Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed  (Read 24854 times)

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #32 on: June 10, 2022, 09:24:27 PM »
Advertisement

The Warren Commission had no authority to either prosecute or convict anyone, dead or alive. Take a look in the mirror if you want to see a biased person. Your opinions are just that…opinions.

The Warren Commission had no authority to either prosecute or convict anyone, dead or alive.

And still, they did exactly that when they concluded that Oswald was guilty. Go figure!

Btw, if the WC, for lack of authority, did not prosecute or convict Oswald and he never had his day in court, do you think the presumption of innocence should still apply for Oswald?
« Last Edit: June 10, 2022, 09:36:48 PM by Martin Weidmann »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #32 on: June 10, 2022, 09:24:27 PM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #33 on: June 10, 2022, 09:32:35 PM »
Yes and yes. But you have to repeat this several times for it to be understood. If you're lucky.

But let me play lawyer and point out that even this proposed "legal setting" doesn't necessarily find the truth since, after all, it's not designed to. The court/legal standard or adversarial process is designed to find, based on the decision of a jury of the defendant's peers, whether the government has proven, using the law, beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has committed a crime.  It's not designed to discover the truth. As we know, lots of innocent people have been convicted; lots of guilty people have been found not guilty. It's the best system we can come up with; but it's not perfect and finding the "truth" is not the goal.

The Oswald defenders, for some unknown reason, want to use this legalistic standard - "chain of custody" and other legal rules - to throw out the evidence against him. If they were interested in the truth, in what really happened, they wouldn't engage in these defense lawyer like tactics.  But here we are. And here they are.

But let me play lawyer and point out that even this proposed "legal setting" doesn't necessarily find the truth since, after all, it's not designed to. The court/legal standard or adversarial process is designed to find, based on the decision of a jury of the defendant's peers, whether the government has proven, using the law, beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has committed a crime.  It's not designed to discover the truth. As we know, lots of innocent people have been convicted; lots of guilty people have been found not guilty. It's the best system we can come up with; but it's not perfect and finding the "truth" is not the goal.

100% correct. It surely isn't a perfect system, but it beats hands down a commission operating in secret, using selective evidence, not asking the hard questions that need answers, publishing a report and locking away the evidence for years to come.

The Oswald defenders, for some unknown reason, want to use this legalistic standard - "chain of custody" and other legal rules - to throw out the evidence against him. If they were interested in the truth, in what really happened, they wouldn't engage in these defense lawyer like tactics.  But here we are. And here they are.


Why are you so defensive and generalizing?

As far as I am concerned, I'm not defending anybody. I just want to know what really happened and the best way to do so is to look at the evidence. I don't want to throw out any evidence. Instead all I want to do is make sure the evidence is authenticated and valid. Why is that a problem for you?

What's the big deal? If the evidence against Oswald is so conclusive and overwhelming as the LNs claim, than why are they whining about people wanting to scrutinize that evidence?
« Last Edit: June 10, 2022, 10:26:42 PM by Martin Weidmann »

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3604
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #34 on: June 11, 2022, 12:50:06 AM »
But let me play lawyer and point out that even this proposed "legal setting" doesn't necessarily find the truth since, after all, it's not designed to. The court/legal standard or adversarial process is designed to find, based on the decision of a jury of the defendant's peers, whether the government has proven, using the law, beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has committed a crime.  It's not designed to discover the truth. As we know, lots of innocent people have been convicted; lots of guilty people have been found not guilty. It's the best system we can come up with; but it's not perfect and finding the "truth" is not the goal.

100% correct. It surely isn't a perfect system, but it beats hands down a commission operating in secret, using selective evidence, not asking the hard questions that need answers, publishing a report and locking away the evidence for years to come.

The Oswald defenders, for some unknown reason, want to use this legalistic standard - "chain of custody" and other legal rules - to throw out the evidence against him. If they were interested in the truth, in what really happened, they wouldn't engage in these defense lawyer like tactics.  But here we are. And here they are.


Why are you so defensive and generalizing?

As far as I am concerned, I'm not defending anybody. I just want to know what really happened and the best way to do so is to look at the evidence. I don't want to throw out any evidence. Instead all I want to do is make sure the evidence is authenticated and valid. Why is that a problem for you?

