Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[John Iacoletti]

I am arguing that the shells in evidence are not consistent with what was reported at the scene, and the excuse given for this discrepancy is not credible. Just as the excuse given for the Poe’s missing initials is not credible.

[Bill Brown]

I am arguing that the shells in evidence are not consistent with what was reported at the scene, and the excuse given for this discrepancy is not credible. Just as the excuse given for the Poe’s missing initials is not credible.

Then your arguments are lame because you aren't making any valid arguments at all.

What was reported at the scene does not prove that the shells in evidence aren't the shells found at the scene.

The argument that Poe did indeed mark the shells is not more credible than the argument that he didn't mark them.

I'll rephrase my question.  Do you believe the shells found at the scene were automatic shells? 

[Richard Smith]

Agreed.  Tippit's wallet went with him to Methodist Hospital.

Did Tippit have some type of citation book?  It seems like police officers would.  And it makes sense to be looking through it on the chance that Tippit might have been writing a citation to the person who ended up shooting him.  Thus providing the name of that individual.  What makes no sense is that the DPD would suppress Oswald's wallet if it had been left at the crime scene.  Whether by Oswald himself or someone trying to link him to the crime.  If, as CTers argue, the DPD was involved in framing Oswald for the JFK and Tippit murders, what better evidence than the presence of his wallet at the crime scene could there be?  Why would they suppress that wallet is inexplicable in the CTer narrative.  The only explanation that I have ever seen articulated is that because Oswald had his real wallet on him when arrested, the DPD had to suppress this fake one.  That explanation is laughable, however, because whoever planted the fake wallet would surely have known that Oswald was likely to have his real wallet on him when arrested or killed.  And, if the conspirators controlled the evidence, they would just suppress the real wallet and enter the fake wallet that frames Oswald into evidence instead of the reverse.

[Bill Brown]

Did Tippit have some type of citation book?  It seems like police officers would.  And it makes sense to be looking through it on the chance that Tippit might have been writing a citation to the person who ended up shooting him.  Thus providing the name of that individual.  What makes no sense is that the DPD would suppress Oswald's wallet if it had been left at the crime scene.  Whether by Oswald himself or someone trying to link him to the crime.  If, as CTers argue, the DPD was involved in framing Oswald for the JFK and Tippit murders, what better evidence than the presence of his wallet at the crime scene could there be?  Why would they suppress that wallet is inexplicable in the CTer narrative.  The only explanation that I have ever seen articulated is that because Oswald had his real wallet on him when arrested, the DPD had to suppress this fake one.  That explanation is laughable, however, because whoever planted the fake wallet would surely have known that Oswald was likely to have his real wallet on him when arrested or killed.  And, if the conspirators controlled the evidence, they would just suppress the real wallet and enter the fake wallet that frames Oswald into evidence instead of the reverse.

Richard, you're using way too much logic and common sense here.

What we see in the footage could have been a "citation book" or a note pad of some sort, belonging to Tippit.  In fact, that was my stance on it for years though now I have accepted that it may be a wallet.  But you're right, that it is some sort of a citation book or notepad shouldn't be ruled out, though if a citation book, Tippit didn't write anything down related to the man he stopped. 

[John Iacoletti]

Then your arguments are lame because you aren't making any valid arguments at all.

Not nearly as lame as all of your excuses for conflicting and inconsistent evidence.

What was reported at the scene does not prove that the shells in evidence aren't the shells found at the scene.

Not necessary, because you can’t prove that they are.

The argument that Poe did indeed mark the shells is not more credible than the argument that he didn't mark them.

Poe said that he marked them until he was presented with shells he couldn’t find his initials on.

I'll rephrase my question.  Do you believe the shells found at the scene were automatic shells?

I don’t know what shells were found at the scene. That’s the whole problem — it’s unknowable. Even if Gerald Hill was the idiot you need him to be, it’s still unknowable.

[John Iacoletti]

Richard, you're using way too much logic and common sense here.

No, “Richard” is just reiterating his usual “the conspirators I just made up in my head would never do something like that, therefore Oswald did it” argument.

[Martin Weidmann]

Did Tippit have some type of citation book?  It seems like police officers would.  And it makes sense to be looking through it on the chance that Tippit might have been writing a citation to the person who ended up shooting him.  Thus providing the name of that individual.  What makes no sense is that the DPD would suppress Oswald's wallet if it had been left at the crime scene.  Whether by Oswald himself or someone trying to link him to the crime.  If, as CTers argue, the DPD was involved in framing Oswald for the JFK and Tippit murders, what better evidence than the presence of his wallet at the crime scene could there be?  Why would they suppress that wallet is inexplicable in the CTer narrative.  The only explanation that I have ever seen articulated is that because Oswald had his real wallet on him when arrested, the DPD had to suppress this fake one.  That explanation is laughable, however, because whoever planted the fake wallet would surely have known that Oswald was likely to have his real wallet on him when arrested or killed.  And, if the conspirators controlled the evidence, they would just suppress the real wallet and enter the fake wallet that frames Oswald into evidence instead of the reverse.

What makes no sense is that the DPD would suppress Oswald's wallet if it had been left at the crime scene.

What makes you think they suppressed that wallet?

If, as CTers argue, the DPD was involved in framing Oswald for the JFK and Tippit murders, what better evidence than the presence of his wallet at the crime scene could there be?

Indeed. I agree.

The only explanation that I have ever seen articulated is that because Oswald had his real wallet on him when arrested, the DPD had to suppress this fake one.

And there you have surpassed yourself by providing a very plausible answer, except it remains to be seem which of the two wallets was the one that disappeared.

That explanation is laughable, however, because whoever planted the fake wallet would surely have known that Oswald was likely to have his real wallet on him when arrested or killed.  And, if the conspirators controlled the evidence, they would just suppress the real wallet and enter the fake wallet that frames Oswald into evidence instead of the reverse.

Wow... you are beginning to understand.

Now, let's apply some factual information to see where we get. Paul Bentley was the officer who took Oswald's wallet from him in the car while en route to DPD HQ. The next day he was interviewed on television and he was asked what was in the wallet. Did he answer that there were two ID's in the wallet, one in Oswald's name and the other for Hidell? No, he didn't. He just said he found some card with Oswald's name on it and a driver's license and a credit card. In fact, Bentley, nor any of the three other officers in the car reported about the name Hidell being found in the wallet. Bentley never testified before the WC and that was likely for a reason.

Now, let's turn to the other wallet, found at the Tippit crime scene. FBI agent Bob Barrett confirmed it was in fact a wallet. He also confirmed that Captain Westbrook, at some point, asked him if he knew somebody called Oswald or Hidell. Westbrook found those names in the wallet.

So, what happened? Well, when Detective Guss Rose arrived at DPD HQ just after Oswald had been brought in. An unidentified officer gave him a wallet and said it belonged to Oswald. Rose then proceeded to talk to Oswald.

The question now is; Did the unidentified officer give Rose the wallet Bentley took from Oswald (with no Hidell ID, a driver's license and a credit card) or the wallet Westbrook and Barrett saw at the Tippit murder scene (with the Oswald and Hidell ID in it)?

Do the math...

[Martin Weidmann]

Richard, you're using way too much logic and common sense here.

What we see in the footage could have been a "citation book" or a note pad of some sort, belonging to Tippit.  In fact, that was my stance on it for years though now I have accepted that it may be a wallet.  But you're right, that it is some sort of a citation book or notepad shouldn't be ruled out, though if a citation book, Tippit didn't write anything down related to the man he stopped.

Actually, we can rule out that it was a "citation book" because FBI agent Bob Barrett said that it was a wallet. Or is Barrett lying?