David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[Tom Scully]

That sounds like a bunch of insignificant six-degrees-of-separation nonsense to me, Tom.

I'm almost inclined to think you're kidding and poking a little fun at over-zealous CTers with this above post of yours. (But you aren't poking fun, are you?)

Anyway, the one thing I'm still waiting for the police to investigate is the connection between Wilma Tice's future mother-in-law and Bonnie Ray Williams' ex-mailman in the year 1952! Seems to me that connection can't be overlooked when discussing the subject of conspiracy in the Kennedy case.

Obligatory ---

David, my theory is that there were so many claims of finding Oswald wallets in that particular time frame, Oswald's
I.D.'s, parceled out amongst them resorted to him carrying a library card obtained through Bowen-Corsi's girlfriend employed by the DP Library and that rather vague USMC I.D. and the yet to be disclosed, altered or entirely fabricated Selective Service I.D., in Hidell's name.

It has been my experience with the onions I've managed to entirely peel back, like the Klein's postal money order, that insufficient knowledge is the breeding ground of too many CT suspicions. Imagine my disappointment when my Lisa Pease influenced theory about Freeport Sulphur V.P. "Dick White," strongly suspected to be Charles Wright of Yale's Scroll & Key, secret society brother of Godfrey S. Rockefeller and his fellow Freeport board member, Jock Whitney, turned out to merely be the president of a Gretna, LA bank, a detail easily confirmed by Garrison, if he wanted to learn it.

This recently found knowledge blew up most of my sinister suspicions about Freeport. Jock Whitney did pen the odd editorial on 11/23 in his Herald Tribune dismissing Oswald as a lone wolf and his paper's reporter, Breslin, as was Jerry O'Leary of the DC Star and Aynsworth were seemingly everywhere in Dallas that fateful weekend, and Whitney did rent his estate's bungalow to Jinx Falkenberg from 1946 until his widow, Betsy evicted her, and Jinx was the first cousin of Priscilla's best friend, Ms. Macatee Davison, and Godfrey Rockefeller's spokesperson, 38 year Cranston Dye Works executive, Dwight Owen, who served in the same WWII Pacific War PT squadron with this fellow, George O. Walbridge, whose boss happened to be JFK's best friend,



who (Walbridge) happened to be the best man in the Texas wedding of James K Cogswell and Stephen Farish's daughter, Joan, and Cogswell happened to be a close friend in Scarsdale of Richard Ober, suspected REAL Deep Throat of Watergate journalism,
and Dwight Owen's son, Rob, happened to be Oliver North's contra's "courier," BWDIK ?

I accept I can't control what comes to my attention. Recently, I accidentally happened to acquire awareness that someone I met 50 years ago and felt like I knew all my life when we were introduced and instantly felt like I was staring into the soul of when we locked into eye contact that lasted long past when it should have seemed uncomfortably long to at least one of us, 900 miles from where I currently live, recently moved just 30 miles from me. She returned a week later (in 1971)  to surprise me, found that I was with someone else, refused my request for a raincheck, and this recent knowledge brought those repressed memories back, and has me wondering if I found a soulmate back then and screwed up our destiny.
I've consulted my Indian born female G.P. physician and my Indian born female dermatologist about this and both believe in reincarnation.

So, no, David, I'm not laughing or taunting. I wrestle with what should feel like a gift but too often distracts like a curse.

The three homicide detectives I've known don't believe there are mere coincidences.

[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.

Highly relevant, unless you can produce an affidavit (or similar) by Gerald Hill that states the police tape transcript is in error:

"Shells at the scene indicate the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol."

Take your time!

But we know from the various witnesses who were at the scene WHEN THE SHOOTING WAS OCCURRING that the killer was NOT armed with an automatic, because the killer was emptying his shells on the ground. If the killer had had an automatic weapon, there would have been no need for him to manually empty his shells.

Do you think both Davis girls just made up their testimony about the killer "unloading the gun" in their yard as he ran?

And was Benavides also wrong when he saw the killer dumping shells too?

Take your time.

