Youtube Interview I Did, Tippit Case

[Richard Smith]

Martin/Roger is effectively trapped by his own bizarre approach to this case.  He suggests there is doubt only by applying an impossible standard of proof to any evidence of Oswald's guilt.  He knows, however, that every manner of evidence in the record links Oswald to the murders of JFK and Tippit.  So there is no evidence that he can cite as "conclusive" of Oswald's guilt and maintain his charade.  All he can do is go round and round down the rabbit hole playing the victim, insulting others, and desperately trying to deflect the discussion to avoid answering a very simple question. 

[Bill Brown]

I asked you a question and rather than answer it you asked me a question and now hide behind that as the reason not to reveal your position as far as this case is concerned.
Let's have a look at the question you asked that you consider so important:

"Now let me ask you a question... Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?"

Would I like it?
Why would I like it?
This is the all-important question you feel needs answering before you can answer the question I have repeatedly asked you?
Let me make it clear - my answer to your question is "No, I wouldn't like it."

Now we've managed to roll that massive stone away...
Are you going to avoid, for the fourth time, this really straight-forward, non-threatening question - In this case, what specific evidence would you find conclusive?

Just imagine if your answer is "There is no specific evidence, no matter how powerful, that I would consider conclusive."
Just imagine what that would say about you and your presence on this forum.

The above is one of the best posts of the year; perhaps even THE best post.

Why is it one of the best?  Because it is 100% spot on; the point is entirely valid... and it asks a GREAT question.

[Martin Weidmann]

"Exactly what I thought. Your non trick question was intended to get me to reveal to you a "position as far as this case is concerned" which you can then focus on and attack. It is a classic LN strategy!"

It wasn't a trick question.
You're unwillingness to answer such a straight-forward question (which you have still failed to do) is interesting (IMO), as it suggests to me there is something you want to hide about the way you view this case.
You are clearly anti-LNer.
By the way - I'm a CTer, not an LNer.

You may be a CTer but I am not. I do not subscribe to any particular conspiracy theory. I have never made any statement on this board or elsewhere about Oswald's guilt or innocence nor have I ever claimed that there was conspiracy. There is nothing for me to hide and the insinuation alone that there is, along with the repeated incorrect claim that I haven't answered your question, when I have done so extensively, tells me you have some sort of an agenda. I really don't know what your game is.

Maybe you are under the misguided impression that in order to be interested in this case one needs to have a position in advance or perhaps you simply do not understand what I have written. Or alternatively I may have misunderstood what you mean exactly with "position as far as this case is concerned". Why don't you clear it up for me by telling me what your position is?

"If you were a juror at a criminal case would you feel comfortable to vote guilty based on similar non-conclusive evidence?"

If a case hinged on a single piece of evidence that could be interpreted in various ways I would not vote guilty.
I think I recognise a difference in the way we approach things here.
You look at each single piece of evidence and judge it in isolation - is it conclusive or not. Can it be interpreted in a number of ways. So, if there are 10 pieces of evidence you will look at each one individually and cast aside any and all that don't fit your criteria.
I am more inclined to look at the narrative into which all 10 pieces of information fit. Just because a piece of evidence can be interpreted in a number of ways doesn't necessarily negate it - one of the interpretations may well be correct.
For me it's about the narrative into which all 10 pieces must fit. Each piece may not be conclusive in and of itself but if there is only one sensible narrative into which all 10 pieces can fit, and each piece can be interpreted in a way that fits said narrative, I am more comfortable making a judgement about it.
If there are multiple narratives that can be constructed from the same 10 pieces of evidence then I must discern the likelihood of each narrative.

I think I recognise a difference in the way we approach things here.

I'm not convinced you do

You look at each single piece of evidence and judge it in isolation - is it conclusive or not. Can it be interpreted in a number of ways. So, if there are 10 pieces of evidence you will look at each one individually and cast aside any and all that don't fit your criteria.   

