Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Bill Brown]

One runner congratulating another runner.... This is hilarious.

Have you figured out where you went wrong with Callaway (helping to put Tippit into the ambulance after - not before - his call) yet?

And have you found the evidence that the Nash couple actually saw the time stamped card for the ambulance, or do you need more time for that one as well?

Have you figured out where you went wrong with Callaway (helping to put Tippit into the ambulance after - not before - his call) yet?

I didn't go wrong anywhere.  You don't know what you're talking about.  Your issue, not mine.  It's all in the police tapes.  Go have a listen.

And have you found the evidence that the Nash couple actually saw the time stamped card for the ambulance, or do you need more time for that one as well?

Learn the case.

[Martin Weidmann]

11/23/63 FBI interview with Whaley (below).  Whaley gives a detailed description of Oswald's shirt, makes no mention of a jacket and even goes as far as describing that his infamous passenger's shirt had long sleeves.

You LNs really need to synchronize your stories better. You've just destroyed Dan O'meara's false claim that Oswald left the TSBD wearing the grey jacket (CE 162). Great stuff 

[Martin Weidmann]

I didn't go wrong anywhere.  You don't know what you're talking about.  Your issue, not mine.  It's all in the police tapes.  Go have a listen.


Learn the case.

You can be as stubborn and/or patronizing as you want to be, but that still doesn't alter the fact that you were (and still are) wrong about Callaway. If you had read the full Nash article you would have known that the ambulance driver tried to call the dispatcher to tell him the victim was a police man when he couldn't get through because of Callaway being on the police radio. That's what's in the police tapes and you have simply misinterpret it.

As for the Nash claim, I will take your pathetic "Learn the case" remark as an admission that you are unable to produce the evidence I asked for to support your false and incorrect claim.

It is not my problem that your ego prevents you from admitting you were wrong on both counts.
 

[Bill Brown]

Whaley's 11/23/63 affidavit.  Again, no mention of a jacket, even describing spots on the shirt:

[Bill Brown]

You can be as stubborn and/or patronizing as you want to be, but that still doesn't alter the fact that you were (and still are) wrong about Callaway. If you had read the full Nash article you would have known that the ambulance driver tried to call the dispatcher to tell him the victim was a police man when he couldn't get through because of Callaway being on the police radio. That's what's in the police tapes and you have simply misinterpret it.

As for the Nash claim, I will take your pathetic "Learn the case" remark as an admission that you are unable to produce the evidence I asked for to support your false and incorrect claim.

It is not my problem that your ego prevents you from admitting you were wrong on both counts.

Your incorrect interpretation of the radio calls mentioned in the Nash article doesn't mean anything at all, related to the police tapes telling you that Callaway made the call to the police dispatcher after helping load the body into the ambulance.

I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make him drink from it, blah blah blah

[Richard Smith]

No one knows Oswald's exact route.

Even worse. No one knows if Oswald did in fact walk the distance at all. It is just assumed that he did.

What is known beyond any doubt - as confirmed by multiple witnesses and the evidence - is that Oswald was at the scene of the Tippit murder.

Beyond any doubt? Really?

Applying basic common sense to that fact then informs us that if Oswald was at the scene, then he had time to get there regardless of the pedantic nitpicking of a contrarian.

Circular logic!

Common sense is a poor substitute for actual evidence. But if you want to play that game, how about the other side of the same coin;

If Oswald couldn't physically be at 10th street when Tippit was killed, because he simply did not have enough time to get there, then common sense should tell you that the witnesses (the least reliable evidence there is, to begin with) are simply wrong.

See how easy it is.....

The events of that day only happened in one way, which means that it isn't enough to just say Oswald had time to get there. Prove it...... but you won't, because you can't!

Silly.   I realize this is hopeless but perhaps others have a better grasp of logic than yourself.  Try this.  A person is holding a winning lottery ticket in their hand.  Would arguing that the odds of winning the lottery were so long that this person could not have possibly won cast doubt on this fact?  Of course not.   Multiple witnesses and the evidence place Oswald at the Tippit murder scene (regardless of your endless speculation about the exact minute that this event occurred).  Therefore it renders your pedantic speculation about the timeline moot as it applies to Oswald's presence at the crime scene.   A fact is still a fact even if you could prove the odds were against it happening.  In this case your claim that the timeline was tight.  Something you haven't even done here.  You have just gone on and on and on in your desperate attempt to raise false doubt of Oswald's guilt. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Silly.   I realize this is hopeless but perhaps others have a better grasp of logic than yourself.  Try this.  A person is holding a winning lottery ticket in their hand.  Would arguing that the odds of winning the lottery were so long that this person could not have possibly won cast doubt on this fact?  Of course not.   Multiple witnesses and the evidence place Oswald at the Tippit murder scene (regardless of your endless speculation about the exact minute that this event occurred).  Therefore it renders your pedantic speculation about the timeline moot as it applies to Oswald's presence at the crime scene.   A fact is still a fact even if you could prove the odds were against it happening.  In this case your claim that the timeline was tight.  Something you haven't even done here.  You have just gone on and on and on in your desperate attempt to raise false doubt of Oswald's guilt.

Try this.  A person is holding a winning lottery ticket in their hand.  Would arguing that the odds of winning the lottery were so long that this person could not have possibly won cast doubt on this fact?  Of course not.

That's a stupid equation. The one you propose is a mathematical proposition that tells us that the odds of winning the lottery may be long but certainly not impossible. 

Where as, this rubbish;

Multiple witnesses and the evidence place Oswald at the Tippit murder scene (regardless of your endless speculation about the exact minute that this event occurred).

has nothing to do with a mathematical probability at all and everything to do with personal opinion about the "quality" (and I use the word loosely) of the evidence.

Therefore it renders your pedantic speculation about the timeline moot as it applies to Oswald's presence at the crime scene.   A fact is still a fact even if you could prove the odds were against it happening.

A fact is a fact, that's true, but your opinion isn't a fact. That's where you go wrong every time.

In this case your claim that the timeline was tight.

We've gone way passed that by now. Were you not paying attention?

You have just gone on and on and on in your desperate attempt to raise false doubt of Oswald's guilt.

Now, why would I wanna do that? You're way too paranoid. I'll gladly accept that Oswald killed Tippit. All you need to do is provide the conclusive evidence that he did. So, far you've failed miserably to do so, so in fact you are the one who is actually raising the doubt about Oswald's guilt.