The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT

[Michael Capasse]

This is what the CTs never understand. The case against Oswald never wasn't going to trial once he was pronounced dead. From a historical perspective, the only thing we should ask ourselves is whether a piece of evidence is the real deal. CTs act like they are trying to get Oswald off on technicalities. I've never understood that perspective. If you are interested in figuring out how JFK died and also Tippit, you shouldn't dismiss any evidence. You should simply be concerned with whether that piece of evidence helps to tell us what happened. On the other hand, if you are dedicated to arguing for Oswald's innocence in either murder, you just want excuses to disregard the evidence of his guilt. The problem with that approach is there is so damn much evidence you have to come up with lots of excuses. Sometimes you even have to invent excuses.

That's some nutter's  right there.

[John Mytton]

That's the nutter's  right there.

Wow, what a coincidence, like clockwork when Weidman's in trouble, here come his White Knight in Shining Armour! Hilarious!

JohnM

[Michael Capasse]

Wow, what a coincidence, like clockwork when Weidman's in trouble, here come his White Knight in Shining Armour! Hilarious!

JohnM

Weidman's in trouble?
  NO actually, he kicks your butt every time.

[John Corbett]

And those are the words of an extremely confused person;

Earlene Roberts isn't important because we have much more compelling evidence than her recollection, namely that the witnesses to the shooting saw him wearing a jacket and HIS jacket was found under a car a short distance away.

Roberts is important, because if Oswald left the rooming house without a jacket, nobody could have seen him "wearing a jacket" while shooting Tippit. And no, there is not a shred of evidence that the (white) jacket found under a car is the same one (the grey one) that's now in evidence as CE 162. Once again the master of assumptions strikes again!

Right. Maybe Oswald's jacket ended up under the car by PFM.

So, now he believes in magic when he needs it! 

Right. Maybe it is just a coincidence that the jacket that was found under the car had fibers that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing. The same matching fibers were also found on the butt plate of the assassination rifle.

Oh boy, here he goes again with the fibers BS! But never mind, it doesn't matter as it is of course probable that fibers of Oswald's shirt were found in the grey jacket that's now in evidence. What you still can't figure out is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the white jacket found under the car is the same as Oswald's grey jacket that's now in evidence. I guess it must all be just a little too difficult for you to understand this.

But I guess that is all just an amazing coincidence and that Oswald was just the unluckiest SOB that ever lived.

So, being an unlucky SOB makes a murderer in your mind?

Are you still pretending fiber matching isn't real evidence? Are you still pretending our courts haven't accepted that as valid evidence for decades?

[Martin Weidmann]

Are you still pretending fiber matching isn't real evidence? Are you still pretending our courts haven't accepted that as valid evidence for decades?

You have got to laugh about the LN BS

On the one hand we have just had three LNs basically saying "once Oswald was dead nobody cared about the authenticity of the evidence".
Which of course means that they just threw bits and pieces together to wrap the case around an already dead man who couldn't defend himself.

And then on the other hand this clown keeps going on about what courts have accepted as "valid evidence".

[Martin Weidmann]

Once Oswald was murdered and there'd be no trial, there was no concern for a proper chain of custody of the jacket.

Don't you understand how idiotic that sounds?

But to follow your thinking; who cares if the jacket found under a car belongs to Oswald. Let's just say it does and make it easier to call him guilty. Is that what you are saying?

[Bill Brown]

On the one hand we have just had three LNs basically saying "once Oswald was dead nobody cared about the authenticity of the evidence".
Which of course means that they just threw bits and pieces together to wrap the case around an already dead man who couldn't defend himself.

Don't you understand how idiotic that sounds?

But to follow your thinking; who cares if the jacket found under a car belongs to Oswald. Let's just say it does and make it easier to call him guilty. Is that what you are saying?

First, I didn't say anything about the weapon, the bullets or the shell casings.  I only referred to the jacket, as far as the authorities feeling no need to pursue a chain of custody.

Secondly, I said what I said and I did not say what I did not say.  Make sense?