Jump to content


Spartacus

J.D. Tippit's murder scene?


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#16 J. Raymond Carroll

J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 27 May 2008 - 12:02 AM

... According to Myers, "An enlargement of the crime photo referred to by the Commission, however, reveals that the "photograph of a man" is actually the spring, metal clip clutching Tippit's open spiral notebook."

I can buy into that theory, but would like to see an original print rather than something made up of a bunch of little dots. Guess that means having to go through the Dallas Archives online and hoping to find it, then ordering a print. (sigh)




This reminds me of the 1966 Antonioni movie BLOW-UP starring David Hemmings as a fashion photographer driving around swinging London in the most beautiful convertible in movie history. I found this on the movie's website:

Antonioni made the clearest statement of his motivation as a filmmaker at the end of Beyond the Clouds when he talked about his belief that reality is unattainable as it is submerged by layers of images which are only versions of reality.

This is a rather pretentious way of saying that everyone perceives reality in their own way and ultimately see only what they want to see.

With this philosophy in mind, Blow-Up is probably Antonioni's most personal film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060176/

BLOW_UP is a must -see movie for every assassination buff, especially those interested in the photographic/film evidence, as the storyline shows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowup

Antonioni's beliefs about reality are only valid, IMO, when we are dealing with faint photographic images which only get more blurred upon enlargement, as David Hemming discovered. In the real world, of course, there is a reality that is independent of what anyone may think, and that reality includes the fact that JD Tippit was shot four times in cold blood. But the chances of positively identifying the person in the photo (if it is a photo) on Tippit's dashboard must be so astronomically small as to be not worth the effort.

#17 Steve Thomas

Steve Thomas

    Advanced Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPip
  • 948 posts

Posted 27 May 2008 - 04:15 PM

James,

I was going through some photographs taken at the scene of Officer Tippit's murder and noticed that there was a clipboard, or something similar located on the front passenger's side dash.

The image below shows that object. I was wondering if anyone knows what exactly this is and could that be a photograph pinned to it?

Apologies if this has been discussed before.

James


Back in 2002 I asked the question of whose picture was on that clipboard in the Lancer Forum.

A Rick Holtman had this to say,

"Steve, Bill-

On 4/7/83, Posner interviewed James Leavelle. Leavelle said, "I looked at some of the stuff that Tippit had in the car but, to my knowledge, there was nothing ever found - that was written - in regards to the man he stopped. There was no reference as to why he stopped to talk to him. From my own experience, I doubt very seriously that he would have written anything on the clipboard about the man he was stopping. From the way the witnesses described it, Tippit was very nonchalant. It wasn''t as though he was expecting anything. He probably figured he would do a routine check, talk to him, look at his identification, and send him on his way. I know, from my own experience, that I have done that thousands of times - talk to people, maybe look at their identification, and then, send them on their way, and never think another thing about it. I'm sure that's what he had in mind."

To Posner, this statement resolved the issue of the clipboard. To me, Leavelle's statement seems fuzzy at best. He never actually says that he read what was on the clipboard. Instead he seems to be arguing why Tippit probably wouldn't have written anything down about the man he stopped.

By the way, Posner says that an enlargement of the crime scene photograph (page 63) shows that the picture of the man was actually a "metal spring clip clutching an open spiral notebook."

As none of this attempts to explain why Tippit stopped the guy, Posner then goes on to use the confusion among the witnesses about the direction the guy was walking to contend that the guy suddenly changed directions upon seeing the cop car, which is why Tippit became suspicious. Interesting speculation, it seems to me, but that's all it is.

Hope this helps;

Rick Holtman"

Steve Thomas

#18 Antti Hynonen

Antti Hynonen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Helsinki, Finland
  • Interests:JFK assassination debate

Posted 28 May 2008 - 06:49 AM

Interesting thread. Just a layman's view: The dark area on the "clip" is not a spiral at all imo. It definitely looks like a photo of a man. One can make out that the picture has a face, the person is wearing a hat, also the white shirt sleeves seem to be present protruding from under the coat. The persons hands are in front of him.

A photo, but not a typical mug shot.

#19 Duke Lane

Duke Lane

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Universally loved and admired for his keen wit, sharp intellect, loathsome egoism, and awe-inspiring self-delusion, Lane studies the JFK assassination from afar, offers few opinions, and generally keeps to himself.

Posted 28 May 2008 - 06:32 PM

Does anyone have access to the book with the "enlarged" photo mentioned here (post #21)?

