David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[Michael Walton]

"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

This goes both ways, Dave:

"Just having [a creaky gun that was snuck into the building, reassembled but not test fired, with a telescope on it that was not properly aligned, fired three times - scoring two perfect shots but a middle shot being so far off that it went downwind to strike up concrete and hit a spectator - all within 6 seconds] is a good hunk of circumstantial evidence leading to [the claimed evidence being doubtful] right there."

I could on with many other items but you get the idea. This goes both ways, Dave.

[Andrew Mason]

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.

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.

Caroll said he initialled the gun in the presence of Hill in the personnel office.   So I take it that your point is that Hill was part of a giant conspiracy to fabricate evidence and to plant a gun that fired the shells found at the Tippit murder scene and then trick several officers into identifying it as the gun that Oswald admitted he was carrying.

[Andrew Mason]

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.

No one has to prove each fact beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. They just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the offence: that Oswald caused the death of JFK and that he intended to do so.  That can be proven on many pieces of evidence, none of which need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Charles Collins]

No one has to prove each fact beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. They just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the offence: that Oswald caused the death of JFK and that he intended to do so.  That can be proven on many pieces of evidence, none of which need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am guessing that you will be asked to explain this in more detail, because each time the naysayers try to shed doubt on any of the evidence they appear to believe that they have completely destroyed the case…

[Martin Weidmann]

Caroll said he initialled the gun in the presence of Hill in the personnel office.   So I take it that your point is that Hill was part of a giant conspiracy to fabricate evidence and to plant a gun that fired the shells found at the Tippit murder scene and then trick several officers into identifying it as the gun that Oswald admitted he was carrying.

The problem with LNs in general is that they instantly go into drama mode when they are asked a simple question, like the one we are discussing.

Nobody is accusing Hill or Carroll to be part of the dramatic "giant conspiracy". The question is about the chain of custody and evidence authentification. If you can not autheticate a piece of evidence you also can not rely upon it. In this case, Carroll not initialling the revolver before giving it to Hill and then initialling it several hours later is a violation of basic chain of custody rules. The same goes for initialling the revolved based upon something another officer said.

You can not argue, as you seem to be doing, that it doesn't matter that Carroll and/or Hill did not know where the revolver came from and that they initialled it based upon somebody else telling them it was Oswald's revolver. You also can not argue that you can rely on the revolver being authentic nevertheless, because the alternative might be that there was a massive conspiracy. And you most certainly can not argue that Oswald admitted he was carrying the revolver now in evidence, because he never did any such thing. He was never shown the revolver now in evidence and only confirmed that he had indeed a revolver on him which he said he had bought in Fort Worth several months later. So, to claim that Oswald confirmed that he ever had the revolver now in evidence is a lie, plain and simple.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I am guessing that you will be asked to explain this in more detail, because each time the naysayers try to shed doubt on any of the evidence they appear to believe that they have completely destroyed the case…

Yes. They've convinced themselves that raising doubt on one piece of evidence ("Chain of custody!" or "The lineups were unfair") means the cases, plural, against Oswald can be dismissed. They insist on stripping each single piece of evidence, pieces that they consider "invalid", out of any larger context and then afterwards conclude that that larger context can be similarly considered "invalid" or "deconstructed". Oswald is essentially made to disappear from what happened that day. He is nowhere to be found since all of these claims about him are invalid or supposition or conjecture. Poof, he's gone.

If you apply this method or approach to any other event you can essentially render what happened impossible to explain (or you can substitute any other explanation instead). The event is reduced to a series of disjointed claims and accounts. When this is pointed out they insist otherwise.

You'll also notice that they - these so-called non-conspiracy posters - don't use this method against the conspiracy claims. This is most notable in the recent allegations that Ruth Paine was involved, was working for the CIA. In that case, these "I'm not a conspiracist" are nowhere to be found. Again and again and again they do this; raising doubt about the claims against Oswald but silence about the claims against others. But think they can pretend to be "non conspiracists." Sorry, at this point no one is buying this anymore.

