Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

There are reasons from that clip to support the conclusion that this is Tippit's notebook or citation book.  Look at how they are holding it.  Vertically as though reading from a note page.  In fact a page from the object appears to blow up at the very end from the wind.  That suggests it has paper pages like a notebook or citation book rather than a wallet.  In addition, they appear to be reading something from the object even tracing it with a finger.  If they were taking down a witness ID, they would be writing that information down.  But there is no indication that they are writing anything down from the object.  I've never seen anyone asked by the police for an ID to hand their entire wallet to the policeman.  Typically, they would remove the requested item (e.g. license) and hand it to them.  I'm not saying this is conclusive of the issue, but it lends itself in that direction.  What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.

So many words and it's all selfsevering speculation.

What you see "blow up at the very end from the wind" is the flap of the wallet.

Bottom line is still that FBI agent Bob Barrett, who was at the scene, said it was a wallet and the LNs can not even begin to explain why they would doubt what he said. In fact, they have no reasonable or plausible grounds to doubt his words, nor do they have anything else but speculation about what it could be if not a wallet.

What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.

Ok, mr. know it all.... surprise us all and prove (not with so-called "logic" or "common sence" but with actual evenidence it isn't a wallet!

Perhaps you can track down the uniformed officer holding the wallet and have him confirm it wasn't a wallet after all. That would do the trick. Go on then...

[Richard Smith]

Aha, now I understand where you are coming from. Yes I did say that, but I phrased it poorly.

You claimed it was a notebook and they were looking through it. For somebody to be able to look through a notebook it would needed to be opened, for each page to be turned.
That's what I meant when I said the wallet wasn't opened. My bad.

You not only phrased it "poorly" but incorrectly.  Again, the object that they are looking at (whether a small notebook or wallet) is clearly "open" and the police are "looking through it."  It makes no sense to explain away your claim based on some bizarre distinction about it being a notebook.  And you referenced a "wallet" not a notebook.  Regardless, the object would obviously have to be "open" to read the contents of either a wallet or notebook.  Something you suggested didn't happen. 

[Richard Smith]

So many words and it's all selfsevering speculation.

What you see "blow up at the very end from the wind" is the flap of the wallet.

Bottom line is still that FBI agent Bob Barrett, who was at the scene, said it was a wallet and the LNs can not even begin to explain why they would doubt what he said. In fact, they have no reasonable or plausible grounds to doubt his words, nor do they have anything else but speculation about what it could be if not a wallet.

What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.

Ok, mr. know it all.... surprise us all and prove (not with so-called "logic" or "common sence" but with actual evenidence it isn't a wallet!

Perhaps you can track down the uniformed officer holding the wallet and have him confirm it wasn't a wallet after all. That would do the trick. Go on then...

Do you notice how they are holding the object?  Vertically away from the officer.  Is that more typical of how you look at the contents of a wallet or small notebook?  Are they writing down any information from the object like a witness ID?  No.  Would a witness typically hand a police officer their entire wallet or remove whatever they are being asked for and hand it to them?  One person in the film traces something with his finger.  Why do that unless it is some form of writing like might be contained in a small notebook or citation book?  Is there any accounting for Tippit's citation book?  He must have had one - right?  That is how police officers write tickets.  Again, I'm not claiming with certainty that this is Tippit's citation book but it is a better explanation than a wallet left at the scene and then disappeared from history for all the reasons noted.  None of which have been rebutted including why the police would not have radioed the name of any suspect or at least description derived from the information contained in the wallet.

[Martin Weidmann]

Do you notice how they are holding the object?  Vertically away from the officer.  Is that more typical of how you look at the contents of a wallet or small notebook?  Are they writing down any information from the object like a witness ID?  No.  Would a witness typically hand a police officer their entire wallet or remove whatever they are being asked for and hand it to them?  One person in the film traces something with his finger.  Why do that unless it is some form of writing like might be contained in a small notebook or citation book?  Is there any accounting for Tippit's citation book?  He must have had one - right?  That is how police officers write tickets.  Again, I'm not claiming with certainty that this is Tippit's citation book but it is a better explanation than a wallet left at the scene and then disappeared from history for all the reasons noted.  None of which have been rebutted including why the police would not have radioed the name of any suspect or at least description derived from the information contained in the wallet.

The same old speculation....

Again, I'm not claiming with certainty that this is Tippit's citation book but it is a better explanation than a wallet left at the scene

So you can't say for certain what it is but you can say without reservation that it isn't a wallet?

What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.

Your explanation isn't even an explanation. It's just a word salad with nothing conclusive to counter the fact that FBI agent Bob Barrett, who was at the scene and saw the damned thing, said it was a wallet. You keep on ignorning that.... why is that?

[Richard Smith]

The same old speculation....

Again, I'm not claiming with certainty that this is Tippit's citation book but it is a better explanation than a wallet left at the scene

So you can't say for certain what it is but you can say without reservation that it isn't a wallet?

