Youtube Interview I Did, Tippit Case

[Bill Brown]

I rely on her.

Of course you do. You don't care if it's true or accurate. You have no choice. You have to rely on her because without her your entire narrative re the Tippit shooting falls apart. It's a hell of a way of scrutinizing evidence; you decide to believe a story and then start looking for only the information you need to support that story. And of course you ignore the credibility problems of the witness as well as everything else you don't like. That's desperation if ever I saw it.

And no. Let's not forget 10th and Patton. If you believe Roberts you also accept that Oswald did not leave the rooming house until 1:04 or 1:05 and then waited at the bus stop on Beckley, right?

Why did Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?

Did he? Says who?

Marina testified Oswald only had two jackets; CE 162 and CE 163. The darker jacket (CE 163) was later found at the TSBD and Frazier saw Oswald wear a gray jacket to Irving which could only have been CE 162. So what jacket was there for Oswald to ditch? Or alternatively, if Oswald did wear a gray jacket on Friday, what happened to the one he wore to Irving on Thursday?

And yet another post goes by without a reasonable explanation for why Oswald ditched his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson.

By the way, Sam Guinyard positively identified the man running with a gun as Lee Oswald.  He also positively identified the jacket in evidence (CE-162) as the jacket worn by Oswald as Oswald fled down Patton with a gun.

You see, for every jacket discrepancy witness you have, I have three more that identified Oswald and stated he was wearing a jacket.  See my Youtube interview.

Give it up already.

[Martin Weidmann]

And yet another post goes by without a reasonable explanation for why Oswald ditched his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson.

By the way, Sam Guinyard positively identified the man running with a gun as Lee Oswald.  He also positively identified the jacket in evidence (CE-162) as the jacket worn by Oswald as Oswald fled down Patton with a gun.

You see, for every jacket discrepancy witness you have, I have three more that identified Oswald and stated he was wearing a jacket.  See my Youtube interview.

Give it up already.

And yet another post goes by without a reasonable explanation for why Oswald ditched his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson.

You want me to speculate about something you assume happened? No thank you!

By the way, Sam Guinyard positively identified the man running with a gun as Lee Oswald.

And every witness is always 100% correct in everything he or she says? Is that what you are saying?

He also positively identified the jacket in evidence (CE-162) as the jacket worn by Oswald as Oswald fled down Patton with a gun.

Now that's really impressive, seeing a jacket from the other side of the street and being able to identify it months later to the exclusion of all other jackets. Or is that what really happened? Let's have a look;

Mr. BALL. Now, the next exhibit here is Commission Exhibit No. 162; have you ever seen this before?
Mr. GUINYARD. That's the jacket.
Mr. BALL. This is a gray jacket?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; that's the gray jacket.
Mr. BALL. It has a zipper on it?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You say that's the jacket?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; that he had on in Oak Cliff when he passed the lot.
Mr. BALL. That the man with the pistol had on?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir.

Well that's a "rock solid" identification of a particular jacket alright.  Get real, will ya! At best it's a recoginition of the type of jacket. And even if Guinyard was right about CE 162 being the jacket he saw, Roberts contradicts him by testifying that the jacket she saw was darker than CE 162.

When you cherry pick witness evidence it might be useful if that same evidence isn't contradicted by another witness. And, of course, if Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket, Guinyard's identification has to be erroneous as well!

You see, for every jacket discrepancy witness you have, I have three more that identified Oswald and stated he was wearing a jacket. 

Except that if the gray jacket was in Irving, and Oswald didn't have enough time to get to 10th/Patton, those witnesses of yours were wrong in their identification of Oswald. It does happen that witnesses are wrong. You know that, don't you?

The Innocence Project states that "Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing."[2] This non-profit organization uses DNA evidence to reopen criminal convictions that were made before DNA testing was available as a tool in criminal investigations.

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

And you consider yourself to be a serious researcher? Yeah right!

See my Youtube interview.[/b]

Your Youtube interview is pure propaganda, filled with assumptions, misrepresentations and half truths.

Btw... what happened to the gray jacket that Frazier saw Oswald wearing to Irving on Thursday evening?

[Bill Brown]

By the way, Sam Guinyard positively identified the man running with a gun as Lee Oswald.

And every witness is always 100% correct in everything he or she says? Is that what you are saying?

No.  What I very clearly said is that for every jacket discrepancy witness you have, I have three more that identified Oswald and stated he was wearing a jacket.  See my Youtube interview.

[Bill Brown]

And yet another post goes by without a reasonable explanation for why Oswald ditched his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson.

You want me to speculate about something you assume happened? No thank you!

No.  I am just asking for a reasonable explanation, which you've yet to give.  Why is that?

[Martin Weidmann]

No.  What I very clearly said is that for every jacket discrepancy witness you have, I have three more that identified Oswald and stated he was wearing a jacket.  See my Youtube interview.

It doesn't matter. It's not a numbers game. You may have 100 people saying one thing and 1 person saying something else. It is still possible that the one person is the one who is correct.

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy which incorrectly assumes that the majority is always right!

When I asked you if you believed that every witness is always 100% correct in everything he or she says, you answered; NO.
Does that mean you accept that Guinyard could have been wrong?

[Martin Weidmann]

No.  I am just asking for a reasonable explanation, which you've yet to give.  Why is that?

Because you want me to speculate about something that you assume happened. There is nothing reasonable about that.

In order to give you any kind of answer, I would first have to agree that it happened and I, for lack of sufficient evidence, don't. Get it now?

[Dan O'meara]

Because you want me to speculate about something that you assume happened. There is nothing reasonable about that.

In order to give you any kind of answer, I would first have to agree that it happened and I, for lack of sufficient evidence, don't. Get it now?

What evidence would be sufficient?

[Bill Brown]

Because you want me to speculate about something that you assume happened. There is nothing reasonable about that.

In order to give you any kind of answer, I would first have to agree that it happened and I, for lack of sufficient evidence, don't. Get it now?

Of course you don't agree.  Is that supposed to be some sort of surprise?

You cannot change the facts.  The facts are that multiple witnesses said that they saw Oswald at Tenth and Patton (or fleeing down Patton) with a gun in his hand and wearing a jacket.