P.S., Sergeant Gerald Hill, who initially (incorrectly) thought the Tippit shells were from an automatic weapon, tried to clear up the confusion when he said this in 1986:

"I assumed that it was an automatic simply because we had found all the hulls in one little general area. If you find a cluster of shells, you have to assume that they were fired from an automatic." -- Quote by Gerald Hill (Taken from Dale Myers' book, "With Malice" [1998 Edition]; Pages 260-261)

[Tom Scully]

But we know from the various witnesses who were at the scene WHEN THE SHOOTING WAS OCCURRING that the killer was NOT armed with an automatic, because the killer was emptying his shells on the ground. If the killer had had an automatic weapon, there would have been no need for him to manually empty his shells. Right?

Do you think both Davis girls just made up their testimony about the killer "unloading the gun" in their yard as he ran?

And was Benavides also wrong when he saw the killer dumping shells too?

Take your time.

Barbara Davis seemed to emphasize she didn't see much and I proved Virginia lied to DPD and under oath to the
WC, as to her age. This was the "gem": in Virginia's WC testimony...

Virginia, AKA Mrs. Charlie Davis,
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/davis_vc.htm
"...Mr. BELIN. How old are you?
Mrs. DAVIS. Sixteen. (my comment; her testimony was taken on April 2, 1964, she was born in June, 1948)
....
...Mr. BELIN. In other words, to your---to the best of your recollection, you heard the shots, you ran outside, you saw Mrs. Markham---did you see anything else when you saw Mrs. Markham?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; we just saw a police car sitting on the side of the road.
Mr. BELIN. Where was the police car parked?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was parked between the hedge that marks the apartment house where he lives in and the house next door..."

Virginia was describing Tippit's girlfriend's temporary residence. (Her estranged spouse at the time was suspected
of shooting Tippit after he found out Tippit had impregnated her.) (see Gary Mack's description of Larry Harris's research
into Johnnie Maxie Witherspoon and her ex-husband and her suspected Tippit fathered daughter;
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/Mack%20Gary%20Cover-up/Item%2027.pdf )

Barbara : (In fairness, her earlier affidavit is much more definitive)
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/davis_b.htm
"...Mr. BALL. Did you see him throw anything away?
Mrs. DAVIS. No.
Mr. BALL. You didn't?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What did you do next?
Mrs. DAVIS. He looked at her first and looked at me and then smiled and went around the corner.
Mr. BALL. Was he running or walking?
Mrs. DAVIS. He was walking at his normal pace.
........
Mr. BALL. Put an "X" there. That "X" is a mark to locate your position and we will give a symbol to it. "D." Now, the line you have drawn from the sidewalk through the bushes is the course the man took. Where was he when you saw him emptying his gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. He was right here on the other side of this bush.
Mr. BALL. Draw a line through the course there.
Mrs. DAVIS. Just about along in here.
Mr. DULLES. Did you know at the time he was emptying his gun?
344


Mrs. DAVIS. That is what I presumed because he had it open and was shaking it.
Mr. DULLES. I see. Just right there..."

[David Von Pein]

I proved Virginia [Davis] lied to DPD and under oath to the WC, as to her age.

And even if she did lie about her age, how could that possibly matter? Or do you think her white lie about her age was just one of many lies she told to the authorities? (But why would you think that?)

Plus, I can see why the very young Virginia Davis just might want to fudge on her age a little bit (in the direction of being older than she really was). If you're right and she was born in June of 1948, that means she was only 15 years old on 11/22/63 (and when she gave her WC testimony too). And she was married at the time. So she might just have wanted people to think she was a little older, so she wouldn't be criticized or shunned as much for getting married at such a very young age. So she said she was 16.

If she was going to fudge her age (due to her marital status), I would think she would have wanted to tack on two years to her age, to make people think she was really 17, which would be a bit more "acceptable" (shall we say) to people reading her Warren Commission testimony and her affidavit.

BTW, in Virginia's affidavit, evidently it wasn't just her age that was a bone of contention, but also her gender. Because it would appear, based on what we find typed on the affidavit itself, that Dallas County notary public Patsy Collins thought Virginia Davis' gender was "male". (Maybe this error can spark yet another conspiracy theory surrounding the Davis girls.)

