Two Dallas cops were involved in the pre-arranged murder of Tippit...

[Jim Hargrove]

My understanding -- before reading the above document -- was that Domingo Benavides did identify the shooter as Oswald, based on pictures he'd seen of Oswald in news reports. But the above document suggests the exact opposite, in #2a.

Please, somebody tell me where I've gone wrong. To me it appears that an incorrect assumption is being made in #2a in the document.

P.S. THANK YOU Margo Jackson for the great questions. NO THANKS to the HSCA administrators for not getting answers.

Sandy,

Benavides clearly said the man he saw resembled photos he'd seen of "Lee Harvey Oswald," but for some reason he didn't go to a police line-up (even though he had a high profile at Tenth & Patton). Wish someone here could recall whether he refused to identify him. Iirc, Benavides is on record having said something like he wasn't good at identifying faces, or something like that, which could be real enough or some sort of excuse. Wish a researcher had done a lengthy recorded interview of him. Now, I suppose, the best we can hope for would be to follow Tom Neal's suggestion to talk to his surviving siblings (if any) and his children.

[Jim Hargrove]

6. I don't know how official it was, but it was "decided" that Ruby only knew one "Tippit" and it was not JDT. This "Tippit" spelled his name differently.

Ahhh. My bet is that our Tippit indeed knew Jack Ruby, who apparently was far more involved in the assassination than is commonly believed.

8. The 4 spent hulls were of different brands. There were 2 Winchesters, and 2 Remingtons, but 3 Winchesters and 1 Remington were removed from JDT's body and his jacket button. IIRC, I had decided this required 5 shots (which only ex-Marine Calloway stated he heard) one of which was a missed shot. The mixed brands, the fact that the 3rd and 4th shells were found hours later, etc. make the official story unlikely IMO.

Indeed! I'm forgetting things here. This is how John described the shell situation in his book:

Empty Shells. Moments after the Tippit shooting Barbara Jeanette and Virginia

Davis watched Lee Oswald as he removed shells from his pistol and threw them onto

the ground. Two of the shells were found by Domingo Benavides, who put them into

an empty Winston cigarette package and then gave the package to Officer J .M. Poe. A

3rd shell was found by Barbara Davis underneath a window on the side of her house near

Patton (FBI #Q 76).⁶⁵ This shell was turned over to George Doughty, head of the crime

lab for the DPD, who was standing nearby.

Between 3:30 and 5:00 pm Virginia located a 4th shell near the walkway to the

door of her apartment (FBI # Q 75). This shell was turned over to Detective C.N.

Dhority of the Homicide Division later that evening.

NOTE: Witnesses to the shooting saw Tippit's assailant unload shell casings from a pis­-

tol. But not a single one of the 4 empty shell casings, or any of the 6 live rounds of am­-

munition taken from the .38 pistol, was found to have Oswald's fingerprints.⁶⁶ This was

because the person who loaded the pistol, and placed his fingerprints on the bullets, was

not the man arrested by the Dallas Police.

--Harvey and Lee, p. 892

[Ron Ecker]

NOTE: Witnesses to the shooting saw Tippit's assailant unload shell casings from a pis­-

tol. But not a single one of the 4 empty shell casings, or any of the 6 live rounds of am­-

munition taken from the .38 pistol, was found to have Oswald's fingerprints.⁶⁶ This was

because the person who loaded the pistol, and placed his fingerprints on the bullets, was

not the man arrested by the Dallas Police.

--Harvey and Lee, p. 892

I believe that Dale Myers wrote the "definitive" book (With Malice) on Oswald killing Tippit. Surely his book (I don't have a copy) explains the absence of Oswald's fingerprints on the empty shells and bullets.

[Sandy Larsen]

My understanding -- before reading the above document -- was that Domingo Benavides did identify the shooter as Oswald, based on pictures he'd seen of Oswald in news reports. But the above document suggests the exact opposite, in #2a.

Please, somebody tell me where I've gone wrong. To me it appears that an incorrect assumption is being made in #2a in the document.

P.S. THANK YOU Margo Jackson for the great questions. NO THANKS to the HSCA administrators for not getting answers.

Sandy,

Benavides clearly said the man he saw resembled photos he'd seen of "Lee Harvey Oswald," but for some reason he didn't go to a police line-up (even though he had a high profile at Tenth & Patton). Wish someone here could recall whether he refused to identify him. Iirc, Benavides is on record having said something like he wasn't good at identifying faces, or something like that, which could be real enough or some sort of excuse. Wish a researcher had done a lengthy recorded interview of him. Now, I suppose, the best we can hope for would be to follow Tom Neal's suggestion to talk to his surviving siblings (if any) and his children.

Jim,

My understanding is that

1. Benavides said that the person he saw resembled the Oswald he saw in the media.

2. But he refused to identify the killer in a lineup because he didn't feel comfortable with positively identifying the right person. I read about this last week and the impression I got is that he didn't even appear before a lineup.

