Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Richard Smith]

The evidence links Oswald to the Tippit killing beyond any reasonable doubt.

If you say so.... oh wait, you don't really think I am just going to take your word for it, do you?

There can't be doubt about Oswald's ability to reach the scene if the evidence is conclusive that he was there.

There can't be any doubt that you actually believe that the evidence is conclusive, that's for sure.
Just too bad that you fail time after time in presenting that "conclusive" evidence and in turn constantly present assumptions and speculation.

It has nothing to do with me or your pedantic efforts to create fake doubt.  The witnesses who were there confirmed that Oswald was present at the time and place of Tippit's murder.  That is confirmed by Oswald's possession of the murder weapon and identical two brands of ammo that were used to murder Tippit.  Compounded with evidence of Oswald's flight from the scene of the JFK assassination and resisting arrest.  There is no reasonable basis to conclude from the evidence that there is any doubt that Oswald murdered Tippit.  All your nitpicking and attempts to shoehorn your subjective bias into a timeline that suits you desired narrative is not relevant to Oswald's guilt.  He was there, thus we know that he had the time to reach that point even if it is not possible to precisely know his every movement down to the minute.

[Martin Weidmann]

Agreed, I was assuming he made it on foot but didn't specify.

How is it "impossible" that Oswald left the house at 12:58 PM
This seems like quite an extreme statement (IMO)
You must have a really good, solid reason for believing it's "impossible", particularly when you have no idea of the speed Oswald was moving. Roberts gives the distinct impression he was in a big hurry - "all but running".
According to Google Maps the distance between Oswald's rooming house and 10th and Patton is 0.8 miles.
At the not impossible speed of 6mph this distance can be covered in 8 minutes
At 5mph it can be covered in less than 10 minutes.
These are not impossible parameters

Fair enough.
One minute seems a more reasonable estimate.

That's not a range of possibilities.
That's just you deciding what it is.

How is it "impossible" that Oswald left the house at 12:58 PM
This seems like quite an extreme statement (IMO)
You must have a really good, solid reason for believing it's "impossible", particularly when you have no idea of the speed Oswald was moving. Roberts gives the distinct impression he was in a big hurry - "all but running".

Roberts did not say anything about Oswald's movements outside the house except for the fact that she saw him standing at the bus stop in front of the house. Does that give the impression of somebody being in a big hurry? The comment "you sure are in a big hurry", made by Roberts, was about the way she percieved Oswald to be as he entered the house. When I say to somebody that I am in a hurry, does that automatically mean that I will be running?

I do have a reason and will leave it up to you to decide if it is a good one or not.

At 5.03 minutes in this timeline special Roberts tells us Oswald entered the rooming house after 1 PM

If you believe her about seeing Oswald leaving zipping up a jacket, then why do you doubt her when she says this?

I don't really understand the need to push back the time Oswald left the rooming house or for that matter to assume that he must have run. It seems desperation to keep him in play for the Tippit shooting. The WC and the FBI did something similar. Hoover first concluded that they had their man and then they started to look for evidence that would fit their narrative.


According to Google Maps the distance between Oswald's rooming house and 10th and Patton is 0.8 miles.
At the not impossible speed of 6mph this distance can be covered in 8 minutes
At 5mph it can be covered in less than 10 minutes.
These are not impossible parameters

Not impossible? Maybe, but are they realistic? Why would you need "not impossible" parameters rather than looking at it objectively? This is all theory. Actually Google Maps gives as estimated time for walking the distance 17 minutes. And the average walking speed of a human is 15 to 20 minutes for one mile, so I am not sure where you are getting your numbers from. As I already told you a split time trial by Gary Mack concluded the time needed to walk the distance was 11 minutes. The problem with that time is that they timed two different walks and then calculated the total. When I walked the distance myself it took me 12,5 minutes. I consider my personal experience of more value than an estimate from Google Maps.

Fair enough.
One minute seems a more reasonable estimate.

