how all of this happened, called the morgue and closed their investigation. Then I suppose you think that the tooth fairy appeared and told everyone what happened. Yes, I believe you are missing "something".

So, it's merely conjecture on your part, based on a newspaper article. Got it!

I am beginning to understand why you are a LN. In the civil case the burden of proof was much lower and Simpson wasn't tried for or even charged with murder. All the plaintiffs in the civil case needed to do was convince the jury that it was plausible that Simpson had something to do with the murders. Many factors come it to play in such a case, such as, for instance, likability, as we have seen recently in the Depp vs Heard case. By the time the civil case against Simpson played out he had no likability left.

You are wrong again. They had to present evidence that outweighed the defense's evidence pertaining to whether or not OJ was responsible for the murders.

Being a contrarian who argues for the sake of argument is one thing, but this level of stupidity makes any further discussion a complete waste of time. You can twist and turn as much as you like, but Simpson was not tried for murder in the civil case. Period!

I've now lost all interest in your ramblings. Post a reply if you must (and most likely will) but don't expect me to respond, unless you come up with something far better than the BS you have been posting so far.

[Bill Chapman]

Like the propagandist and coward that he is, David has already posted some of this conversation on his website without the consent of the authors, selectively editing out replies that expose his fallacies, refute his claims, or make him look bad — thus creating a false narrative. Then he posted a link to the page as click-bait in his Facebook “JFK VIDEO, AUDIO, PHOTOS AND DISCUSSION” group. And now he’s deleting comments made in response to his dishonesty.

Looks like we'll have to take your word for it since you haven't provided a link to either of what sound like plagiary-soaked locations. I personally don't think you'd BS about that; you're smart enough to know you'd eventually get caught out.

But I also think DVP would know that as well.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

There is no such thing as proof. Not in a court, not in science. But its a matter of degree of proof or standard of proof, as usual. 97.5% is good.
Re Simpson, he was 100% innocent, well 95% if u deduct 5% for his actions after. The murderer was Simpson. It looks like once again i am the only one around here that knows that (ie in addition to being the only one to know about the jfk accidental homicide)(i mean many know that Hickey did it, but i mean know that Hickey fired a multi-shot burst).
Re Oswald, they say that JFK would probly have died from Oswald's shot. But Hickey beat Oswald to it. Hence Oswald was 100% innocent. But 100% guilty re Tippit.
Getting back to the Simpson criminal case, the cops planted faux-evidence, but the chain of ownership for that there faux-evidence was probly perfect (i forget what it was, blood or something)(i dont think it was the glove).
Nah -- there aint no such thing as proof. And i can prove it.

[Charles Collins]

BS. In a civil court claims are filed. Nobody is being charged of anything.

You should read the page that you linked to;

After the crash site was located by a CBS News helicopter piloted by Zoey Tur, investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board were joined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The FBI did not take over the investigation but instead worked jointly with the NTSB, as they always do!

And then you should really find out what the task of the National Transportation Safety Board actually is;

The NTSB originated in the Air Commerce Act of 1926, in which the U.S. Congress charged the U.S. Department of Commerce with investigating the causes of aircraft accidents. Later, that responsibility was given to the Civil Aeronautics Board's Bureau of Aviation Safety, when it was created in 1940.

In 1967, Congress consolidated all transportation agencies into a new U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and established the NTSB as an independent agency placed within the DOT for administrative purposes. In creating the NTSB, Congress envisioned that a single organization with a clearly defined mission could more effectively promote a higher level of safety in the transportation system than the individual modal agencies working separately. Since 1967, the NTSB has investigated accidents in the aviation, highway, marine, pipeline, and railroad modes, as well as accidents related to the transportation of hazardous materials.

In 1974, Congress reestablished the NTSB as a completely separate entity, outside the DOT, reasoning that " ...No federal agency can properly perform such (investigatory) functions unless it is totally separate and independent from any other ... agency of the United States. "

https://www.ntsb.gov/about/history/Pages/default.aspx

So, it's merely conjecture on your part, based on a newspaper article. Got it!

