Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

"Lying about what?"  The DPD indicates that Oswald had a gun in the TT.  Were they "lying about that"?  The DPD confirms that they searched Oswald and discovered the same two brands of ammo on his person that were used to kill Tippit.  Were the "lying about that"?  The DPD and witnesses in the TT indicate that Oswald tried to pull his gun and engaged in a struggle when approached in the TT.  Were all these folks "lying about that"?  Brewer indicated that Oswald drew his attention by acting suspiciously?  Was he "lying about that?"  Does that help?

The DPD indicates that Oswald had a gun in the TT.  Were they "lying about that"?

I don't know. Were they?

The DPD confirms that they searched Oswald and discovered the same two brands of ammo on his person that were used to kill Tippit.  Were the "lying about that"?

If that's what they confirmed, then, yes they were lying, because they only found one brand of ammo on Oswald during the third search.

The DPD and witnesses in the TT indicate that Oswald tried to pull his gun and engaged in a struggle when approached in the TT.  Were all these folks "lying about that"?

Not sure why you keep using the word "indicate" but, as far as I know, nobody actually saw Oswald trying to pull his gun. So, if you mean by "indicate" that they are claiming they actually saw Oswald trying to pull a gun, the answer again is; yes, they were lying.

Brewer indicated that Oswald drew his attention by acting suspiciously?  Was he "lying about that?"

I don't know. I wasn't there, but I do know that Brewer lied about hearing a description on the radio, when no such broadcast was ever made.

Does that help?

Not really... It's just another version of the same old "cop said so, so it must be true" BS

[John Iacoletti]

The DPD confirms that they searched Oswald and discovered the same two brands of ammo on his person that were used to kill Tippit.  Were the "lying about that"?  The DPD and witnesses in the TT indicate that Oswald tried to pull his gun and engaged in a struggle when approached in the TT.  Were all these folks "lying about that"?

No, but you are.

[Richard Smith]

The DPD indicates that Oswald had a gun in the TT.  Were they "lying about that"?

I don't know. Were they?

The DPD confirms that they searched Oswald and discovered the same two brands of ammo on his person that were used to kill Tippit.  Were the "lying about that"?

If that's what they confirmed, then, yes they were lying, because they only found one brand of ammo on Oswald during the third search.

The DPD and witnesses in the TT indicate that Oswald tried to pull his gun and engaged in a struggle when approached in the TT.  Were all these folks "lying about that"?

Not sure why you keep using the word "indicate" but, as far as I know, nobody actually saw Oswald trying to pull his gun. So, if you mean by "indicate" that they are claiming they actually saw Oswald trying to pull a gun, the answer again is; yes, they were lying.

Brewer indicated that Oswald drew his attention by acting suspiciously?  Was he "lying about that?"

I don't know. I wasn't there, but I do know that Brewer lied about hearing a description on the radio, when no such broadcast was ever made.

Does that help?

Not really... It's just another version of the same old "cop said so, so it must be true" BS

So you "don't know" because you weren't there?  Confirming the impossible standard of proof that requires a time machine to prove any fact that you do not want to accept.  The same tired, dishonest contrarian approach.  Numerous people "were there."  They provided their sworn testimony as to what they saw.  This is not just a case of one person possibly being mistaken.  Many of these events were observed by a multitude of individuals.  They would all have to be wrong or lying.  But you are not alleging a conspiracy?  Right?  Just that you don't know because it's possible all these people lied, were mistaken, or acting in ways that can't be explained (e.g. lying about what they heard on the radio).  We would need to be there to confirm what happened.  Thus, no fact in human history could be confirmed unless we were individually present at the event.

[John Iacoletti]

So you "don't know" because you weren't there?  Confirming the impossible standard of proof that requires a time machine to prove any fact that you do not want to accept. 

No, “Richard”, it’s a standard that requires claims to be substantiated, not just accepted on faith. A standard that you yourself require for things like “Landis said so”.

