According to Jim Garrison on The Tonight Show, the motive for the Tippit murder was to facilitate the release of the other suspects who were being held in connection with the assassination.
He said that were 10 of them, and he held up a photo collage, but you really couldn't see very much. I did recognize the Three Tramps, but that's because I was familiar with them.
But, he claimed that when reports of the Tippit shooting came in, all those other suspects were released. And that was the purpose of the Tippit shooting: to put all the attention on Oswald as the only suspect in the case.
The case against Oswald for the Tippit murder is extremely weak. The eyewitnesses? Do you have any idea how unreliable they are? You know about the Innocence Project which has gotten, what, hundreds of men off death row- men who were convicted because of eye-witness testimony. Plus, the testimonies of these Tippit witnesses conflicted with each other and were all over the place. They couldn't even agree on the number of culprits. The idea that you can count on any of it is ridiculous.
It was Oswald's wallet at the crime scene? Oh really? Would you leave your wallet at the crime scene after you killed somebody? How about a signed, 8x10 glossy of yourself? Plus, Oswald had a wallet on him at the theater; so what, did he have two wallets that day? Was one a spare?
The found shells? Oswald had a revolver, so the only way he could have left shells is if he emptied the chambers before leaving the crime scene. How ridiculous do you want to make this?
And what was Oswald's supposed motive for killing Tippit? The presumption is that Tippit stopped him because he considered him a suspect in the JFK assassination, but the fact is: there is no basis to make that claim. It is completely conjectured and unsupported by anything material.
I keep saying that we have never heard what Oswald said about how he got from his room to the theater, but how could they have not asked him? He took the bus; he took the cab; he changed his pants at his room; then what? We know he wound up at the theater but how did he say he got there?
It's also presumed that Oswald only entered the theater to get off the street after having killed Tippit. But, if you are going to make that assumption, you have to address where he was actually going and what he was doing at 10th and Patton. What was his destination when he left his boarding room? Did they even ask him? I bet you they didn't, and that's because the theater was his destination.
And think about it for a minute: What right does anyone have to even propose any another destination? Based on what? Just something you invent? The idiot David Belin claimed that Oswald was going to take a bus to Mexico and that he was going to finance the trip by sticking people up with his pistol- as needed. Now, what gave him any right to claim to know that?
Now, if what I am saying is true (and if you are an Oswald defender you have no reason to doubt it) that the theater was his destination when he left his room, then the idea of him walking to 10th and Patton is ridiculous.
You've looked at the map, haven't you? The shortest distance between any two points is a straight line, right? Oswald couldn't walk a straight line to the theater, but he practically could. He just had to walk straight down Beckley which turned in Zang and then turn right on Jefferson.
The L-shaped line shows you the route that Oswald would have taken to walk to the theater. Actually, it's a little deceiving because the jog to the right on Jefferson wasn't that long. It looks much shorter on other maps I've seen. I checked it on mapquest, and here's how they depict it.
Some have speculated that Oswald was walking to Jack Ruby's apartment, which is what took him to 10th and Patton. But again, there is no material basis to claim it. According to officialdom, Oswald didn't even know Ruby. Think about the irony of that. They are the ones who need an alternate destination for Oswald, yet they can't use it, while those who think Oswald knew Ruby don't need it because they are satisfied that he was heading to the theater. Huh. It's like The Gift of the Magi, where the poor couple bought each other Christmas presents which they couldn't possibly use. (By the way, if you come to Austin, you can visit an early home of O. Henry, who lived here in the 1880s.)
So, the physical evidence -the wallet and the bullets- are completely nonsensical, and they are as suspicious as any evidence can be. His motive for killing Tippit is completely missing; it's just purely imagined. It is not confirmed or verified by anything. The reason why Oswald would have been at that location has never been established. And let's be crystal-clear about something: Oswald could NOT have had any other destination because he wasn't walking to get to public transportation- we know that- and if he was going to see ANYBODY, and I mean anyone at all, then the whole lone-nut scenario goes out the window. So, what does that leave as an alternative to the theater for his destination? A museum, perhaps? How about a rodeo? Sound ridiculous? It's because the whole idea is ridiculous. The fact is: there is no reasonable place to say that Oswald was going other than that theater.
Look at the map again:
One of the points that John Armstrong makes is that if Oswald walked directly to the theater from his room, that the distance was about a mile. If he walked to 10th and Patton first and then to the theater, the distance would have been longer. Either way, how is it that nobody laid eyes on Oswald? (except supposedly for those who saw him killing Tippit) Were there no other pedestrians? Nobody sitting on a bench? Nobody waiting at a bus stop? No motorist who had to stop when he was crossing the street?
John says that there wasn't enough time for him to walk to the theater even if he went there directly. If we accept the time of his leaving his room as accurate, which is commonly given as 1:03, Butch Burroughs reported seeing Oswald in the theater at 1:07. And remember that Oswald bought popcorn from him, and that was done prior to the other actions that unfolded before the cops arrived, such as Oswald moving around the theater, sitting next to various people. And the point is that even if you want to assume Butch Burroughs was mistaken, he couldn't have been mistaken by much.
And that's why John Armstrong rejects the idea that Oswald walked anywhere. He believes that somebody must have picked Oswald up and driven him to the theater.
And no, it wasn't a friend. He had no friends. He only had handlers. If he was driven there, it was part of the plan; their plan, not his.
And to my mind, what supports it is the very fact that Officialdom never told us what Oswald said about how he got to the theater. There isn't a word about it anywhere, not by anybody. Everybody sailed over it. It's a huge omission, don't you think? But, if Oswald told police that he was driven to the theater, it would have been devastating to the official story, and you can understand why they wouldn't reveal it.
The whole story about Oswald killing Tippit is complete utter bollocks. It's embarrassing! It's as embarrassing as saying the World Trade Center Towers fell because of "office fires."