I'm not so sure if a minute would be enough. Tippit called the man, he probably turned around and did not instantly walk towards the car. He then approached the car and talked to Tippit through the window opening of the passenger door. Then Tippit decided that he would get out of the car and did so. All that in 30 seconds? Really?

That's not a range of possibilities.
That's just you deciding what it is.

It's my best estimate. Markham saw the man at 1:08, when she arrived at 10th/Patton herself. Going by my own timing of the walk, the conclusion can only be that Oswald must have left the rooming house at 12:56 to be there. And that's him leaving.... According to Roberts he was in the house for about 3 minutes, so in this scenario he must have arrived at the rooming house no later than 12:53. I just don't see that as realistic.

[Martin Weidmann]

It has nothing to do with me or your pedantic efforts to create fake doubt.  The witnesses who were there confirmed that Oswald was present at the time and place of Tippit's murder.  That is confirmed by Oswald's possession of the murder weapon and identical two brands of ammo that were used to murder Tippit.  Compounded with evidence of Oswald's flight from the scene of the JFK assassination and resisting arrest.  There is no reasonable basis to conclude from the evidence that there is any doubt that Oswald murdered Tippit.  All your nitpicking and attempts to shoehorn your subjective bias into a timeline that suits you desired narrative is not relevant to Oswald's guilt.  He was there, thus we know that he had the time to reach that point even if it is not possible to precisely know his every movement down to the minute.

Is "pedantic" your word of the week, or is it perhaps that you figure it makes you look smart to use words like that?

There is no reasonable basis to conclude from the evidence that there is any doubt that Oswald murdered Tippit.

So you keep telling me, but when it comes to discussing the evidence you get all defensive or simply refuse to do so. Why is that?

He was there, thus we know that he had the time to reach that point even if it is not possible to precisely know his every movement down to the minute.

It's a hell of an argument to make to a jury; "Members of the jury, it doesn't matter that the defendant couldn't have been at that location at that time is not important. What is important is that Inspector Clouseau says he was there.   

[Richard Smith]

You've just been destroyed claiming Oswald owned the rifle found on the 6th floor.

You've been posting this nonsense for a decade, approximately, making a fool of yourself.

"evidence" -- ROFL

Another valuable contribution with all the hallmarks of a typical Otto post: 

Personal insults - check. 

No substance - big check on that one. 

[Richard Smith]

Is "pedantic" your word of the week, or is it perhaps that you figure it makes you look smart to use words like that?

There is no reasonable basis to conclude from the evidence that there is any doubt that Oswald murdered Tippit.

So you keep telling me, but when it comes to discussing the evidence you get all defensive or simply refuse to do so. Why is that?

He was there, thus we know that he had the time to reach that point even if it is not possible to precisely know his every movement down to the minute.

It's a hell of an argument to make to a jury; "Members of the jury, it doesn't matter that the defendant couldn't have been at that location at that time is not important. What is important is that Inspector Clouseau says he was there.   

If the shoe fits:

Pedantic - a word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter.

This from the guy who constantly complains about "strawman."  I have not argued that it "doesn't matter that the defendant couldn't have been at that location at that time."  To the contrary, what I have argued is that the evidence is conclusive that Oswald was at that location at the relevant time.  Numerous witnesses and the evidence confirm that conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt.  What you have been going on and and on about here for weeks in long rambling posts is ignoring that evidence and suggesting that a timeline that is vague and incomplete somehow creates doubt of a confirmed fact.  It doesn't.  It can't.  Because Oswald's presence is confirmed at the Tippit scene, at best (even accepting your dubious subjective claims as true) all your pedantic nitpicking about an ambiguous timeline can do is indicate that perhaps he didn't walk there.  Maybe he ran, maybe someone gave him a ride, maybe he found a jet pack and flew there like Superman.  However he did it doesn't matter except as a matter of some minor historical interest to fill in all the details on the movements of an assassin.  He was there because the evidence confirms that as a fact.  Thus we know that he had sufficient time to be there. 

