Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Bill Brown]

Well, he had to come up with some lame excuse for the discrepancy. But he did say that Poe showed him the shells.

Are you arguing in favor of the shells being automatics?

[John Iacoletti]

I am arguing that the shells in evidence are not consistent with what was reported at the scene, and the excuse given for this discrepancy is not credible. Just as the excuse given for the Poe’s missing initials is not credible.

[Bill Brown]

I am arguing that the shells in evidence are not consistent with what was reported at the scene, and the excuse given for this discrepancy is not credible. Just as the excuse given for the Poe’s missing initials is not credible.

Then your arguments are lame because you aren't making any valid arguments at all.

What was reported at the scene does not prove that the shells in evidence aren't the shells found at the scene.

The argument that Poe did indeed mark the shells is not more credible than the argument that he didn't mark them.

I'll rephrase my question.  Do you believe the shells found at the scene were automatic shells? 

[Richard Smith]

Agreed.  Tippit's wallet went with him to Methodist Hospital.

Did Tippit have some type of citation book?  It seems like police officers would.  And it makes sense to be looking through it on the chance that Tippit might have been writing a citation to the person who ended up shooting him.  Thus providing the name of that individual.  What makes no sense is that the DPD would suppress Oswald's wallet if it had been left at the crime scene.  Whether by Oswald himself or someone trying to link him to the crime.  If, as CTers argue, the DPD was involved in framing Oswald for the JFK and Tippit murders, what better evidence than the presence of his wallet at the crime scene could there be?  Why would they suppress that wallet is inexplicable in the CTer narrative.  The only explanation that I have ever seen articulated is that because Oswald had his real wallet on him when arrested, the DPD had to suppress this fake one.  That explanation is laughable, however, because whoever planted the fake wallet would surely have known that Oswald was likely to have his real wallet on him when arrested or killed.  And, if the conspirators controlled the evidence, they would just suppress the real wallet and enter the fake wallet that frames Oswald into evidence instead of the reverse.

[Bill Brown]

Did Tippit have some type of citation book?  It seems like police officers would.  And it makes sense to be looking through it on the chance that Tippit might have been writing a citation to the person who ended up shooting him.  Thus providing the name of that individual.  What makes no sense is that the DPD would suppress Oswald's wallet if it had been left at the crime scene.  Whether by Oswald himself or someone trying to link him to the crime.  If, as CTers argue, the DPD was involved in framing Oswald for the JFK and Tippit murders, what better evidence than the presence of his wallet at the crime scene could there be?  Why would they suppress that wallet is inexplicable in the CTer narrative.  The only explanation that I have ever seen articulated is that because Oswald had his real wallet on him when arrested, the DPD had to suppress this fake one.  That explanation is laughable, however, because whoever planted the fake wallet would surely have known that Oswald was likely to have his real wallet on him when arrested or killed.  And, if the conspirators controlled the evidence, they would just suppress the real wallet and enter the fake wallet that frames Oswald into evidence instead of the reverse.

Richard, you're using way too much logic and common sense here.

What we see in the footage could have been a "citation book" or a note pad of some sort, belonging to Tippit.  In fact, that was my stance on it for years though now I have accepted that it may be a wallet.  But you're right, that it is some sort of a citation book or notepad shouldn't be ruled out, though if a citation book, Tippit didn't write anything down related to the man he stopped. 

[John Iacoletti]

Then your arguments are lame because you aren't making any valid arguments at all.

Not nearly as lame as all of your excuses for conflicting and inconsistent evidence.

What was reported at the scene does not prove that the shells in evidence aren't the shells found at the scene.

Not necessary, because you can’t prove that they are.

The argument that Poe did indeed mark the shells is not more credible than the argument that he didn't mark them.

Poe said that he marked them until he was presented with shells he couldn’t find his initials on.

I'll rephrase my question.  Do you believe the shells found at the scene were automatic shells?

I don’t know what shells were found at the scene. That’s the whole problem — it’s unknowable. Even if Gerald Hill was the idiot you need him to be, it’s still unknowable.

[John Iacoletti]

Richard, you're using way too much logic and common sense here.

No, “Richard” is just reiterating his usual “the conspirators I just made up in my head would never do something like that, therefore Oswald did it” argument.