Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

No, “Richard”, it’s a standard that requires claims to be substantiated, not just accepted on faith. A standard that you yourself require for things like “Landis said so”.

No, “Richard”, it’s a standard that requires claims to be substantiated, not just accepted on faith.

He will never ever understand that, John....

He simply doesn't get that random members of a jury in any criminal case were also not at the scene when the crime happened. It's the job of the prosecutor to convince them of somebody's guilt and he needs to do it by presenting credible authentic evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

So you "don't know" because you weren't there?  Confirming the impossible standard of proof that requires a time machine to prove any fact that you do not want to accept.  The same tired, dishonest contrarian approach.  Numerous people "were there."  They provided their sworn testimony as to what they saw.  This is not just a case of one person possibly being mistaken.  Many of these events were observed by a multitude of individuals.  They would all have to be wrong or lying.  But you are not alleging a conspiracy?  Right?  Just that you don't know because it's possible all these people lied, were mistaken, or acting in ways that can't be explained (e.g. lying about what they heard on the radio).  We would need to be there to confirm what happened.  Thus, no fact in human history could be confirmed unless we were individually present at the event.

So you "don't know" because you weren't there?

Indeed. And you were not there either, so what makes you think you know? "Cop said so", right?

The same tired, dishonest contrarian approach. 

So, now "Richard" goes off the deep end completely! Asking for credible authentic evidence is "the same tired, dishonest contrarian approach? Hilarious.... It seems in "Richard"'s world, you don't need evidence and if there is some nevertheless, only those parts of the evidence that point to guilt are credible for "Richard". Everything else is dismissed out of hand.... Completely delusional!

Numerous people "were there."  They provided their sworn testimony as to what they saw.

So what? You previously claimed that they saw Oswald "trying to pull his gun". Name me one witness who actually said he saw that?

This is not just a case of one person possibly being mistaken.  Many of these events were observed by a multitude of individuals.  They would all have to be wrong or lying.

ad populum fallacy!

Just that you don't know because it's possible all these people lied, were mistaken, or acting in ways that can't be explained (e.g. lying about what they heard on the radio).

Of course it is possible that "all these people" lied, but IMO it's far more likely they were mistaken and/or simply embellished their story. One thing is for sure, we know that Brewer lied about hearing a description on the radio, because none was broadcast at the time he claimed he heard it. We also know that McDonald has been loose and free with the truth. And, more importantly, we know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest and most dubious evidence there is.

We would need to be there to confirm what happened.  Thus, no fact in human history could be confirmed unless we were individually present at the event.

Utter BS, but it seems that's all you've got

[Zeon Mason]

If Earlene Roberts saw a dark blue jacket being “zipped” on Oswald as he exited then unless Oswald was wearing the light gray jacket too , underneath of that blue jacket, then Oswald could not have shot  Tippit.

But if Oswald was wearing both the dark blue jacket and the light gray jacket then would not the blue jacket have been found discarded somewhere also along the alleged route  Oswald took from leaving 10th and Patton to the Texas theater , ( or even the theater itself) thus the blue jacket would never have been found  the Domino room?

Since it’s seems a rather low probability that such a light gray  jacket could ever appear so dark as the dark blue jacket to Earlene Roberts, and since there’s not a suitable explanation for how the Blue jacket would wind up in the Domino room if Oswald was wearing both jackets, then there seems left only  4 options:

1. Earlene Roberts saw Oswald zipping up a dark blue jacket and Oswald was not wearing the light gray jacket underneath.
2. Roberts  saw Oswald in his darker brown shirt on as he went out and mistook him buttoning it up as “zipping”
3. Roberts was colorblind , the lights were off inside the house and there wasn’t enough sunlight streaming so the light gray jacket appeared as dark blue to Roberts.
4. Roberts was looney and prone to exaggeration and outright fabrication of false narratives.

Imo no.1 is more probable than the other options.

[Bill Brown]

If Earlene Roberts saw a dark blue jacket being “zipped” on Oswald as he exited then unless Oswald was wearing the light gray jacket too , underneath of that blue jacket, then Oswald could not have shot  Tippit.

But if Oswald was wearing both the dark blue jacket and the light gray jacket then would not the blue jacket have been found discarded somewhere also along the alleged route  Oswald took from leaving 10th and Patton to the Texas theater , ( or even the theater itself) thus the blue jacket would never have been found  the Domino room?

