Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

Again, I've said we can likely never know with certainty.

In this case there is nothing that can be known with certainty. Not even who shot Kennedy and/or Tippit can be known with absolute certainty.

I have provided reasons that the circumstances lend themselves more to this being a notebook or citation book belonging to Tippit.

Except they don't

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. 

Sure I do. In a wallet left the scene to point towards a suspect there would be a fake ID and in a wallet of some witness there wouldn't be.

You still keep ignoring that fact that FBI agent Bob Barrett told James Hosty that Captain Westbrook asked him at the Tippit scene if he know a man called Oswald or Hidell.
That information could only come from a wallet that contained both ID's and low and behold there is a video of police officers looking at a wallet.

I can understand why you wouldn't want to deal with this. It's easier to just call Bob Barrett a liar, as you have already implied he is.

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.

Utter BS based on another one of your "they would have done this or that" fantasies. Your pathetic little argument is; "the police would have put Oswald's name on the police radio and since they didn't it means that there was no wallet left at the scene.

The circumstantial case for the switching of the two wallets is a strong one. Paul Bentley took Oswald's wallet from him in the car. He later said on television it contained his ID, a drivers' license and a credit card. There is no report of any of the officers in the car that mentions a Hidell ID. Gus Rose arrived at the police station just before Oswald was brought in. Rose was given a wallet (the one now at the National Archives) by an unidentified officer who told him it was Oswald's wallet. It contained Oswald's ID as well as the fake Hidell ID. It did not contain a driver's license or credit card. I seem to remember that Paul Bentley was taken to hospital directly after his arrival at the police department and he still had the wallet he took from Oswald on him. Mitch Todd claimed that Bentley went first to the Homicide bureau and then to personnel division office tp write a report. Only then did he give the wallet to Baker, instead of turning it in to the evidence room. Either way, the wallet that Bentley carried with him could not have been the wallet that was given to Gus Rose, because he was given that as soon as Oswald was brought in.

That's the circumstantial case; Barrett said Westbrook was holding a wallet at the Tippit scene and asked him about Oswald and Hidell and Gus Rose was given a wallet containing an Oswald ID and a fake Hidell ID. Bentley never mentioned am Hidell ID in his report and none of the other officers did the same. Bentley's wallet couldn't have been given to Gus Rose because he kept it on his person while Rose was already talking to Oswald. It isn't difficult to do the math, but I'm pretty sure you will be struggling to understand it.

Now, for once, do what you constantly preach: look at the totallity of the circumstantial case instead of picking on low hanging fruit.

If it is a wallet, it is the wallet of a witness standing off camera.

HAHAHAHAHAHA... Wishful thinking. You have nothing. Not even "logic" or "common sense" to reach that conclusion.

This is way up there with the now infamous claim; "The evidence that Oswald came down the stairs is that it happened".  Great stuff   

[Mitch Todd]

Who said it was written somewhere? It may well be part of some guidelines but I have no intention to look for them, because your question is of no significance for the case we are discussing. Besides, I can just as easily ask you where it is written that cops are allowed and should mention names of suspects on the air.

You're the guy who claimed that "police never give names of potential suspects on the radio." That implies policy, and if it's policy then it is written somewhere. Ergo, if you were correct, then you'd be able to point to such a policy. QED. Anyway, you've admitted that you don't know whether "it may well be part of some guidelines." That is, you have no idea whether your assertion is true, and admit that you made the whole thing up out of thin air. Good to know.

Besides, I can just as easily ask you where it is written that cops are allowed and should mention names of suspects on the air.

You're just trying to shift the burden of proof. You're the guy who chimed up claiming that they absolutely would not broadcast the name of a suspect. It's up to you to support your assertion.

[Martin Weidmann]

You're the guy who claimed that "police never give names of potential suspects on the radio." That implies policy, and if it's policy then it is written somewhere. Ergo, if you were correct, then you'd be able to point to such a policy. QED. Anyway, you've admitted that you don't know whether "it may well be part of some guidelines." That is, you have no idea whether your assertion is true, and admit that you made the whole thing up out of thin air. Good to know.

You're just trying to shift the burden of proof. You're the guy who chimed up claiming that they absolutely would not broadcast the name of a suspect. It's up to you to support your assertion.

Why am I not surprised that you are no longer arguing about the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car? Didn't like the way you destroyed and debunked your own argument that Baker possibly was the unidentified officer who gave the wallet to Gus Rose, did you?

Your claim that Westbrook wasn't holding a wallet at the Tippit scene simply because Oswald's and/or Hidell's name was not broadcast on police radio is ridiculous.

It was actually you who made the initial claim that DPD would have transmitted Oswald's and/or Hidell's name if they had found them in the wallet. That implies that DPD would do something like that as a matter of policy, because your claim loses all validity if it wasn't policy. So, can you show that the DPD as a matter of policy puts names of murder suspects on their radio system? If you can't, your entire argument falls apart.

