Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

Sorry Martin, but the HSCA went all out to rectify any past perceived mistakes and could only come up with a probable conspiracy that may have involved individual members. Hardy haha!

But keep isolating the HSCA words that you think prove something but at the end of the day, the HSCA couldn't find anything. LOL

And the Conspiracy community is still searching with many times the manpower and there is still nothing.

Good luck, because you're gonna need it!!!

JohnM

Why would I need "good luck"? You are not making any sense.

[John Iacoletti]

"probably" doesn't sound like they were so sure of any conspiracy, does it! LOLOLOL

How "sure" somebody is about a conclusion has no bearing on whether it's true or not.

[Zeon Mason]

As I just explained in another thread, the problem with WC theory advocates is an unwillingness to adjust their theory and perhaps simply admit that the time line does not work and perhaps witnesses were simply mistaken.

So with McWatters, the whole bus trip thing is a joke especially when Bledsoe is added to it claiming she saw Oswald on the bus and saw the hole in  the elbow of his brown shirt… which is IMPOSSIBLE because Oswald had not yet changed to that shirt.

So just dismiss that whole part of the WC timeline as a mistaken witness account that has been proved to be improbable because of Bledsoe, and rely solely on Walley the taxi driver manifest which allows Oswald entering The taxi as early as 12:40.

There follows then the possibility of Walley able to drive faster ( being a cab driver) and in 7 minutes drop Oswald off 5 blocks away from his boarding house at 12:47

Then Oswald could double time jog 5 blocks in 2.5 minutes , thus entering his boarding house by 12:50.

Oswald then exits the house by 12:54 and has the time to “walk briskly” and arrive at 10th and Patton 12 minutes later at 1:06, and then shooting Tippet at 1:07.

This in turn preserves the Markam, Bowley, Benevides time estimates as well as the emergency room doctor 1:15 DOA time.

[Mitch Todd]

Talk about desperation.

Rose wasn't waiting for him. If anything it was the other way around.

Nobody said that Rose was waiting for him. Rose himself told the WC he was brought in a few minutes after he [Rose] got there.

Mr. ROSE. There were some people in the office from the Book Depository and we talked to a few of them and then in just a few minutes they brought in Lee Oswald and I talked to him for a few minutes?

Stoval doesn't even contradict him;

While talking to him, the officers brought Lee Harvey Oswald into the Homicide Bureau and put him into an interrogation room we have there at the bureau. After we finished talking to this witness, we went back there and talked to him briefly.

There was plenty of opportunity for a wallet to get from Bentley to Rose via at least one intermediary, so this latest line of argument goes nowhere.

Nope. According to Stovall, he and Rose were talking to somebody who saw and knew nothing. They did not take an affidavit from that person. They had no need to spend much time with that person after Oswald was brought in. You are desperately trying to make it sound as if both men would still spend minutes with a persom who saw and knew nothing before turning to Oswald. That simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

However, Bentley said in his report that he was first in the Homicide bureau and then gave the "identification" to Baker when he went to Captain Westbrook's office. That clearly implies he did not give, whatever it was he gave him, straight away.

What an hilarious selfserving argument to make . Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman.

You really need better quality arguments than this. You are the one making all the assumptions. I'm actually going by what the men themselves said. Care to try again?

Nobody said that Rose was waiting for him

You're kidding, right?! that's exactly what you said in reply #303! Right here: "Oswald is brought into the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose is already waiting for him"


Stoval doesn't even contradict him (Rose)

I didn't say that Stovall contradicted Rose. In fact, I said that Stovall's version supported Rose in that Oswald had already been moved to the interrogation room and was sitting down when they got to him. Stovall said that Oswald was brought in and put into an interrogation room while he and Rose were interviewing another witness, and that they did not proceed to Oswald's interrogation room until after they had finished with the witness:

STOVALL: We were talking to a witness that had seen all the people standing out there--he didn't actually see anything, so we didn't even take an affidavit from him because he didn't see anything. While talking to him, the officers brought Lee Harvey Oswald into the Homicide Bureau and put him into an interrogation room we have there at the bureau. After we finished talking to this witness, we went back there and talked to him briefly.

I doubt that they spent a greet deal of time interviewing the witness, but it still takes some time to get from "what is your name" to deciding that the witness isn't saying isn't going to be of much value.  Enough time that they had to continue talking to him for a bit after Oswald was frog-marched in and dumped into an interrogation room chair. And that's enough time for a wallet to be handed off, which takes all of two seconds. No amount of pretense on your part changes that.


Bentley said in his report that he was first in the Homicide bureau and then gave the "identification" to Baker when he went to Captain Westbrook's office.

You keep misrepresenting what Bentley said. He wrote, "I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest."

"Then," not "when." Bentley's use of "then" undermines and contradicts your opinion. He handed the ID over and only then went to Westbrook's office.
'

Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman.

Rose didn't claim that he got the wallet from a patrolman. Once again you either misread or misrepresented what someone said. That's such a habit with you.

[Martin Weidmann]

As I just explained in another thread, the problem with WC theory advocates is an unwillingness to adjust their theory and perhaps simply admit that the time line does not work and perhaps witnesses were simply mistaken.

