David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't care what it is technically called, mr wise guy. All that matters is that you were wrong to say that somebody was charged with anything in civil court.

No I wasn't wrong. The (non-criminal) charge is indicated in the complaint. It would not be a criminal charge if it was in a civil court. But it is a charge. To be charged with something does not mean that the charge is criminal.



So, now that the Wikipedia page doesn't support your argument, you look for support at a TV show? Wow...

No, I saw that particular documentary show some time ago. That is the reason I brought this particular incident up.



When the NTSB asks the FBI to do further testing, it is clear that it is the NTSB that's conducting the investigation being supported by the FBI and not the other way around. You seem to have shot yourself in the foot with this one!

You are wrong again. If the NTSB was still leading the investigation they would not state that the FBI should "retain control of the tape, since this was clearly a criminal act as opposed to an accident." The NTSB was asking for further metal examination of the box for crash evaluation purposes.


Requesting the FBI to do further testing is not the same as conducting a full blown criminal investigation.

The NTSB conducted the crash evaluation portion of the investigation, that is where their expertise lies. The FBI had jurisdiction in this case because, as the above referenced document states, this was clearly a criminal act, as opposed to an accident.

You are wrong again, and (as usual) refuse to admit it.


I refuse to accept the word of a guy who relies on TV shows to make a bogus argument. If it is "typical standard operating procedure" as you claim then there should at least be a manual or some similar document that outlines the procedures to follow etc. Show me that document and you might convince me.
Why don't you

You can go on believing your ridiculous claim that criminal investigations end immediately with the death of the suspect. I have shown plenty of evidence that indicates otherwise. You still have not shown even one example that supports your ridiculous claim.

OK, one more response, just because this is getting beyond hilarious.

When the NTSB asks the FBI to do further testing, it is clear that it is the NTSB that's conducting the investigation being supported by the FBI and not the other way around. You seem to have shot yourself in the foot with this one!

You are wrong again. If the NTSB was still leading the investigation they would not state that the FBI should "retain control of the tape, since this was clearly a criminal act as opposed to an accident." The NTSB was asking for further metal examination of the box for crash evaluation purposes.

Do you think before you write? If the FBI was leading the investigation, the NTSB would not have to request that the FBI retains control of the black box. They would do it by themselves without needing permission or a request from the NTSB.

Requesting the FBI to do further testing is not the same as conducting a full blown criminal investigation.

The NTSB conducted the crash evaluation portion of the investigation, that is where their expertise lies. The FBI had jurisdiction in this case because, as the above referenced document states, this was clearly a criminal act, as opposed to an accident.

You are wrong again, and (as usual) refuse to admit it.

Of course does the FBI have jurisdiction when a federal crime is involved. What you seem to be missing is that the investigation conducted by the NTSB revealed there might have been a crime involved in the crash, which is when the FBI joined the investigation and had jurisdiction for the criminal aspect of the case. That's entirely different from a full blown investigation, like they conducted after Oswald died.

And the only thing I was wrong about, which I now freely admit, is giving you way more credit than you deserve.

[Charles Collins]

OK, one more response, just because this is getting beyond hilarious.

Do you think before you write? If the FBI was leading the investigation, the NTSB would not have to request that the FBI retains control of the black box. They would do it by themselves without needing permission or a request from the NTSB.


Of course does the FBI have jurisdiction when a federal crime is involved. What you seem to be missing is that the investigation conducted by the NTSB revealed there might have been a crime involved in the crash, which is when the FBI joined the investigation and had jurisdiction for the criminal aspect of the case. That's entirely different from a full blown investigation, like they conducted after Oswald died.

And the only thing I was wrong about, which I now freely admit, is giving you way more credit than you deserve.

Do you think before you write? If the FBI was leading the investigation, the NTSB would not have to request that the FBI retains control of the black box. They would do it by themselves without needing permission or a request from the NTSB.


