Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[John Mytton]

Comedy gold.  It must be a slow day in "Europe".  Here we continue to play whack-a-mole.  Martin from "Europe" contends that he is not claiming that the police suppressed anything!  Keep that in mind in trying to follow his looney narrative that the police were involved in framing Oswald for the murder of Tippit, found a wallet at the crime, and when given the opportunity to connect a wallet found at the crime with the person they were trying to frame instead decided to just go with the wallet found on Oswald because they had TWO wallets.  They couldn't lie about that for some reason while otherwise lying about just every other piece of evidence against Oswald according to Martin (from "Europe").  They drew the line at lying about wallets. HA HA HA HA HA.  Unreal.  I have never said it was Oswald's wallet found at the scene or any wallet.  I explained as though to a simpleton why that is likely not the case.  My discussion here was to highlight the astounding stupidity of YOUR claim that the police hid the fact that they - again in YOUR claim - found a wallet at the crime scene and then covered that up.  In my opinion, it is not a wallet at all.

Keep that in mind in trying to follow his looney narrative that the police were involved in framing Oswald for the murder of Tippit, found a wallet at the crime, and when given the opportunity to connect a wallet found at the crime with the person they were trying to frame instead decided to just go with the wallet found on Oswald because they had TWO wallets.

And this is the very reason that Conspiracy Kooks won't give us an alternative narrative on what happened that day because out of all their conspiratorial allegations this is just one and Weidmann can't even produce a logical scenario that makes sense from this solitary contention and when you add the rest of their massive claims it just becomes a jumbled mess of contradictions, so most of them simply stick to playing Oswald's defence "lawyers" with no hope of ever solving the case.
Because "the wrongly-accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody." Dammit!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Well I don't know anyone that carries two completely different named pieces of identification and to top it off, the identification that isn't them, has their actual photograph?
But I'm guessing that you'll say in "Europe" it's just an every day occurrence! 

JohnM

So, you can't or don't want to answer my question. It's duly noted.

[Martin Weidmann]

Agreed
 

This was the first hole that Weidmann dug for himself, the very people who did the wallet swap were the very people that were attempting to set up Oswald.

And Weidmann's hole just gets deeper and deeper.

"Imbecile" is being kind.

JohnM

Still nothing of any value to say. You never seem to be able to get beyond superficial in any way. Why is that?

When you can't attack the information, attack the messenger. Pathetic!

When Johnny starts to ridicule and attack people that don't agree with him, he is actually confirming he has no significant contribution to make because the parrot can't find the information he needs in the official narrative. When that happens the geek with the gifs comes out.

[Martin Weidmann]

And this is the very reason that Conspiracy Kooks won't give us an alternative narrative on what happened that day because out of all their conspiratorial allegations this is just one and Weidmann can't even produce a logical scenario that makes sense from this solitary contention and when you add the rest of their massive claims it just becomes a jumbled mess of contradictions, so most of them simply stick to playing Oswald's defence "lawyers" with no hope of ever solving the case.
Because "the wrongly-accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody." Dammit!

JohnM

Whining Johnny strikes again. Unwilling or unable to listen to or understand any argument made. Incapable of responding to anything that doesn't fit the official narrative and utterly unable to answer even the easiest questions. Throw a coin in the machine and Johnny will start complaining about those horrible people who do not believe and see right through his favorite fairytale.

His last four posts on this forum are all about attacking people who don't agree with him. He surely is a valuable poster, in his own mind, of course   

In this particular case, we were discussing before Mytton jumped in, Paul Bentley took Oswald's wallet from him in the car. He did not mention finding a fake Hidell ID, nor did any of the three other officers in the car. Even as late as December 3, 1963, when Bentley wrote his report, there was no mention of him finding a Hidell ID and the WC never even called him to testify. Clearly he wasn't important enough. Allegedly Bentley gave the "information" to Baker, but the WC, who did call Baker did not ask him either about what that "information" was. With all that in mind, Gus Rose said that he started talking to Oswald directly after he had been brought in and that somebody (he could not identify) gave him a wallet which that person claimed belonged to Oswald. It was in that wallet where Rose found the fake Hidell ID.

So, the question that John Mytton and Richard Smith can't answer is; if the fake Hidell ID wasn't in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald, where did it come from? The simpelton's answer will probably be that the fake Hidell ID was in the wallet that Bentley took from Oswald after all, but there is no evidence for that. Even worse, according to Richard Smith that fake ID was highly incriminating because it tied Oswald to the orders for the rifle and the revolver. So, are we really to believe that Bentley and the other three officers in the car simply "forgot" to mention this vital piece of evidence?

Let's just find out if Mytton has the balls to tackle this issue head on or if he will run and hide behind a gif as usual......

[Mitch Todd]

it's in CE2003.

Really? I just had a look at the index and I can't find Bentley's name in the list of affidavits. The document consists of 210 pages, so you are going to have to be a bit less evasive and tell me what page I need to look at.

I've already quoted the appropriate part.

Then it should be easy for you to point out where I can find that part, right? Or do you want me to just take your word for it?

