David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[Michael Walton]

It would have been an enormous coincidence if the murders of JFK and Tippit were unrelated.  JFK is the only president to ever be murdered in Dallas.  Tippit was the only DPD officer to be murdered in a several year span before and after 1963.  Both were murdered in broad daylight within a short time and distance of one another.  Individuals such as Hugh Aynesworth left the TSBD upon learning of the Tippit murder in Oak Cliff because he thought the events were related.  That doesn't alone mean that they had to related, but there was a high probability of being related given the proximity in time and distance and extreme rarity of these events.  Now we know with absolute certainty that they were related based upon the evidence and investigation.  To suggest otherwise is another contrarian absurdity.

I have absolutely no idea what your point is here.

[Andrew Mason]

Positive ID is not needed if the person fit the general description

Contact the innocence project. They probably will disagree with you.

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.

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.

What in the world are you rambling on about?

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. 

[Richard Smith]

I have absolutely no idea what your point is here.

It's pretty simple.  Both the murder of a President and DPD officer were extremely rare events.  No DPD officer was murdered in a several years span before or after Tippit.  As in several years. That both events would occur within an hour of each other just a short distance away in broad daylight on Nov. 22, 1963 and not be related would be extremely unlikely.  People like Hugh Aynesworth understood that from the moment he learned of Tippit's murder and left the TSBD because he believed it was related to the JFK assassination.  Which, of course, it was.

[Andrew Mason]

It's pretty simple.  Both the murder of a President and DPD officer were extremely rare events.  No DPD officer was murdered in a several years span before or after Tippit.  As in several years. That both events would occur within an hour of each other just a short distance away in broad daylight on Nov. 22, 1963 and not be related would be extremely unlikely.  People like Hugh Aynesworth understood that from the moment he learned of Tippit's murder and left the TSBD because he believed it was related to the JFK assassination.  Which, of course, it was.

The coincidence of time, location and kind of act would raise a high level of suspicion of being connected but without an evidentiary link (ie. the same person conclusively linked to each murder weapon) would not be evidence that they were connected. 

[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.