Since it’s seems a rather low probability that such a light gray  jacket could ever appear so dark as the dark blue jacket to Earlene Roberts, and since there’s not a suitable explanation for how the Blue jacket would wind up in the Domino room if Oswald was wearing both jackets, then there seems left only  4 options:

1. Earlene Roberts saw Oswald zipping up a dark blue jacket and Oswald was not wearing the light gray jacket underneath.
2. Roberts  saw Oswald in his darker brown shirt on as he went out and mistook him buttoning it up as “zipping”
3. Roberts was colorblind , the lights were off inside the house and there wasn’t enough sunlight streaming so the light gray jacket appeared as dark blue to Roberts.
4. Roberts was looney and prone to exaggeration and outright fabrication of false narratives.

Imo no.1 is more probable than the other options.

Regardless of the color, Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket.  Right?

Why did Oswald ditch this jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?

[Martin Weidmann]

Regardless of the color, Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket.  Right?

Why did Oswald ditch this jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?

Regardless of the color, Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket.  Right?

Did he? What evidence do you have for this, beyond "Roberts said so" and how can you be sure that what she said is actually correct?

Roberts was paying attention to the television, had her back turned to the room and only saw Oswald for a couple of seconds as he left the building.
In addition, Robert was not able to correctly describe any other piece of clothing Oswald was wearing as he entered and/or left.

[John Iacoletti]

And even if Roberts and Brewer were both correct, that still doesn’t mean that the jacket was “ditched”.

[Zeon Mason]

@Bill Brown:
Yes it’s basically a choice if Roberts saw a dark blue jacket being zipped  or did Roberts see a dark brown shirt being buttoned up.

Since the Dark blue jacket was found in the Domino room then Oswald cannot have been wearing it when he was seen by Whaley and Oswald cannot have been wearing it when he entered the boarding house either.

Unless there is a 3rd unaccounted for jacket that’s kind of light gray and wool/flannel, then what BW Frazier saw Oswald  wearing on Nov 22/63 must be the light gray jacket.

And Whaley therefore must have seen only the light gray jacket and was a bit too over anxious to lhelp that he decided he saw 2 jackets.

And when Oswald entered the boarding house, he perhaps had on the light gray jacket unzipped and open which Earlene Roberts mistook as a light colored long sleeve shirt.

And when Oswald left his room again, he must have taken off his light gray jacket leaving it in the room and went out the house just wearing his dark brown shirt, since it’s difficult to understand how Roberts would have seen that a light gray almost white jacket as a dark blue jacket.

So as weird as it may seem, the probability may be greater that Roberts  DID mistake the action of buttoned up the brown shirt as “zipping up “
a dark blue shirt.

 It would be interesting to know if in fact Roberts was color blind because colorblind people often mistake brown and dark blue.

So to answer Mr.Brown, I’d have to say it’s not exactly a slam dunk that Roberts saw EITHER jacket being zipped up.

[Zeon Mason]

If Oswald left the boarding room wearing only his brown  shirt , and thus there was no discarding a jacket, the question remaining is if Brewer saw Oswald as late as 1:30 or could Brewer have seen Oswald earlier at about 1:16-1:17 pm?

Burroughs has another statement in which he has  1:15 pm the time seeing Oswald in the theater.

That’s still not quite enough time for Oswald to walk to Brewers store first , take a look at some shoes and then be in the theater by 1:15  if Oswald left the house at 1:04pm

So the alternative is Oswald walking to theater first and entering by 1:15 which is an 11 minutes walk from the house, which  is more probable.

Entering the theater after paying for a ticket  maybe Oswald saw the movie hadn’t started yet so he went back out and across the street to look at some shoes in Brewers store for a few minutes.

Oswald was seen by Brewer in just his brown shirt. Maybe Brewer misinterpreted Oswald leaving the store only after a police car went by as Oswald acting suspiciously.

Watching Oswald go back into the theater bypassing the ticket booth was misinterpreted by Brewer as Oswald not paying and trying to “hide” in the theatre.

Oswald having already paid earlier and having a ticket stub, did not have to stop at the ticket booth.

Oswald returns by 1:19 and for the the next minute is seen by Jack Davis moving around to various seats at 1:20 pm.