Youtube Interview I Did, Tippit Case

[Martin Weidmann]

'More stupidity based on the LN mantra "I am right unless you can prove me wrong'
Point out where I said that.

'You are the one who wants to rely on Roberts' testimony about the jacket]
You are the one who so desperately wants to rip the jacket off Oswald's back

Given the fact of her poor eyesight, the fact that she was concentrating on the television and the fact that she was known for making up stories, it would be up to you to establish her credibility.
The jacket-reporting witnesses @Tippit did that.

Can't you figure out anything?
I wasn't even in Texas at that moment, let alone that room. And neither was anyone else.

The television was in the right hand corner of the living room and the front door was near the left hand corner. Oswald's room was in the back, on the right hand side of the building. Roberts would be facing the front windows, with her back turned to the living room. Oswald walked diagonally through the living room from his room to the front door. Roberts would have seen him as he came to her left and opened the door. That only took seconds.
Then she hardly had to turn her head. Got it.

I am not suggesting that you travel to Dallas. I have concluded that you have not been there and thus are talking about something you are actually unfamiliar with. And as for photos of the living room, they are already posted on this forum. Do some work for once and look for them.
I'm familiar with her testifying to seeing him zipping up his jacket as he went out the door. And confirm that there is at least one of these forum pictures that shows a panorama of the living room that shows his room and the front door in the same image. I have 9 images in full colour and not one of them includes his door ad the front door in the same image.

The television was in the right hand corner of the living room and the front door was near the left hand corner. Oswald's room was in the back, on the right hand side of the building. Roberts would be facing the front windows, with her back turned to the living room. Oswald walked diagonally through the living room from his room to the front door. Roberts would have seen him as he came to her left and opened the door. That only took seconds.

Then she hardly had to turn her head. Got it.

Indeed. I'm glad you finally learned something.

I'm familiar with her testifying to seeing him zipping up his jacket as he went out the door. And confirm that there is at least one of these forum pictures that shows a panorama of the living room that shows his room and the front door in the same image. I have 9 images in full colour and not one of them includes his door ad the front door in the same image.


You never asked for a picture that includes the front door and the door to Oswald's room.

Here's a video that was shot from roughly near the front door. It shows Oswald's room in the back

[Martin Weidmann]

Its difficult to see how an FBI agent would mix up 2 feet vs 3 feet especially in regard to something as critical as the length of the bag that contained the rifle.

But Randle never repeated the same claim again and that includes under oath during her testimony. If Bookhout didn't get it wrong in his one off 302 report, than Randle must have been lying all the other times she made statements about the bag. Is that what you are getting at?

[Gerry Down]

If Bookhout didn't get it wrong in his one off 302 report, than Randle must have been lying all the other times she made statements about the bag. Is that what you are getting at?

All the other times? I thought the only other time was her WC testimony?

Police departments have a policy of separating out witnesses in case they contaminate one anothers testimony. There seems to be a real possibility here that after her Nov 23rd 1963 FBI report Randle began trying to match her testimony to that of Fraziers.

[Bill Brown]

It seems I only scratched the surface about Bill Brown dishonesty in the interview.
Here are some comments on YouTube'

