Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Jerry Freeman]

   In terms of Oswald's jacket, it's likely that DNA of many people would be found.  It has been handled by the investigators and folks at the Archives etc.

Doesn't matter. If Oswald's DNA weren't found.. then it should clear him as owner of the jacket.

[Richard Smith]

Doesn't matter. If Oswald's DNA weren't found.. then it should clear him as owner of the jacket.

Why?  The absence of DNA after nearly six decades wouldn't prove it wasn't Oswald's jacket.  It would just prove that they couldn't find his DNA.  Of course, if they did find his DNA, that would be dismissed, like his rifle and prints at the crime scene, as a product of fakery. 

[John Iacoletti]

Why?  The absence of DNA after nearly six decades wouldn't prove it wasn't Oswald's jacket.  It would just prove that they couldn't find his DNA.  Of course, if they did find his DNA, that would be dismissed, like his rifle and prints at the crime scene, as a product of fakery.

“Heads, I win. Tails you lose.”

[Bill Chapman]

It is unbelievable that someone would post this nonsense on a public board after all we now know about the Tippit shooting. Here are just a few of the facts that point away from Oswald:

-- Warren Reynolds did not see the shooting but saw the gunman running from the scene of the crime. He claimed that the man was not Oswald. After he survived an attempt to kill him, he changed his mind and identified Oswald as the man he had seen.

-- Four cartridge cases were found lying on the ground near the scene of the murder. It would seem that the killer had opened the chamber of his gun and manually ejected the cases. Instead of immediately fleeing the scene of the crime, he deliberately stopped and discarded four vital pieces of evidence that could have been used against him. And of course WC apologists just gobble up this tale.

-- The four cartridge cases were traced to Oswald's revolver, but they were never matched to the bullets. Simply put, the slugs from Tippit's body do not match the shells in evidence.

-- Not one of the shells in evidence has Sergeant W. E. Barnes' or Patrolman J. M. Poe's initials on it, even though both men said they marked two of the shells. Sergeant Gerald Hill testified that he told Poe to be "sure" to mark two of the shells.

-- Helen Markham said the shooting occurred at 1:06 or 1:07. She had left her home, about one block from the site of the shooting, just after 1 pm, to go to work. She was about one and a half minutes’ walk from the bus stop where she was about to catch her regular bus. She caught this bus every day she worked. According to the Dallas Transit System, the bus was scheduled to arrive at 1:12 and she routinely arrived at least five minutes early, so the shooting must have occurred at around 1:07-1:10. There is no way Oswald could have walked from his house to 10th and Patton in time to be seen by Markham there.

-- The police lineups where Oswald was "identified" were brazenly unfair. He was the only one who was dressed shabbily. A monkey would have "identified" Oswald at those lineups.

-- Tippit's very presence in the Oak Cliff area, far from his assigned area, at a time when all DPD officers had been ordered to go downtown or to Parkland smacks of conspiracy. It took the DPD weeks to "discover" the transmission that ordered Tippit to Oak Cliff.

-- The fingerprints on Tippit's passenger door and on the right front fender were not Oswald's.

-- The FBI found that Oswald’s revolver was defective—it would not fire because the firing pin did not work properly. Dr. Gerald McKnight:

The first indication that Oswald’s .38 Smith and Wesson revolver was defective surfaced in the Warren report’s account of his arrest in the Texas Theatre. The reported stated that while Oswald was scuffling with one of the arresting officers, “a click” was heard, which the report identified as the sound of Oswald’s handgun misfiring. Later, when the FBI crime lab examined the four empty .38 hulls retrieved from the Tippit crime scene, none of the cartridges bore firing-pin indentations. Based on the physical evidence, BuLab [the FBI crime lab] surmised, “the firing pin would not strike one or more of the cartridges with sufficient force to fire them.” The FBI was confronted with the strong likelihood
that Oswald’s pistol was so hopelessly defective that it could not have been used
in the Tippit shooting. This could explain why the FBI was so conspicuously
indifferent about collecting and testing the three slugs Dr. Rose had removed
from the slain policeman’s body. (McKnight, Breach of Trust: How the Warren
Commission Failed the Nation and Why, University Press of Kansas, 2013, p.
146)

Donald Wilkes of the University of Georgia law school doesn't buy the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting:

After shooting Tippit the killer conveniently discarded four empty .38 caliber shells, which were identified by FBI experts as having been fired from the pistol Oswald possessed at arrest. There are, however, strong suspicions that the shells handed over to the FBI by Dallas police were not the shells found at the crime scene. Furthermore, the shells did not correspond with the bullets removed from Tippit’s body during his autopsy--a strange fact which the Warren Report desperately but unsuccessfully tried to explain away. Two of the shells were Winchesters and two were Remingtons, but the bullets recovered from Tippit consisted of three Winchesters and one Remington. (FBI experts could not link the bullets taken from Tippit’s corpse to Oswald’s revolver, for two reasons: first, the bullets were too mutilated; second, the barrel of the weapon had--apparently before Oswald bought it--been altered, and test-firing the revolver showed that consecutive bullets fired from the revolver could not be identified as having been fired from that revolver.) Even accepting that Oswald owned and possessed the weapon in question, and that the shells tested by the FBI had been fired from that weapon, therefore, the ballistics evidence is questionable.

