Youtube Interview I Did, Tippit Case

[Bill Brown]

P.S. The ammo "found" 3 hours later in his pockets were all Winchesters

Irrelevant to Richard Smith's valid point.

When arrested, Oswald had both Remingtons and Winchesters loaded into the revolver taken from him; three of each.

[Richard Smith]

Oswald --- LOL

The revolver came out of G. Hill's pocket hours later.

Nobody (today) knows when it was loaded.

That's weak sauce.  You are implying that the evidence was planted after the fact with no basis at all to reach that conclusion.  If the standard is simply that any evidence of Oswald's guilt can be rebutted by merely suggesting that the evidence is planted, then there is no basis for a reasoned discussion.  That would be an impossible and unreasonable standard of proof to ever overcome.  The fact remains that Oswald had in his possession the exact same two brands of ammo that were used to murder Tippit.  The fact that he even had a pistol in his possession when arrested is odd.  What are the odds if he is innocent?  Why does he leave work and get a pistol before going to the movies?  You would have to be a complete imbecile to think all this is some type of bad luck.  Multiple witnesses ID him as the Tippit murderer.  He has a pistol in his possession when arrested.  He has the exact same two brands of ammo.  It's a slam dunk.

[Martin Weidmann]

That's weak sauce.  You are implying that the evidence was planted after the fact with no basis at all to reach that conclusion.  If the standard is simply that any evidence of Oswald's guilt can be rebutted by merely suggesting that the evidence is planted, then there is no basis for a reasoned discussion.  That would be an impossible and unreasonable standard of proof to ever overcome.  The fact remains that Oswald had in his possession the exact same two brands of ammo that were used to murder Tippit.  The fact that he even had a pistol in his possession when arrested is odd.  What are the odds if he is innocent?  Why does he leave work and get a pistol before going to the movies?  You would have to be a complete imbecile to think all this is some type of bad luck.  Multiple witnesses ID him as the Tippit murderer.  He has a pistol in his possession when arrested.  He has the exact same two brands of ammo.  It's a slam dunk.

You are implying that the evidence was planted after the fact with no basis at all to reach that conclusion.

Wrong. The fact that Hill carried a piece of crucial evidence around leaves the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation. Evidence is to be submitted to the Identification Bureau as soon as possible. In this case several pieces of evidence, including the jacket, the revolver and the wallet were not submitted until hours after Oswald's arrest.

The fact remains that Oswald had in his possession the exact same two brands of ammo that were used to murder Tippit.

That's not a fact. That's what we were told after Oswald's death and the same goes for the bus tranfer.

The fact that he even had a pistol in his possession when arrested is odd.  What are the odds if he is innocent?

In Texas? Where just about everybody has a weapon? Really?

It's a slam dunk.

Only for a gullible fool who looks no further than the surface.

[Richard Smith]

You are implying that the evidence was planted after the fact with no basis at all to reach that conclusion.

Wrong. The fact that Hill carried a piece of crucial evidence around leaves the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation. Evidence is to be submitted to the Identification Bureau as soon as possible. In this case several pieces of evidence, including the jacket, the revolver and the wallet were not submitted until hours after Oswald's arrest.

Wrong.  How does a DPD officer possessing the evidence leave "the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation"?  That is baseless and stupid even coming from you.  The mere baseless opinion that something is "possible" does not rebut the evidence.  Show us your support that on Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas that evidence could not be used if it was submitted "hours" after an arrest.  There was obviously a lot going on during the day in which both the President of the United States and a DPD officer had been murdered.  Pedantic claims like evidence should be submitted "as soon as possible" does absolutely nothing to rebut or cast any doubt on the fact that Oswald possessed a pistol when he was arrested.  And that he had the same two brands of ammo that were used to kill Tippit.  The mere "possibility" that the evidence was manipulated is an impossible standard of proof.   If a criminal could avoid culpability for a crime by just claiming that it was "possible" that the overwhelming evidence of his guilt was planted, then no one would ever go to jail.  You should be embarrassed to peddle this nonsense.