Being a contrarian who argues for the sake of argument is one thing, but this level of stupidity makes any further discussion a complete waste of time. You can twist and turn as much as you like, but Simpson was not tried for murder in the civil case. Period!

I've now lost all interest in your ramblings. Post a reply if you must (and most likely will) but don't expect me to respond, unless you come up with something far better than the BS you have been posting so far.

BS. In a civil court claims are filed. Nobody is being charged of anything.

Technically, it is called a complaint, not a claim. Litigation begins when the plaintiff files a complaint with the court and formally delivers a copy to the defendant. The complaint describes what the defendant did (or failed to do) that caused harm to the plaintiff and the legal basis for holding the defendant responsible for that harm.

The description of what the complaint alleges you did or failed to do is what I was referring to as a charge. Get it now?


The FBI did not take over the investigation but instead worked jointly with the NTSB, as they always do!

You are wrong again! There is a TV show series on the Smithsonian channel called "Mayday: Air Disasters" that I watch regularly. Usually, each incident makes up an entire 1-hour episode of the show. There are numerous incidents where criminal activity is indicated. And whenever that is the case the narrator typically spells out that the FBI is called in and takes the lead in the case. Once the criminal investigation is over, the NTSB resumes their investigation (some of which last several years). If you look up the FBI records for this incident, you might find the document dated 5/27/88 (about six and a half months after the accident) where the NTSB is asking the FBI to do further testing on and retain custody of the flight recorder and tapes because this was clearly a criminal act as opposed to an accident. Now, this clearly is indicative that the FBI took the lead (the TV show narrator was correct), and that your claim that criminal investigations immediately end when the suspect dies is false. And you still have not provided an example that supports this ridiculous claim of yours.


So, it's merely conjecture on your part, based on a newspaper article. Got it!

No conjecture needed. The article specifically cites the authorities as the source, and the police were quoted as saying they are still trying to piece it all together. This is typical standard operating procedure for these types of incidents. I really cannot understand why you refuse to accept the evidence.


Being a contrarian who argues for the sake of argument is one thing, but this level of stupidity makes any further discussion a complete waste of time. You can twist and turn as much as you like, but Simpson was not tried for murder in the civil case. Period!

No one has claimed that he was tried for murder in the civil case.

[Martin Weidmann]

BS. In a civil court claims are filed. Nobody is being charged of anything.

Technically, it is called a complaint, not a claim. Litigation begins when the plaintiff files a complaint with the court and formally delivers a copy to the defendant. The complaint describes what the defendant did (or failed to do) that caused harm to the plaintiff and the legal basis for holding the defendant responsible for that harm.

The description of what the complaint alleges you did or failed to do is what I was referring to as a charge. Get it now?

I don't care what it is technically called, mr wise guy. All that matters is that you were wrong to say that somebody was charged with anything in civil court.

The FBI did not take over the investigation but instead worked jointly with the NTSB, as they always do!

You are wrong again! There is a TV show series on the Smithsonian channel called "Mayday: Air Disasters" that I watch regularly. Usually, each incident makes up an entire 1-hour episode of the show. There are numerous incidents where criminal activity is indicated. And whenever that is the case the narrator typically spells out that the FBI is called in and takes the lead in the case. Once the criminal investigation is over, the NTSB resumes their investigation (some of which last several years). If you look up the FBI records for this incident, you might find the document dated 5/27/88 (about six and a half months after the accident) where the NTSB is asking the FBI to do further testing on and retain custody of the flight recorder and tapes because this was clearly a criminal act as opposed to an accident. Now, this clearly is indicative that the FBI took the lead (the TV show narrator was correct), and that your claim that criminal investigations immediately end when the suspect dies is false. And you still have not provided an example that supports this ridiculous claim of yours.

So, now that the Wikipedia page doesn't support your argument, you look for support at a TV show? Wow...

If you look up the FBI records for this incident, you might find the document dated 5/27/88 (about six and a half months after the accident) where the NTSB is asking the FBI to do further testing on and retain custody of the flight recorder and tapes because this was clearly a criminal act as opposed to an accident.