Your explanation isn't even an explanation. It's just a word salad with nothing conclusive to counter the fact that FBI agent Bob Barrett, who was at the scene and saw the damned thing, said it was a wallet. You keep on ignorning that.... why is that?

I provided my reasons based on logic and what is depicted in the film clip - none of which you addressed much less rebutted and much of which you falsely mischaracterized (i.e. claiming the wallet was not opened and the police weren't looking through it).  Again, I'm not saying it can't be a wallet.  I am saying it is not a wallet left at the scene for the reasons discussed.  Many people said things long after the events that are not true.  You have never accepted such evidence in this case when it lends itself to Oswald's guilt but suddenly it MUST be true. 

[Martin Weidmann]

I provided my reasons based on logic and what is depicted in the film clip - none of which you addressed much less rebutted and much of which you falsely mischaracterized (i.e. claiming the wallet was not opened and the police weren't looking through it).  Again, I'm not saying it can't be a wallet.  I am saying it is not a wallet left at the scene for the reasons discussed.  Many people said things long after the events that are not true.  You have never accepted such evidence in this case when it lends itself to Oswald's guilt but suddenly it MUST be true.

I provided my reasons based on logic

Please give me a break. Based on bias is closer to the truth.

Again, I'm not saying it can't be a wallet.

Yes you were saying exactly that;

What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.

I am saying it is not a wallet left at the scene for the reasons discussed.

You have no way of knowing that.

Many people said things long after the events that are not true.

That doesn't mean you get to assume that everbody who said something long after the events was lying. You have no valid reason to assume that FBI agent Bob Barrett was lying, just like Barrett himself had no reason to lie. He told the story to Hosty in a private conversation, not to exonerate Oswald (who he still believed to be guilty) or to seek notoriety. He just expressed his opinion to another FBI agent that something strange was going at the DPD involving Oswald's wallet.

You have never accepted such evidence in this case when it lends itself to Oswald's guilt but suddenly it MUST be true.

I deal with evidence on a case by case basis. If somebody makes a claim for which there is no substantiation, I treat it with caution.

Here we have Bob Barrett saying there was a wallet and we have video of what's clearly a wallet at the Tippit scene. You have not a shred of proof that it wasn't a wallet. Even your so-called "logic" isn't logical at all. You just assume it wasn't a wallet, because you don't want it to be a wallet. The circumstantial case involving the wallet(s) is a plausible one, which makes it possibly and likely true.

What is hilarious is that LNs are always going on about looking at the entire circumstantial case as a whole. I'm doing exactly that and looking at the circumstantial case of the DPD manipulating evidence (such as the jacket and the revolver) it is most certainly not beyond belief that Bob Barrett's story is in fact true. Whether you like it or not.

[Richard Smith]

I provided my reasons based on logic

Please give me a break. Based on bias is closer to the truth.

Again, I'm not saying it can't be a wallet.

Yes you were saying exactly that;

I am saying it is not a wallet left at the scene for the reasons discussed.

You have no way of knowing that.

Many people said things long after the events that are not true.

That doesn't mean you get to assume that everbody who said something long after the events was lying. You have no valid reason to assume that FBI agent Bob Barrett was lying, just like Barrett himself had no reason to lie. He told the story to Hosty in a private conversation, not to exonerate Oswald (who he still believed to be guilty) or to seek notoriety. He just expressed his opinion to another FBI agent that something strange was going at the DPD involving Oswald's wallet.

You have never accepted such evidence in this case when it lends itself to Oswald's guilt but suddenly it MUST be true.

I deal with evidence on a case by case basis. If somebody makes a claim for which there is no substantiation, I treat it with caution.

Here we have Bob Barrett saying there was a wallet and we have video of what's clearly a wallet at the Tippit scene. You have not a shred of proof that it wasn't a wallet. Even your so-called "logic" isn't logical at all. You just assume it wasn't a wallet, because you don't want it to be a wallet. The circumstantial case involving the wallet(s) is a plausible one, which makes it possibly and likely true.

What is hilarious is that LNs are always going on about looking at the entire circumstantial case as a whole. I'm doing exactly that and looking at the circumstantial case of the DPD manipulating evidence (such as the jacket and the revolver) it is most certainly not beyond belief that Bob Barrett's story is in fact true. Whether you like it or not.

Again, I've said we can likely never know with certainty.  I have provided reasons that the circumstances lend themselves more to this being a notebook or citation book belonging to Tippit. And you obviously don't understand the distinction between a "wallet left at the crime scene" and a wallet of some witness who is present.   The former (that is the first option Martin) would be evidence of the possible identity of the shooter.  The police would have reasonable cause to believe that a wallet left at the crime scene was linked to the crime and the identity of the owner could be ascertained from the contents.  That person would have become a suspect and his name and/description would have been broadcast over the police radio just as the description of the JFK assassin was broadcast.   We know that didn't happen.  That lends itself to this not being a wallet LEFT AT THE SCENE.  If it is a wallet, it is the wallet of a witness standing off camera.