[Martin Weidmann]

Wrong.  How does a DPD officer possessing the evidence leave "the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation"?  That is baseless and stupid even coming from you.  The mere baseless opinion that something is "possible" does not rebut the evidence.  Show us your support that on Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas that evidence could not be used if it was submitted "hours" after an arrest.  There was obviously a lot going on during the day in which both the President of the United States and a DPD officer had been murdered.  Pedantic claims like evidence should be submitted "as soon as possible" does absolutely nothing to rebut or cast any doubt on the fact that Oswald possessed a pistol when he was arrested.  And that he had the same two brands of ammo that were used to kill Tippit.  The mere "possibility" that the evidence was manipulated is an impossible standard of proof.   If a criminal could avoid culpability for a crime by just claiming that it was "possible" that the overwhelming evidence of his guilt was planted, then no one would ever go to jail.  You should be embarrassed to peddle this nonsense.

How does a DPD officer possessing the evidence leave "the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation"?  That is baseless and stupid even coming from you.

Which only tells me just how clueless you truly are about evidence gathering and processing.

Show us your support that on Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas that evidence could not be used if it was submitted "hours" after an arrest. 

Why? who said that?

There was obviously a lot going on during the day in which both the President of the United States and a DPD officer had been murdered.  Pedantic claims like evidence should be submitted "as soon as possible" does absolutely nothing to rebut or cast any doubt on the fact that Oswald possessed a pistol when he was arrested.

You are so forgiving when it comes to your precious DPD, it's beyond pathetic.

If a criminal could avoid culpability for a crime by just claiming that it was "possible" that the overwhelming evidence of his guilt was planted, then no one would ever go to jail.

O.J. Simpson proved it was possible.

You should be embarrassed to peddle this nonsense.

Nope. You should be embarrased that you believe all the nonsense that you present on this board.

[Richard Smith]

How does a DPD officer possessing the evidence leave "the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation"?  That is baseless and stupid even coming from you.

Which only tells me just how clueless you truly are about evidence gathering and processing.

Show us your support that on Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas that evidence could not be used if it was submitted "hours" after an arrest. 

Why? who said that?

There was obviously a lot going on during the day in which both the President of the United States and a DPD officer had been murdered.  Pedantic claims like evidence should be submitted "as soon as possible" does absolutely nothing to rebut or cast any doubt on the fact that Oswald possessed a pistol when he was arrested.

You are so forgiving when it comes to your precious DPD, it's beyond pathetic.

If a criminal could avoid culpability for a crime by just claiming that it was "possible" that the overwhelming evidence of his guilt was planted, then no one would ever go to jail.

O.J. Simpson proved it was possible.

You should be embarrassed to peddle this nonsense.

Nope. You should be embarrased that you believe all the nonsense that you present on this board.

Do you really think the OJ trial/defense is the way that evidence should be reviewed in the JFK case?  Laughable.  The question is not whether some rube juror can be fooled by a dim witted defense attorney making a baseless claim like evidence was planted but whether Oswald committed the crime.  And the evidence confirms that he did.  Just like OJ. At best (even though you cannot support it), you are making a procedural argument to exclude evidence.  Not a real rebuttal of the evidence itself.

[Richard Smith]

Richard needs to slow down, made my day... 

LOL.  You see no evidentiary value in Oswald having a pistol in his possession when arrested?  The guy who is identified by multiple witnesses as the person who shot Tippit with - wait for it - a pistol.  It seems pretty important.  But maybe someone didn't validate a "control" number to your subjective satisfaction rendering it meaningless. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Do you really think the OJ trial/defense is the way that evidence should be reviewed in the JFK case?  Laughable.  The question is not whether some rube juror can be fooled by a dim witted defense attorney making a baseless claim like evidence was planted but whether Oswald committed the crime.  And the evidence confirms that he did.  Just like OJ. At best (even though you cannot support it), you are making a procedural argument to exclude evidence.  Not a real rebuttal of the evidence itself.

Do you really think the OJ trial/defense is the way that evidence should be reviewed in the JFK case?  Laughable.

How else would a defense lawyer review evidence? What's the difference between the OJ trial and the JFK case?

You, like the idiot that you are, claimed that manipulation of evidence was not a possibility because; "If a criminal could avoid culpability for a crime by just claiming that it was "possible" that the overwhelming evidence of his guilt was planted, then no one would ever go to jail"

And I confronted you with the truth that is that OJ did exactly that and got off. Remember Mark Fuhrman and the "planted glove" and what about the missing blood sample? And yet, you stupidly claim it couldn't happen!

At best (even though you cannot support it), you are making a procedural argument to exclude evidence.

A procedural argument that can only be made if procedures were not followed, like a lack of chain of custody or a Detective "walking around" for hours with a revolver and then handing it in with initials on it of cops that were not even present at the arrest.

You're making a fool of yourself..... but hey, what else is new?