Time for Truth

[Alan Ford]

An interesting dispatch:

"There is nothing to this Marsalis [library] here. Let's go back up to the place and work to north Jefferson. We got a witness that saw him shed his jacket and check towards Tyler."

Who was this witness?

[Alan Ford]

So the suspect could have stopped and bought a sweater after killing Tippit and put that on over his "white shirt?

Yikes, you really are flailing here................

Wow!   The police did not pursue him because of what they thought about his shirt/sweater.  The obvious point is that a report of a suspicious person that matches the general description of the suspect warrants a police response.

"matches the general description", lol

A man in a brown shirt does not fit the description of a man in a white shirt.

Your increasingly desperate gaslighting is getting you precisely nowhere, Mr. Smith!

 

[Richard Smith]

Yikes, you really are flailing here................

"matches the general description", lol

A man in a brown shirt does not fit the description of a man in a white shirt.

Your increasingly desperate gaslighting is getting you precisely nowhere, Mr. Smith!

 

Simple question.  Should the police have responded to the report of a person acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the crime scene or not?  Particularly when the person meets the general description of a slender, white male. 

[Alan Ford]

Simple question.  Should the police have responded to the report of a person acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the crime scene or not?  Particularly when the person meets the general description of a slender, white male.

Should the police have responded to the report of a person, who didn't plausibly match the clothing description of the suspect, acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the crime scene?

Fair question! To which the answer is: Yes, absolutely, they should have sent a couple of officers to check it out. There was a chance the man in the brown shirt might be somehow involved.

That would have been a rational and proportional response to a report that was interesting, but not nearly as promising as the library report.

 

[Richard Smith]

Why are you going down this rabbit hole again after recently being humiliated by Bill and others on this topic?

Now I know for sure that your imagination is in full overdrive, again.... 

And Roberts wasn't the only person to confirm that Oswald was wearing a jacket.  Multiple witnesses at the Tippit shooting who later ID Oswald as the shooter indicated that he was wearing a jacket.

Hilarious... More circular "logic"....

If Oswald didn't leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket, then he couldn't have been the man those "multiple witnesses" saw and thus probably mistakenly identified in highly questionable line ups.

What mind boggling logic.  You claimed that Roberts was the "only" person to see Oswald was wearing a jacket.  When it is pointed out that this is false because other witnesses also reported him wearing a jacket you somehow twist this to mean he wasn't wearing a jacket!  Astounding in its lunacy. 

[Alan Ford]

"a jacket", lol

“Oswald did not have a jacket when he came in to the house and I don’t recall what type of clothing he was wearing. Oswald went to his room and was only there a few minutes before coming out. I noticed he had a jacket he was putting on. I recall the jacket was a dark color"

(signed affidavit of Mrs. Earlene Roberts of Dec 5, 1963 for the Warren Commission)

If the sole witness who saw Mr. Oswald leave the rooming house was correct in her recollection that he left wearing a dark jacket, then he may have simply gone to the Texas Theatre with it on and taken it off inside before his arrest.

If the cops found this jacket afterwards, the very last thing they would have wanted to do would be to reveal the fact. That would have destroyed the entire narrative that had been constructed for Officer Tippit's murder.

[Richard Smith]

Should the police have responded to the report of a person, who didn't plausibly match the clothing description of the suspect, acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the crime scene?

Fair question! To which the answer is: Yes, absolutely, they should have sent a couple of officers to check it out. There was a chance the man in the brown shirt might be somehow involved.

That would have been a rational and proportional response to a report that was interesting, but not nearly as promising as the library report.

 

We are making snail-like progress.  No one could have thought it possible!  So the police SHOULD have responded to the TT.  We have cleared that up.  Now grasshopper ask yourself the next question.  Who are the police looking for in that area?  A cop murdering killer.   Is such a person potentially dangerous?  Yes!  This guy could turn out to be that person.  He could turn out not to be that person like the guy in the library where a heavy police response was sent.  What should they do?  Send a light response and potentially get more officers killed or send a heavy response to ensure the safety of the responding officers?

[Alan Ford]

We are making snail-like progress.  No one could have thought it possible!  So the police SHOULD have responded to the TT.  We have cleared that up.  Now grasshopper ask yourself the next question.  Who are the police looking for in that area?  A cop murdering killer.

Wearing a white shirt.

A man in a brown shirt is highly unlikely to be the cop-murdering killer.

You lose!