David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon in his possession when he was arrested

Says you. That’s yet another thing you cannot demonstrate is actually true because the police (either out of malice or sheer incompetence — and it doesn’t matter which) completely mishandled the evidence. By the way, when Oswald was (illegally and without probable cause) arrested, the alleged revolver was allegedly in the alleged possession of the alleged Bob Carroll.

We know Oswald had "The Tippit Murder Weapon" because all 4 bullet shell casings that littered 10th Street and Patton Avenue were matched conclusively to the revolver Oswald had on him in the Texas Theater.

Shells don’t kill people. You don’t know what the “Tippit murder weapon” was because the bullets removed from Tippit did not have sufficient characteristics to identify a specific weapon.

And correction: the shells that you cannot demonstrate were ever at Tenth and Patton or related to Tippit’s murder were matched conclusively to a revolver that you cannot demonstrate was ever in Oswald’s possession.

[Bill Chapman]

Eyewitness identification is unreliable under the best of circumstances. The ones that were done in this case were so egregiously unfair and biased that they are utterly worthless.

DVP: Oswald instead pulled his gun and engaged in a struggle
IACOLETTI: Still false. No matter how many times you parrot it
PAUL BENTLEY: Just as I entered the lower floor [from the balcony] I saw Patrolman McDonald fighting with this suspect. I saw this suspect pull a pistol from his shirt, so I went to Patrolman McDonald's aid immediately.

[David Von Pein]

Says you. That’s yet another thing you cannot demonstrate is actually true because the police (either out of malice or sheer incompetence — and it doesn’t matter which) completely mishandled the evidence. By the way, when Oswald was (illegally and without probable cause) arrested, the alleged revolver was allegedly in the alleged possession of the alleged Bob Carroll.

Shells don’t kill people. You don’t know what the “Tippit murder weapon” was because the bullets removed from Tippit did not have sufficient characteristics to identify a specific weapon.

And correction: the shells that you cannot demonstrate were ever at Tenth and Patton or related to Tippit’s murder were matched conclusively to a revolver that you cannot demonstrate was ever in Oswald’s possession.

Good God, what a bunch of horses**t this is. Every single word of it.

And Iacoletti doesn't even have the decency to blush. Incredible.

[John Iacoletti]

DVP: Oswald instead pulled his gun and engaged in a struggle
IACOLETTI: Still false. No matter how many times you parrot it
PAUL BENTLEY: Just as I entered the lower floor [from the balcony] I saw Patrolman McDonald fighting with this suspect. I saw this suspect pull a pistol from his shirt, so I went to Patrolman McDonald's aid immediately.

Bentley didn’t come downstairs from the balcony until after the struggle started. If this is true then McDonald’s account was wrong.

[John Iacoletti]

Good God, what a bunch of horses**t this is. Every single word of it.

Cool rebuttal, bro. Point to a single specific thing I said that was incorrect. I guess when you run out of arguments you resort to personal attacks. Did you learn that from Bugliosi too?

[David Von Pein]

Point to a single specific thing I said that was incorrect.

As I said, every single thing in your last ultra-stupid post was horse-hockey. Without a doubt. ....

You said:
"The police completely mishandled the evidence."

That's utter B.S.

Maybe a few things could have been "handled" better (such as Oswald himself when he was killed by Ruby on Sunday in the DPD basement, but that's another discussion), but overall the DPD gathered the pertinent evidence (including the Tippit evidence you referred to) and by Friday midnight the DPD had the correct assassin charged with the two murders he committed. Pretty good police work (until Sunday rolled around), I'd say.

You foolishingly uttered:
"Oswald was (illegally and without probable cause) arrested."

Yeah, sure, John. Why would the cops have any reason at all to want to arrest sweet lil' Lee? All he was doing in the theater is trying to shoot some policemen with a gun. That's all. They should have pinned a medal on him instead.

(If Iacoletti would just blush ONCE, it would at least be something. But no.)

