David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[Steve M. Galbraith]

At what point in time and under what conditions did these officers make the statements that you are basing your claims on?

He's going to try and "deconstruct" the evidence and make the revolver disappear. But he won't give an alternate explanation for the existence of this revolver; he won't explain how it came to be in the possession of the police; he won't explain how the police got the actual revolver that was used to shoot Tippit. The shells recovered by eyewitnesses as the scene (from places AWAY from the direct location of the shooting (by Tippit's car); that dismisses the "gun was an automatic" argument) - many of whom say the gunman was Oswald - were fired from that revolver. If it wasn't Oswald then how did the police acquire that revolver?

Again: how did they get that revolver?

He won't answer any of this. He can't. He's trapped himself in his defense of Oswald so that he cannot offer any alternative explanations. Because his approach in defending Oswald - making the evidence disappear - makes him unable with any intellectual consistency to argue for an alternative. Because the evidence for that too must disappear. He's made the revolver and rifle and other evidence disappear and he can't without being exposed for being a conspiracy believer (which he denies) provide one.

Meanwhile, he'll be silent about all sorts of bizarre conspiracy claims like the recent ones involving Ruth Paine. He critically challenges Tracy's examination of the claims but NOT the actual claims. The person making the claims about Paine being some sort of CIA asset or conspirator goes unchallenged.

Lots of other people have tried reasoning with him. They all failed. It's best to move on from this type of conspiracy mindset. You cannot reason with it. I don't know what these people are doing; but it's a big internet and you come across all sorts of things. This is an example of it.

At least the conspiracy believers - who say they are such people - are consistent. Their explanations are absurd, they involve planning and coordination of dozens of people -including civilians. There is no evidence for such planning. It's all supposition and fantasies. But they make them anyway. They don't run when asked for an explanation.

[Charles Collins]

He's going to try and "deconstruct" the evidence and make the revolver disappear. But he won't give an alternate explanation for the existence of this revolver; he won't explain how it came to be in the possession of the police; he won't explain how the police got the actual revolver that was used to shoot Tippit. The shells recovered by eyewitnesses as the scene (from places AWAY from the direct location of the shooting (by Tippit's car); that dismisses the "gun was an automatic" argument) - many of whom say the gunman was Oswald - were fired from that revolver. If it wasn't Oswald then how did the police acquire that revolver?

Again: how did they get that revolver?

He won't answer any of this. He can't. He's trapped himself in his defense of Oswald so that he cannot offer any alternative explanations. Because his approach in defending Oswald - making the evidence disappear - makes him unable with any intellectual consistency to argue for an alternative. Because the evidence for that too must disappear. He's made the revolver and rifle and other evidence disappear and he can't without being exposed for being a conspiracy believer (which he denies) provide one.

Meanwhile, he'll be silent about all sorts of bizarre conspiracy claims like the recent ones involving Ruth Paine. He critically challenges Tracy's examination of the claims but NOT the actual claims. The person making the claims about Paine being some sort of CIA asset or conspirator goes unchallenged.

Lots of other people have tried reasoning with him. They all failed. It's best to move on from this type of conspiracy mindset. You cannot reason with it. I don't know what these people are doing; but it's a big internet and you come across all sorts of things. This is an example of it.

At least the conspiracy believers - who say they are such people - are consistent. Their explanations are absurd, they involve planning and coordination of dozens of people -including civilians. There is no evidence for such planning. It's all supposition and fantasies. But they make them anyway. They don't run when asked for an explanation.

One would think that if he is going to make these claims, then he should be able to answer a couple of basic questions about the basis for his claims. He should be given some time to look up the information if needed. But if he simply decides to not answer my questions then I have to assume that I “stumped” him…

[Steve M. Galbraith]

One would think that if he is going to make these claims, then he should be able to answer a couple of basic questions about the basis for his claims. He should be given some time to look up the information if needed. But if he simply decides to not answer my questions then I have to assume that I “stumped” him…

Just notice the claim about Carroll: He didn't know where the gun he grabbed came from. He just grabbed it. From Oswald? No. It was just there. So where did it come from? What is the evidence that it came from someone else? What is the alternative explanation? The revolver was the one used to shoot Tippit. How did the police get that revolver from the real shooter of Tippit? What's the explanation.

He won't give one. He can't. So he's going to make the revolver disappear as evidence. It exists but it doesn't; it was recovered but it wasn't; it's there but it's not. This is a defense lawyer tactic, an attempt to find one juror who would let his client walk. It's not how people work out what happened in an event.

This is far too much time on these silly arguments. They are silly and worthless and solely intended for some odd reason to clear Oswald. It's Oswald as Alfred Dreyfus but he won't admit that that's what he is doing.

