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

[Gary Craig]

Testimony Of Domingo Benavides

Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.

~snip~

Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.

Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........

~snip~

Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.

~snip~

[John Iacoletti]

That was Ted Callaway who may have very well committed a crime by taking that policeman's gun in the first place.

And if other witnesses had seen Callaway leaving the scene with a gun, would that be evidence that Callaway just shot Tippit? That’s the folly of the LN argument.

[Ross Lidell]

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

I hope you're prepared for a rude awakening Mr Lidell.....   JD Tippit was NOT killed by using the Smith & Wesson 38 revolver  that appeared  at the Texas theater.

Nobody has been able to trace the bullets from Tippit's body to that revolver....   THAT is a fact.

And the reason the bullets can't be traced to the S&W revolver is because the killer WAS NOT using a S&W revolver.   Virtually all of the witnesses who saw the killer removing spent shells from his revolver said that he removed the spent shells ONE AT A TIME....as he walked away from the murder scene.   The SW is not unloaded in that fashion....The S&W ejects all six chambers AT THE SAME TIME....   But don't take my word..... Just read FBI agent Cunningham's testimony to LBJ's cover up committee. .....

And the reason the bullets can't be traced to the S&W revolver is because the killer WAS NOT using a S&W revolver.

Wrong. Oswald's Smith & Wesson Victory revolver had been re-chambered but not re-barreled. The bullets were of a slightly smaller diameter than the barrel of the gun. Additionally, the barrel had been shortened from 6 inches to 2 1/2 inches: There was less distance for a bullet to traverse the lands and grooves to leave consistent engravings.

  Virtually all of the witnesses who saw the killer removing spent shells from his revolver said that he removed the spent shells ONE AT A TIME....as he walked away from the murder scene.   The SW is not unloaded in that fashion....The S&W ejects all six chambers AT THE SAME TIME....   But don't take my word..... Just read FBI agent Cunningham's testimony to LBJ's cover up committee. .....

That testimony is contradicted by the physical evidence which must take precedence. The revolver taken from Lee Harvey Oswald when he tried to shoot Officer N.M. McDonald in the Texas Theater was the murder weapon in the killing of Officer J.D. Tippit.

[John Iacoletti]

That testimony is contradicted by the physical evidence which must take precedence.

Then stop misrepresenting the evidence.

The revolver taken from Lee Harvey Oswald

You don’t know what revolver (if any) was taken from Lee Harvey Oswald.

when he tried to shoot Officer N.M. McDonald in the Texas Theater

There’s no evidence that he tried to shoot Officer N.M. McDonald.

was the murder weapon in the killing of Officer J.D. Tippit.

You can’t determine what weapon killed Officer J.D. Tippit.

[Ross Lidell]

Then stop misrepresenting the evidence.

You don’t know what revolver (if any) was taken from Lee Harvey Oswald.

There’s no evidence that he tried to shoot Officer N.M. McDonald.

You can’t determine what weapon killed Officer J.D. Tippit.

More of your nonsense born out of a need to respond to every post; not ashamed that you contribute nothing of substance to this forum: Just denials of the historical record unsupported by any evidence. 

Very disappointing, John. I spend hours producing superb Vids and they fail to penetrate your devilish, closed mind.

[Rick Plant]

I spend hours producing superb Vids

What does this vid offer other than vague testimony? Anybody can produce a vid trying to push a narrative they want to sell. 

[Ross Lidell]

What does this vid offer other than vague testimony? Anybody can produce a vid trying to push a narrative they want to sell.

You say: "vague testimony".

Actually, Joseph D. Nichol goes into considerable detail about the reason for the difficulty matching the lead bullets to the test sample fired from Oswald's Smith & Wesson Victory revolver.

Explain how Nichol's testimony is "vague". Your simple "assertion" statement is a weak, inadequate comment.

My comment about "hours producing superb Vids" was designed to provoke John Iacoletti. Just a bit of fun. 

[Martin Weidmann]

More of your nonsense born out of a need to respond to every post; not ashamed that you contribute nothing of substance to this forum: Just denials of the historical record unsupported by any evidence. 

Very disappointing, John. I spend hours producing superb Vids and they fail to penetrate your devilish, closed mind.

The one who is in denial is you. You have convinced yourself by cherry-picking the evidence and made up your mind to the extend that you are unwilling to even consider anything that contradicts your opinion and/or the serious problems there are with the historical record. The points John raised are valid, but rather than deal with them you start attacking John. That's a massive demonstration of weakness on your part. And it isn't the first time you have displayed that same weakness.

When I ask you two simple questions you can't give a credible answer to, you run away, saying;

I'll have to delay my response, Martin.

Business is more important than answering immaterial questions.

But now, here your are, replying to other posts in the same thread and completely ignoring the two questions I asked.

Did you think I would let you get away with that? Here are my two questions again;
1.
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 a location like Jefferson to be dropped of where there was a lot more activity (less chance of being noticed) and bus stops all over the place?

It's easier to hide in the open in a crowd of people than on an empty street, right?

2.
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?

Are you going to man up to at least try to answer the questions or are you going to run away again.... Your choice!