Now, why don't you show us where you got the idea that "Bentley was injured during the arrest and was taken to hospital as soon as the car arrived at City Hall. When he came back from hospital he still had the wallet he took from Oswald on his person"??

Because that's how I remembered it. This is what I actually said;

You do understand what "IIRC" means, right?

Understand what? What you are showing me is a report by four DPD officers, including Bentley, about the arrest of Oswald, not only as Tippit's killer but also Kennedy's. It isn't worth the paper it's written on as it only provides opinions of officers who were in no position to make any such determination. The only thing it does tell us is that those four officers identified the man they arrested as Lee Harvey Oswald, because that's what's on the form. Now, this may be a bit complicated for you to understand, but if the wallet Bentley took from Oswald also contained a Hidell ID, why did they just write Oswald's name on the form and not mention the Hidell one at all?

What the document most certainly does not say is anything about the wallet Bentley took from Oswald and it's contents. And as for your casual remark "he didn't specify"; he absolutely didn't specify anything at all. If the wallet that Bentley took from Oswald contained a fake Hidell ID, don't you think that should have been mentioned in the report. Even more so, as it happens to be a fake ID in the same name that was used for ordering the rifle and the revolver. You are trying to make a big deal about the Tippit scene wallet, by suggesting it didn't contain the Oswald and Hidell ID just because those names were not broadcast on DPD radio, yet here you claim that the wallet Bentley took from Oswald contained the Hidell ID and you have no problem with that fake ID not being mentioned in any DPD report. Do you understand just how pathetic that is?

I'm the guy who's been substantiating them. Something that you've consistently failed to do.

So far, you haven't substantiated anything. It's the same game plan with you like before.... long winding arguments that go no where and playing games about where to find the evidence. I'm already getting tired of your games again.

Why does it matter? You claimed that the Tippit suspect's description wasn't broadcast. I showed you where they did. Now you want to change the subject.

Not at all. I looked into it and you are right. They did broadcast it. I missed that, which can happen when you write from memory, as I often do. Given the details provided, the source for the information was most likely Callaway.

Here is why it matters; by the time Summers made the broadcast they were already closing in on the library and Westbrook had already left the Tippit scene. How do I know this? Easy; it was Westbrook who was present at the parking lot where the jacket was found and the discovery of the jacket was reported to the dispatcher before Summers gave the description. But truth be told, the first description was broadcast by Patrolman Walker at around 1:22 PM. But even that was only two minutes before the discovery of the jacket was reported, so even at that time Westbrook wasn't at the Tippit scene anymore.

The fact is that Walker and/or Summers could not have gotten a name from Westbrook to broadcast. And that's exactly the point. You claimed that they would have broadcast the name of the suspect, but Westbrook was the only one who could have provided the name(s) and he wasn't there anymore. It's easy to understand why neither officer was ever in a position to broadcast a name, which makes your entire argument meaningless.

Really? I just had a look at the index and I can't find Bentley's name in the list of affidavits. The document consists of 210 pages, so you are going to have to be a bit less evasive and tell me what page I need to look at.

Then it should be easy for you to point out where I can find that part, right? Or do you want me to just take your word for it?

Starting from scratch, it took me less than 2 minutes to get to Bentley's report. I see that Iacoletti seems found it with little trouble as well. You could have done so yourself. Lazybones.

I don't see any residual complaints from you about what I'd quoted from Bentley's report. I guess you found that I quoted it correctly.


You do understand what "IIRC" means, right?

That I do. But I'm wondering what you're actually trying to remember. So what are the sources for your faulty memory?


So far, you haven't substantiated anything. It's the same game plan with you like before.... long winding arguments that go no where and playing games about where to find the evidence. I'm already getting tired of your games again.

I substantiated that you were wrong with Bentley's activities that afternoon, for one. How soon you forget!


The fact is that Walker and/or Summers could not have gotten a name from Westbrook to broadcast. And that's exactly the point. You claimed that they would have broadcast the name of the suspect, but Westbrook was the only one who could have provided the name(s) and he wasn't there anymore. It's easy to understand why neither officer was ever in a position to broadcast a name, which makes your entire argument meaningless.

Your "point" makes no sense at all. Who claimed that only Summers or Walker could have broadcast Oswald's or Hidell's name? I never did. Nor was Westbrook, Croy or anyone else prohibited from broadcasting that information --assuming that they had it in the first place-- once it was discovered.
 

yet here you claim that the wallet Bentley took from Oswald contained the Hidell ID and you have no problem with that fake ID not being mentioned in any DPD report. Do you understand just how pathetic that is?

So, from "in any DPD report" means that you have read all of the DPD documentation regarding Oswald's arrest? I'm pretty sure you haven't, otherwise you'd already have known about Bentley's duty report. You also presume that the wallet, Oswald ID, and/or Hidell ID would must have been mentioned in the arrest report or the duty report had Bentley had it. But you have presented no reason to justify this presumption.   