What's the big deal? If the evidence against Oswald is so conclusive and overwhelming as the LNs claim, than why are they whining about people wanting to scrutinize that evidence?

It surely isn't a perfect system, but it beats hands down a commission operating in secret, using selective evidence, not asking the hard questions that need answers, publishing a report and locking away the evidence for years to come.

Two misconceptions about the Warren Commission hearing need to be clarified...hearings were closed to the public unless the witness appearing before the Commission requested an open hearing. No witness except one...requested an open hearing... Second, although the hearings (except one) were conducted in private, they were not secret. In a secret hearing, the witness is instructed not to disclose his testimony to any third party, and the hearing testimony is not published for public consumption. The witnesses who appeared before the Commission were free to repeat what they said to anyone they pleased, and all of their testimony was subsequently published in the first fifteen volumes put out by the Warren Commission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission



JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #34 on: June 11, 2022, 12:50:06 AM »


Offline Marjan Rynkiewicz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 903
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #35 on: June 11, 2022, 12:55:37 AM »
Iacoletti has a mental disorder.  We all have a mental disorder of some kind, ie where our brains don’t recognise reality, with all due respect to the limitations of the available evidence.
But a good brain will recognise the need for better evidence -- it hinges around the ability to judge evidence -- the ability to see the need to find additional evidence.
The ability to find new evidence must help (when i say new i mean mainly secondhand, but not well known).

Iacoletti i think believes that Oswald is a patsy, ie that Oswald didn’t shoot anyone that day. Or any other day.
Iacoletti might make some good comments re the shortfalls in some of them there 21 points, but to have decided that Oswald is a patsy shows a mental disorder.

What to call this kind of mental disorder?    Oswaldism?     Patsyism?    CTer  (JFK conspiracy theorest).
There can be no doubt that there was at least one kind of conspiracy on that day, or after that day, we can all agree on that.  But, what kind of conspiracies?

We see the same kind of mental disorder re Godism.  FlatEarthism.  Einsteinism.  UFOism.  BigBangism.  USAism.  Republicanism.  Trumpism.  Communism.  Democratism. 

Me myself i was in the hands of Christian Brothers for a couple of years, & then Nuns for a few years, which has scarred my brain for life (including limiting my intelligence for life).

I suppose that mental illness is a matter of degree. Physcosis --   disorder –  phobia -- intelligence.   
However, i suspect that phsychiatrists fail to recognise the last one – intelligence -- lack of intelligence (of some kind) is i think a disorder (we could call this moronism).

WIKILEAKS….. In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) redefined mental disorders in the DSM-5 as "a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning."[16] The final draft of ICD-11 contains a very similar definition.[17]

WIKILEAKS………. A mental disorder, also called a mental illness[3] or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning.[4] Such features may be persistent, relapsing and remitting, or occur as single episodes. Many disorders have been described, with signs and symptoms that vary widely between specific disorders.[5][6] Such disorders may be diagnosed by a mental health professional, usually a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist.

The causes of mental disorders are often unclear. Theories may incorporate findings from a range of fields. Mental disorders are usually defined by a combination of how a person behaves, feels, perceives, or thinks.[7] This may be associated with particular regions or functions of the brain, often in a social context. A mental disorder is one aspect of mental health. Cultural and religious beliefs, as well as social norms, should be taken into account when making a diagnosis.[8]


LNers (lone nutters) are the enemy of the CTers.  LNers believe tha Oswald fired 3 shots, including Z313 the headshot.
Hickeyists or Hickeyians say that Hickey fired Z313, & that Oswald fired 2 shots.
Hickeyists are quasi-LNers, in that they believe that Oswald acted alone.
Hickeyists are quasi-CTers, in that they believe that there were lots of conspiracies, but pre-eminently the conspiracy to hide that JFK had been accidentally shot by a SSA.

But back to the main topic, me.
I appear to be the only active Hickeyist on this forum today.
That makes me the only sane person on this forum today.
Lemmeeseenow – i am an atheist (good) – an aetherist (good)(ie anti Einstein stuff) – a socialist (good).
Hmmmm – technically i am an alcoholic (red wine) -- & a genius (which probly qualifies as a mental disorder). Ok – that makes me and Iacoletti even i guess.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2022, 01:12:15 AM by Marjan Rynkiewicz »

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3604
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #36 on: June 11, 2022, 01:04:48 AM »
The Warren Commission had no authority to either prosecute or convict anyone, dead or alive.

