Youtube Interview I Did, Tippit Case

[Martin Weidmann]

So again, here is Martin/Roger arguing that because Hill "carried a piece of crucial evidence around" that it "leaves the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation."  Something he now claims that no one has argued.  Martin/Roger has a very ambiguous relationship with the truth.  My point - once again - is that even if Hill carried the pistol around that is not evidence of "manipulation" of the evidence.  The evidence remains the evidence even if Hill did not follow the proper procedure (again something Martin/Roger has claimed but not demonstrated).

Just how much more stupid can you get?

When I say; "because Hill carried a piece of crucial evidence around that it leaves the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation." I am not saying that it is evidence of manipulation.

All it means is that if Hill had handed in the revolver straight away, the possibility of a claim of manipulation would be a lot less.

I am amazed that I even have to explain something so simple and obvious to you.

Who is making up stuff Roger?

"The fact that Hill carried a piece of crucial evidence around leaves the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation."

You are, by linking a statement I made to a guy named Roger! Pathetic!

[Colin Crow]

Was he?

Mr. BELIN. All right. Will you please state then what happened, what you saw, what you did, what you heard?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, I first seen the police car cruising east.
Mr. BELIN. About how fast was it cruising?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Not more than 10 or 12 miles a hour, I would say.
Mr. BELIN. It was going east on what street?
Mr. SCOGGINS. On Tenth.

[Richard Smith]

Just how much more stupid can you get?

When I say; "because Hill carried a piece of crucial evidence around that it leaves the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation." I am not saying that it is evidence of manipulation.

All it means is that if Hill had handed in the revolver straight away, the possibility of a claim of manipulation would be a lot less.

I am amazed that I even have to explain something so simple and obvious to you.

You are, by linking a statement I made to a guy named Roger! Pathetic!

Good grief.  This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic.  You claimed that there is doubt that the ammo found on Oswald when arrested is the same ammo placed in evidence.  You make this claim repeatedly.  And cite the fact that Hill didn't log the pistol into evidence for "hours" to support this claim.  Now you suggest that you never claimed the evidence was manipulated!  If you are not claiming the evidence was "manipulated" then why bicker over how long it took to log the pistol into evidence?  Amazing.  Let us know then that you agree that the ammo found on Oswald was the same that was logged into evidence.  As I originally noted, you appear to be suggesting that it is merely "possible" that the evidence was manipulated with no basis whatsoever that it was.  An empty the jails argument that could be made in every criminal case.  You have never even demonstrated that a brief delay in logging in evidence was any sort of violation of procedure much less the basis for providing any doubt as to the validity of the evidence.  Show us some comparison. At most what you are suggesting is that it was not ideal.  That is OJ defense attorney material for a guilty client. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Good grief.  This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic.  You claimed that there is doubt that the ammo found on Oswald when arrested is the same ammo placed in evidence.  You make this claim repeatedly.  And cite the fact that Hill didn't log the pistol into evidence for "hours" to support this claim.  Now you suggest that you never claimed the evidence was manipulated!  If you are not claiming the evidence was "manipulated" then why bicker over how long it took to log the pistol into evidence?  Amazing.  Let us know then that you agree that the ammo found on Oswald was the same that was logged into evidence.  As I originally noted, you appear to be suggesting that it is merely "possible" that the evidence was manipulated with no basis whatsoever that it was.  An empty the jails argument that could be made in every criminal case.  You have never even demonstrated that a brief delay in logging in evidence was any sort of violation of procedure much less the basis for providing any doubt as to the validity of the evidence.  Show us some comparison. At most what you are suggesting is that it was not ideal.  That is OJ defense attorney material for a guilty client.

This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic. 

For a guy like you, who believes in fairytales, I am sure it must appear that way. Maybe one day, when you grow up, you will understand the difference because at the moment you clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

You claimed that there is doubt that the ammo found on Oswald when arrested is the same ammo placed in evidence.

No, I never made that claim. See how far removed you are from reality?

And cite the fact that Hill didn't log the pistol into evidence for "hours" to support this claim.

Haven't done that either.

Now you suggest that you never claimed the evidence was manipulated!