[Martin Weidmann]

Really? I just had a look at the index and I can't find Bentley's name in the list of affidavits. The document consists of 210 pages, so you are going to have to be a bit less evasive and tell me what page I need to look at.

Then it should be easy for you to point out where I can find that part, right? Or do you want me to just take your word for it?

Starting from scratch, it took me less than 2 minutes to get to Bentley's report. I see that Iacoletti seems found it with little trouble as well. You could have done so yourself. Lazybones.

I don't see any residual complaints from you about what I'd quoted from Bentley's report. I guess you found that I quoted it correctly.


You do understand what "IIRC" means, right?

That I do. But I'm wondering what you're actually trying to remember. So what are the sources for your faulty memory?


So far, you haven't substantiated anything. It's the same game plan with you like before.... long winding arguments that go no where and playing games about where to find the evidence. I'm already getting tired of your games again.

I substantiated that you were wrong with Bentley's activities that afternoon, for one. How soon you forget!


The fact is that Walker and/or Summers could not have gotten a name from Westbrook to broadcast. And that's exactly the point. You claimed that they would have broadcast the name of the suspect, but Westbrook was the only one who could have provided the name(s) and he wasn't there anymore. It's easy to understand why neither officer was ever in a position to broadcast a name, which makes your entire argument meaningless.

Your "point" makes no sense at all. Who claimed that only Summers or Walker could have broadcast Oswald's or Hidell's name? I never did. Nor was Westbrook, Croy or anyone else prohibited from broadcasting that information --assuming that they had it in the first place-- once it was discovered.

Starting from scratch, it took me less than 2 minutes to get to Bentley's report. I see that Iacoletti seems found it with little trouble as well. You could have done so yourself. Lazybones.

I see no reason for why I should look up a document you claim to be quoting from.

I don't see any residual complaints from you about what I'd quoted from Bentley's report. I guess you found that I quoted it correctly.

Then, perhaps, you should guess again. Quoting a couple of lines correctly from an extremely vague report, written nearly two weeks after the event, is not automatically the same as proving your claim.

I substantiated that you were wrong with Bentley's activities that afternoon, for one.

No you haven't. I said, from memory, that Bentley went from police HQ to the hospital, which is exactly what he did. You just added some details about what happened between his arrival at HQ and departure. You actually gave me two versions and neither one, not even the one in Bentley's report of December 3, 1963, supports your claim about the wallet.

Btw, where in his report of December 3, 1963 (when the name Hidell was already well known) did Bently write he found the fake Hidell ID in the wallet he took from Oswald? I couldn't find it, but who knows perhaps you can....

[Bill Brown]

Whining Johnny strikes again. Unwilling or unable to listen to or understand any argument made. Incapable of responding to anything that doesn't fit the official narrative and utterly unable to answer even the easiest questions. Throw a coin in the machine and Johnny will start complaining about those horrible people who do not believe and see right through his favorite fairytale.

His last four posts on this forum are all about attacking people who don't agree with him. He surely is a valuable poster, in his own mind, of course   

In this particular case, we were discussing before Mytton jumped in, Paul Bentley took Oswald's wallet from him in the car. He did not mention finding a fake Hidell ID, nor did any of the three other officers in the car. Even as late as December 3, 1963, when Bentley wrote his report, there was no mention of him finding a Hidell ID and the WC never even called him to testify. Clearly he wasn't important enough. Allegedly Bentley gave the "information" to Baker, but the WC, who did call Baker did not ask him either about what that "information" was. With all that in mind, Gus Rose said that he started talking to Oswald directly after he had been brought in and that somebody (he could not identify) gave him a wallet which that person claimed belonged to Oswald. It was in that wallet where Rose found the fake Hidell ID.

So, the question that John Mytton and Richard Smith can't answer is; if the fake Hidell ID wasn't in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald, where did it come from? The simpelton's answer will probably be that the fake Hidell ID was in the wallet that Bentley took from Oswald after all, but there is no evidence for that. Even worse, according to Richard Smith that fake ID was highly incriminating because it tied Oswald to the orders for the rifle and the revolver. So, are we really to believe that Bentley and the other three officers in the car simply "forgot" to mention this vital piece of evidence?

Let's just find out if Mytton has the balls to tackle this issue head on or if he will run and hide behind a gif as usual......

Do you believe the wallet Bentley removed from Oswald's back pocket (while in the car from the theater to headquarters) contained credit cards?

[Martin Weidmann]

Do you believe the wallet Bentley removed from Oswald's back pocket (while in the car from the theater to headquarters) contained credit cards?

Is this your roundabout way of saying that Bentley isn't a reliable source? All I take away from the television interview is that he said he went through the wallet and he found Oswald's ID and the "usual things like a credit card and a driver's license". The credit card and driver's license thing seems unlikely, as it doesn't really fit with the story we've been told about Oswald, but anything is possible, I guess. It doesn't really matter what I believe or not. Far more important is what Bentley did not say, not on television and not in his December 3rd report. He never says that he found an ID card with the name Hidell in the wallet he took from Oswald. That's remarkable to say the least, given the fact that it is such a vital piece of evidence for the official narrative.