Oswald killed Tippit -- Helen Markham confirms her ID on CBS 1964

[Martin Weidmann]

Strange first sentence. I doubt that anyone has ever claimed that. I did not even by implication.

You just laughed, that was implication enough.

[John Iacoletti]

A detailed description of an event by multiple witnesses will produce varying results: The "rashomon" effect.

On the flip side there is the bandwagon effect.

The simpler "is that the man who you saw at the scene of the crime" question is more likely to produce a consistent result. Agreed?

It introduces bias.  Particularly when asked by an authority figure.

[John Iacoletti]

The fastest time established by Gary Mack's time trial was 11 minutes. 1.03 + 11 = 1.14.... and that does not include the time Tippit and his killer talked. However, the available evidence justifies the conclusion that Tippit was actually shot earlier than 1.14

And the fastest time also ignored the witnesses who said the man was walking west on 10th street.

[Ross Lidell]

Oswald traveling between those two points in 12 minutes (if that's what it was) is not IMPOSSIBLE.

The fastest time established by Gary Mack's time trial was 11 minutes. 1.03 + 11 = 1.14.... and that does not include the time Tippit and his killer talked. However, the available evidence justifies the conclusion that Tippit was actually shot earlier than 1.14

Oswald could have gotten a lift (part of the way) in a car. I don't think that happened but it's a possibility no matter how slim.

So, if a slim possibility favors Oswald's guilt, you accept it as a possibility, but when it doesn't you dismiss it outright. Got it.

But there is in interesting question that is never answered by those who claim Oswald must have been running or had some sort of transporation and that's this;

What in the world could have possibly been so important to Oswald that he needed to get to a go-nowhere location as 10%/Patton (where he would stand out like a sore thumb) as quickly as he could? Apart from jogging, have you ever run to a place where there was nothing to do or see? And if he was tansported in a car, why not pick of location like Jefferson where there was a lot more activity (less chance of being noticed) and bus stops all over the place?

Your timing discrepancy "theory" can be weighed against the physical evidence of Lee Oswald being the killer of Officer J.D. Tippit.

Have you forgotten: Oswald had his revolver taken form him as he resisted arrest in the Texas Theater about 30 minutes after Tippit was murdered not far from that location.

The expended cartridge cases found at the scene of the crime were matched to Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to the exclusion of any other handgun. The identification of Oswald by Markham is direct evidence. The ballistic evidence is circumstantial evidence which is corroborative.

If you truly believe Oswald could not have been at Tenth and Patton when Officer Tippit was murdered, you need to answer these questions:

-- Who used Lee Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to shoot Officer Tippit?

-- When did the real shooter of Officer Tippit return Oswald's revolver to him?

-- Where was Oswald at the time of the Tippit shooting?

If you're going to say "at the Texas Theater": It doesn't take 45 minutes to get from the rooming house at North Beckley to the Texas Theater on West Jefferson Boulevard.

[Martin Weidmann]

Your timing discrepancy "theory" can be weighed against the physical evidence of Lee Oswald being the killer of Officer J.D. Tippit.

Have you forgotten: Oswald had his revolver taken form him as he resisted arrest in the Texas Theater about 30 minutes after Tippit was murdered not far from that location.

The expended cartridge cases found at the scene of the crime were matched to Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to the exclusion of any other handgun. The identification of Oswald by Markham is direct evidence. The ballistic evidence is circumstantial evidence which is corroborative.

If you truly believe Oswald could not have been at Tenth and Patton when Officer Tippit was murdered, you need to answer these questions:

-- Who used Lee Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to shoot Officer Tippit?

-- When did the real shooter of Officer Tippit return Oswald's revolver to him?

-- Where was Oswald at the time of the Tippit shooting?

If you're going to say "at the Texas Theater": It doesn't take 45 minutes to get from the rooming house at North Beckley to the Texas Theater on West Jefferson Boulevard.

How can you be sure that the revolver now in evidence is in fact the same one as was taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater?


If you truly believe Oswald could not have been at Tenth and Patton when Officer Tippit was murdered, you need to answer these questions:

-- Who used Lee Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to shoot Officer Tippit?

-- When did the real shooter of Officer Tippit return Oswald's revolver to him?

-- Where was Oswald at the time of the Tippit shooting?

I don't need to answer any of these questions. It's just a variation of the same game you play every time;

"Oswald is the killer unless you can give me the name, address and date of birth of the actual killer"

What you fail to notice or understand is that your questions are all based upon the false premise that the revolver that killed Tippit was indeed Oswald's revolver. The problem with that is that you simply have no evidence for that premise.

