For Martin Weidmann, re: Validity of Evidence

[Jerry Freeman]

Did you have  to look it up on Merriam Webster, Bill?

Honestly, I had to look it up. I thought it meant some kind of bodily fluid

[John Iacoletti]

BUMP

=================================

I created this thread versus hijacking other threads.  This thread is not intended to mock.  I ask in all sincerity...

Martin Weidmann, John Iacoletti,

Would you mind listing a piece of evidence in the case, which points to Oswald's guilt, that you DO consider authentic?  Or, if you'd rather, I can list various pieces of evidence and you can let me know if you accept it as valid or not.

List various pieces of evidence that you think point to Oswald's guilt and define what you mean by "authentic".

[Bill Chapman]

List various pieces of evidence that you think point to Oswald's guilt and define what you mean by "authentic".

Let me point out that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person on the face of the earth who can be identified as being on the scene during both murders

Take that little gem to the (blood) bank

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Let me point out that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person on the face of the earth who can be identified as being on the scene during both murders

Take that little gem to the (blood) bank

I'll add that it seems to me that someone who expects help, someone who is part of a larger conspiracy involving powerful elements or figures wouldn't shoot a police officer. Not in broad daylight, not in such an obvious manner.

Oswald's shooting of Tippit was the act of a desperate person, someone essentially fighting for his life. It's why he didn't worry about hiding the shells.

It's impossible here to prove a negative: that is prove that Oswald didn't have help. But if he did have help they must not have been people who he thought could free him if caught. Otherwise why blow away Tippit?

[Walt Cakebread]

I'll add that it seems to me that someone who expects help, someone who is part of a larger conspiracy involving powerful elements or figures wouldn't shoot a police officer. Not in broad daylight, not in such an obvious manner.

Oswald's shooting of Tippit was the act of a desperate person, someone essentially fighting for his life. It's why he didn't worry about hiding the shells.

It's impossible here to prove a negative: that is prove that Oswald didn't have help. But if he did have help they must not have been people who he thought could free him if caught. Otherwise why blow away Tippit?

Lee Oswald DID NOT "blow away" Tippit!.....

[Bill Chapman]

I'll add that it seems to me that someone who expects help, someone who is part of a larger conspiracy involving powerful elements or figures wouldn't shoot a police officer. Not in broad daylight, not in such an obvious manner.

Oswald's shooting of Tippit was the act of a desperate person, someone essentially fighting for his life. It's why he didn't worry about hiding the shells.

It's impossible here to prove a negative: that is prove that Oswald didn't have help. But if he did have help they must not have been people who he thought could free him if caught. Otherwise why blow away Tippit?

My post is in response to the OP: Oswald was the only person identified at the scene during both murders... therefore is valid evidence.

Aside from that, it seems to me Oswald was winging it.

[Bill Brown]

List various pieces of evidence that you think point to Oswald's guilt and define what you mean by "authentic".

Again, would you mind listing a piece of evidence in the case, which points to Oswald's guilt, that you DO consider authentic?

[John Iacoletti]

Let me point out that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person on the face of the earth who can be identified as being on the scene during both murders

That would depend on what you think constitutes "identified".

[John Iacoletti]

Again, would you mind listing a piece of evidence in the case, which points to Oswald's guilt, that you DO consider authentic?

I'm taking you up on your offer:

Or, if you'd rather, I can list various pieces of evidence and you can let me know if you accept it as valid or not.

I'm pretty sure we disagree on what constitutes "evidence pointing to Oswald's guilt".

[Jon Banks]

I'll add that it seems to me that someone who expects help, someone who is part of a larger conspiracy involving powerful elements or figures wouldn't shoot a police officer. Not in broad daylight, not in such an obvious manner.

Oswald's shooting of Tippit was the act of a desperate person, someone essentially fighting for his life. It's why he didn't worry about hiding the shells.

It's impossible here to prove a negative: that is prove that Oswald didn't have help. But if he did have help they must not have been people who he thought could free him if caught. Otherwise why blow away Tippit?

I?m inclined to believe Oswald shot Tippet but you can?t rule out a Conspiracy just based on the assumption that one guy was involved in two murders.

With that said, we don?t know where Oswald was going when Tippet stopped him or why Tippet got out of his car to approach Oswald. It?s plausible that Oswald was attempting to meet up with someone before the encounter with Tippet. I don?t believe the Texas Theatre was where he had originally intended to go...