Youtube Interview I Did, Tippit Case

[Bill Brown]

She was also very specific about a police car in front of the house.

Not on the afternoon of the murder, she wasn't.  There's the difference.

[Bill Brown]

Dan,

It may well be that Roberts did indeed believe that Oswald walked out wearing a jacket, but that doesn't automatically mean that she was correct. Officer Baker thought that Oswald was wearing a jacket during the lunchroom encounter and taxi driver Whaley thought that the man he drove to Beckley street was wearing two jackets.

The irony of the LN hypocrisy is that when it comes to Buell Frazier, they will question anything he said about the paper bag Oswald was wearing. They call him mistaken and come up with all sorts of "reasons" why Frazier couldn't have seen the bag clear enough. The reason for this is that Frazier is saying something they don't like. But when it comes to Roberts, who says what they want to hear, her words as somehow written in stone, regardless of the serious problems there are with her credibility.

You keep skipping over the part where Roberts said Oswald was zipping it up as he went out the door.

[Bill Brown]

'couldn't have seen Oswald for any longer than a couple of seconds'

Does it take you even a 'couple of seconds' to realize that this figure is wearing jacket?
Okay, I'll wait..


Blurred to mimic Earlene's possible eyesight

 

[Martin Weidmann]

And for what it's worth, I have never called myself an expert and I did not ask the interviewer to call me one.

Now that I have that out of the way, I kind of am an expert in the Tippit murder.

You can be, too:

Read a book full of speculation and bias and "become an expert" 

Great stuff.... Does Myers explain the discrepancy between Roberts' and Buell Frazier's testimony about the gray jacket?

Does Myers provide any evidence for Oswald leaving the TSBD through the front door within 2 to 2,5 minutes after the shots, like you claimed he did?

Does Myers give an explanation about how the white jacket (as it was called in) became a gray jacket, how Westbrook ended up with it at the police station and needed several hours to submit it to the identification bureau with initials on it from people who were not even at the location what the jacket was found?

[Dan O'meara]

Dan,

It may well be that Roberts did indeed believe that Oswald walked out wearing a jacket, but that doesn't automatically mean that she was correct. Officer Baker thought that Oswald was wearing a jacket during the lunchroom encounter and taxi driver Whaley thought that the man he drove to Beckley street was wearing two jackets.

Totally agree with what you're saying here.

The irony of the LN hypocrisy is that when it comes to Buell Frazier, they will question anything he said about the paper bag Oswald was wearing. They call him mistaken and come up with all sorts of "reasons" why Frazier couldn't have seen the bag clear enough. The reason for this is that Frazier is saying something they don't like. But when it comes to Roberts, who says what they want to hear, her words as somehow written in stone, regardless of the serious problems there are with her credibility.

Mrs Johnson's testimony regarding Roberts' credibility is devastating.
Roberts' story about the police car outside seems suspect for a number of reasons.
But a detail like Oswald wearing a jacket on his way out....what does that gain Roberts?
It seems like a totally plausible, almost irrelevant detail. It only takes on importance because we all have it under the microscope for various reasons.
The way I look at it at the moment, the only reason Oswald returned to his room was to collect a gun.
It makes sense (to me) for him to wear a jacket to carry it in to make it as inconspicuous as possible.

I get the impression you're involved in a bitter LN vs CT situation that I'm not particularly interested in. It descends into a lot of nit-picking that often masks the valid points you have to make (IMO)
The LN narrative is an entrenched position that can only be really challenged by a strong counter-narrative that accounts for aspects of the assassination LNers struggle with. Endless arguments over little details have got nowhere, and never will (IMO)

[Martin Weidmann]

You keep skipping over the part where Roberts said Oswald was zipping it up as he went out the door.

Just like you keep skipping over the part where Roberts testified that the jacket she saw was darker than CE 162.

Btw I am not skipping over anything. I have already stated that Roberts may well have believed that she saw Oswald putting on a jacket and zipping it up, but that, by itself does not mean that actually happened. When you have somebody else saying that Oswald was wearing a gray jacket (according to Marina, he only had one) to Irving on Thursday, you can not automatically assume that Roberts was correct in what she believed she saw.

[Martin Weidmann]

Not on the afternoon of the murder, she wasn't.  There's the difference.

It doesn't matter when she said it. It shows that her employer was likely correct about her making up stories.
If you make up stories afterwards, you can also do so on the day itself.

Unreliable is unreliable. Period.

Btw, Frazier, was being polygraphed on Friday evening when he was shown the bag they found at the TSBD and he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that same day. By your "logic" he needs to be believed, right? Even more so, because he never was accused of making up stories.....

[Martin Weidmann]

Totally agree with what you're saying here.

Mrs Johnson's testimony regarding Roberts' credibility is devastating.
Roberts' story about the police car outside seems suspect for a number of reasons.
But a detail like Oswald wearing a jacket on his way out....what does that gain Roberts?
It seems like a totally plausible, almost irrelevant detail. It only takes on importance because we all have it under the microscope for various reasons.
The way I look at it at the moment, the only reason Oswald returned to his room was to collect a gun.
It makes sense (to me) for him to wear a jacket to carry it in to make it as inconspicuous as possible.

I get the impression you're involved in a bitter LN vs CT situation that I'm not particularly interested in. It descends into a lot of nit-picking that often masks the valid points you have to make (IMO)
The LN narrative is an entrenched position that can only be really challenged by a strong counter-narrative that accounts for aspects of the assassination LNers struggle with. Endless arguments over little details have got nowhere, and never will (IMO)

But a detail like Oswald wearing a jacket on his way out....what does that gain Roberts?

That's the wrong question to ask, as I do not believe that most witnesses testify hoping to gain something.

It seems like a totally plausible, almost irrelevant detail. It only takes on importance because we all have it under the microscope for various reasons.

I disagree about it being an "almost irrelevant detail". It most certainly isn't. If Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket, then the Tippit witnesses who saw a man wearing a jacket possibly did not see Oswald and the jacket found under a parked car likely didn't belong to Oswald either, which in turn leaves the door wide open for the possibility that Oswald's gray jacket was in fact in Irving and found by the officers during the first search of Ruth Paine's house. They arrived back at the police station before Westbrook submitted the jacket (with no chain of custody) to the identification bureau.

I get the impression you're involved in a bitter LN vs CT situation that I'm not particularly interested in.

Not really. I just don't like the hypocrisy. I have tried many times to have a normal conversation with LNs but whenever it gets to a point where they can not explain something, they start playing games and the conversation is over.

The LN narrative is an entrenched position that can only be really challenged by a strong counter-narrative that accounts for aspects of the assassination LNers struggle with.

I disagree. You can never present a strong counter-narrative because as soon as you do the conversation is over.
Also, the LN narrative is the one claiming to be correct. The LNs should be able to defend it with convincing arguments. The LNs are the ones who are acting as prosecutors. They need to prove their case.

Endless arguments over little details have got nowhere, and never will (IMO)

It depends what one considers to be a little detail. Sometimes evidence that seems insignificant at first provide the conclusive proof at a later stage. I don't think it's a good idea to predetermine what evidence is relevant and what not!