Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

Can eyewitness testimony ever be wrong says the contrarian!  Yes.  What are the odds, however, that multiple witnesses are wrong?  That Oswald would have a gun in his possession at the movie theatre?  That he would have the same two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit?  That he would draw his gun and engage in a fight with the police before even learning what they wanted? That he would be acting so suspiciously as to draw the attention of random citizens?  Verdict = Guilty.  Here is where the contrarian tells me all this evidence is an "assumption" but that he is not suggesting a conspiracy.  Just that everyone was lying to implicate Oswald for no apparent reason.

Can eyewitness testimony ever be wrong says the contrarian!  Yes.

So we agree on that. That's progress

What are the odds, however, that multiple witnesses are wrong? 

Wrong question. What are the odds that all witnesses identify the same person in a correctly conducted line up? That should be the question. There is no way that every single witness is able to identify the same person. Case in point; Scoggins "identified" Oswald in the DPD line up but was unable to identify him from a picture to the FBI the very next day.

That Oswald would have a gun in his possession at the movie theatre?

Did he? Says who?

That he would have the same two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit?

Which they only "found" on the third time they searched him...... 

That he would draw his gun and engage in a fight with the police before even learning what they wanted?

Did he? Says who?

That he would be acting so suspiciously as to draw the attention of random citizens?

Yeah, pretty stupid to draw attention to yourself, if you actually just killed two people, right? The only thing missing is a flashing neon sign saying "here I am, come and get me"....

Verdict = Guilty.

Says the self-appointed jury, judge and executioner.....

Here is where the contrarian tells me all this evidence is an "assumption"

What evidence? All this is, is complete and utter BS from a propagandist who hasn't got any evidence.

Just that everyone was lying to implicate Oswald for no apparent reason.

Lying about what?

You're all over the place. Get a grip, man and present something with substance.

[John Iacoletti]

What are the odds that “Richard” will rattle off a list of claims that he cannot substantiate, and state them as facts?

100%

“Contrarian” is whiny-LN-speak for “waah, stop asking me to provide evidence for my claims”.

[John Iacoletti]

That he would have the same two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit?

Which they only "found" on the third time they searched him...... 

And when they did, they only found one brand of ammo. “Richard” is wrong again.

[Richard Smith]

Can eyewitness testimony ever be wrong says the contrarian!  Yes.

So we agree on that. That's progress

What are the odds, however, that multiple witnesses are wrong? 

Wrong question. What are the odds that all witnesses identify the same person in a correctly conducted line up? That should be the question. There is no way that every single witness is able to identify the same person. Case in point; Scoggins "identified" Oswald in the DPD line up but was unable to identify him from a picture to the FBI the very next day.

That Oswald would have a gun in his possession at the movie theatre?

Did he? Says who?

That he would have the same two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit?

Which they only "found" on the third time they searched him...... 

That he would draw his gun and engage in a fight with the police before even learning what they wanted?

Did he? Says who?

That he would be acting so suspiciously as to draw the attention of random citizens?

Yeah, pretty stupid to draw attention to yourself, if you actually just killed two people, right? The only thing missing is a flashing neon sign saying "here I am, come and get me"....

Verdict = Guilty.

Says the self-appointed jury, judge and executioner.....

Here is where the contrarian tells me all this evidence is an "assumption"

What evidence? All this is, is complete and utter BS from a propagandist who hasn't got any evidence.

Just that everyone was lying to implicate Oswald for no apparent reason.

Lying about what?

You're all over the place. Get a grip, man and present something with substance.

"Lying about what?"  The DPD indicates that Oswald had a gun in the TT.  Were they "lying about that"?  The DPD confirms that they searched Oswald and discovered the same two brands of ammo on his person that were used to kill Tippit.  Were the "lying about that"?  The DPD and witnesses in the TT indicate that Oswald tried to pull his gun and engaged in a struggle when approached in the TT.  Were all these folks "lying about that"?  Brewer indicated that Oswald drew his attention by acting suspiciously?  Was he "lying about that?"  Does that help? 

