Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

What problem, there's no need for this to get any more complicated with ridiculous wallet switching, do you ever think through your bizarre convoluted scenarios?

Oswald had identification for himself and an alias, and if the Dallas Police said Oswald had two wallets, no one would bat an eyelid.







Try again! Hahahaha!

JohnM

What problem, there's no need for this to get any more complicated with ridiculous wallet switching, do you ever think through your bizarre convoluted scenarios?

There is nothing convoluted. What you most likely simply do not want to understand is that it was already known that Oswald's wallet was taken from him by Paul Bentley in the car.
How do you explain the wallet at the Tippit scene, containing a fake Hidell ID, when the suspect still had his wallet on him when he was arrested at the Texas Theater.
Are you really too dumb to understand this or just pretending to be?

Oswald had identification for himself and an alias, and if the Dallas Police said Oswald had two wallets, no one would bat an eyelid.

BS... the guy was known to be poor and had hardly any money on him. Why in the world would such a guy be running around with two wallets and then conviniently drop the one with a fake Hidell ID at the scene? You really can't be that naive, can you?

Try again! Hahahaha!

No need. You haven't argued anything of substance. But why don't you at least try to answer my question;

What makes you think it was a civilian reaching for the wallet and who says that it was that civilian's wallet?

Or do you prefer to continue to be just another mediocre LN who makes all sorts of pathetic claims and statements but never backs them up with answers to simple questions?

[Richard Smith]

I agree with Richard, a wallet which is excellent supportive evidence of Oswald being at the crime scene and then covered up is absolutely bonkers.
It's no wonder the CT's never give a plausible narrative for this Oswald wallet because even they must realize that there isn't one.

Anyway, the original video clip shows exactly what happened, The Police Officer has no worries that his gun is pointed towards the detective but when the civilian reaches for his wallet the Officer hurriedly points the gun away. No big mystery.



JohnM

Martin also made this claim about the object:  "Nobody is looking through anything. In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened, so where does this BS comes from?"  Compare that to the film clip.  The facts, logic, and common sense are not relevant to him.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin also made this claim about the object:  "Nobody is looking through anything. In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened, so where does this BS comes from?"  Compare that to the film clip.  The facts, logic, and common sense are not relevant to him.

You claimed it was a notebook and they were looking through it. The video clearly shows you are the one blowing hot air.
And the wallet is in fact open when the plain clothes man puts his finger on in. Are you blind or just a liar?

[Richard Smith]

In a post, I asked Martin this question: "And where is it written that the police will never broadcast the name of a suspect?" This question is a response to your position that "police never give names of potential suspects on the radio."

In his response to my post, Martin neglected to answer my question. So I ask again: where is it written that police will never broadcast the name of a suspect? Where is this a policy, anywhere? When has this been a policy?

Martin makes up facts to suit his desired narrative but then applies an impossible standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt to suggest false doubt.  That is his leitmotif.  There is no such policy.   What we do know is that the description of the JFK assassin was broadcast.  It would be gross negligence for the police not to disseminate information to their fellow officers concerning a dangerous murder suspect on the loose in the Tippit case if they had a wallet left at the murder scene with an ID.  It is either the wallet of a witness still at the scene or Tippit's citation book.

[Richard Smith]

You claimed it was a notebook and they were looking through it. The video clearly shows you are the one blowing hot air.
And the wallet is in fact open when the plain clothes man puts his finger on in. Are you blind or just a liar?

Unreal.  You claimed whatever they were looking at was not open and they were not looking through it. 

"Nobody is looking through anything. In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened, so where does this BS comes from?"

Do you agree that whatever it is that they are looking at (i.e. wallet, notebook, citation book) that it is open and they are looking at the contents or not?  And, therefore, your prior comment is not accurate?

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin makes up facts to suit his desired narrative but then applies an impossible standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt to suggest false doubt.  That is his leitmotif.  There is no such policy.   What we do know is that the description of the JFK assassin was broadcast.  It would be gross negligence for the police not to disseminate information to their fellow officers concerning a dangerous murder suspect on the loose in the Tippit case if they had a wallet left at the murder scene with an ID.  It is either the wallet of a witness still at the scene or Tippit's citation book.

Martin makes up facts to suit his desired narrative but then applies an impossible standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt to suggest false doubt.  That is his leitmotif.  There is no such policy.

This is what happens when a LN runs out of arguments.

What we do know is that the description of the JFK assassin was broadcast.

Yes, but not a name of a suspect, and that's what we were talking about.

It is either the wallet of a witness still at the scene or Tippit's citation book.

Yeah right... keep on telling yourself that. Maybe one day you'll believe it.

[Martin Weidmann]

Unreal.  You claimed whatever they were looking at was not open and they were not looking through it. 

"Nobody is looking through anything. In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened, so where does this BS comes from?"

Do you agree that whatever it is that they are looking at (i.e. wallet, notebook, citation book) that it is open and they are looking at the contents or not?  And, therefore, your prior comment is not accurate?

You claimed whatever they were looking at was not open and they were not looking through it. 

Another lie. I never said what they were looking at was not open. You just made that up.....

Do you agree that whatever it is that they are looking at (i.e. wallet, notebook, citation book) that it is open and they are looking at the contents or not?

Of course... I never said anything different.

And, therefore, your prior comment is not accurate?

Of course it was accurate. You claimed they were looking through a notebook and that simply isn't true, no matter how much spin you try to put on it.

[John Iacoletti]

Martin makes up facts to suit his desired narrative but then applies an impossible standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt to suggest false doubt.

What are these “facts” that lend themselves to Oswald’s guilt? You mean your usual unsubstantiated claims?