David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[Charles Collins]

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?

No, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies always.

You are mistaking your opinion as fact. But your opinion is wrong, again.

There is no presumption of innocence in a civil court (like there is in a criminal court). Also, in a civil court, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, however a preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof (not the same as the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in a criminal court).

BTW, now that I consider this, it is probably one of the main reasons that there are so many lawsuits that end up being settled (by negotiation) out of court.



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?

There is nothing insane about it. There are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. No one is arguing that LHO was technically convicted by a jury. People are arguing about whether or not they think the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The WC reported that they believed that it does. That is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.

There are numerous cases where people are murdered and then the accused either takes his own life or is killed by police, etc. None of them can have trials either. Subsequent investigations bring out the evidence and a determination of what is believed to have happened is produced based on that evidence. But, here again, this is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.


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?


Trials do not always end up with the correct verdict. Hypothetically, if LHO had lived to stand trial, we would most likely have only a small portion of the evidence (that is available to us in the WC documents, etc) presented in court. And we probably would not have any information about how the jury deliberated, except what some of them might have chosen to share.

Again, no one is arguing that LHO was technically convicted in a court of law. The argument is about whether or not one believes that the evidence shows his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. None of us sat on a jury that was charged with determining the legal answer to that question. Therefore, none of our individual determinations have any legal consequences regarding a dead man who cannot be put on trial.

[Richard Smith]

No, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies always.

You are mistaking your opinion as fact. But your opinion is wrong, again.

There is no presumption of innocence in a civil court (like there is in a criminal court). Also, in a civil court, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, however a preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof (not the same as the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in a criminal court).

BTW, now that I consider this, it is probably one of the main reasons that there are so many lawsuits that end up being settled (by negotiation) out of court.



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?

There is nothing insane about it. There are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. No one is arguing that LHO was technically convicted by a jury. People are arguing about whether or not they think the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The WC reported that they believed that it does. That is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.

There are numerous cases where people are murdered and then the accused either takes his own life or is killed by police, etc. None of them can have trials either. Subsequent investigations bring out the evidence and a determination of what is believed to have happened is produced based on that evidence. But, here again, this is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.


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?


Trials do not always end up with the correct verdict. Hypothetically, if LHO had lived to stand trial, we would most likely have only a small portion of the evidence (that is available to us in the WC documents, etc) presented in court. And we probably would not have any information about how the jury deliberated, except what some of them might have chosen to share.

Again, no one is arguing that LHO was technically convicted in a court of law. The argument is about whether or not one believes that the evidence shows his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. None of us sat on a jury that was charged with determining the legal answer to that question. Therefore, none of our individual determinations have any legal consequences regarding a dead man who cannot be put on trial.

That's an excellent post but wasted on Martin.  This has been explained to him a thousand times.  It is common sense.  He is vested, however, in applying the standards of a criminal trial to the JFK assassination because that allows him the best opportunity to suggest there is doubt as to Oswald's responsibility for this crime (i.e. he doesn't have to prove anything or make any sense) when all the evidence is against him.  Martin won't even confess to being a CTer.  He simply applies an impossible standard of proof to any evidence of Oswald's guilt while entertaining all manner of completely baseless and even inconsistent counter possibilities that could lend themselves to doubt.  Then goes into a song and dance that he isn't suggesting a conspiracy (strawman) - just that all the evidence could, maybe, possibly be suspect for some reason that he never explains.  Repeat endlessly.  But you know all this.  He can't be convinced by facts, logic, or reason or he would not take this silly defense attorney approach in the first place.  Tiresome in its endless repetition.

The only interesting question is whether Martin actually believes his own nonsense or is this just a hobby to pass the time.   You can take a contrarian approach to any topic and infuriate people by simply dismissing all the evidence as an "assumption" and string out any discussion endlessly.  Rational people are tempted to think that by discussing the issue using facts and evidence that such people can't help but be convinced of the obvious truth.  They are wrong.  That is exactly what a contrarian wants.  To entice others into using facts and logic so they can dismiss it on some false premise and keep the conversation going in circles endlessly.  Every single topic that involves Martin follows this exact pattern.  Is it an "attention seeking" motivation?  Who knows?  Maybe Otto or Roger Collins.

[Martin Weidmann]

No, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies always.

You are mistaking your opinion as fact. But your opinion is wrong, again.

There is no presumption of innocence in a civil court (like there is in a criminal court). Also, in a civil court, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, however a preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof (not the same as the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in a criminal court).

BTW, now that I consider this, it is probably one of the main reasons that there are so many lawsuits that end up being settled (by negotiation) out of court.

Thank you for sharing your flawed opinion. It's good to know that you feel I can accuse you of anything you like without you having the benefit of the presumption of innocence.

And btw, who - except you - is talking about a civil court?

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?

There is nothing insane about it. There are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. No one is arguing that LHO was technically convicted by a jury. People are arguing about whether or not they think the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The WC reported that they believed that it does. That is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.

There are numerous cases where people are murdered and then the accused either takes his own life or is killed by police, etc. None of them can have trials either. Subsequent investigations bring out the evidence and a determination of what is believed to have happened is produced based on that evidence. But, here again, this is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.

Of course there are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. In fact, when a suspect or accused dies the investigation or prosecution instantly dies with him. Everything stops that very moment and the case remains unresolved and you can not declare that the dead man is guilty of anything. In every normal case that is, which of course does not include this one, because here they kept on investigating and ultimately declared their opinion that the already dead Oswald was the lone gunman. It was of course not a verdict, in a legal sense, but it most certainly was presented like one to the American public.