The book, yes ... but I guess we're going to have to go one better and get an 8x10" original photo from the (presumably original) negative, 'cuz all those dots don't help an awful lot. When I get my hands on one, I'll scan it in at some ridiculously high resolution to see what there really is to see and post it here. It'll probably be a couple of weeks anyway....

#20 Steve Rosen

Steve Rosen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts

Posted 30 May 2008 - 07:50 AM

Dale Myers' recent blog entry contains a clearer picture of Tippit's clipboard:

http://jfkfiles.blog...-clipboard.html


The clipboard photo is located at the Dallas Municipal Archives, linked at:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/index.html


Photographs are located in Boxes 11, 12, and 12A.


The clipboard photo is located Box 12, Folder 45, Item 001, negative number 91-001/016, linked at:

http://jfk.ci.dallas...41/4147-001.gif


It seems that Dale Myers obtained his high-quality picture as a new print from the original negative.


The original negative is located in Box 12A, Folder 15, Item 001, negative number 91-001/016. No scan.

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box12A.htm


Steve

Edited by Steve Rosen, 30 May 2008 - 07:56 AM.


#21 Lee Forman

Lee Forman

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 30 May 2008 - 01:27 PM

I’ve often said that no one will ever learn anything of importance reading the voluminous chatter from the presumed experts on the Kennedy assassination newsgroups. This latest UK Education Forum posting only reaffirms my opinion.


Quite a smug ending. I don't claim to be any kind of an expert - however there are quite a few of us here that insist on the highest possible quality material - as close to first generation as possible - before passing judgement. I don't know that this has changed.

- lee

#22 Duke Lane

Duke Lane

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Universally loved and admired for his keen wit, sharp intellect, loathsome egoism, and awe-inspiring self-delusion, Lane studies the JFK assassination from afar, offers few opinions, and generally keeps to himself.

Posted 30 May 2008 - 01:55 PM

Dale Myers' recent blog entry contains a clearer picture of Tippit's clipboard:http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/05/myste...rd.html


... and so it does, along with the snippet:

It's certainly no surprise that these educators of the Internet conspiracy crowd know little of what's between the cover boards of "With Malice" given the fact that they regularly trash the author of the book – yours truly – calling him a charlatan, liar, and worse.

Had they looked on page 63 of this decade old publication they would have seen an enlargement of the pertinent portion of a Dallas police crime lab photograph which depicts the dashboard of Tippit's squad car. (See Figure 1 below).

While my heart certainly goes out to him on account of the first, it's on account of things like the second that cause the first, for if one turns to page 63 of With Malice, one finds not the high-detail image Dale posted on his blog (which invites but does not publish comments from readers), but merely the left portion of that image:

Attached File  clipboard_052508.jpg   90.78KB   10 downloads

The left portion of the above image is published in With Malice, page 63. The right half is not.

Since all conspiracy theorists "shun" his book, it seems that there is no way that we, the "educators of the Internet conspiracy crowd," would ever know that, so he can say it with the impunity of knowing don't know any better. Clearly, the only reason he might be called a "charlatan, liar, [or] worse" is because we've apparently never read his book to be able to know that he's not any of those things, is drop-dead honest, and has cleared up every "mystery" to his own satisfaction and that of everyone who agrees with him (anyone who doesn't, of course, is just plain wrong).

Just as clearly, these pejoratives could not apply to him because he purports to have published a photo that he did not. And thus he fights for truth, justice and the American Way: with what we might generously call a "shaded truth," but certainly not a "lie" because Dale's not "a charlatan, liar, [or] worse." Tsk.

The saddest thing of all is his disparagement of the suggestion - made by yours truly - that it would be better to get an original print - just like Dale did - to see what's on it rather than rely on multi-generational copies and scans and newprinted repros - just like Dale didn't.

Maybe he's surprised that everyone doesn't have original copies of everything and still needs to get something ... or maybe he just figures anyone can go to his book, see the photo he didn't publish (and the copies of other photos!), read what he wrote, and thus know all that one needs to know.

The inscription inside my copy of With Malice, by the way, begins "To: Duke Lane," and ends with Dale's signature, dated several years ago. And y'know what? I still don't know everything about the Tippit murder ... and frankly, neither does Dale. But I do daresay, he does know a lot.

Having a book merely proves it. :ice

#23 Jack White

Jack White

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,640 posts

Posted 30 May 2008 - 03:36 PM

Clipboard with photo? Or CLIP, PAPER on top of BOOK?

Jack

Attached Files



#24 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,137 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 May 2008 - 05:42 PM

Dale Myers' recent blog entry contains a clearer picture of Tippit's clipboard:http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/05/myste...rd.html


... and so it does, along with the snippet:

It's certainly no surprise that these educators of the Internet conspiracy crowd know little of what's between the cover boards of "With Malice" given the fact that they regularly trash the author of the book – yours truly – calling him a charlatan, liar, and worse.

