David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[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.

[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.