[Charles Collins]

Yes. They've convinced themselves that raising doubt on one piece of evidence ("Chain of custody!" or "The lineups were unfair") means the cases, plural, against Oswald can be dismissed. They insist on stripping each single piece of evidence, pieces that they consider "invalid", out of any larger context and then afterwards conclude that that larger context can be similarly considered "invalid" or "deconstructed". Oswald is essentially made to disappear from what happened that day. He is nowhere to be found since all of these claims about him are invalid or supposition or conjecture. Poof, he's gone.

If you apply this method or approach to any other event you can essentially render what happened impossible to explain (or you can substitute any other explanation instead). The event is reduced to a series of disjointed claims and accounts. When this is pointed out they insist otherwise.

You'll also notice that they - these so-called non-conspiracy posters - don't use this method against the conspiracy claims. This is most notable in the recent allegations that Ruth Paine was involved, was working for the CIA. In that case, these "I'm not a conspiracist" are nowhere to be found. Again and again and again they do this; raising doubt about the claims against Oswald but silence about the claims against others. But think they can pretend to be "non conspiracists." Sorry, at this point no one is buying this anymore.

What it appears to boil down to, in just about every discussion, is a distrust of anyone in authority and anyone who believes that the authorities are capable of telling the truth. Their minds appear to be closed to any possible chance of that being the case.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes. They've convinced themselves that raising doubt on one piece of evidence ("Chain of custody!" or "The lineups were unfair") means the cases, plural, against Oswald can be dismissed. They insist on stripping each single piece of evidence, pieces that they consider "invalid", out of any larger context and then afterwards conclude that that larger context can be similarly considered "invalid" or "deconstructed". Oswald is essentially made to disappear from what happened that day. He is nowhere to be found since all of these claims about him are invalid or supposition or conjecture. Poof, he's gone.

If you apply this method or approach to any other event you can essentially render what happened impossible to explain (or you can substitute any other explanation instead). The event is reduced to a series of disjointed claims and accounts. When this is pointed out they insist otherwise.

You'll also notice that they - these so-called non-conspiracy posters - don't use this method against the conspiracy claims. This is most notable in the recent allegations that Ruth Paine was involved, was working for the CIA. In that case, these "I'm not a conspiracist" are nowhere to be found. Again and again and again they do this; raising doubt about the claims against Oswald but silence about the claims against others. But think they can pretend to be "non conspiracists." Sorry, at this point no one is buying this anymore.

They've convinced themselves that raising doubt on one piece of evidence ("Chain of custody!" or "The lineups were unfair") means the cases, plural, against Oswald can be dismissed.

I am truly sorry that your reading comprehension is so bad that it leaves you completely clueless. If there was only one piece of evidence that is doubtful, you might be right to say that would not be enough to dismiss the case against Oswald, but in this case just about all the physical evidence is highly questionable. It is truly appalling with how much ease you and your ilk are willing to overlook or play down the need for evidence to be authenticated.

They insist on stripping each single piece of evidence, pieces that they consider "invalid", out of any larger context and then afterwards conclude that that larger context can be similarly considered "invalid" or "deconstructed".

Those pieces of evidence that are being stripped away, would they happen to be the exact same ones you use to create your "larger context"? I'm actually not sure what you are trying to say here, but it seems to be something like; it doesn't matter if the individual pieces of evidence are not persuasive or authentic, as long as we can combine them in a "larger context" we still have a case against Oswald. I truly hope that's not what you are saying, because if it is, it is a pretty stupid comment to make.

This is most notable in the recent allegations that Ruth Paine was involved, was working for the CIA. In that case, these "I'm not a conspiracist" are nowhere to be found.

I seem to be one of those non-corspiracist guys you are talking about and I am not really sure what you want from me. First of all, I have never claimed that Ruth Paine was working for the CIA. Secondly, I don't know if she was working for the CIA or not and neither do you. So what exactly would you like me to say? I haven't got a clue, which I stay out of those kinds of discussions, but perhaps you can enlighten me....