David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[Martin Weidmann]

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

What a pathetic and meaningless appeal to authority. Bugliosi acted as prosecutor in much the same way as the WC did before him. Obviously he's going to agree with the WC. The problem is that this prosecutorial case was never tested and challenged in an a proper legal setting (*), so all we've got here is Bugliosi expressing his opinions.


(*) Before you go there; no, the mock trial wasn't such a setting!

[Richard Smith]

Von P always seemed weak in the Tippit domain.

Specifically the evidence part.

ROFL

Using the contrarian logic, no one saw John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln.  They just heard a gun shot and turned to see Booth holding a smoking gun at Lincoln's head.  That doesn't rule out the possibility in the contrarian mind that Lincoln committed suicide and Booth was just unlucky enough to pick up the gun.  He then said to himself "this doesn't look good" and made a run for it.  It's possible. Right?  Just like it is possible to nitpick the claim that multiple witnesses saw Oswald shoot Tippit because they only saw him at the crime scene a moment after the crime was committed with a gun in his hand.  Maybe Old Ozzie rabbit was hunting for the real killer just like OJ.  It's possible.  Right?  It's so silly that ordinary people would be embarrassed to make these arguments.   Multiple witnesses place Oswald at the scene of the Tippit murder with a gun in his hand at the moment the crime occurred. None of these witnesses indicate that anyone else shot Tippit.  If you want to take issue with characterizing these witnesses as confirming that Oswald was the shooter, then knock yourself out.  That is a laughable distinction in this context.

[Charles Collins]

What a pathetic appeal to authority. Bugliosi acted as prosecutor in much the same way as the WC did before him. Obviously he's going to agree with the WC. The problem is that this prosecutorial case was never tested and challenged in an a proper legal setting. And, before you go there; no, the mock trial wasn't such a setting!

The problem is that this prosecutorial case was never tested and challenged in an a proper legal setting.

What do you consider to be a “proper legal setting” for this particular case?

[Martin Weidmann]

The problem is that this prosecutorial case was never tested and challenged in an a proper legal setting.

What do you consider to be a “proper legal setting” for this particular case?

In a proper legal setting the prosecutorial case would be challenged by counter arguments and additional evidence presented by a defense counsel.
Obviously that will never happen in this case, which makes Bugliosi's prosecutorial case merely an unproven opinion.

[Charles Collins]

In a proper legal setting the prosecutorial case would be challenged by counter arguments and additional evidence presented by a defense counsel.
Obviously that will never happen in this case, which makes Bugliosi's prosecutorial case merely an unproven opinion.

Obviously that will never happen in this case,


Once Jack Ruby had murdered LHO, there were no legal provisions for having a trial for a dead man. Which makes your “proper legal setting” completely false and irrelevant.

[Martin Weidmann]

Obviously that will never happen in this case,

Once Jack Ruby had murdered LHO, there were no legal provisions for having a trial for a dead man. Which makes your “proper legal setting” completely false and irrelevant.

There is nothing false about a proper legal setting.

What is false is to condemn a man based on a one sided prosecutorial narrative of which the veracity can never be verified.

And what is truly irrelevant is your biased opinion based upon that same prosecutorial narrative.

[Charles Collins]

There is nothing false about a proper legal setting.

What is false is to condemn a man based on a one sided prosecutorial narrative of which the veracity can never be verified.

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.