You said:
"You don’t know what the “Tippit murder weapon” was because the bullets removed from Tippit did not have sufficient characteristics to identify a specific weapon."

Another very stupid comment given the known actions of Tippit's killer (Oswald, of course). CTers love to pretend that ALL THAT MATTERS is whether the BULLETS themselves could be matched up with the gun (which, of course, firearms expert Joe Nicol DID do with one of the four Tippit bullets). The CTers will always completely disregard and throw in the trash the bullet SHELLS, which were definitively tied to Oswald's V510210 revolver by several firearms experts, which the CT crowd just ignores (or totally misrepresents, as demonstrated in Iacoletti's next hunk of silliness).

You said:
"The shells that you cannot demonstrate were ever at Tenth and Patton or related to Tippit’s murder were matched conclusively to a revolver that you cannot demonstrate was ever in Oswald’s possession."

In order for the above batch of claptrap to be true, you'd have to believe the Dallas Police lied their eyes out concerning the origins of the 4 bullet shells found by Benavides and the two Davis girls on Nov. 22. And you'd have to believe the DPD also lied about the gun that Oswald had in his possession when he was arrested. Many CTers believe that Oswald had NO GUN at all in the theater, and they believe the DPD merely "planted" the Smith & Wesson V510210 revolver into the evidence pile connected with Tippit's murder. Which would mean that somebody also had to fake the whole Seaport Traders paper trail that shows that Oswald was the owner of said gun.

Whew (and Pfffttt!).

[David Von Pein]

Shells from an automatic are ejected, not dumped on the ground.

So what? Since no automatic was involved in shooting Tippit, your comment is useless and irrelevant.

Or would you like to pretend that an automatic WAS fired at Tippit? If so, why weren't those shells found RIGHT NEXT to Tippit's police car?

And if an automatic really was used, that means you have no choice but to call various witnesses liars who said the killer was manually dumping shells on the ground as he fled.

[Tom Scully]

If you find it, let me know. I'd like to see it. I have my own doubts about whether Vince would have ever said something like that. Because a blatant comment like that would just give the CTers another reason to criticize him (for not being totally unbiased).

https://www.c-span.org/video/?198568-1/reclaiming-history-assassination-jfk
00:10:41
FOR PERJURY AND IT SHOWED THE STATE OF MIND TO THE PEOPLE. AND EVERYONE TOOK IT VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY AND THE JUDGE SAID THIS WAS IT. I MEAN, AS CLOSE TO A TRIAL AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. "TIME" MAGAZINE SAID IT WAS THE CLOSEST TO A REAL TRIAL THAT THE ACCUSED ASASSIN OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY WOULD EVER HAVE. IT WAS WHILE I WAS PREPARING FOR THAT TRIAL AND DURING THE TRIAL THAT I LEARNED ABOUT TWO THINGS. NO. 1, I LEARNED THAT THE VERY THINGS THAT THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS WERE ACCUSING THE WARREN COMMISSION OF, I.E. , SUPPRESSING THE EVIDENCE, DISTORTING THE EVIDENCE, IT WAS THEY WHO WERE GUILTY OF THESE PRECISE THINGS. THE SECOND THING I LEARNED IS THAT THESE CONSPIRACY THEORIES OF THEIRS AT FIRST BLUSH SOME OF THEM MAY BE INTELLECTUALLY PALLETABLE BUT THEY DID NOT WITHSTAND SCRUTINY AND I JUST DETERMINED THERE WAS JUST NO SUBSTANCE TO ALL THESE CHARGES, AND YET THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, EVEN TODAY, BELIEVE IN A CONSPIRACY THEORY. THEY HAVE REJECTED THE FINDINGS OF THE WARREN COMMISSION SO IT WAS AT THAT POINT THAT I DECIDED TO WRITE A BOOK, WAY BACK IN 1986 AND I STARTED WORKING ON IT IN '86. FINALLY FINISHED. IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SPEAK CANDIDLY ABOUT RECLAIMING HISTORY. PAUL WAS SAYING I HAD THREE BOOKS NO. 1 IN THE "NEW YORK TIMES" AND I NEVER BRAGGED ABOUT THOSE BOOKS. I JUST DIDN'T DO IT. THE PROBLEM I HAVE HERE IN SPEAKING CANDIDLY ABOUT RECLAIMING HISTORY IS THAT IF I'M CANDID IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M VERY IMMODEST WHICH IS NOT GOOD, ALTHOUGH CHURCHILL TAUGHT US THAT MODESTY IS NOT ALWAYS A VIRTUE AND HE WAS RUNNING FOR ELECTION AND ONE OF THE REPORTERS SAID MR. SIR WINSTON YOU HAVE TO AGREE MR. ATLY WAS MORE MODEST AND HE SAID YES BUT HE HAS MUCH MORE TO BE MODEST

