David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed  (Read 5747 times)

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9802
David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« on: June 09, 2022, 09:25:08 PM »
David Von Pein, in another thread on a different subject, claimed that the following list of "evidence" proves that Oswald murdered Kennedy.  Not only does it do nothing of the kind, but most of it is not evidence at all, but rather rhetoric.  Let's take a look.

"1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, November 22, 1963."

This is a claim made about the evidence, not evidence itself.  And the claim that he owned the C2766 rifle is merely an assumption, based on an argument that he ordered the weapon from Klein's.  And this argument relies on unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of two block-written letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon (from microfilm that is now "missing").

"2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit."

See above.  And the CE143 revolver was not shown to have been used in the murder of Tippit.  The bullets removed from Tippit lacked sufficient characteristics to identify the weapon used.

"3.) Oswald was positively identified by witness Howard L. Brennan as the person firing a rifle at JFK on 11/22/63."

This is misleading.  Brennan testified that he did not see the rifle discharge or recoil.  He merely stated that he saw the person "taking aim" for the last shot.  This person would necessarily have been crouched down and obscured by boxes, so it's rather remarkable that Brennan somehow managed to see him "from the belt up" and was able to estimate his height, weight, age, and clothing.  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.  He came forward several days later after intense pressure from the FBI with a story that he didn't do so because he feared for his family's safety because Oswald might have confederates at large.  However, he gave his name to reporters that day, he didn't bother to tell his wife about his fears, and this fear of possible confederates somehow disappeared after Oswald's death.

Meanwhile, witness Amos Euins told a reporter that day that the man he saw was "colored".  He also described that the man he saw had a bald spot.  Other witnesses including Arnold Rowland,  Carolyn Walther, Ruby Henderson, Norman Similas, and Johnny Powell described seeing two men.  So why is DVP cherry-picking Brennan?  I think we all know the answer to that.

"4.) Marina Oswald admits to having taken pictures of Lee with these weapons on his person"

False.  Marina wouldn't (and didn't) know that he had these particular weapons.  Marina also said that she took her photos in late February with a camera that is held up to the face.  She also initially said she only took one photo, then two.  Her story is all over the map.  In any case, these photos are not evidence of murder -- even if you could somehow uniquely identify the firearms in them, which you cannot.

"5.) Buell Wesley Frazier observed Oswald take a package into the Book Depository Building on the morning of November 22nd, 1963."

Frazier lated admitted to Tom Meros in an interview that he had been so far behind Oswald that he could no longer see the package at the time Oswald entered the door to the north annex (not the TSBD building itself, BTW).  Jack Dougherty saw Oswald enter the TSBD and said he was empty-handed.  Frazier also described the bag he saw as being 2-feet long, give or take, and made out of flimsy paper.  According to the Anderton memo, Frazier was shown the alleged sniper's nest "bag" on the night of the assassination and said it was not the same package.  The package that Frazier described would have been too short to hold the Carcano rifle.  In fact there is no evidence whatsoever that either the CE142 bag or the package that Frazier described had a rifle inside it.

"6.) Oswald's claim of "curtain rods" within the package cannot be supported at all. His room needed no curtains, nor rods, and no such rods were ever found in the TSBD or at his residence at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff."

We don't know what Oswald claimed about the package.  It's hearsay from Frazier.  We also don't know they would have been for his room.  Oswald was talking about renting an apartment for Marina the night before.  Furthermore, a photo exists of Mrs. Johnson putting up a curtain rod in Oswald's room after the assassination.

"7.) Oswald was seen working on the Depository's sixth floor that morning."

Even DVP admits this isn't evidence of anything.  So why is it even on the list?  Givens' story about going back to get his cigarettes from his "jacket" (even though he testified to hanging up his coat in the domino room when he arrived) didn't emerge until April, 1964 -- after Lt. Revill told FBI agent Gemberling that Givens had been previously handled by the Special Services Bureau on a marijuana charge and he believes that Givens would change his story for money.  Givens originally said that he saw Oswald at 11:50 in the domino room reading a paper. By noon, Givens was at Record and Main watching the motorcade with Edward Shields.

"8.) Oswald's palmprint [Warren Commission Exhibit #637] is found on his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination."

