Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

Again with this nonsense? As demonstrated oh so painfully in the last few pages, is that you clearly don't know how this works, let me set you straight.
The presented evidence is that Oswald buying C2766 was proved beyond all doubt, the fact that the same rifle(C2766) that was sent to Oswald was discovered on the 6th floor of where Oswald worked doesn't need to be proved because it's an undeniable fact. In court you could try and poke holes in Kleins business records or claim the rifle was planted etc but so far you haven't generated even the slightest doubt.   
The reality is that a competent defence would have no other option than to accept this evidence and try to free Oswald on some other legal technicality.

JohnM

Thank you for sharing your flawed biased opinion.

the fact that the same rifle(C2766) that was sent to Oswald was discovered on the 6th floor of where Oswald worked doesn't need to be proved because it's an undeniable fact.

This goes right up there with "Richard Smith"'s'; "the evidence that Oswald ran down the stairs after the shots were fired is that it happened"

Here's a shocker for you; I disagree that it is an undeniable fact and your can't prove me wrong!

In court you could try and poke holes in Kleins business records or claim the rifle was planted etc but so far you haven't generated even the slightest doubt.   

If it existed, I could show you a real time video of the events showing that Oswald didn't shoot anybody and you still wouldn't have any doubt in the official narrative. That's what happens in a cult!

The reality is that a competent defence would have no other option than to accept this evidence and try to free Oswald on some other legal technicality.

I wouldn't want to live in your reality.

[Martin Weidmann]

The point I am trying to make is that speculation is disallowed by the courts. By definition speculation is the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. If you want an example here is one where a photo taken about 50-years after the assassination of some items loaned by the national archives to a temporary exhibit is being used to suggest the fake ID was not in LHO’s possession when he was arrested.

See post #312 in this thread if you need further information. My point is that this type of speculation (theorizing and conjecture) would not be allowed in a courtroom. It isn’t difficult to find other such instances in this thread that I pointed out. You can do it….

If you want an example here is one where a photo taken about 50-years after the assassination of some items loaned by the national archives to a temporary exhibit is being used to suggest the fake ID was not in LHO’s possession when he was arrested.

That's not speculation. There are two matters of absolute fact here; (1) the National Archives holds all the evidence in the JFK case and (2) there is no reason for the National Archives to exclude the fake Hidell ID from the content of the wallet so many years after the fact. Yet, the fake Hidell ID isn't there. That's the second absolute fact!

The suggestion that the fake Hidell ID wasn't in the wallet Paul Bentley took the wallet from Oswald in the car is supported by the fact that none of the officers who were in the car with Oswald mentioned the Hidell ID in contemporary reports. Bentley himself was interviewed on television the day after the arrest and never said anything about two different ID's. He wasn't called to testify before the WC and the two officers that did testify (Hill and Carroll) could not get beyond (I'm paraphrasing) statements like "I seem to remember hearing  a second name but I can't say for sure".

So, if we return to the court setting you like so much; the defense would call Bentley, Hill and Carroll and simply destroy them. Then they would call Westbrook, McCroy and Barrett to determine what they found at the Tippit scene. And then they would ask the question; what happened to the wallet that was found at the Tippit scene.....

[Charles Collins]

If you want an example here is one where a photo taken about 50-years after the assassination of some items loaned by the national archives to a temporary exhibit is being used to suggest the fake ID was not in LHO’s possession when he was arrested.

That's not speculation. There are two matters of absolute fact here; (1) the National Archives holds all the evidence in the JFK case and (2) there is no reason for the National Archives to exclude the fake Hidell ID from the content of the wallet so many years after the fact. Yet, the fake Hidell ID isn't there. That's the second absolute fact!

The suggestion that the fake Hidell ID wasn't in the wallet Paul Bentley took the wallet from Oswald in the car is supported by the fact that none of the officers who were in the car with Oswald mentioned the Hidell ID in contemporary reports. Bentley himself was interviewed on television the day after the arrest and never said anything about two different ID's. He wasn't called to testify before the WC and the two officers that did testify (Hill and Carroll) could not get beyond (I'm paraphrasing) statements like "I seem to remember hearing  a second name but I can't say for sure".

So, if we return to the court setting you like so much; the defense would call Bentley, Hill and Carroll and simply destroy them. Then they would call Westbrook, McCroy and Barrett to determine what they found at the Tippit scene. And then they would ask the question; what happened to the wallet that was found at the Tippit scene.....

The photo taken in 2013 is not firm evidence because there is no evidence whatsoever that the items in that photo are supposed to be a complete inventory of what was in the wallet when LHO was arrested.

[Mike Orr]

Who was Gary Eugene Marlow " The Raven " ?

[John Mytton]

The photo taken in 2013 is not firm evidence because there is no evidence whatsoever that the items in that photo are supposed to be a complete inventory of what was in the wallet when LHO was arrested.

In all fairness to Martin, I think Martin honestly believed that when he initially posted that photo it was actually taken on the weekend following the assassination. And yes to any sane person, the photo was obviously taken much much later but consider who we are dealing with.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

The photo taken in 2013 is not firm evidence because there is no evidence whatsoever that the items in that photo are supposed to be a complete inventory of what was in the wallet when LHO was arrested.

So, now you are saying that the National Archives can't be relied upon to safeguard the evidence?

[Martin Weidmann]

In all fairness to Martin, I think Martin honestly believed that when he initially posted that photo it was actually taken on the weekend following the assassination. And yes to any sane person, the photo was obviously taken much much later but consider who we are dealing with.

JohnM

I think Martin honestly believed that when he initially posted that photo it was actually taken on the weekend following the assassination.

Another example of your poor judgment.

And yes to any sane person, the photo was obviously taken much much later but consider who we are dealing with.

The National Archives just hold the evidence. You seem to argue that they would have a reason to manipulate the evidence after the fact. Wow!

[John Mytton]

Thank you for sharing your flawed biased opinion.

the fact that the same rifle(C2766) that was sent to Oswald was discovered on the 6th floor of where Oswald worked doesn't need to be proved because it's an undeniable fact.

This goes right up there with "Richard Smith"'s'; "the evidence that Oswald ran down the stairs after the shots were fired is that it happened"

Here's a shocker for you; I disagree that it is an undeniable fact and your can't prove me wrong!

In court you could try and poke holes in Kleins business records or claim the rifle was planted etc but so far you haven't generated even the slightest doubt.   

If it existed, I could show you a real time video of the events showing that Oswald didn't shoot anybody and you still wouldn't have any doubt in the official narrative. That's what happens in a cult!

The reality is that a competent defence would have no other option than to accept this evidence and try to free Oswald on some other legal technicality.

I wouldn't want to live in your reality.

I disagree that it is an undeniable fact and your can't prove me wrong!

It's not up to me to prove anything to you, you'd have to convince a Jury that the Kleins paperwork was fraudulent and that the rifle(C2766) on the Kleins paperwork was a different rifle(C2766) that was found on the 6th floor, and besides your opinion, do you believe that you have presented contrary evidence that proves your case?

If it existed, I could show you a real time video of the events showing that Oswald didn't shoot anybody and you still wouldn't have any doubt in the official narrative. That's what happens in a cult!

Nice analogy, for example the authentic autopsy photos positively reinforce the authentic Zapruder Film yet many "Cult" members still cast aspersions on what is shown.

JohnM