Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin makes up facts to suit his desired narrative but then applies an impossible standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt to suggest false doubt.  That is his leitmotif.  There is no such policy.   What we do know is that the description of the JFK assassin was broadcast.  It would be gross negligence for the police not to disseminate information to their fellow officers concerning a dangerous murder suspect on the loose in the Tippit case if they had a wallet left at the murder scene with an ID.  It is either the wallet of a witness still at the scene or Tippit's citation book.

Martin makes up facts to suit his desired narrative but then applies an impossible standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt to suggest false doubt.  That is his leitmotif.  There is no such policy.

This is what happens when a LN runs out of arguments.

What we do know is that the description of the JFK assassin was broadcast.

Yes, but not a name of a suspect, and that's what we were talking about.

It is either the wallet of a witness still at the scene or Tippit's citation book.

Yeah right... keep on telling yourself that. Maybe one day you'll believe it.

[Martin Weidmann]

Unreal.  You claimed whatever they were looking at was not open and they were not looking through it. 

"Nobody is looking through anything. In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened, so where does this BS comes from?"

Do you agree that whatever it is that they are looking at (i.e. wallet, notebook, citation book) that it is open and they are looking at the contents or not?  And, therefore, your prior comment is not accurate?

You claimed whatever they were looking at was not open and they were not looking through it. 

Another lie. I never said what they were looking at was not open. You just made that up.....

Do you agree that whatever it is that they are looking at (i.e. wallet, notebook, citation book) that it is open and they are looking at the contents or not?

Of course... I never said anything different.

And, therefore, your prior comment is not accurate?

Of course it was accurate. You claimed they were looking through a notebook and that simply isn't true, no matter how much spin you try to put on it.

[John Iacoletti]

Martin makes up facts to suit his desired narrative but then applies an impossible standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt to suggest false doubt.

What are these “facts” that lend themselves to Oswald’s guilt? You mean your usual unsubstantiated claims?

[Richard Smith]

You claimed whatever they were looking at was not open and they were not looking through it. 

Another lie. I never said what they were looking at was not open. You just made that up.....

Do you agree that whatever it is that they are looking at (i.e. wallet, notebook, citation book) that it is open and they are looking at the contents or not?

Of course... I never said anything different.

And, therefore, your prior comment is not accurate?

Of course it was accurate. You claimed they were looking through a notebook and that simply isn't true, no matter how much spin you try to put on it.

Huh?  You are really losing it.  I quoted your direct words from post #88 on this thread.  Here it is again:  "Nobody is looking through anything. In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened, so where does this BS comes from?"  So you claimed the police were not "looking through anything" and the wallet was "not opened."  Is that an accurate depiction of what is being shown in the film clip?  The police clearly have the item "open" and are looking through it. 

[Richard Smith]

Let's revisit your pathetic arguments...

it makes a lot more sense to me that it is a citation or notebook belonging to Tippit.  The investigators are looking through it.

Nobody is looking through anything. In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened, so where does this BS comes from?

Here is Martin's post suggesting the police did not look through the item or even open it.  Compare that to film clip of the event.  Martin claims it is being held but "not opened." 

[Richard Smith]

I agree with Richard, a wallet which is excellent supportive evidence of Oswald being at the crime scene and then covered up is absolutely bonkers.
It's no wonder the CT's never give a plausible narrative for this Oswald wallet because even they must realize that there isn't one.

Anyway, the original video clip shows exactly what happened, The Police Officer has no worries that his gun is pointed towards the detective but when the civilian reaches for his wallet the Officer hurriedly points the gun away. No big mystery.



JohnM

There are reasons from that clip to support the conclusion that this is Tippit's notebook or citation book.  Look at how they are holding it.  Vertically as though reading from a note page.  In fact a page from the object appears to blow up at the very end from the wind.  That suggests it has paper pages like a notebook or citation book rather than a wallet.  In addition, they appear to be reading something from the object even tracing it with a finger.  If they were taking down a witness ID, they would be writing that information down.  But there is no indication that they are writing anything down from the object.  I've never seen anyone asked by the police for an ID to hand their entire wallet to the policeman.  Typically, they would remove the requested item (e.g. license) and hand it to them.  I'm not saying this is conclusive of the issue, but it lends itself in that direction.  What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.

[Martin Weidmann]

Huh?  You are really losing it.  I quoted your direct words from post #88 on this thread.  Here it is again:  "Nobody is looking through anything. In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened, so where does this BS comes from?"  So you claimed the police were not "looking through anything" and the wallet was "not opened."  Is that an accurate depiction of what is being shown in the film clip?  The police clearly have the item "open" and are looking through it.

Here is Martin's post suggesting the police did not look through the item or even open it.  Compare that to film clip of the event.  Martin claims it is being held but "not opened." 

Aha, now I understand where you are coming from. Yes I did say that, but I phrased it poorly.

You claimed it was a notebook and they were looking through it. For somebody to be able to look through a notebook it would needed to be opened, for each page to be turned.
That's what I meant when I said the wallet wasn't opened. My bad.