Had they looked on page 63 of this decade old publication they would have seen an enlargement of the pertinent portion of a Dallas police crime lab photograph which depicts the dashboard of Tippit's squad car. (See Figure 1 below).

While my heart certainly goes out to him on account of the first, it's on account of things like the second that cause the first, for if one turns to page 63 of With Malice, one finds not the high-detail image Dale posted on his blog (which invites but does not publish comments from readers), but merely the left portion of that image:

Attached File  clipboard_052508.jpg   90.78KB   10 downloads

The left portion of the above image is published in With Malice, page 63. The right half is not.

Since all conspiracy theorists "shun" his book, it seems that there is no way that we, the "educators of the Internet conspiracy crowd," would ever know that, so he can say it with the impunity of knowing don't know any better. Clearly, the only reason he might be called a "charlatan, liar, [or] worse" is because we've apparently never read his book to be able to know that he's not any of those things, is drop-dead honest, and has cleared up every "mystery" to his own satisfaction and that of everyone who agrees with him (anyone who doesn't, of course, is just plain wrong).

Just as clearly, these pejoratives could not apply to him because he purports to have published a photo that he did not. And thus he fights for truth, justice and the American Way: with what we might generously call a "shaded truth," but certainly not a "lie" because Dale's not "a charlatan, liar, [or] worse." Tsk.

The saddest thing of all is his disparagement of the suggestion - made by yours truly - that it would be better to get an original print - just like Dale did - to see what's on it rather than rely on multi-generational copies and scans and newprinted repros - just like Dale didn't.

Maybe he's surprised that everyone doesn't have original copies of everything and still needs to get something ... or maybe he just figures anyone can go to his book, see the photo he didn't publish (and the copies of other photos!), read what he wrote, and thus know all that one needs to know.

The inscription inside my copy of With Malice, by the way, begins "To: Duke Lane," and ends with Dale's signature, dated several years ago. And y'know what? I still don't know everything about the Tippit murder ... and frankly, neither does Dale. But I do daresay, he does know a lot.

Having a book merely proves it. :ice



Yea,

Dale knows a lot about the Tippit murder. More than what he put in the book.

BK

#25 Duke Lane

Duke Lane

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Universally loved and admired for his keen wit, sharp intellect, loathsome egoism, and awe-inspiring self-delusion, Lane studies the JFK assassination from afar, offers few opinions, and generally keeps to himself.

Posted 30 May 2008 - 07:02 PM

Yea, Dale knows a lot about the Tippit murder. More than what he put in the book.

Someday you'll have to explain that cryptic comment to me, but my own research indicates that anyone looking at it with an unjaundiced eye could only know more than what's in With Malice!

A couple of the more interesting things I noted in Dale's blog were these:

... And just for the record, while crime lab Sergeant W.E. "Willie" Barnes testified to the Warren Commission that "We never read his clipboard," former homicide Detective James R. Leavelle, who led the investigation into Tippit's death, told me in 1983 that he looked at Tippit's clipboard and there was nothing there to indicate why Tippit stopped Oswald. End of mystery. ...

... Conspiracy theorists have bitterly complained about the apparent lack of interest that the Dallas police had in Tippit's dash-mounted clipboard, citing Dallas police crime lab sergeant W.E. "Pete" Barnes' comment to the Warren Commission in 1964, "We never read his clipboard."

So which is it, "Willie" or "Pete?" Are we talking about two different guys here, maybe? Must've been awfully confusing if they were best of friends who saw each other socially, kept from getting one "Will Barnes" confused with the other "Will Barnes." But wouldn't it have been easier just to call one "Bill" instead of "Pete?"

What I find particularly enjoyable is the assertion - frequently found among WM's pages - that because someone said something, it is proof positive that what they said is true. Jim Leavelle told Dale that there was nothing there, therefore because he said so, there wasn't. "End of mystery."

It makes me wonder why all of this conversation takes place: after all, didn't Lee Oswald say, publicly and for all the world to see (not just privately for Dale to hear and report), that he "didn't shoot anybody?"

By Dale's measure, it must be true, and that's the end of the mystery. All we have left is to figure out who did!

By the way, how long have they been giving Emmys for writing? As in "Emmy Award-winning Animator and Author...?" (Really, it's only because I'm jealous that I don't have one!)