[Martin Weidmann]

"Lying about what?"  The DPD indicates that Oswald had a gun in the TT.  Were they "lying about that"?  The DPD confirms that they searched Oswald and discovered the same two brands of ammo on his person that were used to kill Tippit.  Were the "lying about that"?  The DPD and witnesses in the TT indicate that Oswald tried to pull his gun and engaged in a struggle when approached in the TT.  Were all these folks "lying about that"?  Brewer indicated that Oswald drew his attention by acting suspiciously?  Was he "lying about that?"  Does that help?

The DPD indicates that Oswald had a gun in the TT.  Were they "lying about that"?

I don't know. Were they?

The DPD confirms that they searched Oswald and discovered the same two brands of ammo on his person that were used to kill Tippit.  Were the "lying about that"?

If that's what they confirmed, then, yes they were lying, because they only found one brand of ammo on Oswald during the third search.

The DPD and witnesses in the TT indicate that Oswald tried to pull his gun and engaged in a struggle when approached in the TT.  Were all these folks "lying about that"?

Not sure why you keep using the word "indicate" but, as far as I know, nobody actually saw Oswald trying to pull his gun. So, if you mean by "indicate" that they are claiming they actually saw Oswald trying to pull a gun, the answer again is; yes, they were lying.

Brewer indicated that Oswald drew his attention by acting suspiciously?  Was he "lying about that?"

I don't know. I wasn't there, but I do know that Brewer lied about hearing a description on the radio, when no such broadcast was ever made.

Does that help?

Not really... It's just another version of the same old "cop said so, so it must be true" BS

[John Iacoletti]

The DPD confirms that they searched Oswald and discovered the same two brands of ammo on his person that were used to kill Tippit.  Were the "lying about that"?  The DPD and witnesses in the TT indicate that Oswald tried to pull his gun and engaged in a struggle when approached in the TT.  Were all these folks "lying about that"?

No, but you are.

[Richard Smith]

The DPD indicates that Oswald had a gun in the TT.  Were they "lying about that"?

I don't know. Were they?

The DPD confirms that they searched Oswald and discovered the same two brands of ammo on his person that were used to kill Tippit.  Were the "lying about that"?

If that's what they confirmed, then, yes they were lying, because they only found one brand of ammo on Oswald during the third search.

The DPD and witnesses in the TT indicate that Oswald tried to pull his gun and engaged in a struggle when approached in the TT.  Were all these folks "lying about that"?

Not sure why you keep using the word "indicate" but, as far as I know, nobody actually saw Oswald trying to pull his gun. So, if you mean by "indicate" that they are claiming they actually saw Oswald trying to pull a gun, the answer again is; yes, they were lying.

Brewer indicated that Oswald drew his attention by acting suspiciously?  Was he "lying about that?"

I don't know. I wasn't there, but I do know that Brewer lied about hearing a description on the radio, when no such broadcast was ever made.

Does that help?

Not really... It's just another version of the same old "cop said so, so it must be true" BS

So you "don't know" because you weren't there?  Confirming the impossible standard of proof that requires a time machine to prove any fact that you do not want to accept.  The same tired, dishonest contrarian approach.  Numerous people "were there."  They provided their sworn testimony as to what they saw.  This is not just a case of one person possibly being mistaken.  Many of these events were observed by a multitude of individuals.  They would all have to be wrong or lying.  But you are not alleging a conspiracy?  Right?  Just that you don't know because it's possible all these people lied, were mistaken, or acting in ways that can't be explained (e.g. lying about what they heard on the radio).  We would need to be there to confirm what happened.  Thus, no fact in human history could be confirmed unless we were individually present at the event.

[John Iacoletti]

So you "don't know" because you weren't there?  Confirming the impossible standard of proof that requires a time machine to prove any fact that you do not want to accept. 

No, “Richard”, it’s a standard that requires claims to be substantiated, not just accepted on faith. A standard that you yourself require for things like “Landis said so”.