[Dan O'meara]

I do have a reason and will leave it up to you to decide if it is a good one or not.

At 5.03 minutes in this timeline special Roberts tells us Oswald entered the rooming house after 1 PM

If you believe her about seeing Oswald leaving zipping up a jacket, then why do you doubt her when she says this?

This is the reason I believe she was certain about Oswald wearing a zip-up jacket as he left the house.

Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket.

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
Mr. BALL. Yes---it has a zipper down the front.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe it was.
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Mr. BALL. He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it.

"...All I remember-he was zipping up a coat and I was trying to find out about President Kennedy..."

Mr. BALL. And when he was zipping up his jacket, his belt was covered?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Was it covered---well--- I don't know. I just couldn't answer you---I don't know---I don't remember it. I couldn't any more tell you than the man in the moon whether or not the man's belt was covered or uncovered. All I know he was zipping his coat.

Roberts is absolutely certain Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he left. She could not be any clearer. There is no room for doubt. Anyone questioning the certainty of this testimony on this specific aspect, cannot be taking the testimony as a whole seriously.

This is the reason I doubt the accuracy of Roberts' time estimate:

Mrs. ROBERTS. Now, it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after, because it was after President Kennedy had been shot-what time I wouldn't want to say because

The reason given for the time estimate is "because it was after President Kennedy was shot". This is simply not good enough. I cannot accept this as an accurate estimation of the time. She even states "what time I wouldn't want to say", indicating her vagueness about the time in question.
So I hoped for something a bit more solid in the video you posted:

"It must have been after one o'clock because...he come in, and you know how (unintelligible)...I tried to clear it up and he come in..."

I have listened over and over again to the unintelligible part, maybe someone can help out. I can hear the word "blink" and that's about it. Judging from the phrase "I tried to clear it up", the best sense I can make so far of what Roberts is saying seems to be that it must be after one o'clock because she was trying to fix the TV!

There is nothing to verify Roberts time assessment so far. At the moment, it appears to me, she is just guessing.
In stark contrast to her testimony regarding Oswald's zip-up jacket.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is the reason I believe she was certain about Oswald wearing a zip-up jacket as he left the house.

Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket.

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
Mr. BALL. Yes---it has a zipper down the front.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe it was.
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Mr. BALL. He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it.

"...All I remember-he was zipping up a coat and I was trying to find out about President Kennedy..."

Mr. BALL. And when he was zipping up his jacket, his belt was covered?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Was it covered---well--- I don't know. I just couldn't answer you---I don't know---I don't remember it. I couldn't any more tell you than the man in the moon whether or not the man's belt was covered or uncovered. All I know he was zipping his coat.

Roberts is absolutely certain Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he left. She could not be any clearer. There is no room for doubt. Anyone questioning the certainty of this testimony on this specific aspect, cannot be taking the testimony as a whole seriously.

This is the reason I doubt the accuracy of Roberts' time estimate:

Mrs. ROBERTS. Now, it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after, because it was after President Kennedy had been shot-what time I wouldn't want to say because

The reason given for the time estimate is "because it was after President Kennedy was shot". This is simply not good enough. I cannot accept this as an accurate estimation of the time. She even states "what time I wouldn't want to say", indicating her vagueness about the time in question.
So I hoped for something a bit more solid in the video you posted:

"It must have been after one o'clock because...he come in, and you know how (unintelligible)...I tried to clear it up and he come in..."

I have listened over and over again to the unintelligible part, maybe someone can help out. I can hear the word "blink" and that's about it. Judging from the phrase "I tried to clear it up", the best sense I can make so far of what Roberts is saying seems to be that it must be after one o'clock because she was trying to fix the TV!

There is nothing to verify Roberts time assessment so far. At the moment, it appears to me, she is just guessing.
In stark contrast to her testimony regarding Oswald's zip-up jacket.

