Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

With pleasure.

From the Kleins ad, Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750





And in addition, the rifle in evidence found on the 6th floor shares the exact same serial number that Kleins sent.



Now agree with me!

 

JohnM

No, because there are too many leaps of faith and not enough credible evidence to support your claims.

From the Kleins ad, Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750

First leap of faith! Show me proof that Oswald received anything. I don't believe there is, or ever was, a mail order business that ships merchandise without any confirmation of either shipping or receipt.

Secondly, details matter, even when you like to ignore them. The order was for C20-T750 from Department 358 (the February 1963 issue of the American Rifleman) which is not the same rifle they offered as C20-T750 in the April issue. To just assume that Kleins' would simply send out another rifle than was ordered is another leap of faith. The WC did not even bother to ask Waldman about the sending out of a rifle that was different from the one ordered. One can only wonder why.....

And in addition, the rifle in evidence found on the 6th floor shares the exact same serial number that Kleins sent.

Wrong. The rifle found at the TSBD has the same serial number that was hand written on Waldman 7. There is no way to verify when the document we know as Waldman 7 was actually made and by who and it most certainly isn't proof of any rifle being sent, nothwithstanding Waldman's explanation of the meaning of the also hand written letters "PP" on the same document.

So, sorry, just too many leaps of faith and not enough authenticated evidence to justify the conclusions you are jumping to. It is beyond belief that something this basic needs to be explained to you.

Btw, there is something I don't really understand. That Kleins' made copies of order coupons on microfilm I can understand. That's probably a better way to keep track of all incoming orders than saving all those coupons. However, as Waldman explained, document 7 is an internal order form which is generated for each order. Why in the world would they copy that on microfilm as well and not keep the original?

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald listed a "Sgt. Robt. Hidell" as a reference on one job application 39 and "George Hidell" as a reference on another

How does this make “Hidell” an alias for himself?

[John Iacoletti]

What really needs to be pointed out is that speculation is not allowed to be considered when considering whether or not there is reasonable doubt. Only evidence (exhibits, sworn testimony, etc.) which is allowed to be introduced at a trial is allowed for consideration. All the speculation, in all the books, articles, web forum posts, etc., that tries to entice the readers to have doubts about LHO’s guilt would not be allowed at a trial (including a jury room).

Neither would all the speculation that LNers like to pretend is “evidence”. Nor anything Marina had to say.

But so what? There wasn’t a trial and there never will be one.

Also, Dallas is not in the ninth circuit.

[John Iacoletti]

Sadly, some people mistake and try to classify reasonable inferences for speculation.

Everybody thinks his own speculation is a “reasonable inference”.

[John Iacoletti]

People can speculate about what might have happened all they want to for as long as they want to. Many conspiracy oriented books have been sold and read based on speculations. But that is all they are, speculation (which is not allowed in the courts).

So are the WCR conclusions, Charles. The difference is that the burden is always on the accuser.

[John Iacoletti]

This is really a long overdue point. The conspiracists and Oswald defenders like to raise questions about the evidence based solely on speculation and disagreement and think that and that alone means the evidence can be dismissed or waved away. Outside a court or inside of one. As in: "It's possibly planted" or "Chain of custody was insufficient." As your quote shows, it can't. They want to use a legal standard against the lone assassin believers and evidence and then abandon that legal standard when it comes to their arguments or response to that evidence.

Nope. It has nothing to do with a legal standard — it’s a logical one. If your argument relies on speculation, handwaving, unauthenticatable evidence and claims about it then it does not merit acceptance or belief.

[John Iacoletti]

And Iacoletti with a wave of his hand discards the uniquely specific retouched negatives because it doesn't have the name Hidell, while knowing full well that the name Hidell was typed onto the created faked ID, again an impossible standard of proof is required.

What exactly do you think is “uniquely specific” about them and how do you know Oswald typed “Hidell” onto them? Or even that these negatives were Oswald’s?  You don’t. It’s all assumption and speculation.

What I have never seen from the CT's is a reasonable refutation of why the rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box, they claim that the Kleins business document(Waldman 7) doesn't prove it was sent and demand that the despatcher should have been called to testify but what would he/she/they say? Are they supposed to remember someone named Hidell, absurd. And DiEugenio and others have demanded that some postal worker at the Dallas Post Office eight months later should have remembered the Hidell rifle order, another absurdity in the real world where a worker handles many orders every single day.

So basically what you’re saying is that “Waldman said so” is all you’ve got, so it has to be good enough. Even though he had nothing to do with the order and would have no idea if Oswald ever received anything. The problem can’t possibly be that your argument is weak and inconclusive. It must be an “impossible standard”.

And yet another example is the Tippit murder where Oswald shoots Tippit in front of eyewitnesses, leaves exclusively matching shells, is seen in front of more eyewitnesses leaving the scene with his revolver on full display, leaves his Jacket in a parking lot and then tries to kill more Police with the exact same weapon that left shells at the Tippit crime scene. But at every point the CT's disgustingly attempt to defend this Cop Killer.

All together now: claims aren’t evidence.