Jump to content
The Education Forum

J.D. Tippit's murder scene?


Recommended Posts

Now that Dale Myers' book has been exposed for what it is, an intentionally incomplete and deceptive version of the Tippit murder, the case should be thoroughly reviewed. ...

I'm in the midst of looking through Hear No Evil's chapter on Tippit, and despite Myers' clear bias toward a particular solution (rather than exploring any other, as Conan Doyle posited, if only to provide against them), I'm not yet certain how you feel that With Malice has been "exposed for what it is," nor - more importantly - why the case should not be reviewed even if Myers' book isn't "what it is."

I mean, it's not as if With Malice is by any means any kind of legal investigation that "closes" the case. And it is one of the most thorough examinations of that incident, even if it is incomplete, potentially misleading, and biased.

Myers book was exposed for what it is long before Hear No Evil. The Tippit murder should be reviewed by a Dallas County Grand Jury without any mention at all of Myers' book because not only is it deceitful and untruthful, its irrelevant to any of the evidence that should be reviewed or witnesses who should be properly questioned, under oath, in a court of law, as they should.

G. Kinston Clark's The Critical Historian, in which he writes:

“The distortion produced by bias are potentially present in any attempt to write history. Sometimes the danger is obvious and menacing, sometimes it is covert, coming from unexpected angles and in not easily detected forms. ….Any interpretation which makes use of facts which can be shown to be false, or accepts as certainty true facts which are dubious, or does not take into account facts which are known, are at best, potentially misleading, and possibly grossly, and dangerously deceptive. ….It is the first task of the historian to review any narrative to find what links are missing altogether…where what is defective cannot be supplied by further research, it is an historian’s duty to draw attention to the fact so that men can know where they stand.…Any historical conception which has not been adjusted to the most recent results will cease to be satisfactory.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

... G. Kinston Clark's The Critical Historian, in which he writes:

"The distortion produced by bias are potentially present in any attempt to write history. Sometimes the danger is obvious and menacing, sometimes it is covert, coming from unexpected angles and in not easily detected forms. ….Any interpretation which makes use of facts which can be shown to be false, or accepts as certainty true facts which are dubious, or does not take into account facts which are known, are at best, potentially misleading, and possibly grossly, and dangerously deceptive. ….It is the first task of the historian to review any narrative to find what links are missing altogether…where what is defective cannot be supplied by further research, it is an historian's duty to draw attention to the fact so that men can know where they stand.…Any historical conception which has not been adjusted to the most recent results will cease to be satisfactory."

Bravo!

... Although I still think it's a cinch that there will be no grand jury until and unless someone is capable of presenting some sort of cohesive case to follow instead of spaghetti on the wall. The outcome of the current elections underway may be just the ticket. Maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Document that D.B. Thomas refers to indicating Oswald told Mrs. Bledsoe that he wanted a job at Collins Radio.

http://www.history-m...Vol24_0018b.htm

Correct Bledsoe document: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1140&relPageId=34

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that Dale Myers' book has been exposed for what it is, an intentionally incomplete and deceptive version of the

Tippit murder, the case should be thoroughly reviewed.

Don Thomas' Hear No Evil has a chapter on the Tippit case that is posted at Mary Ferrell.

web/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=1538456

Whew!

I've got to say that Thomas does a damned good job with the "hard" evidence - forensics and procedure - and has probably written one of the most comprehensive and comprehensible analyses I've ever read on this aspect of the Tippit murder. My hat's off to him for that!

Unfortunately, he doesn't do so well with the "soft" evidence - that which requires interpretation and extrapolation - and ignores a lot of it while being just plain ignorant of even more of it. He has an apparent agenda - linking Tippit, in effect, to his own murder - and is hell-bent on alluding to it while never proving it. And he actually contradicts himself in the short span of this chapter, which is scary.

In the last case, on page 509, he notes that Sergeant Gerald Hill had reported later on the night of November 22 that Oswald's pistol had been "fired twice." He asks "on what possible basis did Sergeant Hill determine that the gun had been fired twice? It is difficult to conceive of any scenario other than his having found two discharged cartridges in the pistol!" (exclamation in the original). What he overlooks is that he provided one such possible scenario so "difficult to conceive of" himself just 11 pages earlier.

There, he provides a perfectly plausible but seldom acknowledged explanation of why the self-same Hill had concluded and broadcast that "the shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .30 rather than a pistol," that being that "it is at least as likely" that Hill had reached that conclusion based upon the shells apparently having been ejected from an automatic weapon rather than the much less likely possibility that the perp had manually removed them from a revolver and left them at the scene (although, he says, "not all murderers are criminal geniuses").

The lead-in to this wild-eyed speculation about Hill having "found two discharged cartridges in the pistol!" is the fact that Poe had shown him a cigarette package (the cellophane, actually) he'd gotten from Donnie Benavides containing - get this - two expended cartridge casings!

