Final Conclusion*

[Andrew Mason]

No, those aren't "coincidences", they are flat out false or unsubstantiated claims.

I am not sure what you mean by unsubstantiated.  There is evidence for each.  In order to reach a rational conclusion that they are "flat out false" you would need strong contrary evidence.  What is the evidence that is contrary to the evidence I have outlined?

[Andrew Mason]

No.  Something is either evidence of guilt or it is not.  A bunch of things that are not evidence at all (like a ring in a cup) do not magically combine into evidence of murder.  All they are is rhetorical padding for a weak case.

Lots of us had a laugh at Patrick's blood cannons the first time he broached the subject.  But if you think about it, it's not that much different from the narrative of the "Oswald did it" cult.  It's based on a fanciful story filled with assumptions and speculation and hardly any direct evidence.

The "Oswald did it" cult at least has evidence that Oswald did it.  Not only is there absolutely no evidence that JFK survived, there is abundant, overwhelming evidence that he did not.  Those who saw the head shot live knew immediately that it was a fatal wound. Anyone who has seen the Zapruder film can see the head rupture and conclude that it was a fatal shot.

[John Iacoletti]

I am not sure what you mean by unsubstantiated.  There is evidence for each.  In order to reach a rational conclusion that they are "flat out false" you would need strong contrary evidence.  What is the evidence that is contrary to the evidence I have outlined?

You didn't outline any evidence, you just made a series of claims.  For example, what is your evidence that Oswald pulled a gun out in the theater and attempted to shoot an arresting officer?  There is testimony specifically contradicting that claim.  McDonald said the gun was still in the waistband when he grabbed Oswald's hand and they pulled it out together.  Walker said that several hands were on the gun and it was waist high at a 45 degree angle and pointed toward the screen when he heard a click.  Hutson said that the gun was waving around towards the back of the seat when he heard the snap.  So what evidence justifies you cavalierly parroting the myth that Oswald tried to shoot an officer?

Another example.  You claimed "Oswald's jacket was dropped in the alley that the Tippit assailant ran down".  First of all, the jacket was never proven to be Oswald's.  Secondly, it wasn't found in an alley, it was (allegedly) found in a parking lot, though the police couldn't figure out who actually found it.  Thirdly, nobody saw any "Tippit assailant" run into the parking lot.

Another example.  You claimed "Oswald carried a gun similar to that of the assailant".  What is your basis for knowing what gun "the assailant" carried?  Or what gun (if any) that Oswald "carried"?

[Andrew Mason]

You didn't outline any evidence, you just made a series of claims.  For example, what is your evidence that Oswald pulled a gun out in the theater and attempted to shoot an arresting officer?  There is testimony specifically contradicting that claim.  McDonald said the gun was still in the waistband when he grabbed Oswald's hand and they pulled it out together.  Walker said that several hands were on the gun and it was waist high at a 45 degree angle and pointed toward the screen when he heard a click.  Hutson said that the gun was waving around towards the back of the seat when he heard the snap.  So what evidence justifies you cavalierly parroting the myth that Oswald tried to shoot an officer?

All the officers said that Oswald and McDonald were in a struggle and that Oswald's gun came out in the struggle.  Here is what McDonald said (3H300):

"And just as I got to the row where the suspect was sitting, I stopped abruptly, and turned in and told him to get on his feet. He rose immediately, bringing up both hands. He got this hand about shoulder high, his left hand shoulder high, and he got his right hand about breast high. He said, “Well, it is all over now.”
As he said this, I put my left hand on his waist and then his hand went to the waist. And this hand struck me between the eyes on the bridge of the nose.

Mr. BALL. Did he cock his fist?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir ; knocking my cap off.
Mr. BALL. Which fist did he hit you with?
Mr. MCDONALD. His left fist.
Mr. BALL. What happened then?
Mr. MCDONALD. Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal reaction
was for me to go at him with this hand.
Mr. BALL.. Right hand?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I struck him
on the face, but I don’t know where. And with my band, that was on his hand
over the pistol.
Mr. BALL. Did you feel the pistol?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which hand was-was his right hand or his left hand on the pistol?
Mr. MCDONALD. His right hand was on the pistol.
Mr. BALL. And which of your hands?
Mr. MCDONALD. My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL. And had he withdrawn the pistol-
Mr. MCDONALD. He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL. From his waist?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir.

No one contradicted this evidence that Oswald punched McDonald, pulled his gun out and said "Well, it's all over now"? 

Another example.  You claimed "Oswald's jacket was dropped in the alley that the Tippit assailant ran down".  First of all, the jacket was never proven to be Oswald's.

There was evidence that Marina identified it (CE162) as Oswald's jacket (1H122):
"Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee’s-an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes."

What do you want? DNA evidence?

Secondly, it wasn't found in an alley, it was (allegedly) found in a parking lot, though the police couldn't figure out who actually found it. 

Capt. Westbrook testified that it was found under the rear bumper of a car that was parked in the parking lot but backing onto the alley:

Thirdly, nobody saw any "Tippit assailant" run into the parking lot.

Oswald ran down the alley.  He did not have to run into the parking lot to put it under the back of that car (location of the jacket marked on photo 38 above).

Another example.  You claimed "Oswald carried a gun similar to that of the assailant".  What is your basis for knowing what gun "the assailant" carried?  Or what gun (if any) that Oswald "carried"?

If I recall correctly, the assailant had a revolver that contained bullets and the shells found at the scene of the Tippit shooting were indistinguishable from the shells in Oswald's gun.  It was not possible to positively identify the bullets themselves because they were undersized for the barrel and did not have the characteristic lands and grooves used to make positive identifications. 

[John Iacoletti]

All the officers said that Oswald and McDonald were in a struggle and that Oswald's gun came out in the struggle. 

