Tippit Shooting, 1:15

[Walt Cakebread]

Four firearms experts testified that the empty cartridge cases, found near the crime scene, were fired from the Smith & Wesson 38 special caliber revolver taken from Oswald, when he was arrested at the theatre.And they declared that the four cartridges were fired from this weapon, to the exclussion of all others.

A total of 12 witnesses saw the man with the revolver.Six had picked Oswald out from line ups as the man at the crime scene .Three other identified him from photographs.Two others said he resembled the man at the crime scene. Not claiming this is being ignored.

There is an issue with the time in relation to Oswald getting from his rooming house at around the 1.02+ in time to get to the crime scene to commit murder. But that doesn't rule out Oswald. The eye witnesses and the ballistic evidence are to strong to be dismissed. And both those strong lines of evidence place Oswald at the crime scene.

A total of 12 witnesses saw the man with the revolver.  The eye witnesses and the ballistic evidence are to strong to be dismissed.

I agree....the ballistic evidence is to strong to be dismissed.

Virtually all of the witnesses who saw the gunman after the murder of Tippit said that he removed one spent shell at a time as he walked away from the scene.   The killer removed one spent shell and tossed it away and then removed another and another as he walked along...Thus the shells were scattered over a large area.

The S&W revolver has an ejector mechanism that ejects all of the shells at once.   ( This was demonstrated for the Warren Commission)

So if the killer had been using a S&W he could not have removed the shells one at a time as reported by the witnesses at the scene.

The man was NOT Lee Oswald and the gun was NOT a Smith & Wesson....... 

[Charles Collins]

There is no conflict. Both claims can be correct. People aren't always accurate and 100% complete in their recollections, in every conversation.

Perhaps you would have had a valid point if the bus stop had been a mile or so away, but it wasn't. It was nearly in front of the roominghouse.

Both claims can be correct.

It appears that in your world "she saw him run off the porch to the left and that was the last time she saw him" can also mean that "she saw him at the bus stop just after the 1:00 news came on television.” (By the way the bus stop is in front of the house to the right as you run off the porch.)

It appears that in your world left means right, and last time means last time other than the next time. If I remember correctly you are also the one who argued that even though Wesley Frazier told an untruth, that didn't mean that he lied.

Did Alice tell you these things (when she was ten feet tall)?

[Charles Collins]

This brings up something that Mrs Robert's said.....  Mrs Roberts said that he was in his "shirt sleeves" when he arrived at the rooming house at 1:00pm.....

My grandmother used those same words when she was referring to a man wearing an undershirt....without another garment ( jacket or sleeved shirt)

It's possible that Lee had already removed his sport shirt and thus Mrs Roberts saw him wearing his undershirt when he arrived at the house.

According to vocabulary.com:

“"in your shirtsleeves" means you are not wearing anything over your shirt”

[Walt Cakebread]

According to vocabulary.com:

“"in your shirtsleeves" means you are not wearing anything over your shirt”

That's probably true.... But back in the day... 50, or 60, or 70 years ago not everybody was well educated, and used a dictionary to learn the meaning of a word.... They used like "car"  to mean any conveyance like a street car, or a carriage.....  but not many folks today know that.   The word "car" now means an automobile.  And many folks used the "N" word to describe a negro.... There was nothing derogatory or obscene about the word.   ( Remember "Huckleberry Finn?.. What did Jim call himself?  ) ....   

So old Mrs Roberts probably was referring to seeing Lee in his T shirt when he arrived at the rooming house.....IMO

[Steve M. Galbraith]

What is the logic behind this mind numbing claim?  It's difficult to understand why we should take a reporter's version of events "with a large dose of salt" simply because he believes Oswald is guilty.  Maybe he came to that conclusion based on the evidence.  He was there on the scene.  Are you suggesting he intentionally lied for some reason?  Was he part of the frame up, for example?

Aynesworth wrote this about the single bullet theory and the WC (this is from his book "Eyewitness to History.")

"The only subject I woudn't touch [with Mark Lane] was one I still refuse to touch today. I do not know how to explain Kennedy's and Connally's wound. The Warren Commission might be correct or perhaps totally wrong about its much-maligned single bullet theory, the belief that a single bullet slammed through the president's back and throat and then into Governor Connally. I do know that I heard three distinct shots that afternoon."

For a supposed lifelong WC defender that's a pretty odd statement - "they might be correct or perhaps totally wrong" - about a key claim made by the commission.

It's funny that Aynesworth has been called a CIA asset by some in the "There was a conspiracy camp" (yeah, they call everyone who disagree with them that but never mind). He said that one of his biggest mistakes was giving Mark Lane his (Aynesworth's) work on the assassination. This included his notes and interviews and other material that he compiled BEFORE the Warren Commission was formed.

So why did this controlled CIA asset helped Mark Lane?

[John Iacoletti]

I don’t know why Aynesworth’s hearsay would be any more reliable than anyone else’s.

[Charles Collins]

For a supposed lifelong WC defender that's a pretty odd statement - "they might be correct or perhaps totally wrong" - about a key claim made by the commission.

He might have realized how far out it was...

So why did this controlled CIA asset helped Mark Lane?

I'm sure Graves is ready to lecture you on why or why not this might be the case.

He might have realized how far out it was...

Eyewitness Charles Brehm said the following in his interview by Larry Sneed in his book “No More Silence.”

“Within hours after the knowledge was given to me that Connally was also wounded, I said the only thing that I could think of was that a bullet that went through the President had also obviously hit Connally because there were only three shots fired: one went wild and two hit the President. The question then was how could it have happened? At that time, it was very easy for me to open up my shirt and show the bullet wound in what was the solar plexus, to come over here and show the exit wound where it passed through my body and came out between my ribs; then the second part of the bullet, the damage, because the bullet was softened and out of shape, tore my arm apart. One bullet did that to me! Any questions that night about what a single bullet can do, my God, I was living proof of it that day!”

So apparently, Arlen Spector wasn’t the first one to think of that theory. And it isn’t that far out either.

[John Iacoletti]

Charles Brehm was wounded?