As for the zipper jacket, the evidence that Tippit’s killer wore it is doubtful, the
evidence that it was worn by or ever belonged to Oswald is weak, and the
circumstances under which it was allegedly found (by a still unidentified Dallas
policeman) lying on the ground in a service station parking lot have never been
satisfactorily explained. There is an excellent account of the suspicious nature of the jacket evidence in the Meagher book. (The jacket, incidentally, bore a laundry or dry-cleaning tag which the FBI was unable to trace.)

It may well be, therefore, as James P. Duffy and Vincent L. Rice suggest in their book The Assassination of John F. Kennedy (1992), that Tippit’s murder “had no connection ... with Oswald, that [it] was committed by an unknown person for reasons entirely unconnected with the president’s assassination, and that the murder charge was pinned on Oswald.” (https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1145&context=fac_pm)

These are just some of the problems with the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting. That case is a bunch of hokum consisting of witnesses who were pressured to change their story, witnesses who "identified" Oswald in grossly unfair lineups, suppressed evidence, and sloppily planted evidence.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_j_022lJYli3B5Xyw8wLs-0nl6mDLo2t/view

I don't see anything unfair here, let alone 'grossly unfair'
> Same 'shabby' types
> Same appearance re height, weight

--------
BONUS
--------



Both fit 'shabby'

[Bill Chapman]

billchapman

[Bill Chapman]

billchapman

[Bill Brown]

-- Warren Reynolds did not see the shooting but saw the gunman running from the scene of the crime. He claimed that the man was not Oswald. After he survived an attempt to kill him, he changed his mind and identified Oswald as the man he had seen.

Nonsense.

Cite for Reynolds claiming that the man was not Oswald.

What he actually said was that he was of the opinion that the man he saw was Oswald but that he would hesitate to definitely identify Oswald.

Why do you feel the need to make  xxxx  up?

[Jerry Freeman]

 

Michael T. Griffith on August 06, 2022, 02:01:52 PM   -- Warren Reynolds did not see the shooting but saw the gunman running from the scene of the crime. He claimed that the man was not Oswald. After he survived an attempt to kill him, he changed his mind and identified Oswald as the man he had seen.

Reynolds had plenty of time to see Oswald on TV and in the news after Nov 22. Reynolds did not make a positive identification when interviewed by the FBI. That was on Jan 21 when he was shown photographs of Oswald. Two days after that initial interview with the FBI, he was shot in the head in the basement of the auto dealership. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/reynolds_w.htm
On July 22 that same year..Reynolds still only gave a half-hearted identification in his testimony.

Mr. LIEBELER. OK; let me put it this way: When is the first time that anybody from any law-enforcement agency,
and I mean by that, the FBI, Secret Service, Dallas Police Department,
 Dallas County sheriff's office; you pick it. When is the first time that they ever talked to you?
Mr.REYNOLDS. January 21.
Mr. LIEBELER. That is the first time they ever talked to you about what you saw on that day?
Mr.REYNOLDS. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. So you never in any way identified this man in the police department or any other authority, either in November or in December of 1963; is that correct?
Mr.REYNOLDS. No; I sure didn't. 
Mr. LIEBELER. So it can be in no way said that you "fingered" the man who was running down the street, and
identified him as the man who was going around and putting the gun in his pocket?
Mr.REYNOLDS. It can be said I didn't talk to the authorities. 
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you say anything about it to anybody else?
Mr.REYNOLDS. I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. Were you able to identify this man in your own mind?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You did identify him as Lee Harvey Oswald in your own mind?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER.  You had no question about it? [he obviously did on Jan 21]
Mr.REYNOLDS. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and
ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
Mr. LIEBELER. I show you an exhibit that has been marked Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C and ask you if that is the same man, in your opinion?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You were in no way, if I understand it correctly then, properly identified as anyone who had told the authorities
 that this man that was going down the street was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald, is that correct?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Well, yes and no......  [Avoiding that question]