Podcast On Tippit

[Martin Weidmann]

Graphic created by David Von Pein

If you can't quote from the bible (the WC report) there's always bugs and his self-serving BS.

Always handy of course when you are desperately trying to avoid answering this question.

So, again, let me get this straight, without you having any legal expertise you feel that you can refute legal claims and school people on the law and legal standards?.

And just for the record; I have never said that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because of a chain of custody problem.
I've only recently said that in 1964 Oswald most likely would have been convicted regardless of how weak the chain of custody for some of the evidence was.

So, none of this crappy quote applies to the discussion we are having.

[John Mytton]

Yawn! Again, you bash a poor woman who simply saw Oswald zipping up his jacket and as agree this is verified by a plethora of eyewitnesses who also saw Oswald wearing a jacket. All these eyewitnesses independently saw the same thing. And let's not forget at the Tippit crime scene, Oswald was seen emptying his revolver and these shells were recovered and were an exclusive match to the revolver in evidence and this revolver is the same revolver he ordered and received and was arrested with. Try and wiggle out of that Weidmann.

There is no plethora of eyewitnesses who saw Oswald wearing a jacket. There are few people that saw a man wearing a jacket and that same pre-selected group later identified Oswald at a very questionable line up.

I say again; If Earlene Roberts was wrong and Oswald left the rooming house without wearing a jacket those witnesses could not have seen Oswald during and after the killing.

All these eyewitnesses independently saw the same thing.

Which in the real world is a near impossibility. When 5 people watch a car crash on an intersection, you'll get five different stories about what happened.
Eyewitness testimony (including identification) is the worst kind of evidence. Yet her you are to rely on it in other the make it more plausible that Roberts did see a jacket.

I say again; there is evidence that shows that Oswald's grey jacket was in Irving on Thursday evening and thus could not have been at Oak Cliff on Friday midday!

And let's not forget at the Tippit crime scene, Oswald was seen emptying his revolver and these shells were recovered and were an exclusive match to the revolver in evidence and this revolver is the same revolver he ordered and received and was arrested with. Try and wiggle out of that Weidmann.

Don't have to! There is no chain of custody for the revolver taken from Oswald.

I said "can" not "can't"

Indeed, my bad. That actually makes it worse. How is it you can understand that CT's concentrate only on the jacket if - as you falsely claim - there is a lot more evidence. What would be the point for them to do that?

She only needed a few seconds to see Oswald zipping up his jacket. Because Earlene was blind in one eye doesn't mean she was blind. Your attack on Earlene is clueless, desperate and unwarranted.

Yeah right, just like Frazier only needed a few seconds to see Oswald putting the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. And Frazier wasn't even half blind.

Your attack on Earlene is clueless, desperate and unwarranted.

She was blind in one eye, wasn't paying much attention and her employer called her somebody who made up stories. LNs don't believe a word she said except the part about the jacket.
Yeah, that's a real solid reliable witness!

Are you saying that the Police took the jacket and planted it under a car

No. They found a white jacket that was probably put under a car by the guy who shot Tippit.

or even more bizarre swapped it?

Swapped it? Where"At the car park? No.

Have you even thought this through? How did they even know the killer was wearing a light coloured jacket?

They didn't. That's the point. You don't get this? It's so simple; Oswald was arrested and their only suspect. They weren't even looking further. And then a white jacket shows up that they can not match to Oswald in any way. But roughly at the same time, the officers who searched Ruth Paine's house return to the station and they bring with them a grey jacket that they knew belonged to Oswald. Do the math. 

The Jacket may have been interpreted to be white by a Police Officer! So what?

How do you describe a jacket that you are holding or at least seeing up close as being white when it actually isn't?

And it wasn't one police officer! There were several officers who described it as white!

Please explain how you know the Officers who initialled the jacket had nothing to do with the chain of custody of the jacket?

