Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[John Mytton]

Do you think that it is possible that “various…and other identification cards” just might include the fake ID? It certainly could in my opinion. There is no reason that it needed to be specifically singled out and specified. “Various” and “other” certainly could describe it without specifically specifying it by the Hidell name. So in my opinion this, memo amounts to nothing at all that could be used to positively say the fake ID wasn’t there.

 

Exactly Charles! Well done!

"other identification cards" =  "Hidell ID"

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Do you think that it is possible that “various…and other identification cards” just might include the fake ID? It certainly could in my opinion. There is no reason that it needed to be specifically singled out and specified. “Various” and “other” certainly could describe it without specifically specifying it by the Hidell name. So in my opinion this, memo amounts to nothing at all that could be used to positively say the fake ID wasn’t there.

In this case anything seems to be possible.

So in my opinion this, memo amounts to nothing at all that could be used to positively say the fake ID wasn’t there.

Of course not. How can you positively prove that something wasn't there?

By itself the memo isn't conclusive, that's true, but there is more circumstantial evidence that suggests the Hidell ID wasn't in Oswald's wallet. Paul Bentley, who took the wallet from Oswald, never ever mentioned having seen a Hidell ID in that wallet. The other three officers didn't mention a ID in a different name than Oswald either, for 6 months, until two of them (Hill and Carroll) suddenly started to vaguely "remember" hearing something about it. DPD forgot to photograph the wallet and it's content.

All this suggestes that the fake Hidell ID either wasn't a vital piece of evidence to the DPD or, alternatively, it simply wasn't there when Oswald was arrested.

[Martin Weidmann]

Exactly Charles! Well done!

"other identification cards" =  "Hidell ID"

JohnM

Some people are so desperate to keep their questionable narrative alive that they will jump to any conclusion based on no evidence whatsoever.

[John Mytton]

Some people are so desperate to keep their questionable narrative alive that they will jump to any conclusion based on no evidence whatsoever.

Sorry Martin.

It means that there was no conspiracy and no "questionable narrative" or no "Law enforcement grapevine" and no "Group think psyche"LOL
And most importantly nobody lied in their testimony, they all simply told the truth.

But do keep desperately trying to discover your very own "questionable narrative"! Hahahahaha.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Sorry Martin.

It means that there was no conspiracy and no "questionable narrative" or no "Law enforcement grapevine" and no "Group think psyche"LOL
And most importantly nobody lied in their testimony, they all simply told the truth.

But do keep desperately trying to discover your very own "questionable narrative"! Hahahahaha.

JohnM

It means that there was no conspiracy and no "questionable narrative" or no "Law enforcement grapevine" and no "Group think psyche"LOL
And most importantly nobody lied in their testimony, they all simply told the truth.

All in your humble opinion of course, right?

[John Mytton]

It means that there was no conspiracy and no "questionable narrative" or no "Law enforcement grapevine" and no "Group think psyche"LOL
And most importantly nobody lied in their testimony, they all simply told the truth.

All in your humble opinion of course, right?

Well yeah, based on the evidence there was no conspiracy and on the previous page you just said you've never once claimed there was a conspiracy, we agree, so what's the problem?

JohnM

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Sorry Martin.

It means that there was no conspiracy and no "questionable narrative" or no "Law enforcement grapevine" and no "Group think psyche"LOL
And most importantly nobody lied in their testimony, they all simply told the truth.

But do keep desperately trying to discover your very own "questionable narrative"! Hahahahaha.

JohnM

"No evidence whatsoever." This was always going to be the end of this, the result. He won't say the evidence is inconclusive or not persuasive or questionable. No, he dismisses it completely.

Years and years of this method: say the evidence was "possibly" faked, make impossible demands about proving its authenticity, raise the "chain of custody" complaint (boy, they do like this one; it sounds so smart), and then wave it all away as "no evidence whatsoever."

Classic conspiracy thinking. RFK, Jr. is going around using this approach on the vaccines. He is quite, well, insane.