Well, it boils down to this question: What is the best and most reliable evidence re: the Tippit murder (or any murder case for that matter)?
CTers, for the most part, tend to disbelieve and distrust virtually all of the evidence that exists against Oswald. But I, myself, don't see a lot of problems with the evidence---including the Tippit evidence. One big reason to think that no hanky-panky was occurring with the Tippit evidence is: Because it was one of Dallas' own cops who had just been killed. And what kind of rotten lowlife would have wanted the killer of one of their own to get away with murder? You could hardly get mucher lower than that. But it seems that some CTers favor the notion that the DPD did do just that---i.e., framed an innocent Oswald as a cop-killer. Such a notion is just ridiculous, IMO.
So, IMO, not a single bit of the evidence against Oswald was faked or planted. So, therefore, Oswald's got to be guilty. Because in the real world, you can't be the owner of BOTH murder weapons on 11/22 and be innocent. That's just not a reasonable conclusion to reach.
BTW, Martin, do you think you can PROVE that even ONE piece of evidence that exists against Oswald was faked/planted/manufactured? And if so, what is that PROOF?
CTers, for the most part, tend to disbelieve and distrust virtually all of the evidence that exists against Oswald.Well, then it's a good thing that I am not a CT, because I couldn't care less if Oswald did it by himself or if there was some sort of conspiracy. In fact, for several decades I was happy to just accept that Oswald had done it, simply because that's what the official story told us and I never gave it a second thought. That all changed when I was present at a discussion about the case. That sparked my interest and I decided to read the WC report. After I did that it was pretty obvious to me that the official narrative was not supported by the evidence the WC had presented and at that time I became very skeptical indeed.
But I, myself, don't see a lot of problems with the evidence---including the Tippit evidence. Fair enough, I suppose. We all have an opinion. The problem with opinions in general is that they are highly influenced by what an individual knows or understands. So, if what for me is a major red flag - like a very inconvenient spliced tape recording at a crucial point in time and unreliable timestamps by DPD dispatchers (according to their own supervisor) - does not bother you, there isn't much I can tell you.
One big reason to think that no hanky-panky was occurring with the Tippit evidence is: Because it was one of Dallas' own cops who had just been killed. And what kind of rotten lowlife would have wanted the killer of one of their own to get away with murder? You could hardly get mucher lower than that. That's an emotional argument not a rational one. Of course most of the DPD officers would want to catch the killer of one of their own, but that doesn't preclude that there wasn't a bad apple with an alternate motive somewhere. Besides, good cops can still be misled and honestly deal with manipulated evidence.
For instance, when Gus Rose had just arrived at the police station to start work, he ended up talking briefly with Oswald. Just prior to that some officer, who to this day has remained unidentified, gave him a wallet (which as it turned out had Oswald and Hidell ID's in it) and he was told the wallet belonged to Oswald. Obviously, Rose had no reason to doubt the veracity of that statement, but what if it wasn't Oswald's wallet at all? What if the original wallet (the one Paul Bentley took from Oswald in the car, the one he said on TV contained a credit card and a driver's license) was switched with the wallet FBI officer Barrett said Captain Westbrook had when he asked him (at the Tippit scene) if he had ever heard the names Hidell or Oswald? Now, remember this is just a "what if" question to demonstrate how evidence could be manipulated. Westbrook is actually an interesting fellow when it comes to the three most crucial pieces of evidence; the wallet, the jacket and the revolver, but that's a nice bit of speculation on my part for perhaps another day.
But it seems that some CTers favor the notion that the DPD did do just that---i.e., framed an innocent Oswald as a cop-killer. Such a notion is just ridiculous, IMO.Yes, that is ridiculous. But there is a difference between an entire police force and a few bad apples. And who said that the DPD framed Oswald?
So, IMO, not a single bit of the evidence against Oswald was faked or planted. So, therefore, Oswald's got to be guilty. Because in the real world, you can't be the owner of BOTH murder weapons on 11/22 and be innocent. That's just not a reasonable conclusion to reach. Actually, it would only be a reasonable conclusion to reach if you first (as you do) conclude that Oswald did in fact own both murder weapons. IMO there is massive reasonable doubt about that.
BTW, Martin, do you think you can PROVE that even ONE piece of evidence that exists against Oswald was faked/planted/manufactured? And if so, what is that PROOF?Trying to shift the burden of proof is exposing the weakness of your own case. Even more so as your own case is based on, for instance, the claim that Oswald leaving his wedding ring behind, or allegedly changing his routine (when he barely had a routine to speak of) is somehow evidence of his guilt.
But to answer your question, I have never claimed that evidence was faked, planted or manufactured. I have merely said that I can't rule out the possibility as in some cases circumstantial evidence suggests that it might be. What I do consider absolutely possible is that some of the crucial pieces of physical evidence, as well as Oswald himself, were manipulated as well as that there was a selective process in the way witnesses were dealt with in relation to a piece of physical evidence.
But to get back to the matter of proof. Since you claim Oswald was guilty of both crimes you really should be able to present conclusive evidence for that claim. In the Markham (and Bowley and Callaway) discussion I haven't see you doing that.
So, why don't you begin with telling us what your reasons are for doubting Markham's timestamps?