No. Although I do consider it necessary that single pieces of evidence have a certain level of credibility, I think it is near impossible for one single piece of evidence to be conclusive. I see it as building a house. You want the individual parts to be of a certain quality because if they are inferior the building will collapse, right?

And, no, I do not agree with casting aside any evidence that does not fit my criteria at all. That's what the WC did. If a piece of evidence doesn't fit, there must be reason for it and that needs to be examined. The events only happened in one way, so if a piece of evidence doesn't fit a narrative it might be an indication that the narrative is not (completely) correct.

I am more inclined to look at the narrative into which all 10 pieces of information fit.

That sounds a lot like what the WC did. Starting with a narrative and looking for pieces of evidence that will fit, regardless of how questionable they may be.

Just because a piece of evidence can be interpreted in a number of ways doesn't necessarily negate it - one of the interpretations may well be correct.

I agree. In fact one of the interpretations is likely to be correct. The main issue when looking at multiple pieces of evidence is if they fit together and form a conclusive narrative. It isn't called "following the evidence" for nothing!

For me it's about the narrative into which all 10 pieces must fit.

I consider that the wrong approach. Investigation is a proces of elimination not accumulation

Each piece may not be conclusive in and of itself but if there is only one sensible narrative into which all 10 pieces can fit, and each piece can be interpreted in a way that fits said narrative, I am more comfortable making a judgement about it. 

Fair enough. That's close to what I said.

If there are multiple narratives that can be constructed from the same 10 pieces of evidence then I must discern the likelihood of each narrative.

This is where you and I part ways. If there are still two or more reasonable explanations for the same combined 10 pieces of evidence than you not only have no conclusive evidence but by descerning likelihoods you also enter into the realm of speculation and assumption, which is exactly where all the dishonest LNs can be found.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin/Roger is effectively trapped by his own bizarre approach to this case.  He suggests there is doubt only by applying an impossible standard of proof to any evidence of Oswald's guilt.  He knows, however, that every manner of evidence in the record links Oswald to the murders of JFK and Tippit.  So there is no evidence that he can cite as "conclusive" of Oswald's guilt and maintain his charade.  All he can do is go round and round down the rabbit hole playing the victim, insulting others, and desperately trying to deflect the discussion to avoid answering a very simple question.

Now why am I not surprised that there would be a stupid and pathetic post like this coming from you?

[Dan O'meara]

You may be a CTer but I am not. I do not subscribe to any particular conspiracy theory. I have never made any statement on this board or elsewhere about Oswald's guilt or innocence nor have I ever claimed that there was conspiracy. There is nothing for me to hide and the insinuation alone that there is, along with the repeated incorrect claim that I haven't answered your question, when I have done so extensively, tells me you have some sort of an agenda. I really don't know what your game is.

What my game is?
I asked a very simple question:

"...as far as this case is concerned, what specific evidence would you consider to be "conclusive"?"

You've still not answered this question because you believe it's some kind of trap. It's not.
Point me to where you've answered this question because I can't find it.

Maybe you are under the misguided impression that in order to be interested in this case one needs to have a position in advance or perhaps you simply do not understand what I have written. Or alternatively I may have misunderstood what you mean exactly with "position as far as this case is concerned". Why don't you clear it up for me by telling me what your position is?

I've listened to Bill's interview a couple of times and find it compelling and authoritative. I have to qualify that by saying I've not really looked into the Tippit shooting in any great detail and am totally open to hearing a counter-narrative that encompasses the available witness statements and evidence.
At the moment Oswald looks guilty as far as I'm concerned but that can change as I dig deeper.

I think I recognise a difference in the way we approach things here.

I'm not convinced you do

I am

You look at each single piece of evidence and judge it in isolation - is it conclusive or not. Can it be interpreted in a number of ways. So, if there are 10 pieces of evidence you will look at each one individually and cast aside any and all that don't fit your criteria.   

No. Although I do consider it necessary that single pieces of evidence have a certain level of credibility, I think it is near impossible for one single piece of evidence to be conclusive. I see it as building a house. You want the individual parts to be of a certain quality because if they are inferior the building will collapse, right?

