Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Richard Smith]

The same old speculation....

Again, I'm not claiming with certainty that this is Tippit's citation book but it is a better explanation than a wallet left at the scene

So you can't say for certain what it is but you can say without reservation that it isn't a wallet?

Your explanation isn't even an explanation. It's just a word salad with nothing conclusive to counter the fact that FBI agent Bob Barrett, who was at the scene and saw the damned thing, said it was a wallet. You keep on ignorning that.... why is that?

I provided my reasons based on logic and what is depicted in the film clip - none of which you addressed much less rebutted and much of which you falsely mischaracterized (i.e. claiming the wallet was not opened and the police weren't looking through it).  Again, I'm not saying it can't be a wallet.  I am saying it is not a wallet left at the scene for the reasons discussed.  Many people said things long after the events that are not true.  You have never accepted such evidence in this case when it lends itself to Oswald's guilt but suddenly it MUST be true. 

[Martin Weidmann]

I provided my reasons based on logic and what is depicted in the film clip - none of which you addressed much less rebutted and much of which you falsely mischaracterized (i.e. claiming the wallet was not opened and the police weren't looking through it).  Again, I'm not saying it can't be a wallet.  I am saying it is not a wallet left at the scene for the reasons discussed.  Many people said things long after the events that are not true.  You have never accepted such evidence in this case when it lends itself to Oswald's guilt but suddenly it MUST be true.

I provided my reasons based on logic

Please give me a break. Based on bias is closer to the truth.

Again, I'm not saying it can't be a wallet.

Yes you were saying exactly that;

What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.

I am saying it is not a wallet left at the scene for the reasons discussed.

You have no way of knowing that.

Many people said things long after the events that are not true.

That doesn't mean you get to assume that everbody who said something long after the events was lying. You have no valid reason to assume that FBI agent Bob Barrett was lying, just like Barrett himself had no reason to lie. He told the story to Hosty in a private conversation, not to exonerate Oswald (who he still believed to be guilty) or to seek notoriety. He just expressed his opinion to another FBI agent that something strange was going at the DPD involving Oswald's wallet.

You have never accepted such evidence in this case when it lends itself to Oswald's guilt but suddenly it MUST be true.

I deal with evidence on a case by case basis. If somebody makes a claim for which there is no substantiation, I treat it with caution.

Here we have Bob Barrett saying there was a wallet and we have video of what's clearly a wallet at the Tippit scene. You have not a shred of proof that it wasn't a wallet. Even your so-called "logic" isn't logical at all. You just assume it wasn't a wallet, because you don't want it to be a wallet. The circumstantial case involving the wallet(s) is a plausible one, which makes it possibly and likely true.

What is hilarious is that LNs are always going on about looking at the entire circumstantial case as a whole. I'm doing exactly that and looking at the circumstantial case of the DPD manipulating evidence (such as the jacket and the revolver) it is most certainly not beyond belief that Bob Barrett's story is in fact true. Whether you like it or not.

[Richard Smith]

I provided my reasons based on logic

Please give me a break. Based on bias is closer to the truth.

Again, I'm not saying it can't be a wallet.

Yes you were saying exactly that;

I am saying it is not a wallet left at the scene for the reasons discussed.

You have no way of knowing that.

Many people said things long after the events that are not true.

That doesn't mean you get to assume that everbody who said something long after the events was lying. You have no valid reason to assume that FBI agent Bob Barrett was lying, just like Barrett himself had no reason to lie. He told the story to Hosty in a private conversation, not to exonerate Oswald (who he still believed to be guilty) or to seek notoriety. He just expressed his opinion to another FBI agent that something strange was going at the DPD involving Oswald's wallet.

You have never accepted such evidence in this case when it lends itself to Oswald's guilt but suddenly it MUST be true.

I deal with evidence on a case by case basis. If somebody makes a claim for which there is no substantiation, I treat it with caution.

