David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[Martin Weidmann]

Eyewitness identification of someone not recognized at the scene as someone known to the witness is one of the most unreliable kinds of evidence.  But not the general description.  The general description is what the witness saw.  The identification of someone not known to the witness is an opinion, and a highly unreliable one at that. That kind of evidence should never be sufficient as the basis of a legal conclusion.  But in Oswald's case it was not the basis of the conclusion that Oswald shot Officer Tippit.
Ok, this time in crayon for you:  In Oswald's case, the ID card for "Alek Hidell" with Oswald's photo was on his person and the murder weapon left in the TSBD carried the same ID.

Eyewitness identification of someone not recognized at the scene as someone known to the witness is one of the most unreliable kinds of evidence.

Indeed. 

That kind of evidence should never be sufficient as the basis of a legal conclusion.  But in Oswald's case it was not the basis of the conclusion that Oswald shot Officer Tippit.

Like hell it wasn't! You just tell any LN about the evidentiary problems with the physical evidence and they all fall back on "Oswald was identified my several witnesses".

Ok, this time in crayon for you:  In Oswald's case, the ID card for "Alek Hidell" with Oswald's photo was on his person and the murder weapon left in the TSBD carried the same ID.


What in the world makes you think for even one second that the Hidell ID card was on Oswald's person? Paul Bentley was the cop who took Oswald's wallet from him in the car. The next day, during in interview on TV, Bentley was asked what was in the wallet and he answered something along the lines of "the usual things". He in fact mentioned a driver's license and a credit card. What he most certainly didn't mention was an Hidell ID card. In fact, none of the officers who were in the car mention a Hidell ID in their reports.

The first time the Hidell ID pops up is when Gus Rose (who just started work) talked to Oswald at the station. There, an unidentified person, gave him a wallet and said it belonged to Oswald. It was in that wallet the Hidell ID was found. There is not a shred of evidence this was the same wallet that Bentley took from Oswald.

And as far as the murder weapon is concerned; there is no evidence that the revolver now in evidence is in fact that one that was taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater. Detective Carroll said he pulled a revolver out of somebody's hand, but he didn't know whose hand it was. He then give the revolver to Detective Hill who subsequently walked around with it for at least two hours, showing it to the media and even giving it to Bentley (if I remember correctly) before he had a bunch of officers in the personnel room initial the revolver after telling them it was Oswald's revolver.

[John Iacoletti]

Positive ID is not needed if the person fit the general description AND the suspect was immediately followed into a general area, then as he was approached by police he punched an officer in the face, pulled out his the victim's phone out of his waistband and said "Well, its all over now", and was carrying ID that was identical to the ID he left at the scene of a robbery committed an hour earlier.  Or would that crime with those facts still be unsolveable for you?

What makes you think those things are facts?

(Also, “victim’s phone”?)

[Andrew Mason]

What in the world makes you think for even one second that the Hidell ID card was on Oswald's person? Paul Bentley was the cop who took Oswald's wallet from him in the car. The next day, during in interview on TV, Bentley was asked what was in the wallet and he answered something along the lines of "the usual things". He in fact mentioned a driver's license and a credit card. What he most certainly didn't mention was an Hidell ID card. In fact, none of the officers who were in the car mention a Hidell ID in their reports.

So they didn't read all the things in the wallet.

The first time the Hidell ID pops up is when Gus Rose (who just started work) talked to Oswald at the station. There, an unidentified person, gave him a wallet and said it belonged to Oswald. It was in that wallet the Hidell ID was found. There is not a shred of evidence this was the same wallet that Bentley took from Oswald.

You seem to be overlooking the testimony of Rose (7H228):

Mr. ROSE. Well, the first thing I asked him was what his name was and he told me it was Hidell.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you it was Hidell?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; he did.
Mr. BALL. He didn’t tell you it was Oswald?
Mr. ROSE. No; he didn’t, not right then-he did later. In a minute-1 found two cards-I found a card that said “A. Hidell.” And I found another card that said “Lee Oswald’ on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn’t tell me at the time, he just said, “You find nut.” And then in just a few minutes Captain Fritz came in and he told me to get two men and go to Irving and search his house.
Mr. BALL. Now, when he first Came in there you said that he said his name was “Hidell”?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was that before you saw the two cards?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it was.
Mr. BALL. Before you saw the cards?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it was."

And as far as the murder weapon is concerned; there is no evidence that the revolver now in evidence is in fact that one that was taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater. Detective Carroll said he pulled a revolver out of somebody's hand, but he didn't know whose hand it was. He then give the revolver to Detective Hill who subsequently walked around with it for at least two hours, showing it to the media and even giving it to Bentley (if I remember correctly) before he had a bunch of officers in the personnel room initial the revolver after telling them it was Oswald's revolver.

Well, Caroll said he took it from someone's hand in the Texas Theatre and kept it in his possession and put his initials on it before turning it over to Hill. It was not a police weapon and all but one of the people in the melee in the Texas Theatre were police officers. 

There is also evidence that the revolver is indistinguishable from the revolver shown in the back-yard photos.  There is also evidence that this was the gun that killed Officer Tippit.

[Martin Weidmann]

So they didn't read all the things in the wallet.

I can't decide if this is a hilarious or a pathetic answer.

It most certainly isn't worthy of a reply.