Now compare what I said in #1 above to what Paragraph #2a in the letter says should be investigated:

Me: Benavides said that the person he saw resembled the Oswald he saw in the media.

#2a: Why did [benavides] refuse to identify Oswald as the killer based upon pictures he saw on the TV and radio and television?

See? My understanding contradicts what is asked to be investigated in the document. So I'm wondering, is my understanding incorrect, or is the premise to the #2a question incorrect. (None of this has to do with a lineup, BTW.)

Perhaps the answer to this inconsistency is that Benavides refused to identify Oswald to the police, based on media pictures, but did so informally to reporters and other civilians.

Or perhaps, when Benavides said that the killer resembles the Oswald he saw in the media, that is not the same is identifying him as Oswald. In other words, resemblance is not strong enough to be considered identification.

[Sandy Larsen]

Indeed! I'm forgetting things here. This is how John described the shell situation in his book:

....

NOTE: Witnesses to the shooting saw Tippit's assailant unload shell casings from a pis­-

tol. But not a single one of the 4 empty shell casings, or any of the 6 live rounds of am­-

munition taken from the .38 pistol, was found to have Oswald's fingerprints.⁶⁶ This was

because the person who loaded the pistol, and placed his fingerprints on the bullets, was

not the man arrested by the Dallas Police.

--Harvey and Lee, p. 892

Are fingerprints normally found on live and loaded shell casings? If so, how can it be explained that the live shells from Oswald's gun had no fingerprints? The only way is if Oswald loaded his gun while wearing gloves (or the equivalent). Right?

Some of the witnesses reported that Tippit's killer reloaded his gun. None of them mention that he was wearing gloves. So the killer's fingerprints should have been found on the live, loaded shells. Yet Oswald's shells had no fingerprints. Right there we have a big inconsistency pointing to Oswald's innocence.

[Ron Ecker]

Where's DVP when you need him?

[Sandy Larsen]

NOTE: Witnesses to the shooting saw Tippit's assailant unload shell casings from a pis­-

tol. But not a single one of the 4 empty shell casings, or any of the 6 live rounds of am­-

munition taken from the .38 pistol, was found to have Oswald's fingerprints.⁶⁶ This was

because the person who loaded the pistol, and placed his fingerprints on the bullets, was

not the man arrested by the Dallas Police.

--Harvey and Lee, p. 892

I believe that Dale Myers wrote the "definitive" book (With Malice) on Oswald killing Tippit. Surely his book (I don't have a copy) explains the absence of Oswald's fingerprints on the empty shells and bullets.

I searched the book for "fingerprints" in Google Books and did find an official document stating that there were no fingerprints found on the shells. Unfortunately, the pages in the book following that page are unavailable for preview. So if Myer commented on the lack of fingerprints, it is unavailable for us to read. (Unless another edition doesn't block those particular pages.)

[Jim Hargrove]

It may be that the temperatures reached when a bullet is fired would vaporize all or most of the fingerprint oils left on the shell (although removing and palming the casings (s) would leave another opportunity for at least partial prints). But there is a full-grown elephant stomping on all these little shells and possible fingerprints, and that huge pachyderm points to this simple fact:

American-born LEE Oswald (who Domingo Benavides thought looked like Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald) shot Officer Tippet near Tenth and Patton at 1:08 or 1:09 pm. By that time, HARVEY Oswald was already inside the Texas Theater.

[Tom Neal]

My understanding -- before reading the above document -- was that Domingo Benavides did identify the shooter as Oswald, based on pictures he'd seen of Oswald in news reports. But the above document suggests the exact opposite, in #2a.

Benavides clearly said the man he saw resembled photos he'd seen of "Lee Harvey Oswald," but for some reason he didn't go to a police line-up (even though he had a high profile at Tenth & Patton). Wish someone here could recall whether he refused to identify him. Iirc, Benavides is on record having said something like he wasn't good at identifying faces, or something like that, which could be real enough or some sort of excuse. Wish a researcher had done a lengthy recorded interview of him. Now, I suppose, the best we can hope for would be to follow Tom Neal's suggestion to talk to his surviving siblings (if any) and his children.

What I have read is that DB was asked by the Dallas PD to attend a line up, and he replied that he 'didn't think he could identify' the shooter. Presumably, he was asked the evening of the shooting. At that time, what had he told the DPD? Before the police arrived he had already started to walk away from the scene. He decided that he should go back and locate the spent shells that he saw the shooter discard. He brought them to a policeman, told him where he found the shells, and walked away. He didn't ask the cop his name, so he doesn't know WHO he gave them to. He doesn't mention giving an eyewitness statement at that time to the police. It appears that he was less than eager to get involved as a witness. Is that why he said he couldn't ID the shooter?

