Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?

[Richard Smith]

Do you think a single person who has ever read your tortured contrarian efforts to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt believes for one second that this pedantic analysis of a minor event is just to contribute our to general knowledge?

Who said it was to contribute to general knowledge? Bill Brown and I were just having a discussion when you jumped in with all your usual of topic BS. We didn't ask for anybody's opinion. So, why don't you ask Bill Brown, since he brought it up with the erroneous assertion that Callaway helped load Tippit into the ambulance before he made his call. He might have a different take on this.

Btw, as far as contributions go, I'm pretty sure not one of your post has ever made any kind of significant contribution to any discussion on this forum. But then, that's not what you are here for, right?

This is just a furtherance of your lazy effort to be a CTer without ever taking any position.

Unlike you, who has taken a position but has never been able to support it with evidence or defend or even explain it.... 

Do you think the timeline casts doubt on Oswald's presence at the moment Tippit was murdered or not?

The timeline as a whole? It surely has evidentiary value, if that's what you mean, but why am I saying this to you when you are clearly absolutely clueless about the significance of actual evidence.

Despite the overwhelming evidence including multiple witnesses who confirm his presence on a public street in broad daylight at the scene.

Although I will probably not get an answer, let me ask you three questions;

1. Do you have any idea how many people in the country have been wrongfully convicted based on flawed and incorrect eye-witness identifications?

2. Do you think it is plausible or even possible for two people, who get everything else wrong, to positively identify a man who they have only seen for a couple of seconds as he ran by their front door?

3. Do you really believe that all those witness identifications of Oswald would stand up under scrutiny by a competent defense lawyer?

Here is the difference.  And it is significant.  Bill understands that the evidence places Oswald at the scene and the timeline does not change that.  If the evidence confirms Oswald was there, then that is the best possible evidence that he was there regardless of what time this event occurred.  You refuse to even state what relevance the timeline has.  It has "evidentiary" value?  LOL.  "Evidentiary" of what exactly?  There is no doubt based on multiple witness confirmations and other evidence that Oswald was present at the scene at the time Tippit was murdered.  The only possible "evidentiary" value the timeline has is to pinpoint the time Oswald killed Tippit.  Not whether he did so.  This is just a continuation of your contrarian game of nitpicking the evidence against Oswald to tortuous levels, implying that something else or someone else was involved, then denying that you are a CTer or even suggesting a conspiracy.  If Oswald did not murder JFK and Tippit and all the evidence is suspect (as you continually suggest) then you are a CTer whether you ever admit it or not.   

[Martin Weidmann]

Here is the difference.  And it is significant.  Bill understands that the evidence places Oswald at the scene and the timeline does not change that.  If the evidence confirms Oswald was there, then that is the best possible evidence that he was there regardless of what time this event occurred.  You refuse to even state what relevance the timeline has.  It has "evidentiary" value?  LOL.  "Evidentiary" of what exactly?  There is no doubt based on multiple witness confirmations and other evidence that Oswald was present at the scene at the time Tippit was murdered.  The only possible "evidentiary" value the timeline has is to pinpoint the time Oswald killed Tippit.  Not whether he did so.  This is just a continuation of your contrarian game of nitpicking the evidence against Oswald to tortuous levels, implying that something else or someone else was involved, then denying that you are a CTer or even suggesting a conspiracy.  If Oswald did not murder JFK and Tippit and all the evidence is suspect (as you continually suggest) then you are a CTer whether you ever admit it or not.

As predicted, not one single answer to my three questions.... No real surprise there.

Only yet another silly repetitive rant with nothing of any significance in it.

But thank you for demonstrating so clearly that you are absolutely clueless about the significance of actual evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

Here is the difference.  And it is significant.  Bill understands that the evidence places Oswald at the scene and the timeline does not change that.

No, that’s your agenda. Bill is convinced that Callaway helped load Tippit into the ambulance before he used the radio, and that is what’s being discussed here.

There is no doubt based on multiple witness confirmations and other evidence that Oswald was present at the scene at the time Tippit was murdered.

Still waiting on that “other evidence”.

[Bill Chapman]

This one is the 'type' to use
More of a loser look

[Richard Smith]

As predicted, not one single answer to my three questions.... No real surprise there.

Only yet another silly repetitive rant with nothing of any significance in it.

But thank you for demonstrating so clearly that you are absolutely clueless about the significance of actual evidence.

Your questions are ridiculous.  Because there may be examples in history of someone being convicted based upon false witness identification does not mean that the witness identifications in this case are suspect.  That is defense attorney deflection that is an implicit acknowledgement of guilt.  The exception does not prove the rule.  In this case, there were multiple witnesses.  Not just one.  They would all have to be wrong.  In addition, there was other evidence that links Oswald to the crime such as his possession of the murder weapon, same two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit, suspicious behavior which led random citizens to alert the police, resisting arrest instead of asking what the police wanted.  That totality of circumstance is overwhelming to place Oswald at the scene.  To respond that are some instances in history of misidentification is rabbit hole deflection.  Weak sauce.  I don't think even you believe that all these witnesses and circumstances that link Oswald to the Tippit murder are just bad luck.  Rather, it's just a hobby to see how long you can avoid admitting checkmate and extend the discussion endlessly.

[John Iacoletti]

Because there may be examples in history of someone being convicted based upon false witness identification does not mean that the witness identifications in this case are suspect.

They are suspect because they didn’t come close to meeting any reasonable standard of a fair lineup/showup.

In this case, there were multiple witnesses.

Who all attended unfair, biased lineups.

Not just one. 

Only one of them saw anybody shoot anybody.

They would all have to be wrong.  In addition, there was other evidence that links Oswald to the crime such as his possession of the murder weapon,

Correction: a gun you cannot demonstrate was ever in Oswald’s possession may or may not have been the murder weapon.

same two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit,

Wrong. The bullets allegedly found in Oswald’s pocket hours after his arrest were all one brand.

suspicious behavior which led random citizens to alert the police

LOL. That’s “evidence”?

resisting arrest instead of asking what the police wanted.

They had no probable cause to search him or arrest him for murder.

  That totality of circumstance is overwhelming to place Oswald at the scene

None of these things place Oswald at the scene other than your questionable identifications.

[Bill Chapman]

Murder weapon not needed to convict

Only one person saw Oswald shoot the officer
_Only one needed
  The others didn't need to see the shooting
  They confirmed Oswald's presence 

The Only UnBiased Lineup possible in CTWonderland:


billchapman

[Martin Weidmann]

That is defense attorney deflection that is an implicit acknowledgement of guilt.

suspicious behavior which led random citizens to alert the police

Two amazing examples of a total lack of understanding of what constitutes "evidence" in Richard Smith's mind.

A defense lawyer questioning the validity and authenticity of evidence is implicitely admitting his client's guilt

and suspicious behavior is evidence of murder.....  You can't make this stuff up