LIST OF 2 DOZEN ERRORS

1. Bill said Burt “saw Oswald”, but Burt said he couldn’t identify Oswald.
2. Bill incorrectly says Benavides “was coming up Denver and he turned left onto 10th Street”—he’s confusing this with Jack Tatum’s alleged account.
3. Benavides never said he “noticed the conversation between the two men.”
4. Bill says 4 people saw Tippit “stop to talk to the man”, but actually only 3 did.
5. He falsely claims Markham “left her apartment about 1:06-1:07”—she said she left at 1:00. (3 H 306)
6. Bill says Markham identified Oswald—but she only picked him and didn’t ID him.
7. Bill shockingly claimed Scoggins said the man was walking east, but this is ABOMINABLY INCORRECT!!! Scoggins, of course, said the man was walking WEST! (CD 87, p. 553)
8. He says Scoggins “felt like” he saw Tippit fall, “wasn’t 100% sure, was a little hazy”, but this is ABSOLUTELY FALSE, Scoggins said he DID see him fall! (CD 87, p. 553)
9. Bill incorrectly claims dispatcher Murray Jackson didn’t receive the conveyor belt note until after Bowley’s call.
10. He incorrectly claims the Warren Report put the shooting at 1:14, but they put it at 1:16 (R 158).
11. He said Oswald “pretended to look at shoes”, but Brewer said no such thing.
12. He says the 4 Johnnie Reynolds Motor Company employees witnessed the fleeting gunman from “the balcony”, but it was actually through a window.
13. Incredibly, he says Reynolds identified Oswald to the FBI (!!!), but of course he did NOT. This is a basic fact.
14. He says Burt “failed to make a positive identification of Oswald” to the FBI—but the FBI never asked him such a question!
15. Bill incorrectly says first generation researcher Shirley Martin was from Wisconsin—she was from Oklahoma.
16. He says that some (i.e. Clemmons, Wright, Higgins) “are not real witnesses”, but they SAW THE KILLER!
17. ASTONISHINGLY, he claims Wright didn’t see the killer: ”When Frank Wright gets out there, Oswald’s gone!” This is OUTRAGEOUS. I quote Wright verbatim: “I was sitting watching television with my wife. I was sitting in a chair next to the door. I wasn’t but two steps from the door. I heard shots. I knew it wasn’t backfire. I knew it was shots. As soon as I heard them, I went out the door. I could see a police car in the next block...I saw a person right by the car. He had fallen down. It seems as if he had just fallen down. Maybe I saw him as he had just finished falling. He was on the ground, and then he turned over face down...It seems to me that I saw him just as he hit the ground. I saw him turn over and he didn’t move any more. I looked around to see what had happened. I knew there had been a shooting. I saw a man standing right in front of the car. He was looking toward the man on the ground. He stood there for a while and looked at the man.” (“The Other Witnesses”, The New Leader, 10/12/64) He was out there IMMEDIATELY and SAW THE KILLER. Period.
18. Bill again incorrectly says Benavides “saw the two men talking.”
19. He again incorrectly says Scoggins saw the killer walking east.
20. Bill says Marina ID’d the jacket in evidence, but no, she said it was “Lee’s OLD SHIRT.”
21. Bill avows Dale Myers “evaluates the evidence fairly”—but I’ve made a list of OVER 30 MAJOR KEY POINTS Myers omitted from his book.
22. Bill says Myers “interviewed the [Tippit] witnesses”—but Myers only interviewed 4 of the 21 witnesses.
23. Bill then says Joseph McBride “stole a lot from With Malice and just put it in his book”, but this is absolutely not true, for McBride mentioned Myers every time he cited him. Bill doesn’t know this because, as he admits, he hasn’t read McBride’s book.
24. Bill said a few times that “no one said it wasn’t Oswald”, but this is a lie—5 people said it was NOT Oswald.

Enough said...

Note: I do not agree with some of the points raised. Some of them are petty in my view, but there is enough left to show that Bill Brown did in fact misrepresent the case against Oswald often enough to conclude he was not being honest in the interview.

Most of those aren't errors at all; not even in the slightest.

That's just the work of some lame-ass on facebook who believes he's a "researcher".

[Martin Weidmann]

Most of those aren't errors at all; not even in the slightest.

That's just the work of some lame-ass on facebook who believes he's a "researcher".

Most of those aren't errors at all; not even in the slightest.

So you admit some were?

That's just the work of some lame-ass on facebook who believes he's a "researcher".

I don't know the guy but it's rather telling that you dismiss what he says without actually addressing his complaints.
It seems that anybody who disagrees with you is either considered to be a nut by you or a lame-ass. Go figure.....

You are no researcher, nor an "expert". You are a propagandist who can not stand opinions that differ from yours.

[Bill Brown]

That's just the work of some lame-ass on facebook who believes he's a "researcher".

I don't know the guy but it's rather telling that you dismiss what he says without actually addressing his complaints.
It seems that anybody who disagrees with you is either considered to be a nut by you or a lame-ass. Go figure.....

Hey Dumb Ass, I did address most of these in the Facebook group which this guy posted the list in. 

[Bill Brown]

That list did contain a couple (maybe 3?) of errors that I made (errors which have no bearing on the case at all).  The others on the list weren't errors at all.  This was addressed in the proper Facebook group.