David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[Bill Chapman]

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.

You are spot on. Certain Oswald arse kissers attempt to get around being called a CTer (thus not having prove anything, yet still able to make outrageous 'suggestions') by simply playing the 'just asking questions' card. Otherwise known as 'JAQ-ing o**' in Internet Troll lingo.

'Trollface' is their calling card


"Trollface shows a troll, someone who annoys others on the internet for their own amusement.[2] The original comic by Ramirez mocked trolls;[3] however, the image is widely used by trolls.[10] Trollface has been described as the internet equivalent of the children's taunt "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah" or sticking one's tongue out.[10] The image is often accompanied by phrases such as "Problem?" or "You mad, bro?".[11] -Wikipedia

[Martin Weidmann]

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.)

Again, who - except you - is talking about a civil case? We are talking about 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.

Ah, you're playing word games by pretending it wasn't obvious to you that I was talking about criminal cases, where the presumption of innocence does indeed always apply.

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.

Says you...  Okay, mr wise guy, show me one case, other than the Kennedy case, where the police continued to spend money and resources on an investigation that would never result in a prosecution because of the suspect's death

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.

Good... I know a few LNs who will disagree, but at least you're being honest about it.

…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.

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.

Ask your fellow LNs, as they are frequently claiming that Oswald has gone down in history as the murderer of Kennedy and Tippit, as that is what is in the history books. Even the Texas Historical Commission states on the J.D. Tippit Commemorative Plaque that Tippit was murdered by Oswald. Go figure....

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.

If you really make that distiction then you are likely to be one of the few people that do that. In most cases LNs will claim that the WC has proven Oswald to be guilty, without realizing or understanding that they in fact are expressing their own opinion based on the evidence provided by the WC. Which, in fact, makes them no different from anybody who doesn't find the WC evidence compelling or persuasive. I gave up a long time ago to try and explain this to them.

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”.

Yes. Simpson lost that civil case, but not because he was considered to be guilty of murder. And Simpson was of course still alive. It would be nearly impossible IMO to sue in civil court an estate of a dead man who was never tried or found guilty of murder in a criminal court. The responsibility for an alleged murder is not hereditary.

[Bill Chapman]

But what portion of that very long excerpt from Vincent's Sixth Floor Museum talk do you think is relevant at all? Care to elaborate? I'm just a little curious is all.

Bug saying in his story (in the video) about hardly anyone raising their hands when he asked who has read the Warren Report, links back to what I remember in the article I read (but cannot recover). I think he talked about the massive difference between the numbers of conspiracy-monger books, articles etc on the market as opposed to the relatively few WC books out there.. he might have included pro-WCR books with that; but again, I cannot be sure.

[John Iacoletti]

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 WC wasn’t an investigation—it was a prosecution.

[John Iacoletti]

Like the propagandist and coward that he is, David has already posted some of this conversation on his website without the consent of the authors, selectively editing out replies that expose his fallacies, refute his claims, or make him look bad — thus creating a false narrative. Then he posted a link to the page as click-bait in his Facebook “JFK VIDEO, AUDIO, PHOTOS AND DISCUSSION” group. And now he’s deleting comments made in response to his dishonesty.

[Charles Collins]

Again, who - except you - is talking about a civil case? We are talking about a criminal case.

Ah, you're playing word games by pretending it wasn't obvious to you that I was talking about criminal cases, where the presumption of innocence does indeed always apply.

Says you...  Okay, mr wise guy, show me one case, other than the Kennedy case, where the police continued to spend money and resources on an investigation that would never result in a prosecution because of the suspect's death

Good... I know a few LNs who will disagree, but at least you're being honest about it.

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.

Ask your fellow LNs, as they are frequently claiming that Oswald has gone down in history as the murderer of Kennedy and Tippit, as that is what is in the history books. Even the Texas Historical Commission states on the J.D. Tippit Commemorative Plaque that Tippit was murdered by Oswald. Go figure....

If you really make that distiction then you are likely to be one of the few people that do that. In most cases LNs will claim that the WC has proven Oswald to be guilty, without realizing or understanding that they in fact are expressing their own opinion based on the evidence provided by the WC. Which, in fact, makes them no different from anybody who doesn't find the WC evidence compelling or persuasive. I gave up a long time ago to try and explain this to them.

Yes. Simpson lost that civil case, but not because he was considered to be guilty of murder. And Simpson was of course still alive. It would be nearly impossible IMO to sue in civil court an estate of a dead man who was never tried or found guilty of murder in a criminal court. The responsibility for an alleged murder is not hereditary.

Again, who - except you - is talking about a civil case? We are talking about a criminal case.

Ah, you're playing word games by pretending it wasn't obvious to you that I was talking about criminal cases, where the presumption of innocence does indeed always apply.


There was no criminal case for LHO (after he was murdered) it ended when LHO was declared dead at Parkland Hospital. We are discussing the investigation that followed. You asked whether the presumption of innocence still applied to LHO. My answer is that that presumption applies to criminal courts. You said: No, the presumption always applies. You didn’t qualify your question as pertaining only to criminal courts. Instead you simply said that the presumption always applies and began a silly tirade about if it didn’t that you would be able to accuse me of anything. Yes, you can. But then the burden in upon you to show evidence that your claim is true.


Says you...  Okay, mr wise guy, show me one case, other than the Kennedy case, where the police continued to spend money and resources on an investigation that would never result in a prosecution because of the suspect's death

Show me one where they didn’t.


Ask your fellow LNs, as they are frequently claiming that Oswald has gone down in history as the murderer of Kennedy and Tippit, as that is what is in the history books. Even the Texas Historical Commission states on the J.D. Tippit Commemorative Plaque that Tippit was murdered by Oswald. Go figure....

These politically correct days, we would most likely distinguish the difference between a convicted murderer and an accused murderer. However, there have been numerous convicted murderers who have been later proven innocent. Therefore, just because a conviction was obtained, it does not always mean that the truth has been uncovered and that justice has taken place.


Yes. Simpson lost that civil case, but not because he was considered to be guilty of murder.

Because a mere 50.001% chance of guilt was all that was needed, they found him “responsible” for the two deaths.


It would be nearly impossible IMO to sue in civil court an estate of a dead man who was never tried or found guilty of murder in a criminal court. The responsibility for an alleged murder is not hereditary.


Any property in an estate has to go through the courts to be sure there are no claims against it before any possible heirs get their share. Attorneys for the estate would probably be able to defend against any claims. In other words, if OJ had died before the civil trial, the families of the murder victims could have still sued the estate. Provided that it was done before the courts made transfer to any legal heirs to his estate.

[Charles Collins]

The WC wasn’t an investigation—it was a prosecution.

A prosecution is the institution and carrying on of legal proceedings against a person. You cannot prosecute a dead man. There are no provisions for it in the law.