[Tom Scully]

And even if she did lie about her age, how could that possibly matter? Or do you think her white lie about her age was just one of many lies she told to the authorities? (But why would you think that?)

Plus, I can see why the very young Virginia Davis just might want to fudge on her age a little bit (in the direction of being older than she really was). If you're right and she was born in June of 1948, that means she was only 15 years old on 11/22/63 (and when she gave her WC testimony too). And she was married at the time. So she might just have wanted people to think she was a little older, so she wouldn't be criticized or shunned as much for getting married at such a very young age. So she said she was 16.

If she was going to fudge her age (due to her marital status), I would think she would have wanted to tack on two years to her age, to make people think she was really 17, which would be a bit more "acceptable" (shall we say) to people reading her Warren Commission testimony and her affidavit.

BTW, in Virginia's affidavit, evidently it wasn't just her age that was a bone of contention, but also her gender. Because it would appear, based on what we find typed on the affidavit itself, that Dallas County notary public Patsy Collins thought Virginia Davis' gender was "male". (Maybe this error can spark yet another conspiracy theory surrounding the Davis girls.)

The only point in your post I think is mildly unreasonable is you discount that if a judge presiding over a criminal trial Virginia testified as a witness in was presented with persuasive evidence she had lied about any detail of her testimony and I'm not disagreeing at all with your sympathetic portrayal of her motivation, it was a daunting enough experience if she witnessed what she testified to, without the added humiliation of admitting she was 15 and had just married a man nearly twice her age, but the trial judge would likely agree with a request from a defense attorney to instruct the jury that any lie by a witness gives the jury the option to ignore or diminish the weight of the entirety of that witness's testimony.


Name:    Charley Davis
Gender:    Male
Death Age:    83
Birth Date:    2 Aug 1935
Marriage Date:    7 Aug 1963
Death Date:    3 Aug 2018
Burial Date:    7 Aug 2018
Parents:    Lewis Davis; Anna Mae Davis
Spouse:    
Virginia Ruth Wilbanks

Virginia is alive, but a photo available at this link displays their joint headstone engraved with her full 1948 D.O.B.
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/191965658/

Link to Barbara's grave and obit to "cement" the link to her brother-in-law, Charley Davis
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/42544464/barbara-jeanette-davis
"..brother-in-law Charles and wife Virginia, Tulia;.."

[Charles Collins]

So many words and still not an answer to my question.

A presumption of innocence applies to an adversarial criminal trial with prosecution and defense cases being presented.

No, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies always. Even outside a court, when you accuse me of doing something wrong, you need to prove it either to law enforcement or just people around you. You can not go around accusing somebody of doing something wrong without proving it! If that wasn't the case, I could accuse you right now of robbing a bank, rape and whatever else comes to mind without consequence. Your reply would be - quite rightly so - that you didn't do any of it and that there is no evidence to support the claims. So, don't give me any of this theoretical crap!

In this particular circumstance LHO was not on trial. Therefore, technically, your question isn’t applicable to this case. An investigation is not a trial. The WC drew it’s conclusions based on the results of the investigation and stated their reasoning in the report.

So, basically what you are saying is that the WC could find an already dead Oswald guilty, without there ever having been a trial and that somehow means you can argue that he is guilty, despite the fact that he never had his day in court. Do you understand how insane that is?

It's in fact pathethic beyond belief. Oswald is being declared guilty by a commission, without ever having been on trial and despite the fact that the commission's opinion is in no way a legal finding of guilt, we, according to you and your ilk, still have to consider Oswald to somehow be proven guilty... Is that what you are really saying? When did this country become a third world banana republic?

An investigation is not a trial. The WC drew it’s conclusions based on the results of the investigation and stated their reasoning in the report.

It is true that an investigation is not a trial. But, as a trial is the only setting where somebody can be found guilty or innocent by a jury of his peers, the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, right? So. why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?

No, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies always.

You are mistaking your opinion as fact. But your opinion is wrong, again.

There is no presumption of innocence in a civil court (like there is in a criminal court). Also, in a civil court, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, however a preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof (not the same as the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in a criminal court).