Correction:  a partial palmprint turned up a week later on an index card.  Carl Day didn't turn it over to the FBI with the other evidence that night, nor did he even tell FBI agent Drain of its existence.  He didn't photograph it in place or cover it with cellophane.  Furthermore, Sebastian Latona examined the rifle and said that area didn't look like it had been processed at all.  He found no traces of ridges there.

"9.) Not ONE SPECK of any bullets/bullet fragments/bullet shells OTHER THAN THOSE COMING FROM OSWALD'S 6.5-MILLIMETER MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE were discovered anywhere in Dealey Plaza, the limousine, the TSBD, Parkland Hospital, or in the victims."

Highly misleading.  Not only is this not evidence for who pulled the trigger, it ignores the fact that none of the identifiable fragments have a valid documented chain of custody.  Nor is there any evidence that any of them came from any bullet that struck Kennedy or Connally.

"10.) The majority of Dealey Plaza witnesses said shots came from behind the President", in the direction of the School Book Depository Building.

This is not evidence for who did the shooting, or even exactly where the shots came from.

"11.) Oswald makes an unusual trip to Irving on Thursday, November 21, 1963, to retrieve his "curtain rods". His rifle is found missing from Ruth Paine's garage the following day."

There is no evidence whatsoever that any rifle, much less C2766, was in the Paine garage on November 21.  As for this trip being unusual, he had only worked at the TSBD for 6 weeks.  One of those weeks he came on a Saturday, and one week he didn't come at all.

Interestingly, the curtain rods that the WC "found" in the garage were somehow submitted into evidence via a CSSS form 8 days before they were found in the garage by the WC.

But, again, how is this evidence of murder?

"12.) Oswald left behind, presumably for wife Marina, his wedding ring and just about every dime he had to his name ($170), on the morning of 11/22/63. Logic dictates that he felt he may not return."

That's confirmation bias and rhetoric, not evidence of murder.  And you don't know that was "just about every dime he had to his name".

"13.) Oswald was the only Depository employee known to have been INSIDE the Depository Building at the time of the assassination to leave work prematurely on Friday, November 22nd. Why do you suppose this was? The day was only half over."

ALL of the employees left work prematurely on Friday, November 22nd.  Several never returned after the motorcade.  We know that Shelley told his employees to go home.  Just because he said he didn't tell Oswald that directly doesn't mean that Oswald didn't hear him saying it.  Asking "why do you suppose" does not constitute evidence.

"14.) Oswald, in flight, shoots and kills Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippit on 10th Street in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff. Multiple witnesses confirm it was Oswald who shot Officer Tippit."

Impossible since only one witness, Helen Markham, saw Tippit being shot.  The lineups were unfair and biased by any reasonable standard and hence unreliable.  Besides, this is a separate claim which must be proven independently.  It doesn't tell you anything about who killed Kennedy.

"15.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of another crime just 45 minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza?"

That's not evidence -- it's a hypothetical question.  You haven't demonstrated that Oswald did kill Officer Tippit, but even if you could, that's not evidence for who killed Kennedy.

"16.) Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon, attempts to murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, on April 10, 1963. Marina Oswald herself testifies that "He [Lee]...told me that he had shot at General Walker.""

That's also not evidence, it's yet another unsubstantiated claim.  Hearsay from Marina notwithstanding.

"17.) It was PROVEN, no matter what anybody wants to believe to the contrary, that three shots could be fired in the allotted timeframe from Oswald's rifle (and with good accuracy). The probability that Oswald had, in fact, approx. 8.4 seconds to accomplish the shooting further increases the likelihood that Lee could have performed the deed."

a) you don't know what the timespan of the shots were
b) what other people are able to do in experiments that don't exactly match the same situation don't tell you what Oswald could or could not do
c) "could be" doesn't mean "did"

"18.) Try as the conspiracy kooks might, the Single-Bullet Theory [SBT] has still not been proven to be an impossibility."

It also hasn't been proven to have happened.  Regardless, that tells you nothing about who did the shooting.

19.) While viewing the Zapruder Film, I cannot see how anybody can say that the BACK of President Kennedy's head is blown away as a result of the head shot. It seems quite obvious while watching and freezing the film at various post-Z313 frames, that the entire rear portion of JFK's head remains intact throughout the shooting."

What is "obvious" to you is subjective and irrelevant.  Regardless, this also tells you nothing about who did the shooting.