Is Hill's having been shown two spent cartridges in a cigarette pack a reasonable scenario to explain how he'd concluded that the pistol had been fired twice? Why is it more "difficult to conceive of" than the explanation of the "automatic .38 rather than a pistol" scenario?

Having missed this obvious possibility, he continues to build upon that imaginary scenario by suggesting that the "click" of the hammer might have been the result of the hammer landing on a spent .38 Special shell that had "expanded" in the larger .38 chamber and might have been "left there" by Oswald "simply because he couldn't pry them out" when he emptied the gun at the crime scene. This seems to ignore the fact of a total of five shells having been found at the crime scene, but in reality he handles that by suggesting that they might be "false, planted evidence" put there by cops after the fact to explain away something that most if not all of them couldn't have been aware of at the time, i.e., the disparity of shells & slugs' manufacture.

It also ignores the lack of testimony by any of the officers who "identified" the weapon in the Personnel office at DPD HQ later on - Hill, Carroll, McDonald and, I think, someone else whose name I can't recall - that any of the bullets then removed from the weapon in their possession had already been fired. It is also ignorant of the testimony - I recall it being Bob Carroll's - that Hill had emptied the live cartridges from the pistol in the police car after leaving the Texas Theater, as well as there being not one but two pistols "in evidence" at HQ, only one of which Hill continued to possess.

He never discusses the fact that neither McDonald or Carroll could positively identify the weapon as being the one in the theater because McDonald never saw it at all there, and Carroll only saw it while or after handing it to Hill in the squad car, which Hill subsequently put in his jacket pocket after playing with the cartridges and the pistol in plain sight. (Can we say "smudged fingerprints" in unison now?)

There are too many other such leaps to conclusions that he's made without fully examining the circumstances than I've got time to explore. Recapped, they include:

  • Ignorance of #87 Ron Nelson's broadcast of his movement into and subsequent arrival downtown ("down here" in his parlance) even while he was supposed to have been en route to central Oak Cliff;
  • Denial of the documented and documentable fact that Oak Cliff was, in fact, being "drained of police resources" prior to Tippit's murder, and continued to be even as soon as the next reassignment order following Tippit's (i.e., Anglin's order to go downtown from - ta-da! - Oak Cliff, which was so "in need of resources")
  • No examination of or investigation into #91 Bill Mentzel's actions and activities while at lunch (not even his exact whereabouts!), and apparent ignorance of his being assigned to investigate an accident - which he obediently did for the next 20 minutes - even after being informed of the "signal 19 [shooting] involving a police officer" in his own district
  • No acknowledgement, much less examination or refutation of the Top Ten and Gloco stories
  • A very limited knowledge of Harry Olsen;
  • Bad geography (e.g., suggesting that Harlandale was within blocks when it was more than a mile - see photo below, btw)
  • Despite Thomas' having explored the circumstances and timings of Nelson's "investigation" of the gas-station rifle incident west of downtown, a failure to examine the movements and timings of Tippit's trip into Oak Cliff from Kiest and Bonnie View; and
  • Complete ignorance of two other officers in Oak Cliff along Tippit's presumed and most direct route to 8th & Lancaster who should've been and who reported to have been more than 10 miles away in different directions themselves.

I realize that a 30-something-page Chapter Fourteen on "The Tippit Case" is but a small portion of a 700-plus page tome, but to my mind at least, the large amount of oversight and ignorance leads me to wonder at the other possible conclusions he's reached in the rest of the book. If Chapter 14 is indicative, it is - to borrow from the author himself - "difficult to conceive of any scenario other than" his having reached and made some valid conclusions and points, finding that he had "too small" of a book, and filling it in as best as he could under deadline later on with extraneous half-facts and speculation, which detracts from an otherwise potentially excellent work.

Maybe it will redeem itself upon reading of the full text, which is on order.

Harlandale today, btw:

post-3713-023139500 1286521793_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if someone could tell, or provide a link to the data that names the person who found the shells and things like who was there as well at the time, please? (I've done various keyword searches on the dpd jfk database without success.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, thank you Lee. Good to have that summarised in one post.

Now with reference to the bullets found a couple of hours later in Oswalds pocket pre a lineup, who found them? (Hill?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snapback.pngJohn Dolva, on 08 October 2010 - 10:37 AM, said:

I wonder if someone could tell, or provide a link to the data that names the person who found the shells and things like who was there as well at the time, please? (I've done various keyword searches on the dpd jfk database without success.)

Hi John

Domingo Benavides found two of the Tippit shells [Q74 & Q75] that were put into the cigarette box cellophane wrapper. These were passed to Officer Joseph Poe and these two were observed by Gerald Hill. These two shells were then passed to Detective Pete Barnes.