BTW, now that I consider this, it is probably one of the main reasons that there are so many lawsuits that end up being settled (by negotiation) out of court.



So, basically what you are saying is that the WC could find an already dead Oswald guilty, without there ever having been a trial and that somehow means you can argue that he is guilty, despite the fact that he never had his day in court. Do you understand how insane that is?

It's in fact pathethic beyond belief. Oswald is being declared guilty by a commission, without ever having been on trial and despite the fact that the commission's opinion is in no way a legal finding of guilt, we, according to you and your ilk, still have to consider Oswald to somehow be proven guilty... Is that what you are really saying? When did this country become a third world banana republic?

There is nothing insane about it. There are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. No one is arguing that LHO was technically convicted by a jury. People are arguing about whether or not they think the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The WC reported that they believed that it does. That is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.

There are numerous cases where people are murdered and then the accused either takes his own life or is killed by police, etc. None of them can have trials either. Subsequent investigations bring out the evidence and a determination of what is believed to have happened is produced based on that evidence. But, here again, this is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.


It is true that an investigation is not a trial. But, as a trial is the only setting where somebody can be found guilty or innocent by a jury of his peers, the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, right? So. why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?


Trials do not always end up with the correct verdict. Hypothetically, if LHO had lived to stand trial, we would most likely have only a small portion of the evidence (that is available to us in the WC documents, etc) presented in court. And we probably would not have any information about how the jury deliberated, except what some of them might have chosen to share.

Again, no one is arguing that LHO was technically convicted in a court of law. The argument is about whether or not one believes that the evidence shows his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. None of us sat on a jury that was charged with determining the legal answer to that question. Therefore, none of our individual determinations have any legal consequences regarding a dead man who cannot be put on trial.

[Richard Smith]

No, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies always.

You are mistaking your opinion as fact. But your opinion is wrong, again.

There is no presumption of innocence in a civil court (like there is in a criminal court). Also, in a civil court, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, however a preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof (not the same as the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in a criminal court).

BTW, now that I consider this, it is probably one of the main reasons that there are so many lawsuits that end up being settled (by negotiation) out of court.



So, basically what you are saying is that the WC could find an already dead Oswald guilty, without there ever having been a trial and that somehow means you can argue that he is guilty, despite the fact that he never had his day in court. Do you understand how insane that is?

It's in fact pathethic beyond belief. Oswald is being declared guilty by a commission, without ever having been on trial and despite the fact that the commission's opinion is in no way a legal finding of guilt, we, according to you and your ilk, still have to consider Oswald to somehow be proven guilty... Is that what you are really saying? When did this country become a third world banana republic?

There is nothing insane about it. There are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. No one is arguing that LHO was technically convicted by a jury. People are arguing about whether or not they think the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The WC reported that they believed that it does. That is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.

There are numerous cases where people are murdered and then the accused either takes his own life or is killed by police, etc. None of them can have trials either. Subsequent investigations bring out the evidence and a determination of what is believed to have happened is produced based on that evidence. But, here again, this is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.


It is true that an investigation is not a trial. But, as a trial is the only setting where somebody can be found guilty or innocent by a jury of his peers, the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, right? So. why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?


Trials do not always end up with the correct verdict. Hypothetically, if LHO had lived to stand trial, we would most likely have only a small portion of the evidence (that is available to us in the WC documents, etc) presented in court. And we probably would not have any information about how the jury deliberated, except what some of them might have chosen to share.

Again, no one is arguing that LHO was technically convicted in a court of law. The argument is about whether or not one believes that the evidence shows his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. None of us sat on a jury that was charged with determining the legal answer to that question. Therefore, none of our individual determinations have any legal consequences regarding a dead man who cannot be put on trial.

