Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

This just gets more comical with every post.

Listen closely, as I alluded to in the other thread, Oswald having the Hidell identification would be used to show law enforcement that he wasn't Oswald and using your narrative, Oswald losing the Hidell wallet after showing Tippit is a very reasonable scenario which wouldn't need any denial.

Nobody would question Oswald having two wallets for two or more different pieces of identification.

C'mon Martin think clearly and try again and this time make a logical explanation that explains your hare-brained narrative and then we can examine why someone would even leave a second wallet??

JohnM

Oswald losing the Hidell wallet after showing Tippit is a very reasonable scenario which wouldn't need any denial.

Hilarious! There is no evidence that Oswald (if it was him) showed Tippit anything. Besides, when Tippit spoke to his killer, Oswald's name wasn't even known to the officers in the field.

Nobody would question Oswald having two wallets for two or more different pieces of identification.

Really? Just how many people do you know that walk around with two wallets?

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin's "explanation" contains so many logical inconsistencies that it is mind boggling.  Not the least of which is that if the DPD were manipulating the evidence and deciding which wallet to link to Oswald, they would obviously use the one found at the Tippit murder scene.  What more incriminatory evidence could there be to link Oswald to the Tippit murder than claiming that he dropped his wallet at the scene.  Only an imbecile would ever suggest that the same police officers who they claim are otherwise framing Oswald would suppress the most important piece of evidence in the entire case to link him to the Tippit murder.

Is comprehension problems a common thing amongst LNs?

I have never said that they suppressed the "most important piece of evidence" (i.e. the wallet found at the Tippit scene). I have in fact suggested the opposite.

Not the least of which is that if the DPD were manipulating the evidence and deciding which wallet to link to Oswald, they would obviously use the one found at the Tippit murder scene.  What more incriminatory evidence could there be to link Oswald to the Tippit murder than claiming that he dropped his wallet at the scene.

Which is exactly what I have been saying all along, except for the part that they couldn't say they found it at the Tippit scene, because it was already known that Paul Bentley took Oswald's wallet from him in the car. By switching the wallets (as thus supressing the Bentley one) they kept the fake Hidell ID in play and that was the most important part.

It's hilarious how LN clowns like you argue. On the one hand you claim there was no wallet belonging to Oswald at the Tippit scene. It was either a notebook or a wallet belonging to an innocent bystander. And then, on the other hand, you say if it was Oswald's wallet that was found at the Tippit scene it would be the "most important piece of evidence" against him, which implies that, in that scenario, it suddenly couldn't be that Oswald lost it as an innocent bystander.

As per usual you're all over the place and then have the audacity to call it "logic". It's pathetic!

[Richard Smith]

Is comprehension problems a common thing amongst LNs?

I have never said that they suppressed the "most important piece of evidence" (i.e. the wallet found at the Tippit scene). I have in fact suggested the opposite.

Not the least of which is that if the DPD were manipulating the evidence and deciding which wallet to link to Oswald, they would obviously use the one found at the Tippit murder scene.  What more incriminatory evidence could there be to link Oswald to the Tippit murder than claiming that he dropped his wallet at the scene.

Which is exactly what I have been saying all along, except for the part that they couldn't see they found it at the Tippit scene, because it was already known that Paul Bentley took Oswald's wallet from him in the car. By switching the wallets (as thus supressing the Bentley one) they kept the fake Hidell ID in play and that was the most important part.

It's hilarious how LN clowns like you argue. On the one hand you claim there was no wallet belonging to Oswald at the Tippit scene. It was either a notebook or a wallet belonging to an innocent bystander. And then, on the other hand, you say if it was Oswald's wallet that was found at the Tippit scene it would be the "most important piece of evidence" against him, which implies that, in that scenario, it suddenly couldn't be that Oswald lost it as an innocent bystander.

As per usual you're all over the place and then have the audacity to call it "logic". It's pathetic!

Comedy gold.  It must be a slow day in "Europe".  Here we continue to play whack-a-mole.  Martin from "Europe" contends that he is not claiming that the police suppressed anything!  Keep that in mind in trying to follow his looney narrative that the police were involved in framing Oswald for the murder of Tippit, found a wallet at the crime, and when given the opportunity to connect a wallet found at the crime with the person they were trying to frame instead decided to just go with the wallet found on Oswald because they had TWO wallets.  They couldn't lie about that for some reason while otherwise lying about just every other piece of evidence against Oswald according to Martin (from "Europe").  They drew the line at lying about wallets. HA HA HA HA HA.  Unreal.  I have never said it was Oswald's wallet found at the scene or any wallet.  I explained as though to a simpleton why that is likely not the case.  My discussion here was to highlight the astounding stupidity of YOUR claim that the police hid the fact that they - again in YOUR claim - found a wallet at the crime scene and then covered that up.  In my opinion, it is not a wallet at all.

[Martin Weidmann]

Comedy gold.  It must be a slow day in "Europe".  Here we continue to play whack-a-mole.  Martin from "Europe" contends that he is not claiming that the police suppressed anything!  Keep that in mind in trying to follow his looney narrative that the police were involved in framing Oswald for the murder of Tippit, found a wallet at the crime, and when given the opportunity to connect a wallet found at the crime with the person they were trying to frame instead decided to just go with the wallet found on Oswald because they had TWO wallets.  They couldn't lie about that for some reason while otherwise lying about just every other piece of evidence against Oswald according to Martin (from "Europe").  They drew the line at lying about wallets. HA HA HA HA HA.  Unreal.  I have never said it was Oswald's wallet found at the scene or any wallet.  I explained as though to a simpleton why that is likely not the case.  My discussion here was to highlight the astounding stupidity of YOUR claim that the police hid the fact that they - again in YOUR claim - found a wallet at the crime scene and then covered that up.  In my opinion, it is not a wallet at all.