00:13:17
ABOUT. [LAUGHTER] >> IN ANY EVENT, IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SPEAK CANDIDLY ABOUT IT BECAUSE I SOUND LIKE I'M BOASTING, BUT THE ALTERNATIVE IS EVEN WORSE. WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE? WELL, IF I DON'T SPEAK CANDIDLY ABOUT IT, PEOPLE COULD BELIEVE THAT THIS IS JUST ANOTHER BOOK ON THE ASSASSINATION OUT OF THE CLOSE TO 1,000. BUT I'M SORRY IT'S NOT JUST ANOTHER BOOK. THE "LOS ANGELES TIMES" SAID THAT FINALLY SOMEONE HAS PUT ALL THE PIECES TOGETHER. RECLAIMING HISTORY, I THINK, THEIR WORDS WERE, IS A BOOK FOR THE AGES. AND I FOUND THAT INTERESTING BECAUSE WHEN I WAS WRITING THIS BOOK, WHATEVER I DO, WHETHER IT'S A SUMMATION TO THE JURY OR WRITING A BOOK, I ALWAYS ASPIRE TO A MASTERPIECE, WHETHER I ACHIEVE IT OR NOT IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE. BUT I AT LEAST ASPIRE TO IT AND I WANTED TO WRITE A BOOK FOR THE AGING, MEANING, THAT AS LONG AS PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION AND THEY'VE BEEN INTERESTED IN THIS CASE MORE THAN ANY OTHER MURDER CASE IN WORLD HISTORY, WHETHER IT'S 100 YEARS FROM NOW OR 1,000 YEARS FROM NOW THIS IS A BOOK RECLAIMING HISTORY THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO READ SO I WAS INTERESTED WHEN THE "L.A. TIMES" USED THE SAME WORDS. "WALL STREET JOURNAL" SAID RECLAIMING HISTORY IS UNLIKE ANY OTHER BOOK EVER WRITTEN ON THE ASSASSINATION SO TONIGHT I'M GOING TO SOUND A LITTLE BIT LIKE I'M BOASTING HERE AND THERE BUT THE ALTERNATIVE IS, YOU KNOW -- THIS IS JUST ANOTHER BOOK. IT'S NOT JUST ANOTHER BOOK FOR ALL TYPES OF REASONS. VERY BRIEFLY, "RECLAIMING HISTORY" IS THE FIRST BOOK -- THIS IS NOT A BOAST, THE FIRST BOOK ON THE ASSASSINATION EVER TO COVER THE ENTIRE CASE, NO BOOK HAS EVER EVEN ATTEMPTED TO COVER THE ENTIRE ASSASSINATION. I'VE GOT STUFF IN THE BOOK, IRRELEVANT STUFF THAT'S NOT EVEN IN THE WARREN REPORT OR THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ASSASSINATION REPORT. SECONDLY, IT HAD ALWAYS BEEN THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM THAT THERE WOULD NEVER -- EVEN BY PEOPLE BY MYSELF WHO BELIEVED OSWALD KILLED KENNEDY AND ABANDONING ALONE. IT'S BEEN THE ULTIMATE WISDOM THAT THERE WOULD NEVER BE A SATISFACTORY RESOLUTION TO THIS CASE. