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 5750 times)

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9802
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2022, 06:37:01 AM »
Chapman’s contributions are irrelevant, as usual. David’s treatise claims that “multiple witnesses confirm it was Oswald who shot Officer Tippit”. That’s just flat out false.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2022, 06:37:01 AM »

Online David Von Pein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2022, 10:53:40 AM »
And thank you for repeatedly showing your ignorance of such basic concepts known as "evidence" and "assumption".

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):  ;D

"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
« Last Edit: June 10, 2022, 11:11:44 AM by David Von Pein »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2022, 10:53:40 AM »

Online David Von Pein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2022, 12:15:03 PM »
You were trying to make a point?

Just to re-emphasize the fact that most CTers have a penchant for ignoring the obvious (i.e., the evidence against Oswald). You seem to reinforce that fact every time you open your mouth.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2022, 12:16:38 PM by David Von Pein »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2022, 12:15:03 PM »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6401
  • 'Pristine'..yeah, sure
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2022, 02:22:43 PM »
20) 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.
_You must be claiming that all those mentioned were actually listening for people on the stairs.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2022, 02:22:43 PM »

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2603
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2022, 02:24:32 PM »
It is pathetically sad that the lame attempts to shed doubt on the evidence are taken seriously and so readily accepted by the disbeliever crowd.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2022, 02:24:32 PM »

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 #15 on: June 10, 2022, 03:00:28 PM »
20) 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.
_You must be claiming that all those mentioned were actually listening for people on the stairs.
Oswald gets to the 2nd floor after 48 sec.  He stops.  What to do next? 
Should he continue down to the first floor? 
Should he go to the first floor via the front stairs? 
Should he lay low in the lunch room? 
His jacket is in the Domino Room.
Uh Oh -- He hears Adams & Styles klomping down the stairs in a real hurry on a mission.
Best to visit the coke machine & hope that whoever it is goes clean past.
They pass. He comes back out. What to do next?
He can't decide.  He will be less conspicuous if he takes the front stairs, but he would then have to walk back into & throo the storage area to get his jacket in the Domino Room.
He decides to continue down the back stairs.
He makes a start but then Truly hollers up the elevator shaft, so he goes back up.
Then he hears Baker & Truly galloping up the stairs, & he retreats to the coke machine a second time.
He walks slow & cool. 
He would have been better off diving into the lunchroom in a hurry, & laying low, he knows there is no-one in there, but he knows that if seen rushing (by Truly & Co) it will be a sure sign that he is guilty of something.
He nearly makes it, another couple of slow steps & he will be out of sight.
But damn, Baker spots a bit of him throo the glass of the door & says to come back.
Truly says that Oswald works here, & Baker & Truly gallop off.
Oswald gets a coke to look less guilty & more cool if confronted again.  And assassinations go better with coke.
The back stairs are now dangerous.  He heads for the front stairs, either forgetting about his jacket or deciding that his jacket is a dead duck.
But just in case more dumb cops are entering along the corridor he goes via the office.
Damn, he meets Jeraldean Reid as she returns to her desk.  She says something as they pass & he mumbles something back.  Its not a good look.  He has no business in the office, unless wanting change for the coke machine. Its not even a short cut to the stairs. Damn.  Anyhow no big deal.
He goes down the front stairs & mixes with the growing throng in the lobby near the front door without raising any suspicion.
Someone asks him about a phone.
Ok, things aint so bad, praps he can take a chance & get his jacket from the Domino Room anyhow.
Hmmm – he can get his jacket by going out the front door & down the steps & around & entering via the Houston dock (like he does each morning), & walking 13 paces to the jacket. 
Getting caught walking in shouldn’t result in getting bitten by a cop.
So, off he goes, but he gets a little ways up Houston & he sees Officer Barnett on sentry duty at the dock, & Barnett looks vicious.
So, a quick U-turn & back down Houston.  Buell Frazier sees him walking south along Houston.
No, the jacket is a dead duck.  He decides to get out of there asap, he crosses Houston & then crosses Elm.
Tippit is waiting

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #15 on: June 10, 2022, 03:00:28 PM »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9802
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #16 on: June 10, 2022, 03:01:08 PM »
It is pathetically sad that the lame attempts to shed doubt on the evidence are taken seriously and so readily accepted by the disbeliever crowd.

Referring to some bit of conjecture as “evidence” does not, in fact, make it evidence.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #16 on: June 10, 2022, 03:01:08 PM »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9802
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #17 on: June 10, 2022, 03:08:14 PM »
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?

I believe that he actually did. But it’s not a “successful trial lawyer’s” job to honestly evaluate evidence. It’s his job to manipulate ignorant people into a particular conclusion with rhetoric.

Quote
Because Vince went even further than my 21-item list.

Yes, he did. Wherein we learn that these additional ridiculous things are evidence of murder:

- Not reading the newspaper in the domino room that morning.
- Going to the second floor to get a Coke when he supposedly preferred Dr. Pepper.
- Not being chatty with the cab driver.
- Showing reporters his handcuffed hands.
- Marina thinking his eyes looked guilty.
- Leaving his blue jacket in the domino room.
- Allegedly leaving a clipboard on the sixth floor.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #17 on: June 10, 2022, 03:08:14 PM »

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2603
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #18 on: June 10, 2022, 03:39:57 PM »
Referring to some bit of conjecture as “evidence” does not, in fact, make it evidence.

It is pathetically sad that so many CTers apparently think otherwise.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #18 on: June 10, 2022, 03:39:57 PM »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6401
  • 'Pristine'..yeah, sure
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #19 on: June 10, 2022, 03:49:52 PM »
Chapman’s contributions are irrelevant, as usual. David’s treatise claims that “multiple witnesses confirm it was Oswald who shot Officer Tippit”. That’s just flat out false.

Chapman is responding directly to what Iacoletti pulls out of his hat.
The line-up for instance.

« Last Edit: June 10, 2022, 04:13:02 PM by Bill Chapman »

 

Mobile View