Show me where I claimed that the evidence was manipulated?

You have never even demonstrated that a brief delay in logging in evidence was any sort of violation of procedure much less the basis for providing any doubt as to the validity of the evidence.  Show us some comparison. At most what you are suggesting is that it was not ideal.  That is OJ defense attorney material for a guilty client.

Finally you've got something right. It was indeed O.J. Simpson's defense team that made the argument that some evidence could not be trusted because the proper procedures were not followed.

[Bill Brown]

Can't have shells from an automatic found on the scene, as reported by Hill(!), when Oswald owns a revolver, can we?

Benavides saw the killer throw some of the shells to the ground.  Shells (Benavides and the Davis girls) were found nowhere near the patrol car, where the shooter was standing as he fired the shots at Tippit from across the hood.

You do understand that if the shells were fired from an automatic weapon, then they would have been ejected automatically and therefore the killer would have no need to manually eject them and throw them to the ground.  Right?

You do understand that if the shells were fired from an automatic weapon, they would have been found very near the patrol car where the killer was standing instead of where they were in fact found (a couple of them over one hundred feet away along the killer's path as he fled).  Right?

[Bill Brown]

Did he really state that in his affidavit?

Go look it up for yourself.  No?

[Richard Smith]

This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic. 

For a guy like you, who believes in fairytales, I am sure it must appear that way. Maybe one day, when you grow up, you will understand the difference because at the moment you clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

You claimed that there is doubt that the ammo found on Oswald when arrested is the same ammo placed in evidence.

No, I never made that claim. See how far removed you are from reality?

And cite the fact that Hill didn't log the pistol into evidence for "hours" to support this claim.

Haven't done that either.

Now you suggest that you never claimed the evidence was manipulated!

Show me where I claimed that the evidence was manipulated?

You have never even demonstrated that a brief delay in logging in evidence was any sort of violation of procedure much less the basis for providing any doubt as to the validity of the evidence.  Show us some comparison. At most what you are suggesting is that it was not ideal.  That is OJ defense attorney material for a guilty client.

Finally you've got something right. It was indeed O.J. Simpson's defense team that made the argument that some evidence could not be trusted because the proper procedures were not followed.

Let's try one last time.  Do you accept that Oswald had the same two types of ammo when he was arrested that were used to kill Tippit or not?  These are mutually exclusive options.  You can't argue that you do not accept this as a fact but that you are not suggesting that the evidence was manipulated.  The DPD indicates that they recovered a pistol and ammo from Oswald after his arrest.  You cannot suggest that a different pistol or ammo was entered into evidence and deny that you are suggesting the evidence was manipulated. Both cannot be true.

And imagine the narrative behind this fantasy where the DPD switch the pistol and plant the ammo.   The DPD decide, for some unspecified reason, to frame Oswald for the Tippit murder right from the beginning.  Why they do this is left completely unaddressed.  They not only frame Oswald for the crime, but they must decide to let the guilty person go free.  They must know who this guilty person is since they somehow acquire his pistol and switch it for the one that Oswald (bad luck again) has decided to carry to the movie.  Again, why the DPD decide to frame Oswald and allow the known guilty party to walk away is left unaddressed in this fantasy.  It is just so because there was a brief delay in logging the evidence. But Martin/Roger denies he is a CTer.  He is just suggesting the evidence has been planted of manipulated for some inexplicable reason never is addressed because it is "possible."

[Martin Weidmann]

Let's try one last time.  Do you accept that Oswald had the same two types of ammo when he was arrested that were used to kill Tippit or not?  These are mutually exclusive options.  You can't argue that you do not accept this as a fact but that you are not suggesting that the evidence was manipulated.  The DPD indicates that they recovered a pistol and ammo from Oswald after his arrest.  You cannot suggest that a different pistol or ammo was entered into evidence and deny that you are suggesting the evidence was manipulated. Both cannot be true.