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOME DOUBT. I BELIEVE, AND MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE READ THE BOOK BELIEVE THAT "RECLAIMING HISTORY" SETTLES ALL THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION ONCE AND FOR ALL. THE "L.A. TIMES" REVIEW SAYS WITH "RECLAIMING HISTORY" FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, NO REASONABLE PERSON, LET'S UNDERLINE THE WORD REASONABLE, THAT LEE HARVEY OSWALD OR SANE PERSON THAT KENNEDY WAS KILLED BIT CIAS CASTRO, THE MOB, THE SOVIETS TEXAS OIL MEN OR HIS VICE-PRESIDENT. EACH MAY BE GUILTY OF CRIMES BUT NOT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH KENNEDY'S ASSASSINATION. "RECLAIMING HISTORY" MAY FINALLY MOVE THOSE ACCUSATIONS BEYOND CIVILIZED DEBATE. THE THIRD THING ABOUT "RECLAIMING HISTORY", IT'S THE FIRST BOOK SURPRISINGLY EVER TO TAKE ON ALL THESE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS AND DESTROY THEIR THEORIES. THERE'S BEEN NO OTHER BOOK THAT'S DONE THAT. THERE'S BEEN BOOKS THAT HAVE TAKEN ON A COUPLE OF THEORIES BUT THIS TAKES ON EVERY ONE OF THE THEORIES AND I THINK I'M SUCCESSFUL IN DESTROYING THOSE THEORIES. MY EDITOR IN NEW YORK STARLING LAWRENCE SAID IT TOOK A BOOK OF THIS MAGNITUDE TO FINALLY PUT A STAKE IN THE HEART OF THE CONSPIRACY MOVEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY. THE BOOK IS 1 1/2 MILLION WORDS. IT'S QUITE LONG, OBVIOUSLY. IF WE ASSUME THAT THE AVERAGE BOOK IS ABOUT 400 PAGES AND THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF WORDS PER PAGE IS 300, THEN THIS TRANSLATES INTO 13 VOLUMES, WHICH WE -- I AND THE PUBLISHER, WHICH WE SHOE HORNED INTO ONE BOOK OF ABOUT 1600 AND SOME PAGES AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A CD WITH ANOTHER 1125 PAGES. THERE'S ALSO OVER 10,000 CITATIONS. I THINK IT'S THE MOST SOURCED OR CERTAINLY IT'S THE MOST SOURCED KENNEDY ASSASSINATION BOOK EVER. AND SOMEONE SAID IT MAY BE THE MOST SOURCED NONFICTION BOOK EVER, WITH OVER 10,000 CITATIONS. IF THERE'S ONE THING ABOUT ME THAT I TAKE PRIDE IN, I NEVER, EVER, EVER MAKE A CHARGE WITHOUT SUPPORTING IT. YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH ME, BUT I JUST DON'T MAKE A CHARGE AND JUST GO ON. HOW OFTEN DO YOU READ IN THE NEWSPAPER YOU SAID A VERY ASSERTIVE CAPTIVE AND YOU SEARCH IN VEIN FOR THE ARTICLE OF THE PROOF AND EITHER YOU FIND NOTHING AT ALL OR SOMETHING VERY A-ANEMIC. THAT'S NOT MY STYLE. IF I SAY SOMETHING, I SUPPORT IT. YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH ME AND I OFFER SUPPORT AND THAT'S THOSE OVER 10,000 CITATIONS. WHY IS THIS BOOK SO LONG? MY EDITOR SAID HE HAS A NIGHTMARE OF THIS ELDERLY WOMAN AND SHE'S LYING DOWN IN BED AT NIGHT, SHE'S READING THE BOOK. SHE FALLS ASLEEP WHILE SHE'S READING THE BOOK AND SHE DOESN'T WAKE UP. APPARENTLY, IT CRUSHES HER. [LAUGHTER] >> CINDY ADAMS, SHE'S THE COLUMNIST