David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[Martin Weidmann]

In this particular case (which is what my earlier question to you is based on) there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man. Therefore, your idea of a proper legal setting is improper and not legal. This makes your claim false and irrelevant.

In this particular case (which is what my earlier question to you is based on) there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man.

Indeed, so why did the WC not only build a biased prosecutorial case against a dead man but also convict him?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

In this particular case (which is what my earlier question to you is based on) there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man. Therefore, your idea of a proper legal setting is improper and not legal. This makes your claim false and irrelevant.

Yes and yes. But you have to repeat this several times for it to be understood. If you're lucky.

But let me play lawyer and point out that even this proposed "legal setting" doesn't necessarily find the truth since, after all, it's not designed to. The court/legal standard or adversarial process is designed to find, based on the decision of a jury of the defendant's peers, whether the government has proven, using the law, beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has committed a crime.  It's not designed to discover the truth. As we know, lots of innocent people have been convicted; lots of guilty people have been found not guilty. It's the best system we can come up with; but it's not perfect and finding the "truth" is not the goal.

The Oswald defenders, for some unknown reason, want to use this legalistic standard - "chain of custody" and other legal rules - to throw out the evidence against him. If they were interested in the truth, in what really happened, they wouldn't engage in these defense lawyer like tactics.  But here we are. And here they are.

[Charles Collins]

In this particular case (which is what my earlier question to you is based on) there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man.

Indeed, so why did the WC not only build a biased prosecutorial case against a dead man but also convict him?

The Warren Commission had no authority to either prosecute or convict anyone, dead or alive. Take a look in the mirror if you want to see a biased person. Your opinions are just that…opinions.

[Richard Smith]

OK....

Correct.

Absolutely!

Any claim from witnesses must be nitpicked.

No, because the claim is false AND it's questionable if it was Oswald, based on the inconsistency of the witness accounts.

Not likely...

Possible, but not probable.

You just did, so does that make you extraordinary?

Define "multiple" when you've decided on how long a moment is.

Right, so we're now down to Markham and Scoggins who didn't see Markham; not good for your case.

Um, this can't fix any of the inconsistant testimonies...

Not sure what this means, but it all sounds like another of your reruns.

So you believe there is doubt that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln because we can't eliminate the possibility of suicide!  Why am I not surprised?   There were multiple different witnesses who identified LHO as the person at the Tippit scene with a drawn gun at the time of his murder.  Oswald was arrested a short distance away with the gun and in possession of the SAME two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit.  Instead of waiting for the DPD to explain what they wanted, Oswald instead pulled his gun and engaged in a struggle.  It's a slam dunk.

[Martin Weidmann]

The Warren Commission had no authority to either prosecute or convict anyone, dead or alive. Take a look in the mirror if you want to see a biased person. Your opinions are just that…opinions.

The Warren Commission had no authority to either prosecute or convict anyone, dead or alive.

And still, they did exactly that when they concluded that Oswald was guilty. Go figure!

Btw, if the WC, for lack of authority, did not prosecute or convict Oswald and he never had his day in court, do you think the presumption of innocence should still apply for Oswald?

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes and yes. But you have to repeat this several times for it to be understood. If you're lucky.

But let me play lawyer and point out that even this proposed "legal setting" doesn't necessarily find the truth since, after all, it's not designed to. The court/legal standard or adversarial process is designed to find, based on the decision of a jury of the defendant's peers, whether the government has proven, using the law, beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has committed a crime.  It's not designed to discover the truth. As we know, lots of innocent people have been convicted; lots of guilty people have been found not guilty. It's the best system we can come up with; but it's not perfect and finding the "truth" is not the goal.

The Oswald defenders, for some unknown reason, want to use this legalistic standard - "chain of custody" and other legal rules - to throw out the evidence against him. If they were interested in the truth, in what really happened, they wouldn't engage in these defense lawyer like tactics.  But here we are. And here they are.

But let me play lawyer and point out that even this proposed "legal setting" doesn't necessarily find the truth since, after all, it's not designed to. The court/legal standard or adversarial process is designed to find, based on the decision of a jury of the defendant's peers, whether the government has proven, using the law, beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has committed a crime.  It's not designed to discover the truth. As we know, lots of innocent people have been convicted; lots of guilty people have been found not guilty. It's the best system we can come up with; but it's not perfect and finding the "truth" is not the goal.

100% correct. It surely isn't a perfect system, but it beats hands down a commission operating in secret, using selective evidence, not asking the hard questions that need answers, publishing a report and locking away the evidence for years to come.

The Oswald defenders, for some unknown reason, want to use this legalistic standard - "chain of custody" and other legal rules - to throw out the evidence against him. If they were interested in the truth, in what really happened, they wouldn't engage in these defense lawyer like tactics.  But here we are. And here they are.


Why are you so defensive and generalizing?

As far as I am concerned, I'm not defending anybody. I just want to know what really happened and the best way to do so is to look at the evidence. I don't want to throw out any evidence. Instead all I want to do is make sure the evidence is authenticated and valid. Why is that a problem for you?

What's the big deal? If the evidence against Oswald is so conclusive and overwhelming as the LNs claim, than why are they whining about people wanting to scrutinize that evidence?

[Charles Collins]

But let me play lawyer and point out that even this proposed "legal setting" doesn't necessarily find the truth since, after all, it's not designed to. The court/legal standard or adversarial process is designed to find, based on the decision of a jury of the defendant's peers, whether the government has proven, using the law, beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has committed a crime.  It's not designed to discover the truth. As we know, lots of innocent people have been convicted; lots of guilty people have been found not guilty. It's the best system we can come up with; but it's not perfect and finding the "truth" is not the goal.

100% correct. It surely isn't a perfect system, but it beats hands down a commission operating in secret, using selective evidence, not asking the hard questions that need answers, publishing a report and locking away the evidence for years to come.

The Oswald defenders, for some unknown reason, want to use this legalistic standard - "chain of custody" and other legal rules - to throw out the evidence against him. If they were interested in the truth, in what really happened, they wouldn't engage in these defense lawyer like tactics.  But here we are. And here they are.


Why are you so defensive and generalizing?

As far as I am concerned, I'm not defending anybody. I just want to know what really happened and the best way to do so is to look at the evidence. I don't want to throw out any evidence. Instead all I want to do is make sure the evidence is authenticated and valid. Why is that a problem for you?

What's the big deal? If the evidence against Oswald is so conclusive and overwhelming as the LNs claim, than why are they whining about people wanting to scrutinize that evidence?

It surely isn't a perfect system, but it beats hands down a commission operating in secret, using selective evidence, not asking the hard questions that need answers, publishing a report and locking away the evidence for years to come.

Two misconceptions about the Warren Commission hearing need to be clarified...hearings were closed to the public unless the witness appearing before the Commission requested an open hearing. No witness except one...requested an open hearing... Second, although the hearings (except one) were conducted in private, they were not secret. In a secret hearing, the witness is instructed not to disclose his testimony to any third party, and the hearing testimony is not published for public consumption. The witnesses who appeared before the Commission were free to repeat what they said to anyone they pleased, and all of their testimony was subsequently published in the first fifteen volumes put out by the Warren Commission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission