JIM HESS SAID:
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
[Quoting author William Manchester:]
"Lee Oswald has been repeatedly identified here [in the book "The Death Of A President"] as the President's slayer. He is never "alleged" or "suspected" or "supposed" or "surmised"; he is the culprit. Some, intimidated by the fiction that only judges may don the black cap and condemn, may disapprove. But enough is enough. The evidence pointing to his guilt is far more incriminating than that against Booth. He is the right man; there is nothing provisional about it. From the instant he dropped his mail-order rifle on the top floor [actually the next-to-top floor] and fled down the enclosed stair well--leaving a tuft of fibers from his shirt wedged in the butt plate and a profusion of finger and palm prints on the weapon, on the paper bag which he had used to conceal the gun during the drive from Irving with Wesley Frazier, and on one of the cartons he had stacked as a gun rest--there could be no doubt of his ultimate conviction. Because of Oswald's epic stupidity--and his panic; it is highly likely that he lost his head when Officer Tippit beckoned to him--the assassin's movements after the murder can be reconstructed with precision." -- William Manchester; Pages 278-279 of "The Death Of A President" (1967)
TED RUBINSTEIN SAID:
Methinks Von Pein protests too much.
MARY HIRTLE SAID:
I'm no expert on any of this, but your comment is strange. You say there is "proof".. and you quote one book. As if one book can ever "prove" anything. All you have is your opinion, and an opinion is just that. It is not fact. You may be convinced of it, but you have produced NO evidence to support your claim at all. Not one thing. Not one tangible thing. Just more conclusions, theories, and a lot of imagination. You are condemning without facts. That is dangerous. Whenever someone is found guilty in the court of public opinion, like you just did, it makes me suspicious of everything you say. You just DON'T KNOW for a fact that Oswald did it.
You say there is more "proof" about Oswald than Booth. Really??? Booth did his deed in a small theater, in direct view of Mary Lincoln, and Maj. Rathbone and his companion. Plus, he jumped from the box to the first floor in front of an entire packed theater...There were witnesses. Where is the roomful of witnesses who actually saw Oswald pull out the rifle and shoot JFK? Where are they? I'm sorry to disagree with you. But I think you've jumped to a conclusion without adequate facts. I'd hate to ever see you sit on a jury.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Mary, I have a little more to go on than just my own "opinion", "theories", and "imagination". I just didn't post all the evidence that hangs Mr. Oswald in my last post. Here's a pretty good start....
MARY HIRTLE SAID:
That's all well and good... but it does not definitively prove anything at all... beyond your opinion.
There are a million books out there that all claim to "prove" that this happened... or that happened... and they can't all be true. I just cannot, and will not, take anybodys word for this. If you, as you say, "proved" anything at all, one way or another, it would be accepted and there would be nothng left to discuss.
The simple plain fact that there is no definitive proof, nothing but conjecture, means we all will be discussing this topic until the end of time.
You are entitled to your belief... and that's fine and dandy. I can also do extensive research that could "prove" that alien beings came from Mars and settled this planet. Again.. that would be my opinion... and could not be taken as absolute proof of anything.
Unless you have new photographic or video evidence, you have nothing buy your belief. That's fine. Believe what you want. You have not proven your case, and you can't. You could be one of the eye witnesses and that still would not prove anything. An eyewitness is considered by police investigators to be the least accurate evidence there can be.
I read your article, and while it's very good and makes many valid points, again...it is NOT concrete proof. Again, you took a lot of information, and came to your own personal conclusion. However, it does not prove anything beyond your own personal conclusion.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
What GOOD is "evidence" then, Mary? Don't you think when enough evidence is piled up, it constitutes some degree of "proof"?
How much evidence does it take in your world to constitute proof?
JAMES LAYNE SAID:
There is just as much evidence, or perhaps more, that Oswald killed Kennedy as there is that O.J. Simpson killed his wife [sic]. At least Simpson didn't kill the police officers who were chasing him in order to get away.
TIM RODRIGUEZ SAID:
If Oswald didn't do it, he knew who did. Same with OJ.
DAVID REITZES SAID:
I agree that if Oswald didn't do it, he must have had some idea who did. He knew full well he was facing the electric chair; the only conceivable bargaining chip he had would have been information. Also, every minute he hesitated would give conspirators more time to cover their tracks. Yet he played dumb.
FREDA ANN DILLARD SAID:
Since Oswald was not tried or convicted, the word "allegedly" is legally the correct word to use.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Here's a look at the whole plaque that is situated in front of the former Texas School Book Depository (now the location of The Sixth Floor Museum At Dealey Plaza):
DAVID REITZES SAID:
I'm not especially bothered by the inclusion of the word "allegedly," but it's fair to point out that two government investigations found Oswald guilty of firing the shots that wounded and killed John F. Kennedy.
FREDA ANN DILLARD SAID:
I was only aware of one government investigation. Regardless, it does not matter. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers.
DAVID REITZES SAID:
The WC [Warren Commission] and the HSCA [House Select Committee on Assassinations] both found Oswald guilty of firing the shots that killed Kennedy. This is not a court of law; it's the court of history.
FREDA ANN DILLARD SAID:
It does not matter. He was not convicted in a court of law. By your standards, there is no need for a judicial system.
DAVID REITZES SAID:
Hitler was never convicted of war crimes. Should the history books all say that he "allegedly" did everything journalists and historians say he did?
FREDA ANN DILLARD SAID:
I cannot answer that as I do not know German law, but I do know what it is in the United States of America and in the United States of America, everyone is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers. I understand that this may be something that is hard to comprehend for some LNs, but there's this little thing called the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment.
DAVID REITZES SAID:
Call me a dense LN (although I'd appreciate it if you didn't), but I'm pretty sure the Constitution only guarantees inalienable rights to living people. Just because Oswald was unfortunately deprived of a trial doesn't bind history's hands in judging him.
As I said, I don't especially disapprove of the word "allegedly" in the plaque. But I think there would be some justification in removing it.
FREDA ANN DILLARD SAID:
I didn't call you anything. History can judge anyone all it wants, but until you can give a fair trial to a dead person, it is what it is. Lots of people, living and dead, have been wrongly convicted.
F.J. JAMES SAID:
Oswald is legally innocent, but that doesn't mean an organization can't erect a marker which says he is responsible for murder.
FREDA ANN DILLARD SAID:
The marker at Tenth and Patton [pictured below] does say that Oswald killed Tippit, but I believe that is because there were witnesses who identified Oswald. However, if you are a person who believes that Oswald was not even there at the time, then those witnesses have to be wrong, which would make the marker wrong. I believe Judyth Baker is trying to get that marker changed.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Freda (et al) -- The exact same evidence that exists today would, of course, have been used at Oswald's trial (had there been one). It's the SAME evidence--the bullets, the shells, the guns, the witnesses, Oswald's prints, and Oswald's own highly suspicious movements on 11/21 and 11/22.
And that evidence says that Oswald was guilty of TWO murders. Are you suggesting the evidence should just be tossed aside just because the defendant was killed before a jury got a chance to judge him?
In my opinion, the "Innocent Till Proven Guilty In A Court Of Law" mantra is just another in a long list of cop-outs utilized continuously by JFK conspiracy theorists in their persistent efforts to justify what they desperately want to believe---which is LHO's innocence.
CHRIS GALLOP SAID:
It's not a cop out, it's the truth. In this country, America, you are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers. Your opinion on this really has no bearing, you can't change what has always been no matter how hard you try.
KIRK EKLUND SAID:
David Von Pein, we are just pointing out the legality of the statement. No one in the U.S. can be found guilty without the opportunity to defend themselves. I think he took the shots and killed both JFK and Tippit. I leave the possibility open to assistance before and cover-up afterwards, but no matter how much you and I believe he pulled the trigger, he never had the chance to tell his story to a jury of his peers.
I am a world class hard ass on this and I know it. I was a LEO [Law Enforcement Officer], never lost sleep over those that got away as much as it pissed me off, but I still think about those I helped put away that could have been innocent. The law is the law and I fought to defend the rights granted us by the founding fathers and will continue to do so.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's fine to point out the "legality" of the "allegedly" statement. But for those who are aware of THE EVIDENCE that is piled up against this man named Lee Harvey Oswald, to constantly utilize the "Innocent Until Proven Guilty In A Court Of Law" refrain IS a "cop-out", IMHO.
The EVIDENCE proves the case against Oswald, whether in a "court of law" in front of 12 jurors, or in my living room in front of my Dell computer screen. It's the same evidence. And surely you guys here on Facebook aren't going to suggest that ALL (or even most) of that evidence against Oswald is fake evidence....are you? If so, then The Education Forum awaits you.
FREDA ANN DILLARD SAID:
This has nothing to do with being a CT. It has to do with spending 38 years in the legal profession. Besides, just because you believe that the evidence says that Oswald is guilty of two murders does not make it so any more than me saying the moon is made of cheese makes it so.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Come now, Freda. Let's be sensible about what the evidence shows. And particularly the evidence (and different TYPES of evidence) in the J.D. Tippit murder. There is literally no possible way that Oswald could be innocent of that particular murder unless a perfect Oswald look-alike shot Tippit and then handed off the murder weapon to the REAL Lee Oswald within the next 35 minutes after Tippit was killed.
And you surely don't buy into that type of nonsensical scenario, do you? Could anybody? Not likely. Therefore, most CTers I've argued with over the years simply pretend all the bullet shells littering Tenth & Patton streets were planted or switched by the cops to frame LHO. But that theory is equally silly--and equally unprovable as well, of course.
FREDA ANN DILLARD SAID:
I did not say that Oswald was innocent of the murder of Tippit. I'm saying he was not convicted in a court of law.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
There can never be a trial of Lee Oswald. So we'll never know what an actual jury would have decided. But the Warren Commission and the HSCA were tasked with investigating the facts and evidence surrounding the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit, and both of those investigations determined that LHO was guilty of the two crimes.
Do those here who are waving the "Innocent Till Proven Guilty By A Jury" flag think the WC and HSCA were just a big waste of time?
FREDA ANN DILLARD SAID:
Mock trials have acquitted Oswald, so we do have an idea of the possibilities.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And mock trials have convicted Oswald too, including the 1986 docu-trial featuring lawyers Vincent Bugliosi and Gerry Spence, which is a mock trial that also featured many of the real assassination witnesses. So we have an idea of the (other) possibilities as well.
FREDA ANN DILLARD SAID:
By the way, if Oswald had gone to trial and been acquitted, all of the WC and HSCA investigations in the world could do nothing about it.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But the evidence still would incriminate Oswald ten times over---with or without the WC & HSCA, and with or without a panel of twelve people sitting in a jury box inside a Dallas courtroom.
If Oswald had been acquitted, it certainly wouldn't be BECAUSE of the evidence that incriminates him. Any acquittal would have been due to some other external factor. Like, say, a slick defense lawyer (such as a Mark Lane or a Johnnie Cochran) who might have been able to somehow convince the 12 jurors to buy into his fantasy theory about ALL OF THAT EVIDENCE being manufactured to frame the "patsy" sitting in the defendant's chair.
Never underestimate the power of an unscrupulous defense attorney who knows his client is guilty as Hitler, but just doesn't give a damn. He just wants to win the case. Johnnie Cochran again comes immediately to mind.
VINNIE TIETO SAID:
David Von Pein is right, and this whole "Oswald is innocent because he never had a trial" thing is silly.
No one in their right mind would say that Charles Whitman (Texas Tower mass murderer) and Harris and Klebold (Columbine) should be considered "innocent" because they didn't have trials. And no one would feel compelled to apply the "alleged" tag to them.
I agree with David that this is just a desperate attempt to relieve Oswald of as much guilt as possible, in any way possible.
FREDA ANN DILLARD SAID:
David Von Pein, you obviously don't know me or my beliefs on this case. If you did, you would know that your references to fantasy and being sensible have no affect. Yes, I am a CT. No, I do not believe Oswald acted alone and I cannot see that ever changing. However, I am always open to the possibilities of anything because, unlike so many others, I do not know everything.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I appreciate that candid response, Freda. And I don't know everything either. (Far from it.) For one thing, I don't know what Oswald's motives were for doing what the evidence indicates he did on 11/22/63. Nobody can ever know for certain what motivated Oswald to shoot the President. And I have in the past conceded that a conspiracy could possibly have existed:
"Let's face it, we can never know with 100% certainty that someone didn't urge Oswald on in the days leading up to 11/22/63. I think it's very unlikely that anyone did aid him in any fashion at all, but...the door should be left open just a small crack, because it's just not possible to prove this particular "negative" to a 100% certainty (mainly thanks to a man named Jacob Rubenstein, who certainly didn't do the world any favors by walking down that basement ramp on Sunday)." -- DVP; July 29, 2007
But, to emphasize once again, the large amount of evidence that exists in the JFK/Tippit cases is the thing that strongly suggests that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty. And his actions on both November 21 and 22 certainly do not suggest he was working with anyone else. His actions and movements strongly indicate his lone participation in the events of November 22, 1963.
David Von Pein
May 31—June 1, 2017
%20Thumbnail%20Logo.png)