Here we have Bob Barrett saying there was a wallet and we have video of what's clearly a wallet at the Tippit scene. You have not a shred of proof that it wasn't a wallet. Even your so-called "logic" isn't logical at all. You just assume it wasn't a wallet, because you don't want it to be a wallet. The circumstantial case involving the wallet(s) is a plausible one, which makes it possibly and likely true.

What is hilarious is that LNs are always going on about looking at the entire circumstantial case as a whole. I'm doing exactly that and looking at the circumstantial case of the DPD manipulating evidence (such as the jacket and the revolver) it is most certainly not beyond belief that Bob Barrett's story is in fact true. Whether you like it or not.

Again, I've said we can likely never know with certainty.  I have provided reasons that the circumstances lend themselves more to this being a notebook or citation book belonging to Tippit. And you obviously don't understand the distinction between a "wallet left at the crime scene" and a wallet of some witness who is present.   The former (that is the first option Martin) would be evidence of the possible identity of the shooter.  The police would have reasonable cause to believe that a wallet left at the crime scene was linked to the crime and the identity of the owner could be ascertained from the contents.  That person would have become a suspect and his name and/description would have been broadcast over the police radio just as the description of the JFK assassin was broadcast.   We know that didn't happen.  That lends itself to this not being a wallet LEFT AT THE SCENE.  If it is a wallet, it is the wallet of a witness standing off camera. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, I've said we can likely never know with certainty.  I have provided reasons that the circumstances lend themselves more to this being a notebook or citation book belonging to Tippit. And you obviously don't understand the distinction between a "wallet left at the crime scene" and a wallet of some witness who is present.   The former (that is the first option Martin) would be evidence of the possible identity of the shooter.  The police would have reasonable cause to believe that a wallet left at the crime scene was linked to the crime and the identity of the owner could be ascertained from the contents.  That person would have become a suspect and his name and/description would have been broadcast over the police radio just as the description of the JFK assassin was broadcast.   We know that didn't happen.  That lends itself to this not being a wallet LEFT AT THE SCENE.  If it is a wallet, it is the wallet of a witness standing off camera.

Again, I've said we can likely never know with certainty.

In this case there is nothing that can be known with certainty. Not even who shot Kennedy and/or Tippit can be known with absolute certainty.

I have provided reasons that the circumstances lend themselves more to this being a notebook or citation book belonging to Tippit.

Except they don't

And you obviously don't understand the distinction between a "wallet left at the crime scene" and a wallet of some witness who is present. 

Sure I do. In a wallet left the scene to point towards a suspect there would be a fake ID and in a wallet of some witness there wouldn't be.

You still keep ignoring that fact that FBI agent Bob Barrett told James Hosty that Captain Westbrook asked him at the Tippit scene if he know a man called Oswald or Hidell.
That information could only come from a wallet that contained both ID's and low and behold there is a video of police officers looking at a wallet.

I can understand why you wouldn't want to deal with this. It's easier to just call Bob Barrett a liar, as you have already implied he is.

The police would have reasonable cause to believe that a wallet left at the crime scene was linked to the crime and the identity of the owner could be ascertained from the contents.  That person would have become a suspect and his name and/description would have been broadcast over the police radio just as the description of the JFK assassin was broadcast.   We know that didn't happen.  That lends itself to this not being a wallet LEFT AT THE SCENE.

Utter BS based on another one of your "they would have done this or that" fantasies. Your pathetic little argument is; "the police would have put Oswald's name on the police radio and since they didn't it means that there was no wallet left at the scene.

The circumstantial case for the switching of the two wallets is a strong one. Paul Bentley took Oswald's wallet from him in the car. He later said on television it contained his ID, a drivers' license and a credit card. There is no report of any of the officers in the car that mentions a Hidell ID. Gus Rose arrived at the police station just before Oswald was brought in. Rose was given a wallet (the one now at the National Archives) by an unidentified officer who told him it was Oswald's wallet. It contained Oswald's ID as well as the fake Hidell ID. It did not contain a driver's license or credit card. I seem to remember that Paul Bentley was taken to hospital directly after his arrival at the police department and he still had the wallet he took from Oswald on him. Mitch Todd claimed that Bentley went first to the Homicide bureau and then to personnel division office tp write a report. Only then did he give the wallet to Baker, instead of turning it in to the evidence room. Either way, the wallet that Bentley carried with him could not have been the wallet that was given to Gus Rose, because he was given that as soon as Oswald was brought in.