People are arguing about whether or not they think the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The WC reported that they believed that it does. That is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.

Indeed. So when a LN claims that Oswald is the lone gun man, because the WC proved it, he is merely expressing his opinion and all the history books that claim as a fact that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit are wrong, right?

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?

Trials do not always end up with the correct verdict. Hypothetically, if LHO had lived to stand trial, we would most likely have only a small portion of the evidence (that is available to us in the WC documents, etc) presented in court. And we probably would not have any information about how the jury deliberated, except what some of them might have chosen to share.

Again, no one is arguing that LHO was technically convicted in a court of law. The argument is about whether or not one believes that the evidence shows his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. None of us sat on a jury that was charged with determining the legal answer to that question. Therefore, none of our individual determinations have any legal consequences regarding a dead man who cannot be put on trial.

Evasive and not the answer to my question, which was;

As the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?

I find it some what ironic that a die hard LN, who claims that Oswald is guilty, is now arguing that he was never convicted by any court (including the court of public opinion) which in consequence makes him, in the eyes of the law, an innocent man.

[John Iacoletti]

You can take a contrarian approach to any topic and infuriate people by simply dismissing all the evidence as an "assumption"

If this infuriates you then you should stop pretending that assumptions are evidence.

[Andrew Mason]

And btw, who - except you - is talking about a civil court?

Of course there are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. In fact, when a suspect or accused dies the investigation or prosecution instantly dies with him. Everything stops that very moment and the case remains unresolved and you can not declare that the dead man is guilty of anything.

So I guess that means that the Uvalde school shooting is unresolved because we can't figure out who did the shooting because the shooter can't have a trial?

[Martin Weidmann]

So I guess that means that the Uvalde school shooting is unresolved because we can't figure out who did the shooting because the shooter can't have a trial?

It's an absurd comparison and an even absurder question.

In Uvalde the killer was found dead at the scene and a multitude of people saw him shooting. He had the weapons that were used in the killing with him. There is no question whatsoever who the killer was in that case, but nevertheless in legal terms the case will officially remain unresolved in much the same way that a legal execution is still classified as a homicide.

In the Kennedy case, Oswald was not found at the scene, not a single credible witness saw him on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shooting took place, he did not have the murder weapon with him and the case against him is, at best, highly circumstantial based on very questionable and mostly unauthicated evidence.

If you don't understand the clear difference between the two cases, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Charles Collins]

Thank you for sharing your flawed opinion. It's good to know that you feel I can accuse you of anything you like without you having the benefit of the presumption of innocence.

And btw, who - except you - is talking about a civil court?

Of course there are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. In fact, when a suspect or accused dies the investigation or prosecution instantly dies with him. Everything stops that very moment and the case remains unresolved and you can not declare that the dead man is guilty of anything. In every normal case that is, which of course does not include this one, because here they kept on investigating and ultimately declared their opinion that the already dead Oswald was the lone gunman. It was of course not a verdict, in a legal sense, but it most certainly was presented like one to the American public.

People are arguing about whether or not they think the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The WC reported that they believed that it does. That is not the same thing as being convicted in a court of law.

Indeed. So when a LN claims that Oswald is the lone gun man, because the WC proved it, he is merely expressing his opinion and all the history books that claim as a fact that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit are wrong, right?

Evasive and not the answer to my question, which was;

As the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?

I find it some what ironic that a die hard LN, who claims that Oswald is guilty, is now arguing that he was never convicted by any court (including the court of public opinion) which in consequence makes him, in the eyes of the law, an innocent man.

Thank you for sharing your flawed opinion. It's good to know that you feel I can accuse you of anything you like without you having the benefit of the presumption of innocence.


It isn’t my opinion, it’s the law. Look it up. People quite often sue other people in civil court for all kinds of reasons. There is no presumption of innocence and the defendant is forced to provide evidence of non guilt. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, but all he has to do is provide enough evidence to tip the scales on his side. (Not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that is required in a criminal case.)



And btw, who - except you - is talking about a civil court?

Your claim was that essentially that a presumption of innocence always applies. I brought up the fact that your claim is false because “always” would by definition include civil courts (where by law it does not apply). This is just one example, like I said earlier, criminal courts are where the presumption of innocence applies.



In fact, when a suspect or accused dies the investigation or prosecution instantly dies with him. Everything stops that very moment and the case remains unresolved….


No, everything does not stop. There is typically an investigation to determine what is believed to have happened. The prosecution would stop (if one had begun). But not the investigation. The public deserves answers as best as can be determined by that investigation. And that is what happened in this case.


Indeed. So when a LN claims that Oswald is the lone gun man, because the WC proved it, he is merely expressing his opinion…


Yes.


…and all the history books that claim as a fact that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit are wrong, right?

Technically, in today’s world (where political correctness appears to be more important than it was in years past) we would be inclined to say that LHO is the accused killer. This is because there can be no trial for a dead man. I would want to individually review any instances where a “history book” makes such a claim instead of offering a blanket statement like you are asking for in your question.



As the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?

I can only speak for myself. There is a difference between proven guilty, and proven legally guilty. A dead man cannot be put on trial.

For a hypothetical example, I could be wrong, but I would think that if a man who possessed property, but died, was later indicated to be guilty of murder by an investigation, that the family of the murdered victim would need to sue the estate of the murderer before getting any potential compensation. If I remember correctly, OJ Simpson was subjected to a civil lawsuit even after he was declared not guilty by a “jury”.