You seem to be overlooking the testimony of Rose (7H228):

Mr. ROSE. Well, the first thing I asked him was what his name was and he told me it was Hidell.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you it was Hidell?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; he did.
Mr. BALL. He didn’t tell you it was Oswald?
Mr. ROSE. No; he didn’t, not right then-he did later. In a minute-1 found two cards-I found a card that said “A. Hidell.” And I found another card that said “Lee Oswald’ on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn’t tell me at the time, he just said, “You find nut.” And then in just a few minutes Captain Fritz came in and he told me to get two men and go to Irving and search his house.
Mr. BALL. Now, when he first Came in there you said that he said his name was “Hidell”?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was that before you saw the two cards?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it was.
Mr. BALL. Before you saw the cards?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it was."

That's just Guy Rose's recollection. And it simply doesn't make sense, because Bentley had already identified him in the car as Oswald and he knew they had his wallet. So, why in the world would Oswald say his name was Hidell.

Well, Caroll said he took it from someone's hand in the Texas Theatre and kept it in his possession and put his initials on it before turning it over to Hill. It was not a police weapon and all but one of the people in the melee in the Texas Theatre were police officers. 

Yes, Carroll did take it from someone's hand. He just didn't know who that was. And you are wrong about Carroll keeping the revolver in his possession and putting his initials on before turning it over to Hill.

He gave the revolver to Hill in the car as they were driving to the station;

Mr. CARROLL. After leaving the theatre and getting into the car, I released the pistol to Sgt. Jerry Hill.
Mr. BELIN. Sgt. G. L. Hill?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Who drove the car down to the station?
Mr. CARROLL. I drove the car.
Mr. BELIN. Did you give it to him before you started up the car, or after you started up the car, if you remember?
Mr. CARROLL. After.
Mr. BELIN. How far had you driven when you gave it to him?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't recall exactly how far I had driven.

He initialed the revolver at the DPD personnel office, several hours later.

Mr. BELIN. Where did you put the initials?
Mr. CARROLL. Where was I, or where did I put the initials on the pistol?
Mr. BELIN. Where were you?
Mr. CARROLL. I was in the personnel office of the city of Dallas police department.
Mr. BELIN. With Sergeant Hill?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, and others who were present.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see Sergeant Hill take it out of his pocket or wherever he had it, or not?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What day did you put your initials on it?
Mr. CARROLL. November 22, 1963.

There is also evidence that the revolver is indistinguishable from the revolver shown in the back-yard photos.  There is also evidence that this was the gun that killed Officer Tippit.

Show me that evidence, please.

It would be interesting to see how you they can identify a revolver in a photo when it is in a holster.

As for linking the revolver to the murder of Tippit, try again. They could not ballistically match the shells found at the Tippit scene to the revolver and only Joseph Nicol claimed he could match one of the bullets taken from Tippit's body to the revolver. All other experts disagreed. Having said that, I may very well be that the revolver now in evidence was the one used to kill Tippit, but there is no chain of custody linking it to Oswald.

Now, unless you got your law degree at some supermarket where they gave it away as some special offer, you will know and understand that the chain of custody is required to ensure that the authenticity and validity of a piece of evidence can be maintained. When a chain of custody doesn't exist or is broken there is a possibility of manipulation of the evidence. When that happens the evidence can no longer be validated or relied upon. Do you agree?

[David Von Pein]

"Just having Lee Oswald in the general area of the [Tippit] crime, with a gun, and acting "funny" and obviously avoiding the police is a good hunk of circumstantial evidence leading to his guilt right there. Where does the road of common sense take a reasonable person when JUST the above after-the-shooting activity of Lee Harvey Oswald is examined objectively? It sure doesn't lead to total innocence, I'll tell ya that right now. (Especially when the stuff that went on inside the movie theater is factored in as well.) In a nutshell, this murder boils down to the following concrete fact (based on the overall weight of the evidence that surrounds the crime): If Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill J.D. Tippit -- then J.D. Tippit wasn't killed at all. Maybe it was all some kind of "Bobby Was In The Shower" type of dream or something instead." -- David Von Pein; October 2006

[John Iacoletti]

Well, Caroll said he took it from someone's hand in the Texas Theatre and kept it in his possession and put his initials on it before turning it over to Hill.

Carroll didn't say that, and in fact it's false.  Nobody initialed a revolver until a couple of hours later in the personnel office.

There is also evidence that the revolver is indistinguishable from the revolver shown in the back-yard photos.  There is also evidence that this was the gun that killed Officer Tippit.

That's also false.  There's nothing distinguishable about the handgun in the backyard photos.  And the gun that killed Officer Tippit cannot be determined because there were insufficient characteristics on the bullets removed from Tippit to identify one.

[Martin Weidmann]

"Just having Lee Oswald in the general area of the [Tippit] crime, with a gun, and acting "funny" and obviously avoiding the police is a good hunk of circumstantial evidence leading to his guilt right there. Where does the road of common sense take a reasonable person when JUST the above after-the-shooting activity of Lee Harvey Oswald is examined objectively? It sure doesn't lead to total innocence, I'll tell ya that right now. (Especially when the stuff that went on inside the movie theater is factored in as well.) In a nutshell, this murder boils down to the following concrete fact (based on the overall weight of the evidence that surrounds the crime): If Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill J.D. Tippit -- then J.D. Tippit wasn't killed at all. Maybe it was all some kind of "Bobby Was In The Shower" type of dream or something instead." -- David Von Pein; October 2006

Oh boy, somebody is freakin' out

[John Iacoletti]

They could not ballistically match the shells found at the Tippit scene to the revolver

They did ballistically match the 4 shells that are in evidence to the revolver Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket.  They just can't demonstrate with any confidence that those 4 shells were found at the Tippit scene or had anything to do with Oswald or with Tippit's murder.