That's the circumstantial case; Barrett said Westbrook was holding a wallet at the Tippit scene and asked him about Oswald and Hidell and Gus Rose was given a wallet containing an Oswald ID and a fake Hidell ID. Bentley never mentioned am Hidell ID in his report and none of the other officers did the same. Bentley's wallet couldn't have been given to Gus Rose because he kept it on his person while Rose was already talking to Oswald. It isn't difficult to do the math, but I'm pretty sure you will be struggling to understand it.

Now, for once, do what you constantly preach: look at the totallity of the circumstantial case instead of picking on low hanging fruit.

If it is a wallet, it is the wallet of a witness standing off camera.

HAHAHAHAHAHA... Wishful thinking. You have nothing. Not even "logic" or "common sense" to reach that conclusion.

This is way up there with the now infamous claim; "The evidence that Oswald came down the stairs is that it happened".  Great stuff   

[Mitch Todd]

Who said it was written somewhere? It may well be part of some guidelines but I have no intention to look for them, because your question is of no significance for the case we are discussing. Besides, I can just as easily ask you where it is written that cops are allowed and should mention names of suspects on the air.

You're the guy who claimed that "police never give names of potential suspects on the radio." That implies policy, and if it's policy then it is written somewhere. Ergo, if you were correct, then you'd be able to point to such a policy. QED. Anyway, you've admitted that you don't know whether "it may well be part of some guidelines." That is, you have no idea whether your assertion is true, and admit that you made the whole thing up out of thin air. Good to know.

Besides, I can just as easily ask you where it is written that cops are allowed and should mention names of suspects on the air.

You're just trying to shift the burden of proof. You're the guy who chimed up claiming that they absolutely would not broadcast the name of a suspect. It's up to you to support your assertion.

[Martin Weidmann]

You're the guy who claimed that "police never give names of potential suspects on the radio." That implies policy, and if it's policy then it is written somewhere. Ergo, if you were correct, then you'd be able to point to such a policy. QED. Anyway, you've admitted that you don't know whether "it may well be part of some guidelines." That is, you have no idea whether your assertion is true, and admit that you made the whole thing up out of thin air. Good to know.

You're just trying to shift the burden of proof. You're the guy who chimed up claiming that they absolutely would not broadcast the name of a suspect. It's up to you to support your assertion.

Why am I not surprised that you are no longer arguing about the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car? Didn't like the way you destroyed and debunked your own argument that Baker possibly was the unidentified officer who gave the wallet to Gus Rose, did you?

Your claim that Westbrook wasn't holding a wallet at the Tippit scene simply because Oswald's and/or Hidell's name was not broadcast on police radio is ridiculous.

It was actually you who made the initial claim that DPD would have transmitted Oswald's and/or Hidell's name if they had found them in the wallet. That implies that DPD would do something like that as a matter of policy, because your claim loses all validity if it wasn't policy. So, can you show that the DPD as a matter of policy puts names of murder suspects on their radio system? If you can't, your entire argument falls apart.

[Javid Sangar]

There is this video on the youtube. It says that the wallet found wallet was found at the Tippit murder scene and Westbrook and Bob Barret had an exchange about it. I am not sure how such a strong evidence can be discarded. It's there on the video

[Martin Weidmann]

There is this video on the youtube. It says that the wallet found wallet was found at the Tippit murder scene and Westbrook and Bob Barret had an exchange about it. I am not sure how such a strong evidence can be discarded. It's there on the video

Welcome to the forum.

I am not sure how such a strong evidence can be discarded.

To answer your question; LNs will discard, deny and question anything that doesn't fit their narrative, and they will use insane arguments to do it. No matter how obvious the matter really is.

One of their head clowns came up with this beauty a while ago; "The evidence that Oswald came down the stairs of the TSBD after the last shot is that it happened".