When you say "building a house", are you referring to the narrative. If so, what narrative do you believe is dictated by the available evidence?

And, no, I do not agree with casting aside any evidence that does not fit my criteria at all. That's what the WC did. If a piece of evidence doesn't fit, there must be reason for it and that needs to be examined. The events only happened in one way, so if a piece of evidence doesn't fit a narrative it might be an indication that the narrative is not (completely) correct.

What evidence in the Tippit case have you kept?

I am more inclined to look at the narrative into which all 10 pieces of information fit.

That sounds a lot like what the WC did. Starting with a narrative and looking for pieces of evidence that will fit, regardless of how questionable they may be.

The evidence must fit the narrative or the narrative doesn't work.

For me it's about the narrative into which all 10 pieces must fit.

I consider that the wrong approach. Investigation is a proces of elimination not accumulation

Investigation is a process of eliminating evidence?

If there are multiple narratives that can be constructed from the same 10 pieces of evidence then I must discern the likelihood of each narrative.

This is where you and I part ways. If there are still two or more reasonable explanations for the same combined 10 pieces of evidence than you not only have no conclusive evidence but by discerning likelihoods you also enter into the realm of speculation and assumption, which is exactly where all the dishonest LNs can be found.

If multiple "reasonable" explanations arise from the same evidence no real conclusions can be drawn.
But if one explanation is reasonable and one isn't, it's fair to "assume" the reasonable explanation is closer the truth.

[Dan O'meara]

The above is one of the best posts of the year; perhaps even THE best post.

Why is it one of the best?  Because it is 100% spot on; the point is entirely valid... and it asks a GREAT question.

Hi Bill,

A random question for you.
Is it feasible for Oswald to have reached his rooming house as early as 12:50 PM?

[Martin Weidmann]

What my game is?
I asked a very simple question:

"...as far as this case is concerned, what specific evidence would you consider to be "conclusive"?"

You've still not answered this question because you believe it's some kind of trap. It's not.
Point me to where you've answered this question because I can't find it.

I've listened to Bill's interview a couple of times and find it compelling and authoritative. I have to qualify that by saying I've not really looked into the Tippit shooting in any great detail and am totally open to hearing a counter-narrative that encompasses the available witness statements and evidence.
At the moment Oswald looks guilty as far as I'm concerned but that can change as I dig deeper.

I am

When you say "building a house", are you referring to the narrative. If so, what narrative do you believe is dictated by the available evidence?

What evidence in the Tippit case have you kept?

The evidence must fit the narrative or the narrative doesn't work.

Investigation is a process of eliminating evidence?

If multiple "reasonable" explanations arise from the same evidence no real conclusions can be drawn.
But if one explanation is reasonable and one isn't, it's fair to "assume" the reasonable explanation is closer the truth.

When you say "building a house", are you referring to the narrative. If so, what narrative do you believe is dictated by the available evidence?

Ask me again when I have examined all the available evidence. I don't jump to conclusions.

What evidence in the Tippit case have you kept?

Who said anything about the Tippit case?

I've listened to Bill's interview a couple of times and find it compelling and authoritative. I have to qualify that by saying I've not really looked into the Tippit shooting in any great detail and am totally open to hearing a counter-narrative that encompasses the available witness statements and evidence. At the moment Oswald looks guilty as far as I'm concerned but that can change as I dig deeper.

You've just told me that you have already begun making up your mind after hearing a "compelling and authoritative" propaganda piece filled with misrepresentations. The fact that you then proceed to say that you have not really looked into the Tippit, tells me that you have determined Bill Brown's video as "compelling and authoritative" without actually knowing much about the case. In my book that's jumping to conclusions.

You haven't even told me what your position of the case is, in order to establish if I perhaps misunderstood what you were asking. It seems I have known what you were asking after all. As for the rest, you're asking way too many questions and are not answering enough or discussing the information I have provided for me to wonder what use it is to continue this conversation.