By McDonald’s account, the gun was still in the waistband when he grabbed Oswald’s hand, which he said was over the pistol. If it was still in the waistband, then Oswald didn’t pull out a gun. It’s as simple as that.

Nobody else said anything about hearing him say “this is it” or “it’s all over now” (which btw sound nothing alike).

There was evidence that Marina identified it (CE162) as Oswald's jacket (1H122):
"Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee’s-an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes."

Rankin’s blatant witness leading aside, she thought they were showing her an old shirt. Not much of an identification.

What do you want? DNA evidence?

Yes, that would be very helpful. Why not?

Not that it matters much — unless they find Tippit’s DNA on it too.

Capt. Westbrook testified that it was found under the rear bumper of a car that was parked in the parking lot but backing onto the alley:

He also said that he didn’t find it and didn’t know who did.

If I recall correctly, the assailant had a revolver that contained bullets and the shells found at the scene of the Tippit shooting were indistinguishable from the shells in Oswald's gun.

Except because of the way the crime scene and the evidence was handled, we don’t actually know that the shells in evidence were “found at the scene” or that the gun they matched was “Oswald’s gun”. Nor do we know that the shells in evidence had anything to do with Tippit’s murder.

[Richard Smith]

Just Old Lee knocking off for the day because something happened at work, getting his gun, looking just like the person who killed Tippit on the way to the movies, having the same two brands of ammo as the killer, ducking into the movie theatre without buying a ticket, acting so suspiciously that he draws the attention of random citizens, drawing his weapon on a police officer who interrupted his movie!  Nothing to see there.  Bad luck.  In fact he is victim! A violation of his rights.  LOL.  Unreal.  These contrarians have no shame.  At least they could try a bit harder.

[Bill Chapman]

No.  Something is either evidence of guilt or it is not.  A bunch of things that are not evidence at all (like a ring in a cup) do not magically combine into evidence of murder.  All they are is rhetorical padding for a weak case.

Lots of us had a laugh at Patrick's blood cannons the first time he broached the subject.  But if you think about it, it's not that much different from the narrative of the "Oswald did it" cult.  It's based on a fanciful story filled with assumptions and speculation and hardly any direct evidence.

But if you think about it, it's not that much different from the narrative of the "Anybody but Oswald" cult

Hey man, what the hell is going on?

[Andrew Mason]

By McDonald’s account, the gun was still in the waistband when he grabbed Oswald’s hand, which he said was over the pistol. If it was still in the waistband, then Oswald didn’t pull out a gun. It’s as simple as that.

So are you saying that McDonald pulled it out?  Because it came out.  And Oswald's hand was on it first.

Nobody else said anything about hearing him say “this is it” or “it’s all over now” (which btw sound nothing alike).

McDonald didn't say that Oswald shouted it.  McDonald was closest to him.  Oswald's punching McDonald in the face is certainly consistent with Oswald making one last gasp, thinking that it was all over. Sometimes actions speak for themselves.

Rankin’s blatant witness leading aside, she thought they were showing her an old shirt. Not much of an identification.

Marina's English vocabulary should be taken into account.  She certainly recognized the garment as Oswald's, without any prompting by counsel.  In any event, it IS a jacket.

Yes, that would be very helpful. Why not?

Not that it matters much — unless they find Tippit’s DNA on it too.

You weren't expecting a DNA comparison in 1964 were you?  T

Although they could do a DNA profile now but they would need a sample of Oswald's DNA to compare it to.  Not a simple task.  I am not sure that would be high on the FBI lab's list of things to do at the moment.

He also said that he didn’t find it and didn’t know who did.

He was there when an officer, whose name he could not recall, announced that they had found a jacket under a car. Of course if your premise is that all officers were in on the conspiracy to fabricate evidence, that may not impress you.  But this is what Westbrook said (7 H 115-117):
p115
"Mr. WESTBROOK. Actually, I didn’t find it-it was pointed out to me by either
some officer that-that was while we were going over the scene in the close
area where the shooting was concerned, someone pointed out a jacket to me
that was laying under a car and I got the jacket and told the officer to take
the license number. "

....
p 117
"Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes; behind the Texaco service station, and some officer, I
feel sure it was an officer, I still can’t be positive-pointed this jacket out to me
and it was laying slightly under the rear of one of the cars.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a car was it?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That, I couldn’t tell you. I told the officer to take the make
and the license number.
Mr. BALL. Did you take the number yourself?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No.
Mr. BALL. What was the name of the officer?
Mr. WESTBROOK. I couldn’t tell you that, sir. "

Except because of the way the crime scene and the evidence was handled, we don’t actually know that the shells in evidence were “found at the scene” or that the gun they matched was “Oswald’s gun”. Nor do we know that the shells in evidence had anything to do with Tippit’s murder.

You don't, perhaps.  But maybe that is because you think there was this widespread conspiracy at every level of every organization involved.  According to the best available evidence, the shells were found at the scene and matched the shells still in Oswald's gun.  This was summarized by the HSCA at p. 59 of their report:

"(a) The Tippit murder

The committee investigated the murder of Officer Tippit primarily for its implications concerning the assassination of the President. The committee relied primarily on scientific evidence. The committee's firearms panel determined positively that all four cartridge cases found at the scene of the Tippit murder were fired from the pistol that was found in Lee Harvey Oswald's possession when he was apprehended in the Texas Theatre 35 minutes after the murder.13(128)

In addition, the committee's investigators interviewed witnesses present at the scene of the Tippit murder.(129) Based on Oswald's possession of the murder weapon a short time after the murder and the eyewitness identifications of Oswald as the gunman, the committee concluded that Oswald shot and killed Officer Tippit. The committee further concluded that this crime, committed while fleeing the scene of the assassination, was consistent with a finding that Oswald assassinated the President."