Barnes also received a third shell [Q76]. He couldn't remember who passed it to him. Barbara Davis claimed she observed an Officer retrieve the casing after she pointed it out to him. Barnes thought it may have been Captain George Doughty and Doughty did in fact identify it.

A fourth shell [Q75] was found by Virginia Davis later that day, and long after the area had already been searched, and this shell was passed to Detective C.N. Dhority.

[Q74] .38 Special Casing (Remington)

[Q75] .38 Special Casing (Winchester)

[Q76] .38 Special Casing (Winchester)

[Q77] .38 Special Casing (Remington)

And as we know, four bullets were removed from Tippit's body. Three Winchesters and one Remington.

OK, thank you Lee. Good to have that summarised in one post.

Now with reference to the bullets found a couple of hours later in Oswalds pocket pre a lineup, who found them? (Hill?)

No, John. None of the arresting officers mention anything about finding the bullets, or any bullets for that matter.

The word from the 6th Floor Museum is that they found them and left them on his person because, after removing the revolver, they were not considered a danger to either himself or the officers. A bizarre explanantion if ever I've heard one, especially seeing as how, if they knew they were there, they didn't tell anybody back at the station when they brought him in. I've asked for some evidence in the form of reports or interviews to back this up and I am still waiting. I think it will remain a long wait

The bullets were actually found by the officers who set up the first line-up at 4:35pm. I believe the officer who found the live rounds was Det. Elmer Boyd. It was Richard Sims who found the bus transfer.

The evidence release report, funnily enough, has the following being released to the FBI:

5 - live 38 cal. Western Special shells initialed EB which were found in left front pocket of Lee Harvey Oswald

4 - live 38 cal. shells initialed XXXXX HILL (2 Western special and 2 R P SPL. Removed from gun of Oswald at time ???

4 - hulls (RP SPL - 2 initialed RD) (1 Western) initialed D) and 1 Western found by Virginia Davis

Why did the DPD only send 4 live shells from the revolver to the FBI if there were six in it?

Keywords to enable finding in future searches : pocket , lineup , . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... G. Kinston Clark's The Critical Historian, in which he writes:

"The distortion produced by bias are potentially present in any attempt to write history. Sometimes the danger is obvious and menacing, sometimes it is covert, coming from unexpected angles and in not easily detected forms. ….Any interpretation which makes use of facts which can be shown to be false, or accepts as certainty true facts which are dubious, or does not take into account facts which are known, are at best, potentially misleading, and possibly grossly, and dangerously deceptive. ….It is the first task of the historian to review any narrative to find what links are missing altogether…where what is defective cannot be supplied by further research, it is an historian's duty to draw attention to the fact so that men can know where they stand.…Any historical conception which has not been adjusted to the most recent results will cease to be satisfactory."

Bravo!

... Although I still think it's a cinch that there will be no grand jury until and unless someone is capable of presenting some sort of cohesive case to follow instead of spaghetti on the wall. The outcome of the current elections underway may be just the ticket. Maybe.

Duke,

There is no spaghetti on the wall, only in your mind.

Chuck all the BS and stick to the evidence that can be admissible in a court of law. Books and BS cannot be admitted, but then the prosecutors know that.

If you can't pin point evidence yet, you should take a class in criminal justice at your local community college, or just get a book on it and read it.

It didn't take any spaghetti to get them to indict BIll Clinton for perjury when he was president of the United States, and he said he didn't have sex with that women, while Linday Tripp, egged on byt NANA editor Lucianna Goldberg to tape record Monica Lowenski and not wash the evidence away. [bill Simpich mentions this in his excellent series: http://www.opednews.com/articles/4/THE-JFK-CASE--OSWALD-AND-by-Bill-Simpich-100315-5.html ]

And it didn't take any spaghetti to get a grand jury to indict baseball hero Roger Clemmons for perjury before a Congressional hearing when he denied using steroids,

And it didn't take any spaghetti to send the celebrity style Queen to hard time for insider traiding,

BUT in Dallas, or is it contageous to all of Texas, when it is discovered that a bullet embedded in a button was found by Tippit's ambulance driver, and that a Dallas Police detective had lied under oath and the physician who conducted Tippit's autopsy lied under oath when the signed affidavits that the bullet was taken out of Tippit's body, that crime of perjury isn't even taken to a grand jury, but is given a wink-wink and a waver by the Dallas DA, whether Henry Wade or any those who followed, up to and including Watkins today.

And the sad thing is there are dozens, litterally dozens of small crimes of perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, failure to place evidence into exhibit so it can be evaluated, etc. in the case of JFK, Tippit and the murder of Oswald, yet, no one in Texas has the legal balls to run any of them past a grand jury, as they did with the Texas Tower killer incident.

Certainly if Earl Golz wrote a story about the Button Bullet in the Dallas newspaper, the Dallas DAs knew about it and that they also knew that two respected members of the Dallas PD and Medical community had willingly committed a crime, and they weren't going to do anything about it.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...