Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Louis Earl]

Is this relevant?  The shooting of Tippitt is entirely consistent with the LN theory as well as with the Patsy theory. 

[Dan O'meara]

Is this relevant?  The shooting of Tippitt is entirely consistent with the LN theory as well as with the Patsy theory.

Agreed.

[Martin Weidmann]

Is this relevant?  The shooting of Tippitt is entirely consistent with the LN theory as well as with the Patsy theory.

Yes, it's relevant. And no, it isn't consisent with both theories, simply because the two theories are not only different but also contradict eachother on key issues.

[Richard Smith]

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.

I agree that it may be impossible to ever determine with certainty what they are looking at, but it makes a lot more sense to me that it is a citation or notebook belonging to Tippit.  The investigators are looking through it.  That means no one in the vicinity, like a witness. is in possession of the item and can provide whatever they need from the wallet or book.  In a traffic stop, the officer doesn't take your wallet and look through it for an ID.   It is being handled more like evidence.  And a citation book might provide some indication of the last person Tippit encountered.  For all they knew, maybe Tippit had stopped someone and was writing that person a citation when he was shot. The DPD would have every reason to look through it as depicted for a name of a potential suspect.  A bystander might conclude it is a wallet of the suspect and when Oswald later comes to be known link the events in their mind (i.e. they were looking at Oswald's wallet).

An Oswald wallet makes no sense at all if the DPD was involved in framing Oswald.  An Oswald wallet left at the scene - either dropped by Oswald himself or planted to frame him for the Tippit crime - would have been a critical piece of evidence.  The entire point of any planting an Oswald wallet would be to link him to the crime.  There is no logical reason in either the LNer or CTer view to suppress a wallet that links Oswald to the crime.  Whether real or fake it would be critical evidence.  And why not immediately call in the name of the suspect linked to the wallet if that is what the item is?  That didn't happen but if a wallet had been left at the scene it would have been reasonable for the police to conclude it was dropped by the shooter.  Under the circumstances, the very first thing they do is call in the name of the individual linked to the wallet.  It just doesn't add up as a wallet left at the scene. 

[Martin Weidmann]

I agree that it may be impossible to ever determine with certainty what they are looking at, but it makes a lot more sense to me that it is a citation or notebook belonging to Tippit.  The investigators are looking through it.  That means no one in the vicinity, like a witness. is in possession of the item and can provide whatever they need from the wallet or book.  In a traffic stop, the officer doesn't take your wallet and look through it for an ID.   It is being handled more like evidence.  And a citation book might provide some indication of the last person Tippit encountered.  For all they knew, maybe Tippit had stopped someone and was writing that person a citation when he was shot. The DPD would have every reason to look through it as depicted for a name of a potential suspect.  A bystander might conclude it is a wallet of the suspect and when Oswald later comes to be known link the events in their mind (i.e. they were looking at Oswald's wallet).

An Oswald wallet makes no sense at all if the DPD was involved in framing Oswald.  An Oswald wallet left at the scene - either dropped by Oswald himself or planted to frame him for the Tippit crime - would have been a critical piece of evidence.  The entire point of any planting an Oswald wallet would be to link him to the crime.  There is no logical reason in either the LNer or CTer view to suppress a wallet that links Oswald to the crime.  Whether real or fake it would be critical evidence.  And why not immediately call in the name of the suspect linked to the wallet if that is what the item is?  That didn't happen but if a wallet had been left at the scene it would have been reasonable for the police to conclude it was dropped by the shooter.  Under the circumstances, the very first thing they do is call in the name of the individual linked to the wallet.  It just doesn't add up as a wallet left at the scene.

Once again you haven't been paying attention or just simply ignore what already has been written.

FBI agent Barrett said it was a wallet and when Capt. Westbrook was looking at it he asked Barrett if he knew somebody called Oswald or Hidell.

Your typical "what the conspirators would have done" BS is destroyed by this single fact.

[Bill Brown]

I agree that it may be impossible to ever determine with certainty what they are looking at, but it makes a lot more sense to me that it is a citation or notebook belonging to Tippit.  The investigators are looking through it.  That means no one in the vicinity, like a witness. is in possession of the item and can provide whatever they need from the wallet or book.  In a traffic stop, the officer doesn't take your wallet and look through it for an ID.   It is being handled more like evidence.  And a citation book might provide some indication of the last person Tippit encountered.  For all they knew, maybe Tippit had stopped someone and was writing that person a citation when he was shot. The DPD would have every reason to look through it as depicted for a name of a potential suspect.  A bystander might conclude it is a wallet of the suspect and when Oswald later comes to be known link the events in their mind (i.e. they were looking at Oswald's wallet).

An Oswald wallet makes no sense at all if the DPD was involved in framing Oswald.  An Oswald wallet left at the scene - either dropped by Oswald himself or planted to frame him for the Tippit crime - would have been a critical piece of evidence.  The entire point of any planting an Oswald wallet would be to link him to the crime.  There is no logical reason in either the LNer or CTer view to suppress a wallet that links Oswald to the crime.  Whether real or fake it would be critical evidence.  And why not immediately call in the name of the suspect linked to the wallet if that is what the item is?  That didn't happen but if a wallet had been left at the scene it would have been reasonable for the police to conclude it was dropped by the shooter.  Under the circumstances, the very first thing they do is call in the name of the individual linked to the wallet.  It just doesn't add up as a wallet left at the scene.

I agree with everything you've said above.

[Bill Brown]

Once again you haven't been paying attention or just simply ignore what already has been written.

FBI agent Barrett said it was a wallet and when Capt. Westbrook was looking at it he asked Barrett if he knew somebody called Oswald or Hidell.

Your typical "what the conspirators would have done" BS is destroyed by this single fact.

You state as a fact that it was an Oswald/Hidell wallet just because Barrett said so decades later.