Because none of them were near the car park where the jacket was found and Westbrook didn't name any of them and instead said he gave the jacket to an unidentified patrol officer.
But you will find that some of them did mark the revolver as well and we know that happened in the DPD lunchroom after Oswald had been brought in. I don't this won't be easy for you, but try to figure it out what actually happened.

Wow, another wall of text of mainly self serving guesses!

But one thing that's new is you're saying that the jacket found under the car was probably put under the car by the killer, so how do most of the witnesses, who saw the killer and say the jacket was a light coloured grey or beige suddenly becomes a white jacket? WOW!

BTW I like your story of how Oswald's jacket was the same type and style as the one seen being held by the Policeman in the video and then back at headquarters some dishonest Policeman who had access to the evidence room and was aware of all the collected evidence, somehow mysteriously swaps Oswald's jacket for the one in evidence, what are the chances that the Jackets are almost the same colour, same style and appear to be the same size. Let me tell you the chances are not good and it's just another product of a CT's wet dream. Do the math, indeed!

The more you try to create a narrative for your massive conspiracy, the more unwieldly, illogical and frankly ridiculous it becomes.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

So, again, let me get this straight, without you having any legal expertise you feel that you can refute legal claims and school people on the law and legal standards?.

I just gave you an example of when you foolishly kept asking for "conclusive evidence" and claimed it was required to arrive at "Beyond all reasonable doubt"

You simply don't understand that "conclusive evidence" means that the evidence is authenticated. Once again you are in way over your head. Not surprising though, as you deny having any legal knowledge at all. 

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

AHA!!! So you finally acknowledge that eyewitness testimony is less than reliable in establishing facts. We are making progress here.

What are you babbling about. I have always said that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence.
But that doesn't mean that all eyewitnesses are always wrong.

[Martin Weidmann]

Duplicate

[Martin Weidmann]

Wow, another wall of text of mainly self serving guesses!

But one thing that's new is you're saying that the jacket found under the car was probably put under the car by the killer, so how do most of the witnesses, who saw the killer and say the jacket was a light coloured grey or beige suddenly becomes a white jacket? WOW!

BTW I like your story of how Oswald's jacket was the same type and style as the one seen being held by the Policeman in the video and then back at headquarters some dishonest Policeman who had access to the evidence room and was aware of all the collected evidence, somehow mysteriously swaps Oswald's jacket for the one in evidence, what are the chances that the Jackets are almost the same colour, same style and appear to be the same size. Let me tell you the chances are not good and it's just another product of a CT's wet dream. Do the math, indeed!

The more you try to create a narrative for your massive conspiracy, the more unwieldly, illogical and frankly ridiculous it becomes.

JohnM

But one thing that's new is you're saying that the jacket found under the car was probably put under the car by the killer,

It is a plausible assumption.

so how do most of the witnesses, who saw the killer and say the jacket was a light coloured grey or beige suddenly becomes a white jacket? WOW!

Well, as you always claim, sunlight can cause the color to be different because of shade and depending from where you look and how far away you are.

Btw which witnesses said the jacket was light colored grey or beige?

BTW I like your story of how Oswald's jacket was the same type and style as the one seen being held by the Policeman in the video

Was it? I didn't say it was the same type and style. That's just your imagination filling in the blanks in a biased manner as per usual.
But it certainly looked similar but I've only seen a photo of the back side and there is no way to make the determination you want to make but can not support!

what are the chances that the Jackets are almost the same colour, same style and appear to be the same size.

Were they? Did you examine both jackets or are you just making this stuff up?

The more you try to create a narrative for your massive conspiracy, the more unwieldly, illogical and frankly ridiculous it becomes.

My massive conspiracy? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Martin Weidmann]

JohnM

As I said, you don't understand what I mean with "conclusive evidence"!

I have never used the term "absolute, 100% certainty". As per usual you are jumping to a completely wrong conclusion.

But feel free to keep on google searches to find stuff like this to fit what you have misrepresented I allegedly said but never really did.

Who knows you might even find something to help you claim that the word "conclusive" is the same as "100% certainty".   

[Martin Weidmann]

Duplicate