Martin from "Europe" contends that he is not claiming that the police suppressed anything!

Thank you for exposing your dishonesty so clearly. This is what I actually said; "By switching the wallets "and thus supressing the Bentley one) they kept the fake Hidell ID in play"!

Keep that in mind in trying to follow his looney narrative that the police were involved in framing Oswald for the murder of Tippit, found a wallet at the crime, and when given the opportunity to connect a wallet found at the crime with the person they were trying to frame instead decided to just go with the wallet found on Oswald because they had TWO wallets.

That's not my narrative at all. When you need to misrepresent what I actually says it only shows that you have no counter arguments of any significance. What you don't understand (what else is new?) is that it doesn't matter if the found the wallet at the scene or on Oswald's person at the Texas Theater. He was wanted for Tippit's murder and in either case the most important piece of evidence, i.e. the fake Hidell ID, would connect Oswald to the rifle and revolver order forms.

I have never said it was Oswald's wallet found at the scene or any wallet.  I explained as though to a simpleton why that is likely not the case. 

And during that "explanation" you claimed that if a wallet was found at the Tippit scene, it would belong to an innocent bystander. Now you claim that this same wallet would be incriminatory evidence to link Oswald to the Tippit murder and out of the window goes the possibility of it belonging to an innocent bystander. I don't know what is worse, the fact that you present your dishonest arguments in the first place or that you don't seem able to understand what your own arguments mean.

But let's take this one step further. Let's assume for a moment that the Tippit wallet indeed doesn't exist, that still leaves the need for a credible explanation about how Paul Bentley never mentioned a fake Hidell ID being in the wallet he took from Oswald. Apart from the location where it was found, the presence of a fake Hidell ID (linking him to the rifle and revolver orders) would still be highly incriminatory evidence against Oswald, right? So, what happened there? Where did the fake Hidell ID come from and why did no officer who was in the car with Oswald mention the presence of this incriminatory piece of evidence ID in the wallet, not even in their reports on December 3, 1963? And why didn't the WC ask any of those officers about the discovery of that fake Hidell ID?

In my opinion, it is not a wallet at all.

I wouldn't be surprised if, in your opinion, it was a roll of toilet paper...

The most amusing thing is that you are arguing about a wallet you don't even believe exists. How's that for a fool's game?

[Richard Smith]

The most amusing thing is that you are arguing about a wallet you don't even believe exists. How's that for a fool's game?

Again, I addressed the stupidity of YOUR CLAIM that a wallet was found at the scene.  You are the one claiming it msut be a wallet and that is why I addressed the wallet discovery scenario.  I can address the wallet that "I don't believe exists" because you claimed that is what was found at the scene.  If someone claimed Bigfoot was real, I could address the likelihood of Bigfoot without accepting the premise that Bigfoot was real. Can you understand that simple distinction?  Apparently not. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, I addressed the stupidity of YOUR CLAIM that a wallet was found at the scene.  You are the one claiming it msut be a wallet and that is why I addressed the wallet discovery scenario.  I can address the wallet that "I don't believe exists" because you claimed that is what was found at the scene.  If someone claimed Bigfoot was real, I could address the likelihood of Bigfoot without accepting the premise that Bigfoot was real. Can you understand that simple distinction?  Apparently not.

I addressed the stupidity of YOUR CLAIM that a wallet was found at the scene

Actually, you tried to "address" my claim by posting a bunch of self-serving, go nowhere opinions.... now that's really stupid

You are the one claiming it msut be a wallet and that is why I addressed the wallet discovery scenario.

I am not claiming anything of the kind. I am merely stating that circumstantial evidence points to it being a wallet.

I can address the wallet that "I don't believe exists" because you claimed that is what was found at the scene.  If someone claimed Bigfoot was real, I could address the likelihood of Bigfoot without accepting the premise that Bigfoot was real. Can you understand that simple distinction?  Apparently not.

So defensive and still unable to address the points I made in my last post. It's easy to deny the existance of something but when you do, you need to explain the consequences of that denial. It's pretty obvious you can't. You haven't got a clue how to explain where the fake Hidell came from. Your arguments and "reasoning" are superficial at best and go nowhere.

[John Mytton]

Really? Just how many people do you know that walk around with two wallets?

Well I don't know anyone that carries two completely different named pieces of identification and to top it off, the identification that isn't them, has their actual photograph?
But I'm guessing that you'll say in "Europe" it's just an every day occurrence! 



JohnM

[John Mytton]

Martin's "explanation" contains so many logical inconsistencies that it is mind boggling.  Not the least of which is that if the DPD were manipulating the evidence and deciding which wallet to link to Oswald, they would obviously use the one found at the Tippit murder scene.  What more incriminatory evidence could there be to link Oswald to the Tippit murder than claiming that he dropped his wallet at the scene.  Only an imbecile would ever suggest that the same police officers who they claim are otherwise framing Oswald would suppress the most important piece of evidence in the entire case to link him to the Tippit murder.

Martin's "explanation" contains so many logical inconsistencies that it is mind boggling.

Agreed

Not the least of which is that if the DPD were manipulating the evidence and deciding which wallet to link to Oswald, they would obviously use the one found at the Tippit murder scene.

This was the first hole that Weidmann dug for himself, the very people who did the wallet swap were the very people that were attempting to set up Oswald.

What more incriminatory evidence could there be to link Oswald to the Tippit murder than claiming that he dropped his wallet at the scene.

And Weidmann's hole just gets deeper and deeper.

Only an imbecile would ever suggest that the same police officers who they claim are otherwise framing Oswald would suppress the most important piece of evidence in the entire case to link him to the Tippit murder.

"Imbecile" is being kind.

JohnM