Two Wallets? Nope.

[Martin Weidmann]

Well, not exactly. I understood from the links Duncan sent me privately that he accepts the Michael character as a real individual; at least that's how I interpreted the links. I stand by my research. I don't know exactly what game is being played, but a game is definitely being played that is inconsistent with honest discussion at an honest forum.

What sort of individual(s) find(s) it a worthwhile and productive use of time to post virtually nothing but snarky, non-substantive one-liners on an obscure JFKA forum would certainly make for an interesting psychological study.

but a game is definitely being played that is inconsistent with honest discussion at an honest forum.

You should know, as you are one of the individuals playing it and you seem to be determined to keep on playing it. Says it all, really!

[Lance Payette]

but a game is definitely being played that is inconsistent with honest discussion at an honest forum.

You should know, as you are one of the individuals playing it and you seem to be determined to keep on playing it. Says it all, really!

I note that the JFK Boards, which purport to have been in existence nearly 7 years, have - wait for it - 11 members! Michael Capasse, assuming he exists, and Tom Sorensen, assuming he exists and is a separate individual, appear to do the vast majority of the posting. Yet both Michael and Tom show up here from time to time in support of Martin (assuming he exists and is a separate individual) with weirdly snarky one-liners and the occasional  in support of Martin's posts. Odd, but I'll let it go since I am relegating all three to the realm of non-existence insofar as I'm concerned.

I'm reminded of Thoreau's quote after his publisher required him to take back 706 unsold copies of A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers: "I now have a library of nearly 900 volumes, more than 700 of which I wrote myself." Perhaps the Administrator(s) of JFK Boards can similarly say, "I now have a forum with 11 members, 8 of which are me!"

[Martin Weidmann]

I note that the JFK Boards, which purport to have been in existence nearly 7 years, have - wait for it - 11 members! Michael Capasse, assuming he exists, and Tom Sorensen, assuming he exists and is a separate individual, appear to do the vast majority of the posting. Yet both Michael and Tom show up here from time to time in support of Martin (assuming he exists and is a separate individual) with weirdly snarky one-liners and the occasional  in support of Martin's posts. Odd, but I'll let it go since I am relegating all three to the realm of non-existence insofar as I'm concerned.

I'm reminded of Thoreau's quote after his publisher required him to take back 706 unsold copies of A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers: "I now have a library of nearly 900 volumes, more than 700 of which I wrote myself." Perhaps the Administrator(s) of JFK Boards can similarly say, "I now have a forum with 11 members, 8 of which are me!"

I am relegating all three to the realm of non-existence insofar as I'm concerned.

 

[Richard Smith]

To summarize:

1) Planted wallet - Problem:  It makes no sense to go to the time and risk of planting a wallet at the crime to then suppress that highly incriminating piece of evidence.  The conspirators would certainly have anticipated that Oswald would have his own wallet on him upon arrest.

2) Wallet of the shooter dropped at the scene.   Problem:  The police would have immediately radioed out the name and description of the wallet's owner as a potential murder suspect.  Didn't happen.

3) Discarded wallet having nothing to do with the crime - Problem:  A coincidence that seems highly improbable.
 
4) Witness wallet - Problem:  it would be odd for the police to take the wallet of some bystander and look through it in that manner.  Why not just ask for an ID or whatever they are looking for?

5) Tippit citation book or small note pad - this would explain why the police are examining it in the manner depicted and didn't call out the name of a suspect. If it contained no relevant information, it goes unmentioned.   All the stars align.

[Martin Weidmann]

To summarize:

1) Planted wallet - Problem:  It makes no sense to go to the time and risk of planting a wallet at the crime to then suppress that highly incriminating piece of evidence.  The conspirators would certainly have anticipated that Oswald would have his own wallet on him upon arrest.

2) Wallet of the shooter dropped at the scene.   Problem:  The police would have immediately radioed out the name and description of the wallet's owner as a potential murder suspect.  Didn't happen.

3) Discarded wallet having nothing to do with the crime - Problem:  A coincidence that seems highly improbable.
 
4) Witness wallet - Problem:  it would be odd for the police to take the wallet of some bystander and look through it in that manner.  Why not just ask for an ID or whatever they are looking for?

5) Tippit citation book or small note pad - this would explain why the police are examining it in the manner depicted and didn't call out the name of a suspect. If it contained no relevant information, it goes unmentioned.   All the stars align.

Your buddy "John Mytton" has already proven you wrong about the citation book.

Too bad your straw man arguments are simply not credible either.

You must be getting desperate by now!

[Richard Smith]

LOL.  If "Martin" from "Europe" who doesn't understand the metric system wants to prove me wrong, how about addressing the significant problems noted with the individual possibilities? Or perhaps account what happened to Tippit's citation book?

[Martin Weidmann]

LOL.  If "Martin" from "Europe" who doesn't understand the metric system wants to prove me wrong, how about addressing the significant problems noted with the individual possibilities? Or perhaps account what happened to Tippit's citation book?

You mean the "significant problems" you have created but don't really exist?

It doesn't matter what you say to the stubborn man who thinks he's always right but hardly ever is.