Tippit podcast

[Joseph McBride]

I will be talking about the murder of Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit (the "Rosetta Stone" of the events of November 22, 1963) this evening (Sunday, Sept. 11) with host Bob Wilson on his Antennae Radio show on Debbie Scott's Radio Network. My segment of the show begins about 8 p.m., Eastern time, with a song or two before we talk. We will discuss my research into the Tippit murder for my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE: MY SEARCH FOR THE KILLERS OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY AND OFFICER J. D. TIPPIT (2013), including my finding that Tippit and another officer were assigned by the DPD to hunt down Lee Harvey Oswald before Oswald's identity was officially known to the police, how Tippit drove into a police ambush, and why Oswald was not guilty of killing him. We will also discuss the continuing controversies surrounding the case and recent developments in it. https://www.spreaker.com/show/bob-wi...nae-radio-show

Here's a print interview I did with Bob Wilson on Tippit and JFK: http://garyrevel.com/jfk/mcbride2.html

[Joe Bauer]

In one of the many taped interviews of Jim Leavelle I caught a statement by Leavelle that aroused my curiosity.

This is at the 13:11 point in Gary Mack's " Living History" interview of Leavelle.

Mack to Leavelle -

"Within a few hours you and your co-workers were able to acquire enough information to charge, formally charge Oswald with the murder of Tippit. What was the 'key bit of information' that made you know that this ( Oswald ) was the guy? "

Leavelle then responds to this question from Mack by saying ... " the C.I. " ... and then Leavelle stops dead in mid-sentence and then glances down and away from Mack with what looks to me like a "Whoops" expression like he just said something he shouldn't have.

Leavelle then stutters and stammers ( clearly thrown off guard ) and starts to mutter something about ... well, we knew about Oswald working in that building and the snipers nest ... and uh ... another pause.

This new answer from Leavelle was so hesitant and stammered it seemed like he just made it up off-the-cuff to give "any answer" to move away from it all.

Leavelle's stressed interruption of his first answer " the C.I.... " to Mack's question also logically leaves one to assume he was going to add an "A" to that first unfinished response.

And to wonder why Leavelle would instantly stop short of saying this "A" and then divert away from Mack's original question?

And it appears that Mack inadvertently said "Tippit" when he meant " JFK" in his "key bit of information" question to Leavelle and Leavelle knew this thus he answered the question as if Mack meant JFK in the question.

Why would Leavelle be so stop dead concerned in regards to his caught -off-guard first answer to Mack's "key point information" question regard JFK in the first hours after JFK was killed?

To me, Leavelle's first "cut off" response begs a lot of seriously important questions about the full involvement of outside groups feeding the D.P.D. more info than many knew and that was clearly intended to make Oswald the single guilty party here.

I don't view Leavelle as warmly and trusting as many others. To me he comes across as a "good ole boy" racist bully who had a strong sadistic side, indicated by his almost bragging tale of kicking the crap out of reporters who got too close to Oswald in the chaos of the DPD scene.

Mr. McBride - your thoughts about Leavelle's strange cut off "the C.I. ... " answer in this Gary Mack "Living History" interview...if any?

[Joseph McBride]

That is intriguing -- I would like to hear the interview. Leavelle was the lead

detective in the Tippit case, so he may well have been thinking about Tippit.

He indicated to me in an interview for my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE that Captain Fritz wanted him to make a strong case

against Oswald for killing Tippit because they didn't have a case against

him for killing Kennedy. Of course, they didn't have a case against Oswald

in the Tippit killing either, and Leavelle, in his guarded way, admits some

of the problems with what Oswald called "the so-called evidence" regarding the Tippit murder.

********

Now archived: Bob Wilson's interview with me about the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit and related topics (the assassinations of JFK, RFK, Lincoln et al). We went for three hours and forty-five minutes, so we dug into a lot of topics in depth. This segment starts about 86 minutes into the program. Sinatra returns from time to time to lend that Rat Pack/Kennedy vibe. https://www.spreaker.com/user/tfok_florida/the-plastic-ono-band-ed-klienman-joseph-

Edited September 13, 2016 by Joseph McBride

[Thomas Graves]

That is intriguing -- I would like to hear the interview. Leavelle was the lead

detective in the Tippit case, so he may well have been thinking about Tippit.

He indicated to me in an interview for my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE that Captain Fritz wanted him to make a strong case

against Oswald for killing Tippit because they didn't have a case against

him for killing Kennedy. Of course, they didn't have a case against Oswald

in the Tippit killing either, and Leavelle, in his guarded way, admits some

of the problems with what Oswald called "the so-called evidence" regarding the Tippit murder.

********

Now archived: Bob Wilson's interview with me about the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit and related topics (the assassinations of JFK, RFK, Lincoln et al). We went for three hours and forty-five minutes, so we dug into a lot of topics in depth. This segment starts about 86 minutes into the program. Sinatra returns from time to time to lend that Rat Pack/Kennedy vibe. ttps://www.spreaker.com/user/tfok_florida/the-plastic-ono-band-ed-klienman-joseph-

Dear Joseph,

You left the "h" out of "https:".

Looks like an interesting interview.

I don't suppose Leavelle's uttering "CI" could have been in reference to the Dallas Police Department's "Criminal Intelligence" department?

-- Tommy

Edited September 12, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

In one of the many taped interviews of Jim Leavelle I caught a statement by Leavelle that aroused my curiosity.