When the NTSB asks the FBI to do further testing, it is clear that it is the NTSB that's conducting the investigation being supported by the FBI and not the other way around. You seem to have shot yourself in the foot with this one!

Now, this clearly is indicative that the FBI took the lead (the TV show narrator was correct), and that your claim that criminal investigations immediately end when the suspect dies is false.

Requesting the FBI to do further testing is not the same as conducting a full blown criminal investigation.

So, it's merely conjecture on your part, based on a newspaper article. Got it!

No conjecture needed. The article specifically cites the authorities as the source, and the police were quoted as saying they are still trying to piece it all together. This is typical standard operating procedure for these types of incidents. I really cannot understand why you refuse to accept the evidence.

I refuse to accept the word of a guy who relies on TV shows to make a bogus argument. If it is "typical standard operating procedure" as you claim then there should at least be a manual or some similar document that outlines the procedures to follow etc. Show me that document and you might convince me.
Why don't you

Being a contrarian who argues for the sake of argument is one thing, but this level of stupidity makes any further discussion a complete waste of time. You can twist and turn as much as you like, but Simpson was not tried for murder in the civil case. Period!

No one has claimed that he was tried for murder in the civil case.

You clearly implied it.

[Charles Collins]

I don't care what it is technically called, mr wise guy. All that matters is that you were wrong to say that somebody was charged with anything in civil court.
So, now that the Wikipedia page doesn't support your argument, you look for support at a TV show? Wow...

If you look up the FBI records for this incident, you might find the document dated 5/27/88 (about six and a half months after the accident) where the NTSB is asking the FBI to do further testing on and retain custody of the flight recorder and tapes because this was clearly a criminal act as opposed to an accident.

When the NTSB asks the FBI to do further testing, it is clear that it is the NTSB that's conducting the investigation being supported by the FBI and not the other way around. You seem to have shot yourself in the foot with this one!

Now, this clearly is indicative that the FBI took the lead (the TV show narrator was correct), and that your claim that criminal investigations immediately end when the suspect dies is false.

Requesting the FBI to do further testing is not the same as conducting a full blown criminal investigation.


I refuse to accept the word of a guy who relies on TV shows to make a bogus argument. If it is "typical standard operating procedure" as you claim then there should at least be a manual or some similar document that outlines the procedures to follow etc. Show me that document and you might convince me.
Why don't you

You clearly implied it.

I don't care what it is technically called, mr wise guy. All that matters is that you were wrong to say that somebody was charged with anything in civil court.

No I wasn't wrong. The (non-criminal) charge is indicated in the complaint. It would not be a criminal charge if it was in a civil court. But it is a charge. To be charged with something does not mean that the charge is criminal.



So, now that the Wikipedia page doesn't support your argument, you look for support at a TV show? Wow...

No, I saw that particular documentary show some time ago. That is the reason I brought this particular incident up.



When the NTSB asks the FBI to do further testing, it is clear that it is the NTSB that's conducting the investigation being supported by the FBI and not the other way around. You seem to have shot yourself in the foot with this one!

You are wrong again. If the NTSB was still leading the investigation they would not state that the FBI should "retain control of the tape, since this was clearly a criminal act as opposed to an accident." The NTSB was asking for further metal examination of the box for crash evaluation purposes.


Requesting the FBI to do further testing is not the same as conducting a full blown criminal investigation.

The NTSB conducted the crash evaluation portion of the investigation, that is where their expertise lies. The FBI had jurisdiction in this case because, as the above referenced document states, this was clearly a criminal act, as opposed to an accident.

You are wrong again, and (as usual) refuse to admit it.


I refuse to accept the word of a guy who relies on TV shows to make a bogus argument. If it is "typical standard operating procedure" as you claim then there should at least be a manual or some similar document that outlines the procedures to follow etc. Show me that document and you might convince me.
Why don't you

You can go on believing your ridiculous claim that criminal investigations end immediately with the death of the suspect. I have shown plenty of evidence that indicates otherwise. You still have not shown even one example that supports your ridiculous claim.