And imagine the narrative behind this fantasy where the DPD switch the pistol and plant the ammo.   The DPD decide, for some unspecified reason, to frame Oswald for the Tippit murder right from the beginning.  Why they do this is left completely unaddressed.  They not only frame Oswald for the crime, but they must decide to let the guilty person go free.  They must know who this guilty person is since they somehow acquire his pistol and switch it for the one that Oswald (bad luck again) has decided to carry to the movie.  Again, why the DPD decide to frame Oswald and allow the known guilty party to walk away is left unaddressed in this fantasy.  It is just so because there was a brief delay in logging the evidence. But Martin/Roger denies he is a CTer.  He is just suggesting the evidence has been planted of manipulated for some inexplicable reason never is addressed because it is "possible."

Do you accept that Oswald had the same two types of ammo when he was arrested that were used to kill Tippit or not?

Did he? I know they claimed he had bullets on him, but they only "found" them after searching him several times, which seems a bit odd to me.

These are mutually exclusive options.  You can't argue that you do not accept this as a fact but that you are not suggesting that the evidence was manipulated.

I have not argued either. I don't know.

The DPD indicates that they recovered a pistol and ammo from Oswald after his arrest.

Yes, they also indicated that Oswald had not passed the paraffin test and that they had found a credit card and a driver's license in Oswald's wallet, so what's your point.

You cannot suggest that a different pistol or ammo was entered into evidence and deny that you are suggesting the evidence was manipulated. Both cannot be true.

Oh there is no doubt in my mind at all that (some) evidence was manipulated. It is actually a documented fact that it happened. I just can not say for sure which evidence was manipulated and which isn't. Hill having some officers in the DPD lunchroom initial the revolver, he said belonged to Oswald, when they were not even present at the arrest, doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence. The FBI showing a BY photo to Michael Paine on Friday evening when they were not officially found until the second search (with warrent this time) of Saturday afternoon. And what of the fact that Fritz picked up the shells in the snipers nest before they were photographed in situ and then threw them back and then there was the moving boxes fiasco and let's not forget Lt Day who allegedly found a palmprint of Oswald on the MC rifle and somehow "forgot" to tell anybody about it for a week!

And imagine the narrative behind this fantasy where the DPD switch the pistol and plant the ammo.   The DPD decide, for some unspecified reason, to frame Oswald for the Tippit murder right from the beginning.  Why they do this is left completely unaddressed.

Ever heard of a drop gun? Please don't tell me these things don't happen in law enforcement, because that would only show how far removed you are from reaility. And you can't figure out why they would do it (if they did it)? Really? Just use your imagination (you're normally pretty good at that) and I am sure you'll think of something. And btw who said that the entire DPD would decide to frame Oswald? You don't think a few well placed individuals could do it?

Like Westbrook, a personnel officer for crying out loud, who shows up at the, for him, strangest places and does the strangest things. For instance, at the Tippit crime scene where he is seen on video handling a wallet and where he asks FBI Barrett if he knows either Oswald or Hidell. And then he shows up at the parking lot where an undentified officer shows him a jacket, which he claims he gave to another unidentified officer, only to end up having a gray jacket a couple of hours later, which has initials marked on it from men who never were in the chain of custody. I don't know what is going on with this guy, but it has nothing to do with normal police procedure or routine.

They not only frame Oswald for the crime, but they must decide to let the guilty person go free. 

Isn't that exactly what Hoover did, when he declared Oswald the only guilty person and focussed only on "proving" that?

They must know who this guilty person is since they somehow acquire his pistol and switch it for the one that Oswald (bad luck again) has decided to carry to the movie.  Again, why the DPD decide to frame Oswald and allow the known guilty party to walk away is left unaddressed in this fantasy.

I have no I idea if they did it, who inside the DPD did it and why they did and I guess I will never know. All anyone can do is scrutinize the actions of all the law enforcement officers.

It is just so because there was a brief delay in logging the evidence.

This stupidity has already been debunked. I'm not going to explain it to you again.

He is just suggesting the evidence has been planted of manipulated for some inexplicable reason never is addressed because it is "possible."

Finally you've got something right. Well nearly... because I am not suggesting evidence was in fact planted or manipulated, I am merely saying it is possible. That you don't understand this, because you for some idiotic reason seem to think it's impossible, is your problem. There is no doubt in my mind that you are desperate to get something from me that you can attack, but I am not going to do you that favor. You stick by making up strawman arguments. You're good at that!