David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[John Iacoletti]

You can take a contrarian approach to any topic and infuriate people by simply dismissing all the evidence as an "assumption"

If this infuriates you then you should stop pretending that assumptions are evidence.

[Andrew Mason]

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

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.

So I guess that means that the Uvalde school shooting is unresolved because we can't figure out who did the shooting because the shooter can't have a trial?

[Martin Weidmann]

So I guess that means that the Uvalde school shooting is unresolved because we can't figure out who did the shooting because the shooter can't have a trial?

It's an absurd comparison and an even absurder question.

In Uvalde the killer was found dead at the scene and a multitude of people saw him shooting. He had the weapons that were used in the killing with him. There is no question whatsoever who the killer was in that case, but nevertheless in legal terms the case will officially remain unresolved in much the same way that a legal execution is still classified as a homicide.

In the Kennedy case, Oswald was not found at the scene, not a single credible witness saw him on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shooting took place, he did not have the murder weapon with him and the case against him is, at best, highly circumstantial based on very questionable and mostly unauthicated evidence.

If you don't understand the clear difference between the two cases, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Charles Collins]

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?

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?

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.

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.


It isn’t my opinion, it’s the law. Look it up. People quite often sue other people in civil court for all kinds of reasons. There is no presumption of innocence and the defendant is forced to provide evidence of non guilt. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, but all he has to do is provide enough evidence to tip the scales on his side. (Not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that is required in a criminal case.)



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

Your claim was that essentially that a presumption of innocence always applies. I brought up the fact that your claim is false because “always” would by definition include civil courts (where by law it does not apply). This is just one example, like I said earlier, criminal courts are where the presumption of innocence applies.



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….


No, everything does not stop. There is typically an investigation to determine what is believed to have happened. The prosecution would stop (if one had begun). But not the investigation. The public deserves answers as best as can be determined by that investigation. And that is what happened in this case.


Indeed. So when a LN claims that Oswald is the lone gun man, because the WC proved it, he is merely expressing his opinion…


Yes.


…and all the history books that claim as a fact that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit are wrong, right?

Technically, in today’s world (where political correctness appears to be more important than it was in years past) we would be inclined to say that LHO is the accused killer. This is because there can be no trial for a dead man. I would want to individually review any instances where a “history book” makes such a claim instead of offering a blanket statement like you are asking for in your question.



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 can only speak for myself. There is a difference between proven guilty, and proven legally guilty. A dead man cannot be put on trial.

For a hypothetical example, I could be wrong, but I would think that if a man who possessed property, but died, was later indicated to be guilty of murder by an investigation, that the family of the murdered victim would need to sue the estate of the murderer before getting any potential compensation. If I remember correctly, OJ Simpson was subjected to a civil lawsuit even after he was declared not guilty by a “jury”.

[Bill Chapman]

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.

You are spot on. Certain Oswald arse kissers attempt to get around being called a CTer (thus not having prove anything, yet still able to make outrageous 'suggestions') by simply playing the 'just asking questions' card. Otherwise known as 'JAQ-ing o**' in Internet Troll lingo.

'Trollface' is their calling card


"Trollface shows a troll, someone who annoys others on the internet for their own amusement.[2] The original comic by Ramirez mocked trolls;[3] however, the image is widely used by trolls.[10] Trollface has been described as the internet equivalent of the children's taunt "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah" or sticking one's tongue out.[10] The image is often accompanied by phrases such as "Problem?" or "You mad, bro?".[11] -Wikipedia

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

It isn’t my opinion, it’s the law. Look it up. People quite often sue other people in civil court for all kinds of reasons. There is no presumption of innocence and the defendant is forced to provide evidence of non guilt. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, but all he has to do is provide enough evidence to tip the scales on his side. (Not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that is required in a criminal case.)

Again, who - except you - is talking about a civil case? We are talking about a criminal case.

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

Your claim was that essentially that a presumption of innocence always applies. I brought up the fact that your claim is false because “always” would by definition include civil courts (where by law it does not apply). This is just one example, like I said earlier, criminal courts are where the presumption of innocence applies.

Ah, you're playing word games by pretending it wasn't obvious to you that I was talking about criminal cases, where the presumption of innocence does indeed always apply.

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….

No, everything does not stop. There is typically an investigation to determine what is believed to have happened. The prosecution would stop (if one had begun). But not the investigation. The public deserves answers as best as can be determined by that investigation. And that is what happened in this case.

Says you...  Okay, mr wise guy, show me one case, other than the Kennedy case, where the police continued to spend money and resources on an investigation that would never result in a prosecution because of the suspect's death

Indeed. So when a LN claims that Oswald is the lone gun man, because the WC proved it, he is merely expressing his opinion…

Yes.

Good... I know a few LNs who will disagree, but at least you're being honest about it.

…and all the history books that claim as a fact that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit are wrong, right?

Technically, in today’s world (where political correctness appears to be more important than it was in years past) we would be inclined to say that LHO is the accused killer. This is because there can be no trial for a dead man. I would want to individually review any instances where a “history book” makes such a claim instead of offering a blanket statement like you are asking for in your question.

I would want to individually review any instances where a “history book” makes such a claim instead of offering a blanket statement like you are asking for in your question.

Ask your fellow LNs, as they are frequently claiming that Oswald has gone down in history as the murderer of Kennedy and Tippit, as that is what is in the history books. Even the Texas Historical Commission states on the J.D. Tippit Commemorative Plaque that Tippit was murdered by Oswald. Go figure....

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 can only speak for myself. There is a difference between proven guilty, and proven legally guilty. A dead man cannot be put on trial.

If you really make that distiction then you are likely to be one of the few people that do that. In most cases LNs will claim that the WC has proven Oswald to be guilty, without realizing or understanding that they in fact are expressing their own opinion based on the evidence provided by the WC. Which, in fact, makes them no different from anybody who doesn't find the WC evidence compelling or persuasive. I gave up a long time ago to try and explain this to them.

For a hypothetical example, I could be wrong, but I would think that if a man who possessed property, but died, was later indicated to be guilty of murder by an investigation, that the family of the murdered victim would need to sue the estate of the murderer before getting any potential compensation. If I remember correctly, OJ Simpson was subjected to a civil lawsuit even after he was declared not guilty by a “jury”.

Yes. Simpson lost that civil case, but not because he was considered to be guilty of murder. And Simpson was of course still alive. It would be nearly impossible IMO to sue in civil court an estate of a dead man who was never tried or found guilty of murder in a criminal court. The responsibility for an alleged murder is not hereditary.

[Bill Chapman]

But what portion of that very long excerpt from Vincent's Sixth Floor Museum talk do you think is relevant at all? Care to elaborate? I'm just a little curious is all.

Bug saying in his story (in the video) about hardly anyone raising their hands when he asked who has read the Warren Report, links back to what I remember in the article I read (but cannot recover). I think he talked about the massive difference between the numbers of conspiracy-monger books, articles etc on the market as opposed to the relatively few WC books out there.. he might have included pro-WCR books with that; but again, I cannot be sure.

[John Iacoletti]

No, everything does not stop. There is typically an investigation to determine what is believed to have happened. The prosecution would stop (if one had begun). But not the investigation.

The WC wasn’t an investigation—it was a prosecution.