David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Iacoletti has a mental disorder.  We all have a mental disorder of some kind, ie where our brains don’t recognise reality, with all due respect to the limitations of the available evidence.
But a good brain will recognise the need for better evidence -- it hinges around the ability to judge evidence -- the ability to see the need to find additional evidence.
The ability to find new evidence must help (when i say new i mean mainly secondhand, but not well known).

Iacoletti i think believes that Oswald is a patsy, ie that Oswald didn’t shoot anyone that day. Or any other day.
Iacoletti might make some good comments re the shortfalls in some of them there 21 points, but to have decided that Oswald is a patsy shows a mental disorder.

What to call this kind of mental disorder?    Oswaldism?     Patsyism?    CTer  (JFK conspiracy theorest).
There can be no doubt that there was at least one kind of conspiracy on that day, or after that day, we can all agree on that.  But, what kind of conspiracies?

We see the same kind of mental disorder re Godism.  FlatEarthism.  Einsteinism.  UFOism.  BigBangism.  USAism.  Republicanism.  Trumpism.  Communism.  Democratism. 

Me myself i was in the hands of Christian Brothers for a couple of years, & then Nuns for a few years, which has scarred my brain for life (including limiting my intelligence for life).

I suppose that mental illness is a matter of degree. Physcosis --   disorder –  phobia -- intelligence.   
However, i suspect that phsychiatrists fail to recognise the last one – intelligence -- lack of intelligence (of some kind) is i think a disorder (we could call this moronism).

WIKILEAKS….. In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) redefined mental disorders in the DSM-5 as "a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning."[16] The final draft of ICD-11 contains a very similar definition.[17]

WIKILEAKS………. A mental disorder, also called a mental illness[3] or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning.[4] Such features may be persistent, relapsing and remitting, or occur as single episodes. Many disorders have been described, with signs and symptoms that vary widely between specific disorders.[5][6] Such disorders may be diagnosed by a mental health professional, usually a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist.

The causes of mental disorders are often unclear. Theories may incorporate findings from a range of fields. Mental disorders are usually defined by a combination of how a person behaves, feels, perceives, or thinks.[7] This may be associated with particular regions or functions of the brain, often in a social context. A mental disorder is one aspect of mental health. Cultural and religious beliefs, as well as social norms, should be taken into account when making a diagnosis.[8]

LNers (lone nutters) are the enemy of the CTers.  LNers believe tha Oswald fired 3 shots, including Z313 the headshot.
Hickeyists or Hickeyians say that Hickey fired Z313, & that Oswald fired 2 shots.
Hickeyists are quasi-LNers, in that they believe that Oswald acted alone.
Hickeyists are quasi-CTers, in that they believe that there were lots of conspiracies, but pre-eminently the conspiracy to hide that JFK had been accidentally shot by a SSA.

But back to the main topic, me.
I appear to be the only active Hickeyist on this forum today.
That makes me the only sane person on this forum today.
Lemmeeseenow – i am an atheist (good) – an aetherist (good)(ie anti Einstein stuff) – a socialist (good).
Hmmmm – technically i am an alcoholic (red wine) -- & a genius (which probly qualifies as a mental disorder). Ok – that makes me and Iacoletti even i guess.

[Charles Collins]

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?

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


No, the WC did it’s duty in accordance to Executive Order 11130.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11130


Nothing in that Executive Order relates to any kind of prosecution or conviction. Once LHO was murdered on 11/24/63, those anticipated legal proceedings became null and void and never happened because, as I said earlier, there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man.

[Martin Weidmann]

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

No, the WC did it’s duty in accordance to Executive Order 11130.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11130

Nothing in that Executive Order relates to any kind of prosecution or conviction. Once LHO was murdered on 11/24/63, those anticipated legal proceedings became null and void and never happened because, as I said earlier, there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man.

Evasive and non responsive.

No, the WC did it’s duty in accordance to Executive Order 11130.

Semantics! Are you clueless to how these things work in real life or are you just pretending to be? Do you really think that the President is going to put down in writing that he wants an already dead Oswald to be prosecuted and convicted? Of course not.... Ever heard of plausible deniability?

The purposes of the Commission are to examine the evidence developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and any additional evidence that may hereafter come to light or be uncovered by Federal or State authorities; to make such further investigation as the Commission finds desirable; to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding such assassination, including the subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination, and to report to me its findings and conclusions.

The Commission is empowered to prescribe its own procedures and to employ such assistants as it deems necessary.