That's an excellent post but wasted on Martin.  This has been explained to him a thousand times.  It is common sense.  He is vested, however, in applying the standards of a criminal trial to the JFK assassination because that allows him the best opportunity to suggest there is doubt as to Oswald's responsibility for this crime (i.e. he doesn't have to prove anything or make any sense) when all the evidence is against him.  Martin won't even confess to being a CTer.  He simply applies an impossible standard of proof to any evidence of Oswald's guilt while entertaining all manner of completely baseless and even inconsistent counter possibilities that could lend themselves to doubt.  Then goes into a song and dance that he isn't suggesting a conspiracy (strawman) - just that all the evidence could, maybe, possibly be suspect for some reason that he never explains.  Repeat endlessly.  But you know all this.  He can't be convinced by facts, logic, or reason or he would not take this silly defense attorney approach in the first place.  Tiresome in its endless repetition.

The only interesting question is whether Martin actually believes his own nonsense or is this just a hobby to pass the time.   You can take a contrarian approach to any topic and infuriate people by simply dismissing all the evidence as an "assumption" and string out any discussion endlessly.  Rational people are tempted to think that by discussing the issue using facts and evidence that such people can't help but be convinced of the obvious truth.  They are wrong.  That is exactly what a contrarian wants.  To entice others into using facts and logic so they can dismiss it on some false premise and keep the conversation going in circles endlessly.  Every single topic that involves Martin follows this exact pattern.  Is it an "attention seeking" motivation?  Who knows?  Maybe Otto or Roger Collins.

[Martin Weidmann]

No, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies always.

You are mistaking your opinion as fact. But your opinion is wrong, again.

There is no presumption of innocence in a civil court (like there is in a criminal court). Also, in a civil court, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, however a preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof (not the same as the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in a criminal court).

BTW, now that I consider this, it is probably one of the main reasons that there are so many lawsuits that end up being settled (by negotiation) out of court.

Thank you for sharing your flawed opinion. It's good to know that you feel I can accuse you of anything you like without you having the benefit of the presumption of innocence.

And btw, who - except you - is talking about a civil court?

So, basically what you are saying is that the WC could find an already dead Oswald guilty, without there ever having been a trial and that somehow means you can argue that he is guilty, despite the fact that he never had his day in court. Do you understand how insane that is?

It's in fact pathethic beyond belief. Oswald is being declared guilty by a commission, without ever having been on trial and despite the fact that the commission's opinion is in no way a legal finding of guilt, we, according to you and your ilk, still have to consider Oswald to somehow be proven guilty... Is that what you are really saying? When did this country become a third world banana republic?

There is nothing insane about it. There are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. No one is arguing that LHO was technically convicted by a jury. People are arguing about whether or not they think the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The WC reported that they believed that it does. That is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.

There are numerous cases where people are murdered and then the accused either takes his own life or is killed by police, etc. None of them can have trials either. Subsequent investigations bring out the evidence and a determination of what is believed to have happened is produced based on that evidence. But, here again, this is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.

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. In every normal case that is, which of course does not include this one, because here they kept on investigating and ultimately declared their opinion that the already dead Oswald was the lone gunman. It was of course not a verdict, in a legal sense, but it most certainly was presented like one to the American public.

People are arguing about whether or not they think the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The WC reported that they believed that it does. That is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.

Indeed. So when a LN claims that Oswald is the lone gun man, because the WC proved it, he is merely expressing his opinion and all the history books that claim as a fact that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit are wrong, right?

It is true that an investigation is not a trial. But, as a trial is the only setting where somebody can be found guilty or innocent by a jury of his peers, the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, right? So. why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?

Trials do not always end up with the correct verdict. Hypothetically, if LHO had lived to stand trial, we would most likely have only a small portion of the evidence (that is available to us in the WC documents, etc) presented in court. And we probably would not have any information about how the jury deliberated, except what some of them might have chosen to share.

Again, no one is arguing that LHO was technically convicted in a court of law. The argument is about whether or not one believes that the evidence shows his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. None of us sat on a jury that was charged with determining the legal answer to that question. Therefore, none of our individual determinations have any legal consequences regarding a dead man who cannot be put on trial.

Evasive and not the answer to my question, which was;

As the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?

I find it some what ironic that a die hard LN, who claims that Oswald is guilty, is now arguing that he was never convicted by any court (including the court of public opinion) which in consequence makes him, in the eyes of the law, an innocent man.