If multiple "reasonable" explanations arise from the same evidence no real conclusions can be drawn.
But if one explanation is reasonable and one isn't, it's fair to "assume" the reasonable explanation is closer the truth.

Great, so we are at least in agreement on that point. Now let me ask you this; if there is a narrative, based on some but not all the witness statements, that combines a sequence of events in such a way that a time line can be derived from it in a corroborated way without having to claim that witnesses were wrong, late to catch their regular bus to work, late to pick up a daughter from school, and watches and hospital clocks were all slow, and not be vague about for instance how long it would take to walk one block.

And there is a narrative, again based on some but not all the witness statements as well as on a time line which totally depends on time stamps called out by DPD dispatchers, using clocks which the man in charge of the dispatchers told the HSCA were not synchronized, could be off by several minutes (esspecially in busy times when they were not checked regulary) and did not provide real time. For this narrative to work, a woman needs to be wrong about the time she left home and would be late for her regular bus to work, another man would have to be late by as much as five minutes to pick up his daughter from school, because his watch was late, and the clocks of a hospital need to be wrong so that a doctor can write down (and pass on to a justice of the peace) a time of death that allegedly was wrong, despite the fact that a police officer present confirmed the same time twice in his reports....

Which of these two narratives do you think, at first glance, is reasonably the most likely to be conclusive and correct?

I should point out that if you avoid answering this question this conversation is over.

[Dan O'meara]

You've just told me that you have already begun making up your mind after hearing a "compelling and authoritative" propaganda piece filled with misrepresentations. The fact that you then proceed to say that you have not really looked into the Tippit, tells me that you have determined Bill Brown's video as "compelling and authoritative" without actually knowing much about the case. In my book that's jumping to conclusions.

"Propaganda piece"?

Listening to his two and a half hour interview on the subject I was impressed by his command of the details, the arguments he brought together using the evidence available, and his interaction with the interviewer. He came across as knowledgeable and authoritative on this subject. However, I then wrote:
"I have to qualify that by saying I've not really looked into the Tippit shooting in any great detail and am totally open to hearing a counter-narrative that encompasses the available witness statements and evidence."
I qualified the impressions I had of the interview by openly stating my own lack of knowledge on the subject and my willingness to be swayed by an opposing opinion.
You didn't recognise the honesty of this statement which says something about you, not me.

You haven't even told me what your position of the case is, in order to establish if I perhaps misunderstood what you were asking. As for the rest, you're asking way too many questions and are not answering enough or discussing the information I have provided for me to wonder what use it is to continue this conversation.

You can't even answer one simple question.
I've answered every question you've asked of me.

If multiple "reasonable" explanations arise from the same evidence no real conclusions can be drawn.
But if one explanation is reasonable and one isn't, it's fair to "assume" the reasonable explanation is closer the truth.

Great, so we are at least in agreement on that point. Now let me ask you this; if there is a narrative, based on some but not all the witness statements, that combines a sequence of events in such a way that a time line can be derived from it in a corroborated way without having to claim that witnesses were wrong, late to catch their regular bus to work, late to pick up a daughter from school, and watches and hospital clocks were all slow, and not be vague about for instance how long it would take to walk one block.

And there is a narrative, again based on some but not all the witness statements as well as on a time line which totally depends on time stamps called out by DPD dispatchers, using clocks which the man in charge of the dispatchers told the HSCA were not synchronized, could be off by several minutes (esspecially in busy times when they were not checked regulary) and did not provide real time. For this narrative to work, a woman needs to be wrong about the time she left home and would be late for her regular bus to work, another man would have to be late by as much as five minutes to pick up his daughter from school, because his watch was late, and the clocks of a hospital need to be wrong so that a doctor can write down (and pass on to a justice of the peace) a time of death that allegedly was wrong, despite the fact that a police officer present confirmed the same time twice in his reports....

Which of these two narratives do you think, at first glance, is reasonably the most likely to be conclusive and correct?

In this scenario it is clearly the first narrative that holds sway.

I should point out that if you avoid answering this question this conversation is over.

If you don't answer my question this conversation is over.