On the Trail of Delusion, Episode 11 with Bill Brown

[Fred Litwin]

It was a delight to interview Bill, who is about as knowledgeable about the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit as anyone.

fred

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/on-the-trail-of-delusion-episode-11-with-bill-brown

[Steve M. Galbraith]

It was a delight to interview Bill, who is about as knowledgeable about the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit as anyone.

fred

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/on-the-trail-of-delusion-episode-11-with-bill-brown

This is a first rate attempt to reconstruct the shooting of Tippit, to put the pieces together. He goes minute by minute, step-by-step and tries to recreate what happened. The Oswald defenders would be smart to try to follow this method, to put together their account of what happened. A Dallas gang killed Tippit? An angry husband? What?

I would suggest the reason they don't is because their alternative reconstruction simply cannot stand, it's a house of conspiracy cards. Benavides didn't identify the shooter. The timeline suggest an earlier shooting. Good, that's a start but that's not a reconstruction of what took place. It's simply a series of "Whatabouts?" that you think clears Oswald. But this isn't a trial; it's an attempt to explain an event. Give us your reconstruction, please.

It might be interesting if Bill reads this for him to give a steelman argument for the event. That is the best possible version of the opponents of the "Oswald killed Tippit" explanation. I can't think of one other than a series of corrupt acts - witnesses coerced to lie; evidence planted and switched - the same old same old conspiracy dodge.

[John Iacoletti]

The only thing that Bill's "reconstruction" proves is that you can make any timeline "work" if you make a whole bunch of non-evidence-based assumptions that are specifically designed to make it work.

But "it's not absolutely impossible" does not equal "happened".

[Bill Brown]

This is a first rate attempt to reconstruct the shooting of Tippit, to put the pieces together. He goes minute by minute, step-by-step and tries to recreate what happened. The Oswald defenders would be smart to try to follow this method, to put together their account of what happened. A Dallas gang killed Tippit? An angry husband? What?

I would suggest the reason they don't is because their alternative reconstruction simply cannot stand, it's a house of conspiracy cards. Benavides didn't identify the shooter. The timeline suggest an earlier shooting. Good, that's a start but that's not a reconstruction of what took place. It's simply a series of "Whatabouts?" that you think clears Oswald. But this isn't a trial; it's an attempt to explain an event. Give us your reconstruction, please.

It might be interesting if Bill reads this for him to give a steelman argument for the event. That is the best possible version of the opponents of the "Oswald killed Tippit" explanation. I can't think of one other than a series of corrupt acts - witnesses coerced to lie; evidence planted and switched - the same old same old conspiracy dodge.

Thanks Steve.

You're quite correct when you say an "alternative reconstruction simply cannot stand".  That is why one has never been done.

[David Von Pein]

I watched the Fred Litwin/Bill Brown video, and I very much enjoyed it. So much detailed information in there. And the graphics and the added video that was recorded in Oak Cliff are excellent....and very helpful. Thank you both.



-------------------------------------------------

"As time goes on, there are more and more conspiracy believers who seem to want to smear just about everyone connected with the Kennedy assassination except the person to whom all of the evidence leads---Lee H. Oswald.

Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, J.D. Tippit, Buell Frazier, Linnie Randle, Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, Will Fritz, Gerald Hill, Captain Westbrook, and many others are branded with the label of "suspicious" by many CTers. While Lee Harvey Oswald, who was the owner of both of the 11/22/63 murder weapons (which is a provable fact no matter what any conspiracy theorist today wants to believe), is considered by many to be merely an innocent "patsy" in BOTH of those Nov. 22 murders, despite the pile of evidence that exists against him.

The logic of such thinking completely escapes me."

-- David Von Pein; July 14, 2022

----------------------------------------------------------------

http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

----------------------------------------------------------------

[Lance Payette]

The only thing that Bill's "reconstruction" proves is that you can make any timeline "work" if you make a whole bunch of non-evidence-based assumptions that are specifically designed to make it work.

But "it's not absolutely impossible" does not equal "happened".

As a retired lawyer, I would point out the distinction between "non-evidence-based assumptions" (i.e., pure speculation) and "reasonable inferences" from the actual evidence. In regard to the Tippit shooting, there is a mountain of actual evidence from which inferences can be drawn. Reasonable inferences, IMO, point decisively toward Oswald. This doesn't mean there are no discrepancies or loose ends - there almost always are, in every crminal case. IMO, however, there are no discrepancies or loose ends that point decisively away from Oswald, or from which reasonable inferences pointing decisively away from Oswald can be drawn.

I'm always kind of amused at the extent to which conspiracy theorists seem to feel compelled to play the role of defense counsel for Oswald. In my life as a lawyer, I used to always say that defense counsel (including some of my best friends) seem to live in some alternate universe where unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are vastly preferred to actual evidence and reasonable inferences.

Your statement But "it's not absolutely impossible" does not equal "happened'" reflects the defense counsel mentality: "If my unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are not absolutely impossible, you must acquit my ciient." Uh, no. If the actual evidence and reasonable inferences point decisively to Oswald, we are free to reject the alternate universe of his innocence.

[Charles Collins]

As a retired lawyer, I would point out the distinction between "non-evidence-based assumptions" (i.e., pure speculation) and "reasonable inferences" from the actual evidence. In regard to the Tippit shooting, there is a mountain of actual evidence from which inferences can be drawn. Reasonable inferences, IMO, point decisively toward Oswald. This doesn't mean there are no discrepancies or loose ends - there almost always are, in every crminal case. IMO, however, there are no discrepancies or loose ends that point decisively away from Oswald, or from which reasonable inferences pointing decisively away from Oswald can be drawn.

I'm always kind of amused at the extent to which conspiracy theorists seem to feel compelled to play the role of defense counsel for Oswald. In my life as a lawyer, I used to always say that defense counsel (including some of my best friends) seem to live in some alternate universe where unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are vastly preferred to actual evidence and reasonable inferences.

Your statement But "it's not absolutely impossible" does not equal "happened'" reflects the defense counsel mentality: "If my unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are not absolutely impossible, you must acquit my ciient." Uh, no. If the actual evidence and reasonable inferences point decisively to Oswald, we are free to reject the alternate universe of his innocence.

Well said, thanks! Yes, reasonable inferences are a part of the process. The key word being reasonable.

[Bill Brown]

I watched the Fred Litwin/Bill Brown video, and I very much enjoyed it. So much detailed information in there. And the graphics and the added video that was recorded in Oak Cliff are excellent....and very helpful. Thank you both.

Thanks David.  Much appreciated, Buddy.