Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

Nobody said that Rose was waiting for him

You're kidding, right?! that's exactly what you said in reply #303! Right here: "Oswald is brought into the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose is already waiting for him"


Stoval doesn't even contradict him (Rose)

I didn't say that Stovall contradicted Rose. In fact, I said that Stovall's version supported Rose in that Oswald had already been moved to the interrogation room and was sitting down when they got to him. Stovall said that Oswald was brought in and put into an interrogation room while he and Rose were interviewing another witness, and that they did not proceed to Oswald's interrogation room until after they had finished with the witness:

STOVALL: We were talking to a witness that had seen all the people standing out there--he didn't actually see anything, so we didn't even take an affidavit from him because he didn't see anything. While talking to him, the officers brought Lee Harvey Oswald into the Homicide Bureau and put him into an interrogation room we have there at the bureau. After we finished talking to this witness, we went back there and talked to him briefly.

I doubt that they spent a greet deal of time interviewing the witness, but it still takes some time to get from "what is your name" to deciding that the witness isn't saying isn't going to be of much value.  Enough time that they had to continue talking to him for a bit after Oswald was frog-marched in and dumped into an interrogation room chair. And that's enough time for a wallet to be handed off, which takes all of two seconds. No amount of pretense on your part changes that.


Bentley said in his report that he was first in the Homicide bureau and then gave the "identification" to Baker when he went to Captain Westbrook's office.

You keep misrepresenting what Bentley said. He wrote, "I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest."

"Then," not "when." Bentley's use of "then" undermines and contradicts your opinion. He handed the ID over and only then went to Westbrook's office.
'

Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman.

Rose didn't claim that he got the wallet from a patrolman. Once again you either misread or misrepresented what someone said. That's such a habit with you.

Rose didn't claim that he got the wallet from a patrolman. Once again you either misread or misrepresented what someone said. That's such a habit with you.

I never said that he got the wallet from a patrolman. You are the one misrepresenting what I said. This is what Rose told the WC.

"Mr. ROSE. He had already been searched and someone had his billfold. I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not."

Rose wasn't sure who had the wallet but he figured it could be the patrolman who brought him [Oswald] in. Your claim was however that Rose could have gotten the wallet from Baker, a man he worked with and knew. If that were the case, he wouldn't have brought up the patrolman as a possibility, because Rose wouldn't have confused Baker for a patrolman.

The fact that you clearly misunderstood my comment doesn't mean I am misrepresenting anything. Get it now?   

[Mitch Todd]

Rose didn't claim that he got the wallet from a patrolman. Once again you either misread or misrepresented what someone said. That's such a habit with you.

I never said that he got the wallet from a patrolman. You are the one misrepresenting what I said. This is what Rose told the WC.

"Mr. ROSE. He had already been searched and someone had his billfold. I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not."

Rose wasn't sure who had the wallet but he figured it could be the patrolman who brought him [Oswald] in. Your claim was however that Rose could have gotten the wallet from Baker, a man he worked with and knew. If that were the case, he wouldn't have brought up the patrolman as a possibility, because Rose wouldn't have confused Baker for a patrolman.

The fact that you clearly misunderstood my comment doesn't mean I am misrepresenting anything. Get it now?   

I wrote this:

You assume that the handover of the wallet would have been so consequential that Rose could not have forgotten who the source was. But that's just another presumption on your part.  It may be that the handover was such a mundane, routine, trivial act --repeated many times a week, week after week as suspects came and went-- that it faded into the background noise of Rose's memory

and you responded with this:

Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman.

Your statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you believed that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.

[John Mytton]

I wrote this:

You assume that the handover of the wallet would have been so consequential that Rose could not have forgotten who the source was. But that's just another presumption on your part.  It may be that the handover was such a mundane, routine, trivial act --repeated many times a week, week after week as suspects came and went-- that it faded into the background noise of Rose's memory

and you responded with this:

Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman.

Your statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you believed that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.

Well Mitch, at least Martin isn't confusing "information" with "identification" anymore and I say that's progress.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

I wrote this:

You assume that the handover of the wallet would have been so consequential that Rose could not have forgotten who the source was. But that's just another presumption on your part.  It may be that the handover was such a mundane, routine, trivial act --repeated many times a week, week after week as suspects came and went-- that it faded into the background noise of Rose's memory

and you responded with this:

Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman.

Your statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you believed that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.

It is not my problem that you don't understand what I have said.

[Martin Weidmann]

Well Mitch, at least Martin isn't confusing "information" with "identification" anymore and I say that's progress.

JohnM

The troll is still here....

His obsession with me is beginning to get troublesome.

[John Mytton]

The troll is still here....

His obsession with me is beginning to get troublesome.

The troll is still here....

Yep, and I'm not going anywhere!

His obsession with me is beginning to get troublesome.

I was being positive about the progress you are making, why is that a problem?

And it's worth noting to put this interaction into perspective, that you have been compelled to respond to Forty Six(46) of my posts in the last week alone, but do carry on.

Btw did you mean "troublesome" or "tiresome" because surely, my innocent observations shouldn't be causing you any trouble??

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Yep, and I'm not going anywhere!

I was being positive about the progress you are making, why is that a problem?

And it's worth noting to put this interaction into perspective, that you have been compelled to respond to Forty Six(46) of my posts in the last week alone, but do carry on.

Btw did you mean "troublesome" or "tiresome" because surely, my innocent observations shouldn't be causing you any trouble??

JohnM

And it's worth noting to put this interaction into perspective, that you have been compelled to respond to Forty Six(46) of my posts in the last week alone

The obsession on full display; counting the number of my posts and ignoring there must have been at least the same amount of posts from you. As most of those contain some sort of provocation, it's hardly surprising that I reply to them to point out your lies, misrepresentations and stupidity.

Btw did you mean "troublesome" or "tiresome" because surely, my innocent observations shouldn't be causing you any trouble??

No, I meant troublesome. You've been tiresome for a long time now.