When he was asked to attend a line up, what did the police know about what he saw? Did they know he was the closest eyewitness? I don't think so, but I don't have any specific information. What I'd like to see are the actual police documents recording any witness statements taken prior to the line-up. If DB told them the same information that was in his WC testimony, I can't believe they would let him skip the line-up. They were looking for a cop-killer, and they NEEDED an ID.

If they questioned DB and he informed them he got an excellent look at the shooter from 15 feet away, he was their best chance to ID this cop-killer, yet they let him skip the line-up! Why would they do this? Could it be that they knew the shooter wasn't LHO? If it wasn't LHO that shot JDT, then DB would not identify LHO as the shooter because he got too good a look at the shooter to mistake LHO for someone who only resembled him. They couldn't risk the closest witness saying it wasn't LHO, so they would NOT call him in for a line-up.

However, witnesses who saw the shooting or the shooter from a greater distance could easily mistake someone who strongly resembled LHO for LHO himself. Especially since LHO's picture had been all over their televisions.

Without knowing what DB said to the police PRIOR to line-up we can't determine WHY they didn't call him in for a line-up.

I think that the closest DB came to IDing LHO as the shooter was in his WC testimony. He even called the shooter "Oswald" because he resembled the video of LHO that DB saw on television. He then went on to describe the shooter's hair cut as markedly different than LHO's haircut. But, did DB KNOW his description of the shooter's haircut did NOT match LHO? He gave no indication of this, and unsurprisingly, David Belin did not point this out to DB. Anyone who knew the shooter's haircut did NOT match LHO, would believe that DB did NOT ID LHO as the shooter. However, anyone who did NOT realize LHO's haircut did NOT match DB's description, would believe DB did actually ID LHO.

The reality is that in his WC testimony, whether he realizes it or not, DB actually provided STRONG testimony that the shooter was NOT LHO.

[Sandy Larsen]

My understanding -- before reading the above document -- was that Domingo Benavides did identify the shooter as Oswald, based on pictures he'd seen of Oswald in news reports. But the above document suggests the exact opposite, in #2a.

Benavides clearly said the man he saw resembled photos he'd seen of "Lee Harvey Oswald," but for some reason he didn't go to a police line-up (even though he had a high profile at Tenth & Patton). Wish someone here could recall whether he refused to identify him. Iirc, Benavides is on record having said something like he wasn't good at identifying faces, or something like that, which could be real enough or some sort of excuse. Wish a researcher had done a lengthy recorded interview of him. Now, I suppose, the best we can hope for would be to follow Tom Neal's suggestion to talk to his surviving siblings (if any) and his children.

What I have read is that DB was asked by the Dallas PD to attend a line up, and he replied that he 'didn't think he could identify' the shooter. Presumably, he was asked the evening of the shooting. At that time, what had he told the DPD? Before the police arrived he had already started to walk away from the scene. He decided that he should go back and locate the spent shells that he saw the shooter discard. He brought them to a policeman, told him where he found the shells, and walked away. He didn't ask the cop his name, so he doesn't know WHO he gave them to. He doesn't mention giving an eyewitness statement at that time to the police. It appears that he was less than eager to get involved as a witness. Is that why he said he couldn't ID the shooter?

When he was asked to attend a line up, what did the police know about what he saw? Did they know he was the closest eyewitness? I don't think so, but I don't have any specific information. What I'd like to see are the actual police documents recording any witness statements taken prior to the line-up. If DB told them the same information that was in his WC testimony, I can't believe they would let him skip the line-up. They were looking for a cop-killer, and they NEEDED an ID.

If they questioned DB and he informed them he got an excellent look at the shooter from 15 feet away, he was their best chance to ID this cop-killer, yet they let him skip the line-up! Why would they do this? Could it be that they knew the shooter wasn't LHO? If it wasn't LHO that shot JDT, then DB would not identify LHO as the shooter because he got too good a look at the shooter to mistake LHO for someone who only resembled him. They couldn't risk the closest witness saying it wasn't LHO, so they would NOT call him in for a line-up.

However, witnesses who saw the shooting or the shooter from a greater distance could easily mistake someone who strongly resembled LHO for LHO himself. Especially since LHO's picture had been all over their televisions.

Without knowing what DB said to the police PRIOR to line-up we can't determine WHY they didn't call him in for a line-up.

I think that the closest DB came to IDing LHO as the shooter was in his WC testimony. He even called the shooter "Oswald" because he resembled the video of LHO that DB saw on television. He then went on to describe the shooter's hair cut as markedly different than LHO's haircut. But, did DB KNOW his description of the shooter's haircut did NOT match LHO? He gave no indication of this, and unsurprisingly, David Belin did not point this out to DB. Anyone who knew the shooter's haircut did NOT match LHO, would believe that DB did NOT ID LHO as the shooter. However, anyone who did NOT realize LHO's haircut did NOT match DB's description, would believe DB did actually ID LHO.

