David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[Martin Weidmann]

The problem is that this prosecutorial case was never tested and challenged in an a proper legal setting.

What do you consider to be a “proper legal setting” for this particular case?

In a proper legal setting the prosecutorial case would be challenged by counter arguments and additional evidence presented by a defense counsel.
Obviously that will never happen in this case, which makes Bugliosi's prosecutorial case merely an unproven opinion.

[Charles Collins]

In a proper legal setting the prosecutorial case would be challenged by counter arguments and additional evidence presented by a defense counsel.
Obviously that will never happen in this case, which makes Bugliosi's prosecutorial case merely an unproven opinion.

Obviously that will never happen in this case,


Once Jack Ruby had murdered LHO, there were no legal provisions for having a trial for a dead man. Which makes your “proper legal setting” completely false and irrelevant.

[Martin Weidmann]

Obviously that will never happen in this case,

Once Jack Ruby had murdered LHO, there were no legal provisions for having a trial for a dead man. Which makes your “proper legal setting” completely false and irrelevant.

There is nothing false about a proper legal setting.

What is false is to condemn a man based on a one sided prosecutorial narrative of which the veracity can never be verified.

And what is truly irrelevant is your biased opinion based upon that same prosecutorial narrative.

[Charles Collins]

There is nothing false about a proper legal setting.

What is false is to condemn a man based on a one sided prosecutorial narrative of which the veracity can never be verified.

In this particular case (which is what my earlier question to you is based on) there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man. Therefore, your idea of a proper legal setting is improper and not legal. This makes your claim false and irrelevant.

[Martin Weidmann]

In this particular case (which is what my earlier question to you is based on) there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man. Therefore, your idea of a proper legal setting is improper and not legal. This makes your claim false and irrelevant.

In this particular case (which is what my earlier question to you is based on) there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man.

Indeed, so why did the WC not only build a biased prosecutorial case against a dead man but also convict him?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

In this particular case (which is what my earlier question to you is based on) there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man. Therefore, your idea of a proper legal setting is improper and not legal. This makes your claim false and irrelevant.

Yes and yes. But you have to repeat this several times for it to be understood. If you're lucky.

But let me play lawyer and point out that even this proposed "legal setting" doesn't necessarily find the truth since, after all, it's not designed to. The court/legal standard or adversarial process is designed to find, based on the decision of a jury of the defendant's peers, whether the government has proven, using the law, beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has committed a crime.  It's not designed to discover the truth. As we know, lots of innocent people have been convicted; lots of guilty people have been found not guilty. It's the best system we can come up with; but it's not perfect and finding the "truth" is not the goal.

The Oswald defenders, for some unknown reason, want to use this legalistic standard - "chain of custody" and other legal rules - to throw out the evidence against him. If they were interested in the truth, in what really happened, they wouldn't engage in these defense lawyer like tactics.  But here we are. And here they are.

[Charles Collins]

In this particular case (which is what my earlier question to you is based on) there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man.

Indeed, so why did the WC not only build a biased prosecutorial case against a dead man but also convict him?

The Warren Commission had no authority to either prosecute or convict anyone, dead or alive. Take a look in the mirror if you want to see a biased person. Your opinions are just that…opinions.

[Richard Smith]

OK....

Correct.

Absolutely!

Any claim from witnesses must be nitpicked.

No, because the claim is false AND it's questionable if it was Oswald, based on the inconsistency of the witness accounts.

Not likely...

Possible, but not probable.

You just did, so does that make you extraordinary?

Define "multiple" when you've decided on how long a moment is.

Right, so we're now down to Markham and Scoggins who didn't see Markham; not good for your case.

Um, this can't fix any of the inconsistant testimonies...

Not sure what this means, but it all sounds like another of your reruns.

So you believe there is doubt that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln because we can't eliminate the possibility of suicide!  Why am I not surprised?   There were multiple different witnesses who identified LHO as the person at the Tippit scene with a drawn gun at the time of his murder.  Oswald was arrested a short distance away with the gun and in possession of the SAME two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit.  Instead of waiting for the DPD to explain what they wanted, Oswald instead pulled his gun and engaged in a struggle.  It's a slam dunk.