My apologies, upon reading the document again, it appears that I interpreted it incorrectly earlier. It appears that the NTSB requested the flight recorder box from the FBI so that the NTSB could do the further testing of the metal. And it appears that the FBI, for unknown reasons, gave them the complete package including the tapes, etc. The document states that the NTSB returned the tapes, etc back to the FBI for custody because this was clearly a criminal act as opposed to an accident. It is apparently basically a record of the chain of custody.

It appears that you are wrong (again).



Of course does the FBI have jurisdiction when a federal crime is involved. What you seem to be missing is that the investigation conducted by the NTSB revealed there might have been a crime involved in the crash, which is when the FBI joined the investigation and had jurisdiction for the criminal aspect of the case. That's entirely different from a full blown investigation, like they conducted after Oswald died.

It appears that we are making a little progress from your earlier position:

Wrong example. This investigation was conducted by investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board. They are by law obliged to investigate all plane crashes and they use the resources of the F.B.I. to do it. The purpose of their investigation was to determine what caused the crash. It was not a criminal investigation, even though, at the end, they concluded that a lone gunman caused the crash.

At least it appears that you acknowledge that there was a criminal investigation. And it clearly did not end when the suspect died.



And the only thing I was wrong about, which I now freely admit, is giving you way more credit than you deserve

 

[Michael Walton]

Like the propagandist and coward that he is, David has already posted some of this conversation on his website without the consent of the authors, selectively editing out replies that expose his fallacies, refute his claims, or make him look bad — thus creating a false narrative. Then he posted a link to the page as click-bait in his Facebook “JFK VIDEO, AUDIO, PHOTOS AND DISCUSSION” group. And now he’s deleting comments made in response to his dishonesty.

Yep, that's pretty much how he does things. Always sanitizes things on his site to make it one-sided and then links it to his YouTube channel to bring views and cash in. Funnily enough, if you look at his channel it's very neutral - not a single pro Warren Report video over there. If you didn't know better you'd think he was a devoted loyalist to Kennedy [wink-wink].

There's really no use arguing with him about the case. He's got a nice little money-making schtick going here so why rock the boat.

[David Von Pein]

Yep, that's pretty much how he does things. Always sanitizes things on his site to make it one-sided and then links it to his YouTube channel to bring views and cash in. Funnily enough, if you look at his channel it's very neutral - not a single pro Warren Report video over there. If you didn't know better you'd think he was a devoted loyalist to Kennedy [wink-wink].

There's really no use arguing with him about the case. He's got a nice little money-making schtick going here so why rock the boat.

Michael Walton doesn't know what he's talking about.

[John Iacoletti]

I believe that his YouTube channel is not currently monetized. And honestly, I wouldn’t care if it was because he performs a valuable service collecting and making these recordings and videos available.

[Andrew Mason]

I wasn't saying that they were the same.

Really? Then why bring it up in the first place?

Because you made an unqualified statement that you cannot declare a dead man guilty of anything.

I take it that you would agree that your statement is not correct.

Not sure on which planet you live or what you have been smoking, but my statement was and still is absolutely correct.
I'm sorry that you seem to not understand what I said.

So, just let me get this straight: you ARE saying that the Uvalde shooting "remains unresolved and you can not declare that the dead man is guilty of anything."

[John Iacoletti]

If Hill actually knew about a cluster of shells, it would have come from Poe who in turn got it from Benavides.

Exactly right. What’s with Hill’s “we found the shells” nonsense?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Because you made an unqualified statement that you cannot declare a dead man guilty of anything.
So, just let me get this straight: you ARE saying that the Uvalde shooting "remains unresolved and you can not declare that the dead man is guilty of anything."

It's not clear to me what he is claiming but the 9/11 Commission declared that Mohammed Atta and the other hijackers were guilty of mass murder in the attacks. None of the hijackers had defense counsel or representatives defending their innocence during that investigation.

More closely related to the assassination, in his opening statements in the Clay Shaw trial Jim Garrison declared Oswald guilty of conspiracy in the murder of JFK. He also said this repeatedly, of course, out of it. He also declared in court in the same trial and out of it that David Ferrie, who was also dead at the time, was also guilty as well. He also said Ruby, who was also dead, was involved in the assassination (and not just in the murder of Oswald).

I'm sure there are other examples.