Up close shot to Tippit's head and no spatter detected on shoes or pants?

[Jerry Organ]

I didn't intend to imply that, the oil drip. I was more like pointing you in this direction:

Mr. BALL. It might have been under one or the other of the cars, you couldn't swear which?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, it could have been under any of the other cars, but I think it was kind of along in the middle of the parking lot.

Although the caption on the picture said "38. Place where jacket found behind Oldsmobile, License No. NL 95."

How could Westbrook be more sure? He didn't pitch a tent in the parking lot and stay there all day.

Someone else took the license number. You can't fault the Dallas police for not having that.

Westbrook seems pretty sure that the jacket was "laying slightly under the rear of one of the cars" which counters your claim the jacket should have a more appropriate amount of oil and dirt than the jacket recovered.

[John Iacoletti]

A photo of a parking lot with no jacket in it is about as useful as a photo of a corner of the TSBD with no paper bag in it.

[Walt Cakebread]

You beat me to it ... what a striking similarity.

The case is chock full of "evidence" based on the same principal ......  Which is: ..introduce information in a sneaky, wily,  manner that allows the sucker to perceive what is being suggested but not specifically stated is his idea.....  Thus the sucker believes that he has reached a conclusive solution through his own reasoning.

There was no paper bag there in the SE corner.....But many folks will argue that the was as if it's as elementary as 2+2=4.

But taking that idea just a step further....There was no "Sniper's Nest" in that SE corner and there were NO SHOTS fired from that SE corner window....and WHOA.....Now that is a nutty idea......

[Bill Brown]

Did you miss the "guessing" and "any other car" part while "NL 95" was right under his nose?

Don't go down the Billy Brown path -- he's flat down on his face now.

Why don't you quote the police officer who picked up the jacket and took down the license number?

Don't go down the Billy Brown path -- he's flat down on his face now.

This may mean something... if you had any credibility at all.

[Bill Brown]

BUMP

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

You mean the man that Reynolds said wasn't LHO UNTIL he was shot in the head? That guy?

You're so full of it.

Cite for Warren Reynolds ever saying that the man was NOT Lee Oswald.

You are playing games again. The issue is whether Reynolds ever identified LHO as the man he saw running after the JDT murder, and until he was shot in the head the answer was no.

This is from my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series.

Quote on

REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual. (FBI Interview with Warren Reynolds on January 21, 1964, Commission Exhibit (CE) 2523, p. 731)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0381a.htm

Quote off

But, you said that Warren Reynolds said that the man was NOT Lee Oswald.

You lied and misrepresented.  Typical.

[Wesley Johnson]

Yes, killing the president wasn't enough that day.  They needed Oswald to kill someone else before the police really looked for him.  And shoot him on sight?  I guess they screwed that one up too since they arrested Oswald and freely allowed him to talk to the press.  Whew.  That is far out.  Imagine how many people would have to be involved in arranging an Oswald "double", a police officer to murder, getting the "real" Oswald into that same area so that he could be arrested/shot, getting the fake "Oswald" away undetected, silencing the fake Oswald for the rest of his life etc.   What a fantasy.

Good post Richard. Most of these CTers have never had any firearm experience. When shot the wound doesn't always splatter all over the place. Especially when small caliber weapons are used and the type of ammo. It's not Hollywood,or a John Wayne western. The wound to JD's head did not exit so there would not have been any splatter from an exit wound.

[Ray Mitcham]

Good post Richard. Most of these CTers have never had any firearm experience. When shot the wound doesn't always splatter all over the place. Especially when small caliber weapons are used and the type of ammo. It's not Hollywood,or a John Wayne western. The wound to JD's head did not exit so there would not have been any splatter from an exit wound.

Did they find a bullet in his head, then, Wes?

[Dan DAlimonte]

Good post Richard. Most of these CTers have never had any firearm experience. When shot the wound doesn't always splatter all over the place. Especially when small caliber weapons are used and the type of ammo. It's not Hollywood,or a John Wayne western. The wound to JD's head did not exit so there would not have been any splatter from an exit wound.

Hey, Wesley.  Way back before the crash I presented this topic here and the only other
person I found on the web with the same thought came from a former police officer, Gil Jesus.

   
Posted September 17, 2011 (edited)
  On 9/15/2011 at 5:04 PM, Craig Lamson said:
Osswald? Who cares? Not me.

The jacket? Who cares? Not me.

Gunpowder? Don't have a clue and don't care one way or the other.

Holding the feet of the photographically ignorant to the fire....priceless.

You are yet another predictable e CT. Thanks for the grins Gil.

ROFLMAO.....you're a legend in your own mind.

But here's the problem.... if the jacket in the video IS the jacket found in the lot and worn by the Tippit killer, then there would have been gunpowder residue and blood splatter on it. And it would have been completely understandable for a killer escaping in public and in broad daylight, to attempt to avoid drawing attention to himself by discarding a jacket splattered with the blood of a victim.

That I have no problem with. Makes complete sense to me.

But if that jacket in the video is the GREY jacket, as you claim, there should be gunpowder residue and blood splatter on that as well. Yet, the color photographs supplied by Mr. Backes from NARA earlier in this thread show no such blood splatter on the jacket.

In addition, there is no report of Tippit's blood being found on Oswald's pants or shoes.

This is considered PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and it simply isn't there.

Absent any PHYSICAL evidence that Tippit's killer was wearing the GREY jacket at the time of the murder, the GREY jacket can't possibly be the jacket we see in the video.

And absent any PHYSICAL evidence of Tippit's blood on Oswald's clothing at the time of his arrest the likelihood that Oswald was Tippit's killer is greatly diminished.

Yeah, we know, you don't care who did it. That's your excuse everytime you're faced with evidence you can't explain.

BTW, Holding the feet of the evidentiary ignorant to the fire....that's REALLY priceless.

Grins ? You supply more grins to more people than most posters.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Gil Jesus