Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Mitch Todd]

It is kind of interesting that we don't have any evidence (I don't think?) of anyone brandishing a revolver/gun during all of this chaos. Not in Dealey Plaza - none of the people running up the knoll or to the overpass appeared to be carrying. And in the Tippit shooting Callaway picked up Tippit's revolver in an attempt to chase the gunman down. None of the people came out with a revolver, none of the men driving around had one. I would guess that would be different today.

As to the cartridges/shells: Whoever the shooter was (I would suggest it was Oswald; but you know how us lone nutter sheeple are) appeared more worried about someone going after him then "getting away." He just shot an officer in the middle of the street, with people all around. I don't think he's worried about hiding evidence; he's trying to get out of Dodge.

In those days, IIRC it was generally illegal in Texas to carry a pistol on your person unless you had a specific permit to do so. Rifles and shotguns were different. I was thinking more along the lines of someone popping out of their house with a 12-guage rather than a pistol packin' mama being on the scene. The former case is easy enough to believe; during Charles Whitman's rampage a few years later in Austin, a number of armed citizens grabbed their rifles and returned fire. That was a more drawn-out affair, however.

[Zeon Mason]

Would not it have been quicker  for the shooter to flip the drum/cylinder out, hold his thumb over the 2 unfired rounds, and shake out the 4 spent shells in his other hand all at once?

That seems to be what some witnesses describe as the shooter pointing the gun barrel up and shaking it.

So does  the rebored size of the  cylinder wells cause a problem of shells not sliding out even if shaking the gun with the barrel pointed  up?

If so, then maybe it is plausible  the shooter had to  resort to having to pull out each shell one by one.

However, What is the reason  for The carelessness , of the shooter, seemingly  not worried about leaving fingerprints on that those shells he is removing one by one, and throwing them at the scene in LOS of witnesses?

It’s NOT because he was  trying to be quick , that’s fairly evident by how long he lingered  at the scene, (as Mr Iacolleti already pointed out.)

A few alternatives:

1. The shooter was  the CIA/FBI informant Oswald in a state of confused mind, perhaps paranoid, and was not analyzing his situation rationally when confronted by Tippet.
2. The shooter was “the nut” Oswald and was in a state of mind in which he was euphoric and desired that his face should be seen and that he should be seen throwing shells at the scene.
3. The shooter was some person who resembled Oswald, and shot Tippet for no reason connected to Oswald or the JFK assassination.
4. The shooter was some person resembling Oswald who was part of a conspiracy to set up Oswald, thus throwing shells and lingering, and face seen, was meant to implicate Oswald.

In none of the above alternatives can a de facto conclusion be drawn that the shooter must have also been the JFK assassin.

[Walt Cakebread]

Would not it have been quicker  for the shooter to flip the drum/cylinder out, hold his thumb over the 2 unfired rounds, and shake out the 4 spent shells in his other hand all at once?

That seems to be what some witnesses describe as the shooter pointing the gun barrel up and shaking it.

So does  the rebored size of the  cylinder wells cause a problem of shells not sliding out even if shaking the gun with the barrel pointed  up?

If so, then maybe it is plausible  the shooter had to  resort to having to pull out each shell one by one.

However, What is the reason  for The carelessness , of the shooter, seemingly  not worried about leaving fingerprints on that those shells he is removing one by one, and throwing them at the scene in LOS of witnesses?

It’s NOT because he was  trying to be quick , that’s fairly evident by how long he lingered  at the scene, (as Mr Iacolleti already pointed out.)

A few alternatives:

1. The shooter was  the CIA/FBI informant Oswald in a state of confused mind, perhaps paranoid, and was not analyzing his situation rationally when confronted by Tippet.
2. The shooter was “the nut” Oswald and was in a state of mind in which he was euphoric and desired that his face should be seen and that he should be seen throwing shells at the scene.
3. The shooter was some person who resembled Oswald, and shot Tippet for no reason connected to Oswald or the JFK assassination.
4. The shooter was some person resembling Oswald who was part of a conspiracy to set up Oswald, thus throwing shells and lingering, and face seen, was meant to implicate Oswald.

In none of the above alternatives can a de facto conclusion be drawn that the shooter must have also been the JFK assassin.

4. The shooter was some person resembling Oswald who was part of a conspiracy to set up Oswald, thus throwing shells and lingering, and face seen, was meant to implicate Oswald.

4. The shooter was a professional hit man, resembling Oswald who was part of a conspiracy to set up Oswald, thus throwing shells and lingering, and face seen, was meant to implicate Oswald.

I don't know if the killer was part of the conspiracy.....   His job was to kill Tippit and leave the spent shells scattered about. 

Thanks for responding with some ideas.

[Richard Smith]

4. The shooter was some person resembling Oswald who was part of a conspiracy to set up Oswald, thus throwing shells and lingering, and face seen, was meant to implicate Oswald.

4. The shooter was a professional hit man, resembling Oswald who was part of a conspiracy to set up Oswald, thus throwing shells and lingering, and face seen, was meant to implicate Oswald.

I don't know if the killer was part of the conspiracy.....   His job was to kill Tippit and leave the spent shells scattered about. 

Thanks for responding with some ideas.

Wow.  This bizarre fantasy is almost as good as the red rings.

[Walt Cakebread]

Wow.  This bizarre fantasy is almost as good as the red rings.

Bizarre fantasy.... The Warren Report.

[Dan O'meara]

In those days, IIRC it was generally illegal in Texas to carry a pistol on your person unless you had a specific permit to do so. Rifles and shotguns were different. I was thinking more along the lines of someone popping out of their house with a 12-guage rather than a pistol packin' mama being on the scene. The former case is easy enough to believe; during Charles Whitman's rampage a few years later in Austin, a number of armed citizens grabbed their rifles and returned fire. That was a more drawn-out affair, however.

"...rather than a pistol packin' mama being on the scene."

  You do have a way with words Mr Todd

For argument's sake, let's say the shooter is Oswald, he's just gunned down and murdered a police officer in broad daylight so he can expect law enforcement to be descending on the area at any time. Or, Texas being Texas, some concerned citizen brandishing a 12-gauge to materialise out of nowhere. So he empty's the four used shells and reloads.
Do we know if the pistol attributed to Oswald was fully loaded when he was arrested?

[Walt Cakebread]

"...rather than a pistol packin' mama being on the scene."

  You do have a way with words Mr Todd

For argument's sake, let's say the shooter is Oswald, he's just gunned down and murdered a police officer in broad daylight so he can expect law enforcement to be descending on the area at any time. Or, Texas being Texas, some concerned citizen brandishing a 12-gauge to materialise out of nowhere. So he empty's the four used shells and reloads.
Do we know if the pistol attributed to Oswald was fully loaded when he was arrested?

Do we know if the pistol attributed to Oswald was fully loaded when he was arrested?

The police said that the S&W with the sawed off barrel that they took from Lee Oswald was fully loaded.....

But  like every piece of evidence in this case ...... we don't know if it's the truth.