"20.) It was also proven that Oswald could have indeed travelled, in 90 seconds or less, the distance across the sixth floor of the TSBD and descended the four flights of stairs in time to have been seen by policeman Marrion L. Baker on the building's second floor."

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.

"21.) And then there are the several lies told by Lee Harvey Oswald during the two days he was being held in custody by the Dallas Police Department."

This one is particularly comical because some of your examples of his "lies" are that he said he didn't shoot the President and he said he didn't kill anybody.  That's a blatantly circular argument that pre-assumes that the thing you're attempting to prove is true.  But even if you could prove that these were lies, it's not evidence for who killed Kennedy.

To recap:  out of 21 items, 19 are not evidence at all.  Of the remaining two, one is the very questionable and tainted partial palmprint on an index card, and the other is Brennan's questionable and tainted change of heart "identification" several days later.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2022, 09:26:35 PM by John Iacoletti »

JFK Assassination Forum

David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« on: June 09, 2022, 09:25:08 PM »

Online David Von Pein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2022, 12:19:37 AM »
It's plainly obvious that John Iacoletti is in dire need of that calculator I was talking about in the other thread. Hopefully he'll get one for Christmas this year.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2022, 12:19:37 AM »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9802
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2022, 01:12:42 AM »
19 times 0 equals 0 on any properly working calculator.

It’s apparent that your entire case is smoke and mirrors (and arrogance).

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2022, 01:12:42 AM »

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2022, 01:13:30 AM »
It's plainly obvious that John Iacoletti is in dire need of that calculator I was talking about in the other thread. Hopefully he'll get one for Christmas this year.

Instead of this cop out, why don't you show us all where John is actually wrong and why?

You're all about evidence, right? Or are you just about condemning Oswald no matter what?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2022, 01:13:30 AM »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9802
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2022, 01:31:49 AM »
He’s all about spreading propaganda — just like his idol, Bugliosi.

David’s fatal flaw is that he doesn’t distinguish between assumption (biased assumption at that) and fact.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2022, 01:31:49 AM »

Online Marjan Rynkiewicz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • It was rotten luck, he was just doing his job.
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2022, 01:34:44 AM »
It's plainly obvious that John Iacoletti is in dire need of that calculator I was talking about in the other thread. Hopefully he'll get one for Christmas this year.
I agree with John on this one. Look at the evidence.
1. After the shots there was a crush of Oswald lookalikes on the stairs -- some trying to go up the stairs, some down the stairs – no-one could move for several minutes (all hushed up).
2. Minutes before the shots the paling fence on the knoll was pushed over by snipers jostling for the best position – some from the CIA – the mafia – Johnson – Cuba – a few free-lancers (all hushed up).
3. After the 300 or so shots from many directions some spectators had to be taken to hospital for smoke inhalation (all hushed up).
4. Oswald actually left Dealey Plaza in an ambulance – he had eaten 23 lunches in the Domino Room & in the staff lunch room, starting at 11:30am & he kept eating untill after the shots --  & he then emptied the Coke machine -- before passing out (all hushed up).
5. Tests showing that a brisk walk for 60 paces & then down 8 flights of 9 steps plus 8 paces tween flights on 3 levels taking a total of only 47 seconds were fraudulent  – proper tests showed a little over 48 seconds.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2022, 01:34:44 AM »

Online David Von Pein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2022, 03:11:30 AM »
David’s fatal flaw is that he doesn’t distinguish between assumption (biased assumption at that) and fact.

CTers suffer from the fatal flaw of not being able to properly and reasonably and logically assess the evidence and Oswald's actions. Almost all CTers immediately jump to the "It Was Faked" mantra, without having the slightest bit of PROOF to show that ANY of it was faked. They just assume it all was faked. And they have to assume that....because if it wasn't all faked, then their patsy is really a double-murderer. And no Internet CTer would stand for that. Right, John?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2022, 03:11:30 AM »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6401
  • 'Pristine'..yeah, sure
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2022, 03:26:10 AM »
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
« Last Edit: June 10, 2022, 04:03:11 AM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2022, 03:26:10 AM »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6401
  • 'Pristine'..yeah, sure
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2022, 04:46:32 AM »
'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

« Last Edit: June 10, 2022, 05:17:50 AM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2022, 04:46:32 AM »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9802
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2022, 06:32:45 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2022, 06:38:05 AM by John Iacoletti »

 

Mobile View