David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[Bill Chapman]

3) Brennan testified that he did not see the rifle discharge or recoil. It's also important to note that Brennan did not make a positive ID at the lineup he attended, despite already having seen Oswald's picture on TV
_ It's also important to note that Brennan said that the man in the window did not look messy(?). while Oswald-in-the-lineup did.
_ The Carcano has a small recoil

--------
BONUS
--------


billchapman

[Bill Chapman]

'Impossible since only one witness, Helen Markham, saw Tippit being shot.  The lineups were unfair and biased by any reasonable standard and hence unreliable'
_Since when is only one witness insufficient to convict. Since when is a witness necessarily needed to see Oswald actually shoot Tippit. Since when is the murder weapon necessarily needed to convict.

Now lets see you post images that you deem suitable for a lineup

Oh, wait.. I'll do that for you


billchapman

[John Iacoletti]

CTers suffer from the fatal flaw of not being able to properly and reasonably and logically assess the evidence and Oswald's actions.

“Properly and reasonably and logically assess” defined as agreeing with the “Oswald did it” evangelists’ unfounded and unsubstantiated assumptions and pretending that they are facts.

There is no need to prove that anything is faked when 19 of your 21 items aren’t evidence at all. This is just a weak attempt to shift the burden of proof anyway. It’s your responsibility to prove that the evidence you are relying on is authentic (and even relevant). Even if it is all authentic, your incredibly weak rhetorical argument does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt who killed Kennedy.

[John Iacoletti]

Chapman’s contributions are irrelevant, as usual. David’s treatise claims that “multiple witnesses confirm it was Oswald who shot Officer Tippit”. That’s just flat out false.

[David Von Pein]

And thank you for repeatedly showing your ignorance of such basic concepts known as "evidence" and "assumption".

And I suppose you're also silly enough to think that the late attorney Vincent T. Bugliosi (the former very successful trial lawyer that you, Otto Beck, obnoxiously referred to as a "whackjob" yesterday) was also "ignorant" and had no idea what the term "evidence" meant, right? Because Vince went even further than my 21-item list. He's got a list of 53 things in his 2007 book that he says point to the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald (on Pages 951-969 of "Reclaiming History").

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-674.html

And since most Internet CTers are firmly devoted to disregarding all the evidence against Oswald, I'm sure most of those conspiracists, just like they do with my 21-item list, are of the opinion that nothing on Bugliosi's 53-item list constitutes any "evidence" whatsoever. ~smh~

Some Bonus Bugliosi Gems (to get under the skin of CTers): 

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence." -- Vincent Bugliosi

"It is remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- Vincent Bugliosi

"With respect to the Kennedy assassination, once you establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you also necessarily know that there is an answer (whether the answer is known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi

"There is a simple fact of life that Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists either don't realize or fail to take into consideration, something I learned from my experience as a prosecutor; namely, that you cannot be innocent and yet still have a prodigious amount of highly incriminating evidence against you. That's just not what happens in life. .... With Lee Harvey Oswald, everything, everything points towards his guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi

"It couldn't have been more obvious within hours after the assassination that Oswald had murdered Kennedy, and within no more than a day or so thereafter that he had acted alone. And this is precisely the conclusion that virtually all local (Dallas), state (Texas), and federal (FBI and Secret Service) law enforcement agencies came to shortly after the assassination. Nothing has ever changed their conclusion or proved it wrong." -- Vincent Bugliosi

"Very few people are more critical than I. And I expect incompetence wherever I turn, always pleasantly surprised to find its absence. Competence, of course, is all relative, and I find the Warren Commission operated at an appreciably higher level of competence than any investigative body I know of. It is my firm belief that anyone who feels the Warren Commission did not do a good job investigating the murder of Kennedy has never been a part of a murder investigation." -- Vincent Bugliosi

"Even if Ruby was at Parkland, to assume he was there to plant a bullet on Connally's stretcher to frame Oswald for Kennedy's murder, making Ruby a part of the conspiracy to murder Kennedy, is too ludicrous for words. The philosophy of the zany conspiracy theorists is that if something is theoretically possible (as most things are), then it's not only probable, it happened." -- Vincent Bugliosi

"No evidence plus no common sense equals go home, zipper your mouth up, take a walk, forget about it, get a life. Of course, the hard-core conspiracy theorists, who desperately want to cling to their illusions, are not going to do any of these things. .... If these conspiracy theorists were to accept the truth, not only would they be invalidating a major part of their past, but many would be forfeiting their future. That's why talking to them about logic and common sense is like talking to a man without ears. The bottom line is that they want there to be a conspiracy and are constitutionally allergic to anything that points away from it." -- Vincent Bugliosi

http://reclaiminghistory.blogspot.com/2010/12/reclaiming-history.html#Summary-Of-Oswald's-Guilt

[David Von Pein]

You were trying to make a point?

Just to re-emphasize the fact that most CTers have a penchant for ignoring the obvious (i.e., the evidence against Oswald). You seem to reinforce that fact every time you open your mouth.

[Bill Chapman]

20) Again, "could have" doesn't mean "did".  If Oswald made such a trip in the required 75-90 second timeframe, he somehow managed to do it without being seen or heard by Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles who were in the same stairwell at the time, or by Dorothy Garner who heard Adams and Styles go down before Truly and Baker came up, or by any of the other 9 people who were on floors 4 and 5.
_You must be claiming that all those mentioned were actually listening for people on the stairs.