And still, they did exactly that when they concluded that Oswald was guilty. Go figure!

Btw, if the WC, for lack of authority, did not prosecute or convict Oswald and he never had his day in court, do you think the presumption of innocence should still apply for Oswald?


And still, they did exactly that when they concluded that Oswald was guilty.


No, the WC did it’s duty in accordance to Executive Order 11130.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11130


Nothing in that Executive Order relates to any kind of prosecution or conviction. Once LHO was murdered on 11/24/63, those anticipated legal proceedings became null and void and never happened because, as I said earlier, there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #36 on: June 11, 2022, 01:04:48 AM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #37 on: June 11, 2022, 01:24:36 AM »

And still, they did exactly that when they concluded that Oswald was guilty.

No, the WC did it’s duty in accordance to Executive Order 11130.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11130

Nothing in that Executive Order relates to any kind of prosecution or conviction. Once LHO was murdered on 11/24/63, those anticipated legal proceedings became null and void and never happened because, as I said earlier, there are no legal provisions for a trial for a dead man.

Evasive and non responsive.

No, the WC did it’s duty in accordance to Executive Order 11130.

Semantics! Are you clueless to how these things work in real life or are you just pretending to be? Do you really think that the President is going to put down in writing that he wants an already dead Oswald to be prosecuted and convicted? Of course not.... Ever heard of plausible deniability?

The purposes of the Commission are to examine the evidence developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and any additional evidence that may hereafter come to light or be uncovered by Federal or State authorities; to make such further investigation as the Commission finds desirable; to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding such assassination, including the subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination, and to report to me its findings and conclusions.

The Commission is empowered to prescribe its own procedures and to employ such assistants as it deems necessary.

Translation; "investigate" this case in any way you want and report to me (so, not the American people, right?) your conclusion.

BS. Word salad does not cover up the fact that the WC de facto determined and announced to the whole world that Lee Harvey Oswald alone was responsible for both killings, exactly in accordance with the Katzenbach memo.

But I'll ask you again;

If the WC, for lack of authority, did not prosecute or convict Oswald (they just concluded he did it, right? and he never had his day in court, do you think the presumption of innocence should still apply for Oswald?

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3604
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #38 on: June 11, 2022, 02:49:34 AM »
Evasive and non responsive.

No, the WC did it’s duty in accordance to Executive Order 11130.

Semantics! Are you clueless to how these things work in real life or are you just pretending to be? Do you really think that the President is going to put down in writing that he wants an already dead Oswald to be prosecuted and convicted? Of course not.... Ever heard of plausible deniability?

The purposes of the Commission are to examine the evidence developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and any additional evidence that may hereafter come to light or be uncovered by Federal or State authorities; to make such further investigation as the Commission finds desirable; to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding such assassination, including the subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination, and to report to me its findings and conclusions.

The Commission is empowered to prescribe its own procedures and to employ such assistants as it deems necessary.

Translation; "investigate" this case in any way you want and report to me (so, not the American people, right?) your conclusion.

BS. Word salad does not cover up the fact that the WC de facto determined and announced to the whole world that Lee Harvey Oswald alone was responsible for both killings, exactly in accordance with the Katzenbach memo.

But I'll ask you again;

If the WC, for lack of authority, did not prosecute or convict Oswald (they just concluded he did it, right? and he never had his day in court, do you think the presumption of innocence should still apply for Oswald?


A presumption of innocence applies to an adversarial criminal trial with prosecution and defense cases being presented. That presumption is designed to place the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It effectively protects the accused against having to prove non-guilt.

In this particular circumstance LHO was not on trial. Therefore, technically, your question isn’t applicable to this case. An investigation is not a trial. The WC drew it’s conclusions based on the results of the investigation and stated their reasoning in the report. Contrary to your earlier claim, this was a proper legal setting for this particular circumstance. A trial, and all of its procedures, would not have been a proper legal setting.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #38 on: June 11, 2022, 02:49:34 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #39 on: June 11, 2022, 03:08:46 AM »
It is pathetically sad that so many CTers apparently think otherwise.

It is pathetically sad that LN-cultists think that they are not doing that.