Translation; "investigate" this case in any way you want and report to me (so, not the American people, right?) your conclusion.

BS. Word salad does not cover up the fact that the WC de facto determined and announced to the whole world that Lee Harvey Oswald alone was responsible for both killings, exactly in accordance with the Katzenbach memo.

But I'll ask you again;

If the WC, for lack of authority, did not prosecute or convict Oswald (they just concluded he did it, right? and he never had his day in court, do you think the presumption of innocence should still apply for Oswald?

[Charles Collins]

Evasive and non responsive.

No, the WC did it’s duty in accordance to Executive Order 11130.

Semantics! Are you clueless to how these things work in real life or are you just pretending to be? Do you really think that the President is going to put down in writing that he wants an already dead Oswald to be prosecuted and convicted? Of course not.... Ever heard of plausible deniability?

The purposes of the Commission are to examine the evidence developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and any additional evidence that may hereafter come to light or be uncovered by Federal or State authorities; to make such further investigation as the Commission finds desirable; to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding such assassination, including the subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination, and to report to me its findings and conclusions.

The Commission is empowered to prescribe its own procedures and to employ such assistants as it deems necessary.

Translation; "investigate" this case in any way you want and report to me (so, not the American people, right?) your conclusion.

BS. Word salad does not cover up the fact that the WC de facto determined and announced to the whole world that Lee Harvey Oswald alone was responsible for both killings, exactly in accordance with the Katzenbach memo.

But I'll ask you again;

If the WC, for lack of authority, did not prosecute or convict Oswald (they just concluded he did it, right? and he never had his day in court, do you think the presumption of innocence should still apply for Oswald?

A presumption of innocence applies to an adversarial criminal trial with prosecution and defense cases being presented. That presumption is designed to place the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It effectively protects the accused against having to prove non-guilt.

In this particular circumstance LHO was not on trial. Therefore, technically, your question isn’t applicable to this case. An investigation is not a trial. The WC drew it’s conclusions based on the results of the investigation and stated their reasoning in the report. Contrary to your earlier claim, this was a proper legal setting for this particular circumstance. A trial, and all of its procedures, would not have been a proper legal setting.

[John Iacoletti]

It is pathetically sad that so many CTers apparently think otherwise.

It is pathetically sad that LN-cultists think that they are not doing that.

[John Iacoletti]

Another thing that’s pathetically sad is that “Richard Smith” thinks his rants about Lincoln somehow make his misinformation about the JFK evidence any more true.

[Martin Weidmann]

A presumption of innocence applies to an adversarial criminal trial with prosecution and defense cases being presented. That presumption is designed to place the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It effectively protects the accused against having to prove non-guilt.

In this particular circumstance LHO was not on trial. Therefore, technically, your question isn’t applicable to this case. An investigation is not a trial. The WC drew it’s conclusions based on the results of the investigation and stated their reasoning in the report. Contrary to your earlier claim, this was a proper legal setting for this particular circumstance. A trial, and all of its procedures, would not have been a proper legal setting.

So many words and still not an answer to my question.

A presumption of innocence applies to an adversarial criminal trial with prosecution and defense cases being presented.

No, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies always. Even outside a court, when you accuse me of doing something wrong, you need to prove it either to law enforcement or just people around you. You can not go around accusing somebody of doing something wrong without proving it! If that wasn't the case, I could accuse you right now of robbing a bank, rape and whatever else comes to mind without consequence. Your reply would be - quite rightly so - that you didn't do any of it and that there is no evidence to support the claims. So, don't give me any of this theoretical crap!

In this particular circumstance LHO was not on trial. Therefore, technically, your question isn’t applicable to this case. An investigation is not a trial. The WC drew it’s conclusions based on the results of the investigation and stated their reasoning in the report.

So, basically what you are saying is that the WC could find an already dead Oswald guilty, without there ever having been a trial and that somehow means you can argue that he is guilty, despite the fact that he never had his day in court. Do you understand how insane that is?

It's in fact pathethic beyond belief. Oswald is being declared guilty by a commission, without ever having been on trial and despite the fact that the commission's opinion is in no way a legal finding of guilt, we, according to you and your ilk, still have to consider Oswald to somehow be proven guilty... Is that what you are really saying? When did this country become a third world banana republic?

An investigation is not a trial. The WC drew it’s conclusions based on the results of the investigation and stated their reasoning in the report.

It is true that an investigation is not a trial. But, as a trial is the only setting where somebody can be found guilty or innocent by a jury of his peers, the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, right? So. why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?