Saturday, December 5, 2015

What a fabulous post this is by one Johnny Hartley from JFK Assassination Forum:

He's right. Authorities, apparently, didn't want to talk to Oswald about the Tippit shooting. They charged him without talking to him about it? They charged him without knowing whether he admitted being there at the time? And, Johnny is also right that authorities never considered an Oswald double- not then, not since, and not ever. The Texaco jacket? As Johnny said, there is no basis whatsoever to link it to Oswald. Have you ever thought about the fact that at the Midnight Press Conference, Oswald said, "I know I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that." HE DIDN'T EVEN IDENTIFY HIM AS TIPPIT. 

Super Member

Posts: 2789

The authorities felt confident enough of Oswald's guilt in the Tippit shooting to charge him of it at 7.05 pm on the day of the killing.

So they must have either had that confidence through information gained in interrogation - which seems unlikely as Oswald publicly point blank denied any involvement and there is no record of him ever having been questioned on the Tippit killing, as the priority was to look into his supposed motives for killing JFK to find out if it was a conspiracy, and if so, who else was involved - or from witness evidence, or from physical evidence.

The witnesses were unaware of the possibility of an Oswald lookalike, so chose the man at the line ups who most resembled the Oswald look alike man seen running from the crime.  Oswald looked different to the other line up attendees, so it would be a simple matter to pick him out. 

The physical evidence is inadmissible as some of it appeared out of thin air (the jacket no one knows who found it, which had no trace to him, wasn't even his size, and had never been seen worn by him) or shells handed in by the public after being missed by the police, and discrepancies about the make of bullets adding weight to the idea that there were two shooters of Tippit, using different guns and different bullets.

So we have no interrogation evidence to support the charge, and flawed line up identifications, and questionable physical evidence.

So it becomes clearer that it would have been unwise for the police to probe him on his alibi, as he would have been able to point out what we know, that he was at the theatre at the time of the shooting, so couldn't have been at the Tippit shooting scene.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.