Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[John Mytton]

Yes, but when we say evidence shows that, for example, a rifle belonging to Oswald was found in the building they dismiss it as speculation.

Because that's what it is. If you want to claim that the rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald, you need to prove that.

We show the evidence, e.g., paper trail, photos, prints on it, for this and they again reply "Speculation, speculation, speculation."

The so-called "paper trail" is ambivalent and inconclusive. But even if it wasn't how does paperwork dated in March 1963 prove that Oswald is owner of the rifle found at the TSBD in November 1963?

The photos only prove that Oswald was holding a rifle in March 1963.

There were no prints on the rifle, according to the FBI, who examined the rifle within 24 hours after the crime.

So, if not speculation, how exactly does the paper trail, photos and an alleged print on the rifle prove that the rifle found at the TSBD actually belonged to Oswald?


The two sides may use the same words, terms, ideas but they have a fundamentally different idea as to what they mean and how to apply them.

Indeed. One side frequently calls assumptions "evidence" and the other side doesn't.

If you want to claim that the rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald, you need to prove that.

Again with this nonsense? As demonstrated oh so painfully in the last few pages, is that you clearly don't know how this works, let me set you straight.
The presented evidence is that Oswald buying C2766 was proved beyond all doubt, the fact that the same rifle(C2766) that was sent to Oswald was discovered on the 6th floor of where Oswald worked doesn't need to be proved because it's an undeniable fact. In court you could try and poke holes in Kleins business records or claim the rifle was planted etc but so far you haven't generated even the slightest doubt.   
The reality is that a competent defence would have no other option than to accept this evidence and try to free Oswald on some other legal technicality.

JohnM

[Charles Collins]

Right, but I wanted to know which specific "evidence" you citied as pure speculation.   

The point I am trying to make is that speculation is disallowed by the courts. By definition speculation is the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. If you want an example here is one where a photo taken about 50-years after the assassination of some items loaned by the national archives to a temporary exhibit is being used to suggest the fake ID was not in LHO’s possession when he was arrested.

It appears to me that the photo of the contents of the wallet was taken of an exhibit of the actual items. This exhibit was in 2013. Speculation that these items represent a complete accounting of all that was in the wallet when LHO was arrested is pure speculation.


As part of a new exhibit called Three Shots Were Fired marking the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination, the Newseum in Washington DC put on display several never-before-seen artifacts from that fateful day in November, including personal items that were in Oswald's possession on the day of his arrest.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307792/Inside-assassins-wallet-Never-seen-pictures-Lee-Harvey-Oswalds-personal-items-display.html

See post #312 in this thread if you need further information. My point is that this type of speculation (theorizing and conjecture) would not be allowed in a courtroom. It isn’t difficult to find other such instances in this thread that I pointed out. You can do it….

[Martin Weidmann]

That's a bit simplistic, isn't it?

There was a plethora of reasons why Simpson walked free and yes the glove not fitting was a great TV moment but there was also the Rodney King incident the year before, the location of the trial, the proportion of black jurors, Mark Fuhrman, the many omissions by the Prosecution, the DNA evidence being allegedly contaminated, the woeful effort of the prosecution, Johnny Cochrane, the perceived "dream team" etc etc.

And yes it's a cautionary tale and under the right similar conditions, a clever Defence team could again manipulate, divert and twist the truth and have Oswald acquitted, But would that be Justice?

JohnM

That's a bit simplistic, isn't it?

Sure, it was intented to be, so that people like you would understand.
 
It's just as simplistic as Charles Collins saying: "Ask how Scott Peterson got sentenced to death based on one piece of hair (that matched some hair on Laci’s brush) which was found on a pair of pliers in Scott’s boat."


And yes it's a cautionary tale and under the right similar conditions, a clever Defence team could again manipulate, divert and twist the truth and have Oswald acquitted, But would that be Justice?

Yes, that would be justice. Because a trial is not really about right or wrong, guilt or innocent, it's about who has the best narrative to convince the jury.

Huh?, Read the thread title "Who killed J D Tippit?" and then read the last few pages.

How is stating a fact childish or nasty?

If I was being childish I would say "Charles is kicking your Ass, you pooh pooh bumhead"
If I was being nasty I would say "Charles is kicking your Ass, Pathetic"

With Charles presenting real evidence of how the court system works as compared to your fantasies the only conclusion that can be derived is, "Charles is kicking your Ass", you might not like it but it is a rock solid fact.

I rest my case.

JohnM

Huh?, Read the thread title "Who killed J D Tippit?" and then read the last few pages.

That's not what I was talking about, which once again confirms your poor judgment. You don't even understand what I was talking about.

How is stating a fact childish or nasty?

What "fact" would that be?

If I was being childish I would say "Charles is kicking your Ass, you pooh pooh bumhead"
If I was being nasty I would say "Charles is kicking your Ass, Pathetic"

Why are you so desperate to clean up your childish nasty remarks?

With Charles presenting real evidence of how the court system works as compared to your fantasies the only conclusion that can be derived is, "Charles is kicking your Ass", you might not like it but it is a rock solid fact.