[Javid Sangar]

There is this video on the youtube. It says that the wallet found wallet was found at the Tippit murder scene and Westbrook and Bob Barret had an exchange about it. I am not sure how such a strong evidence can be discarded. It's there on the video

[Martin Weidmann]

There is this video on the youtube. It says that the wallet found wallet was found at the Tippit murder scene and Westbrook and Bob Barret had an exchange about it. I am not sure how such a strong evidence can be discarded. It's there on the video

Welcome to the forum.

I am not sure how such a strong evidence can be discarded.

To answer your question; LNs will discard, deny and question anything that doesn't fit their narrative, and they will use insane arguments to do it. No matter how obvious the matter really is.

One of their head clowns came up with this beauty a while ago; "The evidence that Oswald came down the stairs of the TSBD after the last shot is that it happened".

[Richard Smith]

There is this video on the youtube. It says that the wallet found wallet was found at the Tippit murder scene and Westbrook and Bob Barret had an exchange about it. I am not sure how such a strong evidence can be discarded. It's there on the video

Someone put a video on Youtube?  I guess that solves the mystery.  Again, there is no confirmation that this is even a wallet.  The quality of the film does not allow us to reach that conclusion.
And there are many reasons for it not to have been a wallet left at the crime scene.  Not the least of which is that we know the police did not radio the name and description of whomever left any such wallet.  That person would have been a murder suspect.  The police would have certainly informed fellow officers of the name and description of a cop killing murderer on the loose in the vicinity.  Not to do so would have been grossly negligent.  It is either Tippit's citation book or the wallet of some bystander.  If some conspirator had left the wallet to frame Oswald or Oswald actually left the wallet, the police would certainly have reported that fact.  There is no coherent explanation for the DPD - whom many CTers allege were framing Oswald - to have suppressed one of the most incriminatory pieces of evidence in the case to link Oswald to the Tippit murder beyond any doubt. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Someone put a video on Youtube?  I guess that solves the mystery.  Again, there is no confirmation that this is even a wallet.  The quality of the film does not allow us to reach that conclusion.
And there are many reasons for it not to have been a wallet left at the crime scene.  Not the least of which is that we know the police did not radio the name and description of whomever left any such wallet.  That person would have been a murder suspect.  The police would have certainly informed fellow officers of the name and description of a cop killing murderer on the loose in the vicinity.  Not to do so would have been grossly negligent.  It is either Tippit's citation book or the wallet of some bystander.  If some conspirator had left the wallet to frame Oswald or Oswald actually left the wallet, the police would certainly have reported that fact.  There is no coherent explanation for the DPD - whom many CTers allege were framing Oswald - to have suppressed one of the most incriminatory pieces of evidence in the case to link Oswald to the Tippit murder beyond any doubt.

True to form, the head clown replies exactly as expected.

Again, there is no confirmation that this is even a wallet.  The quality of the film does not allow us to reach that conclusion.

Oh yes, there is confirmation. FBI agent Bob Barrett said it was a wallet. The fact that you don't like that doesn't negate what he said.

And there are many reasons for it not to have been a wallet left at the crime scene.  Not the least of which is that we know the police did not radio the name and description of whomever left any such wallet.  That person would have been a murder suspect.

First of all, there is a difference between transmitting a name and putting a description on the air. There was no way for Westbrook to be certain that the wallet did belong to the shooter, so putting out a name would be risky as it might color an innocent bystander as a potential cop killer. There were, however, plenty of eye-witnesses at the scene to obtain a description of the killer and put that on the air. But that didn't happen either. So, Westbrook may well have been grossly negligent, as you say. But that doesn't begin to prove that there wasn't a wallet at the scene.

It is either Tippit's citation book or the wallet of some bystander. 

Utter speculation for which you have not a shred of evidence. For years LNs claimed it was Tippit's wallet, until Marie Tippit proved them wrong by confirming that she has her husband's wallet, which was given to her at the hospital. So, now it's the next best thing; "it's Tippit's citation book or some bystander's wallet. In other words, I'm just guessing what it could be!

You can keep repeating your guesses a thousand more times. It will never change the fact that you, unlike Bob Barrett, wasn't there and haven't got a clue what is was. Barret had no reason to lie to Hosty. You on the other hand have every reason to lie and you do it frequently. I'll take Bob Barrett's word over yours every day.

If some conspirator had left the wallet to frame Oswald or Oswald actually left the wallet, the police would certainly have reported that fact. 

Really? And you know this, how? The fact is that Bentley took a wallet from Oswald in the car and that wasn't reported on the radio either.

There is no coherent explanation for the DPD - whom many CTers allege were framing Oswald - to have suppressed one of the most incriminatory pieces of evidence in the case to link Oswald to the Tippit murder beyond any doubt.

Just because you don't or want to understand it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. You keep on ignoring the strong circumstantial case that clearly points at a switching of the wallets at the DPD HQ. The wallet that was actually surpressed was more than likely the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car. You know, the one that did not have a fake Hidell ID in it.