This is at the 13:11 point in Gary Mack's " Living History" interview of Leavelle.

Mack to Leavelle -

"Within a few hours you and your co-workers were able to acquire enough information to charge, formally charge Oswald with the murder of Tippit. What was the 'key bit of information' that made you know that this ( Oswald ) was the guy? "

Leavelle then responds to this question from Mack by saying ... " the C.I. " ... and then Leavelle stops dead in mid-sentence and then glances down and away from Mack with what looks to me like a "Whoops" expression like he just said something he shouldn't have.

Leavelle then stutters and stammers ( clearly thrown off guard ) and starts to mutter something about ... well, we knew about Oswald working in that building and the snipers nest ... and uh ... another pause.

This new answer from Leavelle was so hesitant and stammered it seemed like he just made it up off-the-cuff to give "any answer" to move away from it all.

Leavelle's stressed interruption of his first answer " the C.I.... " to Mack's question also logically leaves one to assume he was going to add an "A" to that first unfinished response.

And to wonder why Leavelle would instantly stop short of saying this "A" and then divert away from Mack's original question?

And it appears that Mack inadvertently said "Tippit" when he meant " JFK" in his "key bit of information" question to Leavelle and Leavelle knew this thus he answered the question as if Mack meant JFK in the question.

Why would Leavelle be so stop dead concerned in regards to his caught -off-guard first answer to Mack's "key point information" question regard JFK in the first hours after JFK was killed?

To me, Leavelle's first "cut off" response begs a lot of seriously important questions about the full involvement of outside groups feeding the D.P.D. more info than many knew and that was clearly intended to make Oswald the single guilty party here.

I don't view Leavelle as warmly and trusting as many others. To me he comes across as a "good ole boy" racist bully who had a strong sadistic side, indicated by his almost bragging tale of kicking the crap out of reporters who got too close to Oswald in the chaos of the DPD scene.

Mr. McBride - your thoughts about Leavelle's strange cut off "the C.I. ... " answer in this Gary Mack "Living History" interview...if any?

Dear Joe,

Could you please provide us with a "link" to Gary Mack's "Living History" interview of Leavelle?

Thanks.

-- Tommy

Never mind. Here it is. By the way, I've put "[...]" (below) where you left out a whole exchange between Mack and Leavelle when you quoted Mack as saying,

"Within a few hours you and your co-workers were able to acquire enough information to charge, formally charge Oswald with the murder of Tippit. [.......] What was the 'key bit of information' that made you know that this ( Oswald ) was the guy? "

And just a minor point -- When Leavelle says "Well, the CI" (or "Well, ya see, I" ?), he doesn't look away from Mack. In fact he looks more towards him.

I don't suppose Leavelle's possibly muttering "the CI" could have been in reference to the Dallas Police Department's "Criminal Intelligence" department?

Edited September 12, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Joe Bauer]

Thomas Graves you are right on one point and perhaps right on two.

Reviewing the part of the interview we are discussing, Leavelle doesn't look away from Mack anymore than he does in the rest of the interview in which he hardly looks at Mack with any eye contact at all.

I am not a body language expert but isn't this constant avoiding of eye contact generally known as indicative of something less than relaxed and open?

Yes, Leavelle's " C I " blurb could easily be what you mentioned - the " Criminal Intelligence" department. But I doubt this was a "you see I " one.

But, Leavelle does clearly immediately stop and pause upon saying " the C I ..." in response to Mack's " who gave you the key bit of information " question and then does seem to consciously get away from the "C I " answer and his new response seemed much less specific and even lame...

"Well, we knew he worked in that building ,,,and the snipers nest.." ???

These interview comments by Leavelle may mean nothing.

This all may be just a case of me expressing my personal bias suspicion, dislike and distrust of the person.

TG ... Your input on this point is valid, logical and appreciated.

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas Graves you are right on one point and perhaps right on two.

Reviewing the part of the interview we are discussing, Leavelle doesn't look away from Mack anymore than he does in the rest of the interview in which he hardly looks at Mack with any eye contact at all.

I am not a body language expert but isn't this constant avoiding of eye contact generally known as indicative of something less than relaxed and open?

Yes, Leavelle's " C I " blurb could easily be what you mentioned - the " Criminal Intelligence" department. But I doubt this was a "you see I " one.

But, Leavelle does clearly immediately stop and pause upon saying " the C I ..." in response to Mack's " who gave you the key bit of information " question and then does seem to consciously get away from the "C I " answer and his new response seemed much less specific and even lame...

"Well, we knew he worked in that building ,,,and the snipers nest.." ???

These interview comments by Leavelle may mean nothing.

This all may be just a case of me expressing my personal bias suspicion, dislike and distrust of the person.

TG ... Your input on this point is valid, logical and appreciated.

Dear Joe,

Leavelle was obviously confused by Mack's lousily-phrased question (the end of it, especially) and assumed Mack was asking how the DPD arrived so quickly at the conclusion Oswald had killed Kennedy, based on the fact that Oswald was already the prime suspect in the Tippit murder.

Given that assumption, I think Leavelle was a little bit miffed by the implication that Oswald was formally charged with killing JFK only because the DPD was sure he'd killed Tippit. His being miffed at or taken aback by the question might explain why he looked and sounded so uncomfortable trying to answer it.

-- Tommy

Edited September 12, 2016 by Thomas Graves