The reality is that in his WC testimony, whether he realizes it or not, DB actually provided STRONG testimony that the shooter was NOT LHO.

All excellent points. Especially interesting is the fact that those who knew that Oswald's haircut didn't match the shooter's haircut would also know that DB had not actually IDed Oswald, even though he thought he had.

[Sandy Larsen]

It may be that the temperatures reached when a bullet is fired would vaporize all or most of the fingerprint oils left on the shell (although removing and palming the casings (s) would leave another opportunity for at least partial prints).

According to the 12/3/63 FBI report from R.H. Jevons to a Mr. Conrad printed in Myers' book "With Malice," none of the revolver cartridges had fingerprints. The includes the four shells recovered at the Tippit site, the four unfired bullets found in Oswald's revolver, and the five unfired bullet found in Oswald's pocket.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Jim Hargrove]

As the closest known witness to the Tippit slaying, Benavides may have been in a position to see the second police car—the same one Mrs. Doris Holan saw parked in the narrow driveway between the houses at 404 and 410 E. 10th. If so, he was in a position to see not only the person who shot Tippit, but also the individual who approached Tippit as he was lying in the street, as well as the police car. IF HE DID SEE THE SECOND POLICE CAR, AND THE MAN WHO GOT OUT OF THE SECOND POLICE CAR AND STOOD OVER TIPPIT, he would have immediately realized that at least some Dallas cops were complicit in Tippit’s murder.

Is it possible that he was simply afraid to become involved in this kind of internecine violence? To me, it appears that Benavides' uncertainty regarding the identification of the shooter is far less important than the possibility that he was witness to DPD involvement in the shooting of Tippit.

[Tom Neal]

According to the 12/3/63 FBI report from R.H. Jevons to a Mr. Conrad printed in Myers' book "With Malice," none of the revolver cartridges had fingerprints. The includes the four shells recovered at the Tippit site, the four unfired bullets found in Oswald's revolver, and the five unfired bullet found in Oswald's pocket.

Ivan W. Conrad was the Director or the Assistant Director of the FBI Labs.

Roy H. Jevons was Lead Examiner Robert Frazier's immediate supervisor.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

As the closest known witness to the Tippit slaying, Benavides may have been in a position to see the second police carthe same one Mrs. Doris Holan saw parked in the narrow driveway between the houses at 404 and 410 E. 10th. If so, he was in a position to see not only the person who shot Tippit, but also the individual who approached Tippit as he was lying in the street, as well as the police car. IF HE DID SEE THE SECOND POLICE CAR, AND THE MAN WHO GOT OUT OF THE SECOND POLICE CAR AND STOOD OVER TIPPIT, he would have immediately realized that at least some Dallas cops were complicit in Tippits murder.

Is it possible that he was simply afraid to become involved in this kind of internecine violence? To me, it appears that Benavides' uncertainty regarding the identification of the shooter is far less important than the possibility that he was witness to DPD involvement in the shooting of Tippit.

Jim,

I had the same thought, but I can't decide whether or not he could have seen the police car or the person that got out of it. DB says that he was ducked down in his truck during the shooting and only got a good look at the gunman AFTER the shots were fired. After the shooter left, DB proceeded toward JDT, saw that he was dead, entered the police car via the left door and attempted to use the radio. Presuming he is telling the truth he would have missed seeing the 2nd man entirely, as he would have left the scene immediately following the shooting.

Has it been established how far back from 10th Street the police car was parked? Given Mrs. Holan's line of sight from directly across the street from the alley, it could have been parked almost anywhere along the alley. The fact that it was a police car and not an unmarked vehicle has to be considered as POSSIBLE evidence that this was a contingency plan.

This idea is well worth pursuing, and is the reason I tracked down the names and location of DB's siblings and children. If I had the time, I'd do it myself, but once I get my teeth into something I can't let go, so I don't dare get started.

Tom

Edited June 26, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Jim Hargrove]

It may be that the temperatures reached when a bullet is fired would vaporize all or most of the fingerprint oils left on the shell (although removing and palming the casings (s) would leave another opportunity for at least partial prints).

According to the 12/3/63 FBI report from R.H. Jevons to a Mr. Conrad printed in Myers' book "With Malice," none of the revolver cartridges had fingerprints. The includes the four shells recovered at the Tippit site, the four unfired bullets found in Oswald's revolver, and the five unfired bullet found in Oswald's pocket.

So, this suggests that either the bullets were CAREFULLY loaded to avoid fingerprints, or that the fingerprints that were found didn't match the designated patsy's and were therefore "missed." If Tippit's murder was part of the plan to set up HARVEY Oswald, the need to avoid getting the shooter's prints on the casings would be obvious.