Btw, I noticed you failed to answer my question about why Oswald would be in such a hurry to get to 10%/Patton.... Is that because you can't find a logical explanation for that?

[John Iacoletti]

The expended cartridge cases found at the scene of the crime were matched to Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to the exclusion of any other handgun.

"Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver".  LOL.

No, shells recovered by civilians from an unsecured crime scene and handed to police (two with disappearing Poe initials, and two that could not be identified as the same bullets by the people who found them) were matched to a revolver that Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket 1.5 to 2 hours after Oswald's arrest and submitted into evidence.

If you're going to say "at the Texas Theater": It doesn't take 45 minutes to get from the rooming house at North Beckley to the Texas Theater on West Jefferson Boulevard.

Burroughs reported seeing Oswald in the theater around 1:07.  If you're going to say he was wrong, then we can just as easily say that your witnesses are wrong.

[Ross Lidell]

How can you be sure that the revolver now in evidence is in fact the same one as was taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater?


If you truly believe Oswald could not have been at Tenth and Patton when Officer Tippit was murdered, you need to answer these questions:

-- Who used Lee Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to shoot Officer Tippit?

-- When did the real shooter of Officer Tippit return Oswald's revolver to him?

-- Where was Oswald at the time of the Tippit shooting?

I don't need to answer any of these questions. It's just a variation of the same game you play every time;

"Oswald is the killer unless you can give me the name, address and date of birth of the actual killer"

What you fail to notice or understand is that your questions are all based upon the false premise that the revolver that killed Tippit was indeed Oswald's revolver. The problem with that is that you simply have no evidence for that premise.

I don't need to answer any of these questions. It's just a variation of the same game you play every time;

"Oswald is the killer unless you can give me the name, address and date of birth of the actual killer"

A ridiculous exaggeration. Even though this forum is not a court of law: An intellectual "burden of proof" rests with you to provide an alternate explanation of the Tippit murder... if Oswald did not do it. The fact that you do not (and are not even curious about what actually happened) marks you as a "game-playing contrarian".

Explain your "false premise" theory with "evidence": Just saying the revolver that killed Tippit was not Oswald's is an assertion and will not do.

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't need to answer any of these questions. It's just a variation of the same game you play every time;

"Oswald is the killer unless you can give me the name, address and date of birth of the actual killer"

A ridiculous exaggeration. Even though this forum is not a court of law: An intellectual "burden of proof" rests with you to provide an alternate explanation of the Tippit murder... if Oswald did not do it. The fact that you do not (and are not even curious about what actually happened) marks you as a "game-playing contrarian".

Explain your "false premise" theory--with "evidence"--that the revolver which killed Tippit was not Oswald's. An assertion will not do.

I asked you for a plausible explanation why Oswald would have been in such a hurry to get to 10th/Patton that he needed to run or get transportation. You failed to answer twice. Why is that?

I asked you how you could be sure that the revolved now in evidence is in fact the same one as the one they took from Oswald at the Texas Theater. Again you failed to answer....

It seems you like asking questions while at the same time not answering questions you don't like .....

"Oswald is the killer unless you can give me the name, address and date of birth of the actual killer"

A ridiculous exaggeration. Even though this forum is not a court of law: An intellectual "burden of proof" rests with you to provide an alternate explanation of the Tippit murder... if Oswald did not do it. The fact that you do not (and are not even curious about what actually happened) marks you as a "game-playing contrarian".


In a court of law there is no obligation whatsoever for the defense to provide an alternative scenario. It's the prosecution that needs to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. The mere fact that you keep on demanding for alternative scenarios (in line with your "Oswald is guilty unless you can prove he isn't" mantra) and keep complaining about me being a contrarian only tells me that you know that your own case against Oswald simply isn't strong enough to withstand scrutiny. You are like a prosecutor who complains to the judge that the jury doesn't believe his narrative.....

And, I am most certainly curious about what actually happened. I just am willing to look at all the possibilities and weigh all the evidence. That's where you and I differ!

Explain your "false premise" theory--with "evidence"--that the revolver which killed Tippit was not Oswald's. An assertion will not do.

I never said it was not Oswald's revolver. I can't say that simply because I do not know. But you don't get to assume that it was Oswald's revolver. You need to prove it... and John has already explained the problem with the chain of custody for the revolver. All we really know is that Gerald Hill, at the police station, pulled a revolver out of his pocket some 2 hours after Oswald's arrest, had a few officers mark it and and submitted into evidence.

Where did Hill get that revolver and how do we know it's the same one they took from Oswald at the Texas Theater?