So with McWatters, the whole bus trip thing is a joke especially when Bledsoe is added to it claiming she saw Oswald on the bus and saw the hole in  the elbow of his brown shirt… which is IMPOSSIBLE because Oswald had not yet changed to that shirt.

So just dismiss that whole part of the WC timeline as a mistaken witness account that has been proved to be improbable because of Bledsoe, and rely solely on Walley the taxi driver manifest which allows Oswald entering The taxi as early as 12:40.

There follows then the possibility of Walley able to drive faster ( being a cab driver) and in 7 minutes drop Oswald off 5 blocks away from his boarding house at 12:47

Then Oswald could double time jog 5 blocks in 2.5 minutes , thus entering his boarding house by 12:50.

Oswald then exits the house by 12:54 and has the time to “walk briskly” and arrive at 10th and Patton 12 minutes later at 1:06, and then shooting Tippet at 1:07.

This in turn preserves the Markam, Bowley, Benevides time estimates as well as the emergency room doctor 1:15 DOA time.

As I just explained in another thread, the problem with WC theory advocates is an unwillingness to adjust their theory and perhaps simply admit that the time line does not work and perhaps witnesses were simply mistaken.

The reason for this is a simple one; they don't have enough confidence in their own narrative. For them, the risk of conceding even the smallest point is just too great as it might lead to the total unraveling of their fairytale story.

[Martin Weidmann]

Nobody said that Rose was waiting for him

You're kidding, right?! that's exactly what you said in reply #303! Right here: "Oswald is brought into the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose is already waiting for him"


Stoval doesn't even contradict him (Rose)

I didn't say that Stovall contradicted Rose. In fact, I said that Stovall's version supported Rose in that Oswald had already been moved to the interrogation room and was sitting down when they got to him. Stovall said that Oswald was brought in and put into an interrogation room while he and Rose were interviewing another witness, and that they did not proceed to Oswald's interrogation room until after they had finished with the witness:

STOVALL: We were talking to a witness that had seen all the people standing out there--he didn't actually see anything, so we didn't even take an affidavit from him because he didn't see anything. While talking to him, the officers brought Lee Harvey Oswald into the Homicide Bureau and put him into an interrogation room we have there at the bureau. After we finished talking to this witness, we went back there and talked to him briefly.

I doubt that they spent a greet deal of time interviewing the witness, but it still takes some time to get from "what is your name" to deciding that the witness isn't saying isn't going to be of much value.  Enough time that they had to continue talking to him for a bit after Oswald was frog-marched in and dumped into an interrogation room chair. And that's enough time for a wallet to be handed off, which takes all of two seconds. No amount of pretense on your part changes that.


Bentley said in his report that he was first in the Homicide bureau and then gave the "identification" to Baker when he went to Captain Westbrook's office.

You keep misrepresenting what Bentley said. He wrote, "I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest."

"Then," not "when." Bentley's use of "then" undermines and contradicts your opinion. He handed the ID over and only then went to Westbrook's office.
'

Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman.

Rose didn't claim that he got the wallet from a patrolman. Once again you either misread or misrepresented what someone said. That's such a habit with you.

Rose didn't claim that he got the wallet from a patrolman. Once again you either misread or misrepresented what someone said. That's such a habit with you.

I never said that he got the wallet from a patrolman. You are the one misrepresenting what I said. This is what Rose told the WC.

"Mr. ROSE. He had already been searched and someone had his billfold. I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not."

Rose wasn't sure who had the wallet but he figured it could be the patrolman who brought him [Oswald] in. Your claim was however that Rose could have gotten the wallet from Baker, a man he worked with and knew. If that were the case, he wouldn't have brought up the patrolman as a possibility, because Rose wouldn't have confused Baker for a patrolman.

The fact that you clearly misunderstood my comment doesn't mean I am misrepresenting anything. Get it now?   

[Mitch Todd]

Rose didn't claim that he got the wallet from a patrolman. Once again you either misread or misrepresented what someone said. That's such a habit with you.

I never said that he got the wallet from a patrolman. You are the one misrepresenting what I said. This is what Rose told the WC.

"Mr. ROSE. He had already been searched and someone had his billfold. I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not."

Rose wasn't sure who had the wallet but he figured it could be the patrolman who brought him [Oswald] in. Your claim was however that Rose could have gotten the wallet from Baker, a man he worked with and knew. If that were the case, he wouldn't have brought up the patrolman as a possibility, because Rose wouldn't have confused Baker for a patrolman.

The fact that you clearly misunderstood my comment doesn't mean I am misrepresenting anything. Get it now?   

I wrote this:

You assume that the handover of the wallet would have been so consequential that Rose could not have forgotten who the source was. But that's just another presumption on your part.  It may be that the handover was such a mundane, routine, trivial act --repeated many times a week, week after week as suspects came and went-- that it faded into the background noise of Rose's memory

and you responded with this:

Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman.

Your statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you believed that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.

[John Mytton]

I wrote this:

You assume that the handover of the wallet would have been so consequential that Rose could not have forgotten who the source was. But that's just another presumption on your part.  It may be that the handover was such a mundane, routine, trivial act --repeated many times a week, week after week as suspects came and went-- that it faded into the background noise of Rose's memory

and you responded with this:

Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman.

Your statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you believed that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.

Well Mitch, at least Martin isn't confusing "information" with "identification" anymore and I say that's progress.

JohnM