[Martin Weidmann]

No, “Richard”, it’s a standard that requires claims to be substantiated, not just accepted on faith. A standard that you yourself require for things like “Landis said so”.

No, “Richard”, it’s a standard that requires claims to be substantiated, not just accepted on faith.

He will never ever understand that, John....

He simply doesn't get that random members of a jury in any criminal case were also not at the scene when the crime happened. It's the job of the prosecutor to convince them of somebody's guilt and he needs to do it by presenting credible authentic evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

So you "don't know" because you weren't there?  Confirming the impossible standard of proof that requires a time machine to prove any fact that you do not want to accept.  The same tired, dishonest contrarian approach.  Numerous people "were there."  They provided their sworn testimony as to what they saw.  This is not just a case of one person possibly being mistaken.  Many of these events were observed by a multitude of individuals.  They would all have to be wrong or lying.  But you are not alleging a conspiracy?  Right?  Just that you don't know because it's possible all these people lied, were mistaken, or acting in ways that can't be explained (e.g. lying about what they heard on the radio).  We would need to be there to confirm what happened.  Thus, no fact in human history could be confirmed unless we were individually present at the event.

So you "don't know" because you weren't there?

Indeed. And you were not there either, so what makes you think you know? "Cop said so", right?

The same tired, dishonest contrarian approach. 

So, now "Richard" goes off the deep end completely! Asking for credible authentic evidence is "the same tired, dishonest contrarian approach? Hilarious.... It seems in "Richard"'s world, you don't need evidence and if there is some nevertheless, only those parts of the evidence that point to guilt are credible for "Richard". Everything else is dismissed out of hand.... Completely delusional!

Numerous people "were there."  They provided their sworn testimony as to what they saw.

So what? You previously claimed that they saw Oswald "trying to pull his gun". Name me one witness who actually said he saw that?

This is not just a case of one person possibly being mistaken.  Many of these events were observed by a multitude of individuals.  They would all have to be wrong or lying.

ad populum fallacy!

Just that you don't know because it's possible all these people lied, were mistaken, or acting in ways that can't be explained (e.g. lying about what they heard on the radio).

Of course it is possible that "all these people" lied, but IMO it's far more likely they were mistaken and/or simply embellished their story. One thing is for sure, we know that Brewer lied about hearing a description on the radio, because none was broadcast at the time he claimed he heard it. We also know that McDonald has been loose and free with the truth. And, more importantly, we know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest and most dubious evidence there is.

We would need to be there to confirm what happened.  Thus, no fact in human history could be confirmed unless we were individually present at the event.

Utter BS, but it seems that's all you've got

[Zeon Mason]

If Earlene Roberts saw a dark blue jacket being “zipped” on Oswald as he exited then unless Oswald was wearing the light gray jacket too , underneath of that blue jacket, then Oswald could not have shot  Tippit.

But if Oswald was wearing both the dark blue jacket and the light gray jacket then would not the blue jacket have been found discarded somewhere also along the alleged route  Oswald took from leaving 10th and Patton to the Texas theater , ( or even the theater itself) thus the blue jacket would never have been found  the Domino room?

Since it’s seems a rather low probability that such a light gray  jacket could ever appear so dark as the dark blue jacket to Earlene Roberts, and since there’s not a suitable explanation for how the Blue jacket would wind up in the Domino room if Oswald was wearing both jackets, then there seems left only  4 options:

1. Earlene Roberts saw Oswald zipping up a dark blue jacket and Oswald was not wearing the light gray jacket underneath.
2. Roberts  saw Oswald in his darker brown shirt on as he went out and mistook him buttoning it up as “zipping”
3. Roberts was colorblind , the lights were off inside the house and there wasn’t enough sunlight streaming so the light gray jacket appeared as dark blue to Roberts.
4. Roberts was looney and prone to exaggeration and outright fabrication of false narratives.

Imo no.1 is more probable than the other options.