[John Iacoletti]

He's going to try and "deconstruct" the evidence and make the revolver disappear. But he won't give an alternate explanation for the existence of this revolver; he won't explain how it came to be in the possession of the police; he won't explain how the police got the actual revolver that was used to shoot Tippit. The shells recovered by eyewitnesses as the scene (from places AWAY from the direct location of the shooting (by Tippit's car); that dismisses the "gun was an automatic" argument) - many of whom say the gunman was Oswald - were fired from that revolver. If it wasn't Oswald then how did the police acquire that revolver?

I don't have to explain anything.  You can either authenticate your evidence or you cannot.  And you cannot.

And you don't know what revolver was used to shoot Tippit.  That's an assumption too.  The bullets did not have sufficient characteristics to determine that.  And your shells cannot be authenticated either.  Blame the cops, not me.

He won't answer any of this. He can't. He's trapped himself in his defense of Oswald so that he cannot offer any alternative explanations.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that your made-up story is automatically correct unless I prove Oswald didn't do it.  Your claim, your burden.

Meanwhile, he'll be silent about all sorts of bizarre conspiracy claims like the recent ones involving Ruth Paine. He critically challenges Tracy's examination of the claims but NOT the actual claims.

Oh, please.  The film was just released 2 days ago.  I didn't have the benefit of Tracy's "perfectly legal copy, I assure you".

Lots of other people have tried reasoning with him. They all failed.

That's because "reason" (or what you think is reason) does not constitute evidence.  Evidence does.

[John Iacoletti]

Just notice the claim about Carroll: He didn't know where the gun he grabbed came from. He just grabbed it. From Oswald? No. It was just there. So where did it come from?

That's a good question.  McDonald thought Carroll grabbed it from his hand, not Oswald's.  What is your basis for thinking he grabbed it from Oswald?

He won't give one. He can't. So he's going to make the revolver disappear as evidence. It exists but it doesn't; it was recovered but it wasn't; it's there but it's not. This is a defense lawyer tactic, an attempt to find one juror who would let his client walk. It's not how people work out what happened in an event.

Oh, CE 143 definitely exists.  You just can't show that it was used to kill Tippit or that it was ever in the possession of Oswald.  It's a prosecution lawyer tactic to just made statements of fact like "the revolver was the one used to shoot Tippit" without demonstrating that it's actually true.

[Richard Smith]

There is no way that you can conclude that the gun with the officers' initials was anything other than Oswald's revolver.

I would agree with you if the chain of custody was solid.

Even if you think that there is a scintilla of doubt about it, the only other conclusion would be that there was an enormous conspiracy to falsify evidence.

You watch too many movies, I think.. All it would have taken was one person to replace the revolver they took from Oswald with the one that was used to kill Tippit.

What a blizzard of contrarian nonsense.  So the revolver in evidence is the one used to kill Tippit?  You have previously indicated that it was and then argued it was not.  But now it is again.  And it has the same serial number as the pistol sent to Oswald's PO Box (as confirmed by third party documentation that preexisted the murder).  What an astounding coincidence.  The real murderer somehow used Oswald's revolver, Oswald had some different revolver when arrested, and the someone was able to find the revolver used to kill Tippit (Oswald's revolver) and then switch it.  Simple.  HA HA HA.  No one can believe such nonsense.

[Andrew Mason]

That's a good question.  McDonald thought Carroll grabbed it from his hand, not Oswald's.  What is your basis for thinking he grabbed it from Oswald?

Oh, CE 143 definitely exists.  You just can't show that it was used to kill Tippit or that it was ever in the possession of Oswald.  It's a prosecution lawyer tactic to just made statements of fact like "the revolver was the one used to shoot Tippit" without demonstrating that it's actually true.

It has been shown that Oswald purchased a revolver with the same description and serial no.   The bullets used to kill Tippit were the same kind of bullet and the four .38 calibre shells found at the scene of his murder had firing pin marks that exactly matched the highly irregular profile of the gun's firing pin.  FBI ballistics officers noted that the bullets from Tippit and those known to have been fired by CE143 had the same class characteristics - five lands and five grooves twisting to the right. This was not conclusive because the bullets were a tad smaller than the barrel and the bullet did not rifle properly. But  the bullets recovered from Tippit did carry evidence of erosion resulting from barrel gases escaping through the space between the bullet and the barrel.

So it was the gun used to kill Officer Tippit.  The only thing then is that it was not absolutely conclusively shown to be in Oswald's possession.  So, I guess, if it had been found under a theatre seat near Oswald that you would be saying that there was no connection whatsoever. 

I need 12 people like you as jurors on a murder case.