Except, Charles wasn't presenting any evidence at all. He is only quoting from standard jury instructions (anybody who is on line can do that) and I agreed with most of his interpretations. Which means that your "conclusion" is nothing more than your usual BS.

I rest my case.

I wish you would. It would be beneficial to many people.

Btw, your desperate attempt to justify your own pathetic comments is hilarious. You just can't help yourself, right?   

[Martin Weidmann]

Again with this nonsense? As demonstrated oh so painfully in the last few pages, is that you clearly don't know how this works, let me set you straight.
The presented evidence is that Oswald buying C2766 was proved beyond all doubt, the fact that the same rifle(C2766) that was sent to Oswald was discovered on the 6th floor of where Oswald worked doesn't need to be proved because it's an undeniable fact. In court you could try and poke holes in Kleins business records or claim the rifle was planted etc but so far you haven't generated even the slightest doubt.   
The reality is that a competent defence would have no other option than to accept this evidence and try to free Oswald on some other legal technicality.

JohnM

Thank you for sharing your flawed biased opinion.

the fact that the same rifle(C2766) that was sent to Oswald was discovered on the 6th floor of where Oswald worked doesn't need to be proved because it's an undeniable fact.

This goes right up there with "Richard Smith"'s'; "the evidence that Oswald ran down the stairs after the shots were fired is that it happened"

Here's a shocker for you; I disagree that it is an undeniable fact and your can't prove me wrong!

In court you could try and poke holes in Kleins business records or claim the rifle was planted etc but so far you haven't generated even the slightest doubt.   

If it existed, I could show you a real time video of the events showing that Oswald didn't shoot anybody and you still wouldn't have any doubt in the official narrative. That's what happens in a cult!

The reality is that a competent defence would have no other option than to accept this evidence and try to free Oswald on some other legal technicality.

I wouldn't want to live in your reality.

[Martin Weidmann]

The point I am trying to make is that speculation is disallowed by the courts. By definition speculation is the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. If you want an example here is one where a photo taken about 50-years after the assassination of some items loaned by the national archives to a temporary exhibit is being used to suggest the fake ID was not in LHO’s possession when he was arrested.

See post #312 in this thread if you need further information. My point is that this type of speculation (theorizing and conjecture) would not be allowed in a courtroom. It isn’t difficult to find other such instances in this thread that I pointed out. You can do it….

If you want an example here is one where a photo taken about 50-years after the assassination of some items loaned by the national archives to a temporary exhibit is being used to suggest the fake ID was not in LHO’s possession when he was arrested.

That's not speculation. There are two matters of absolute fact here; (1) the National Archives holds all the evidence in the JFK case and (2) there is no reason for the National Archives to exclude the fake Hidell ID from the content of the wallet so many years after the fact. Yet, the fake Hidell ID isn't there. That's the second absolute fact!

The suggestion that the fake Hidell ID wasn't in the wallet Paul Bentley took the wallet from Oswald in the car is supported by the fact that none of the officers who were in the car with Oswald mentioned the Hidell ID in contemporary reports. Bentley himself was interviewed on television the day after the arrest and never said anything about two different ID's. He wasn't called to testify before the WC and the two officers that did testify (Hill and Carroll) could not get beyond (I'm paraphrasing) statements like "I seem to remember hearing  a second name but I can't say for sure".

So, if we return to the court setting you like so much; the defense would call Bentley, Hill and Carroll and simply destroy them. Then they would call Westbrook, McCroy and Barrett to determine what they found at the Tippit scene. And then they would ask the question; what happened to the wallet that was found at the Tippit scene.....

[Charles Collins]

If you want an example here is one where a photo taken about 50-years after the assassination of some items loaned by the national archives to a temporary exhibit is being used to suggest the fake ID was not in LHO’s possession when he was arrested.

That's not speculation. There are two matters of absolute fact here; (1) the National Archives holds all the evidence in the JFK case and (2) there is no reason for the National Archives to exclude the fake Hidell ID from the content of the wallet so many years after the fact. Yet, the fake Hidell ID isn't there. That's the second absolute fact!

The suggestion that the fake Hidell ID wasn't in the wallet Paul Bentley took the wallet from Oswald in the car is supported by the fact that none of the officers who were in the car with Oswald mentioned the Hidell ID in contemporary reports. Bentley himself was interviewed on television the day after the arrest and never said anything about two different ID's. He wasn't called to testify before the WC and the two officers that did testify (Hill and Carroll) could not get beyond (I'm paraphrasing) statements like "I seem to remember hearing  a second name but I can't say for sure".

So, if we return to the court setting you like so much; the defense would call Bentley, Hill and Carroll and simply destroy them. Then they would call Westbrook, McCroy and Barrett to determine what they found at the Tippit scene. And then they would ask the question; what happened to the wallet that was found at the Tippit scene.....

The photo taken in 2013 is not firm evidence because there is no evidence whatsoever that the items in that photo are supposed to be a complete inventory of what was in the wallet when LHO was arrested.

[Mike Orr]

Who was Gary Eugene Marlow " The Raven " ?