Roberts is absolutely certain Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he left. She could not be any clearer. There is no room for doubt. Anyone questioning the certainty of this testimony on this specific aspect, cannot be taking the testimony as a whole seriously.

Now, that's just you deciding what it is.

The fact remains that it's just one person saying the same thing over and over again.

I have listened over and over again to the unintelligible part, maybe someone can help out. I can hear the word "blink" and that's about it. Judging from the phrase "I tried to clear it up", the best sense I can make so far of what Roberts is saying seems to be that it must be after one o'clock because she was trying to fix the TV!

Roberts wanted to watch the 1 PM news. Let me put it to you that she had the television on prior to 1 PM but only had sound and a very blurred picture. I recall her saying that somewhere. Now obviously (IMO) as soon as the news came on she also wanted to see pictures, don't you think? So, that's what she meant by saying "I tried to clear it up". That is my reason for accepting the 1 PM entry time as reasonable.

There is nothing to verify Roberts time assessment so far. At the moment, it appears to me, she is just guessing.

There is also nothing that speaks against her being right when she says 1 PM, so I wonder what motivates you to question her on that and on not on other things.

In stark contrast to her testimony regarding Oswald's zip-up jacket.

Her testimony about the jacket is, just like her 1 PM comment, a single statement, for which there is no corroboration, but in this case there is evidence that speaks against it. It's not conclusive, I'll gladly conceed that, but it is contrary evidence nevertheless.

I'm finding it somewhat difficult to understand why you would so readily dismiss or disbelieve the time estimate of 1 PM, yet go out of your way to question Frazier's testimony about the jacket to such an extent that you contrive a story about Oswald leaving the TSBD wearing a jacket.

The only way for me to perhaps understand it is by looking to the common denominator which seems to be that in both cases Oswald is kept in play as Tippit's killer. Or am I missing something?

[Martin Weidmann]

If the shoe fits:

Pedantic - a word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter.

This from the guy who constantly complains about "strawman."  I have not argued that it "doesn't matter that the defendant couldn't have been at that location at that time."  To the contrary, what I have argued is that the evidence is conclusive that Oswald was at that location at the relevant time.  Numerous witnesses and the evidence confirm that conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt.  What you have been going on and and on about here for weeks in long rambling posts is ignoring that evidence and suggesting that a timeline that is vague and incomplete somehow creates doubt of a confirmed fact.  It doesn't.  It can't.  Because Oswald's presence is confirmed at the Tippit scene, at best (even accepting your dubious subjective claims as true) all your pedantic nitpicking about an ambiguous timeline can do is indicate that perhaps he didn't walk there.  Maybe he ran, maybe someone gave him a ride, maybe he found a jet pack and flew there like Superman.  However he did it doesn't matter except as a matter of some minor historical interest to fill in all the details on the movements of an assassin.  He was there because the evidence confirms that as a fact.  Thus we know that he had sufficient time to be there.

Pedantic - a word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter.

Am I annoying you? Really?   

Why would you get annoyed? I don't get it. You wouldn't be able to annoy in any way, shape or form, because I couldn't care less what your opinions about this case are. We simply disagree... that's no reason for annoyance. Unless of course you are one of those people who think (incorrectly) that they are always right and can't handle it that some pedantic guy, living on an island in the sun where bullfights are banned, disagrees with him.

I have not argued that it "doesn't matter that the defendant couldn't have been at that location at that time."  To the contrary, what I have argued is that the evidence is conclusive that Oswald was at that location at the relevant time.

Same difference.

However he did it doesn't matter except as a matter of some minor historical interest to fill in all the details on the movements of an assassin.  He was there because the evidence confirms that as a fact.  Thus we know that he had sufficient time to be there. 

That's the same shallow, narrow-minded, "conclusion" as "his rifle was there, so he shot the President". You really need to start doing comedy. Thanks for the laugh.