#26 Greg Parker

Greg Parker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 31 May 2008 - 12:23 AM

A couple of the more interesting things I noted in Dale's blog were these:

... And just for the record, while crime lab Sergeant W.E. "Willie" Barnes testified to the Warren Commission that "We never read his clipboard," former homicide Detective James R. Leavelle, who led the investigation into Tippit's death, told me in 1983 that he looked at Tippit's clipboard and there was nothing there to indicate why Tippit stopped Oswald. End of mystery. ...

... Conspiracy theorists have bitterly complained about the apparent lack of interest that the Dallas police had in Tippit's dash-mounted clipboard, citing Dallas police crime lab sergeant W.E. "Pete" Barnes' comment to the Warren Commission in 1964, "We never read his clipboard."

So which is it, "Willie" or "Pete?" Are we talking about two different guys here, maybe? Must've been awfully confusing if they were best of friends who saw each other socially, kept from getting one "Will Barnes" confused with the other "Will Barnes." But wouldn't it have been easier just to call one "Bill" instead of "Pete?"

What I find particularly enjoyable is the assertion - frequently found among WM's pages - that because someone said something, it is proof positive that what they said is true. Jim Leavelle told Dale that there was nothing there, therefore because he said so, there wasn't. "End of mystery."

What I find particularly enjoyable is the assertion - frequently found among WM's pages - that because someone said something, it is proof positive that what they said is true. Jim Leavelle told Dale that there was nothing there, therefore because he said so, there wasn't. "End of mystery."


When Dale wrote the above, he was parsing.

He goes on to give the exact quote, the relevant portion of which goes, "I looked at some of the stuff that Tippit had in the car but, to my knowledge, there was nothing ever found - that was written - in regards to the man he stopped," Leavelle told me. "There was no reference as to why he stopped to talk to him."

Nowhere in that does Leavelle actually state that he looked at/examined the clipboard and what was clipped to it. In fact, he seems to give a a rather large clue that he didn't when he said that to his knowledge - nothing was was ever found.

Dale should be thanked for debunking the "wanted poster" theory. Equally, he needs to be slapped about the noggin for his dishonesty when it comes to the type of thing he's tried to pull here with Leavelle's statement.

#27 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,137 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 May 2009 - 06:32 PM

A couple of the more interesting things I noted in Dale's blog were these:

... And just for the record, while crime lab Sergeant W.E. "Willie" Barnes testified to the Warren Commission that "We never read his clipboard," former homicide Detective James R. Leavelle, who led the investigation into Tippit's death, told me in 1983 that he looked at Tippit's clipboard and there was nothing there to indicate why Tippit stopped Oswald. End of mystery. ...

... Conspiracy theorists have bitterly complained about the apparent lack of interest that the Dallas police had in Tippit's dash-mounted clipboard, citing Dallas police crime lab sergeant W.E. "Pete" Barnes' comment to the Warren Commission in 1964, "We never read his clipboard."

So which is it, "Willie" or "Pete?" Are we talking about two different guys here, maybe? Must've been awfully confusing if they were best of friends who saw each other socially, kept from getting one "Will Barnes" confused with the other "Will Barnes." But wouldn't it have been easier just to call one "Bill" instead of "Pete?"

What I find particularly enjoyable is the assertion - frequently found among WM's pages - that because someone said something, it is proof positive that what they said is true. Jim Leavelle told Dale that there was nothing there, therefore because he said so, there wasn't. "End of mystery."

What I find particularly enjoyable is the assertion - frequently found among WM's pages - that because someone said something, it is proof positive that what they said is true. Jim Leavelle told Dale that there was nothing there, therefore because he said so, there wasn't. "End of mystery."


When Dale wrote the above, he was parsing.

He goes on to give the exact quote, the relevant portion of which goes, "I looked at some of the stuff that Tippit had in the car but, to my knowledge, there was nothing ever found - that was written - in regards to the man he stopped," Leavelle told me. "There was no reference as to why he stopped to talk to him."

Nowhere in that does Leavelle actually state that he looked at/examined the clipboard and what was clipped to it. In fact, he seems to give a a rather large clue that he didn't when he said that to his knowledge - nothing was was ever found.

Dale should be thanked for debunking the "wanted poster" theory. Equally, he needs to be slapped about the noggin for his dishonesty when it comes to the type of thing he's tried to pull here with Leavelle's statement.



#28 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,137 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 October 2010 - 03:24 PM



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.

Along with a few other relevant records.

http://jfkcountercou...it-murder-case/

Don B. Thomas' The Tippit Case:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=1538456


HSCA Vol. XII Oswald-Tippit Associates - The Wise Allegation:


http://www.maryferre...84&relPageId=37

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

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0018b.htm


#29 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,137 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 October 2010 - 03:25 PM



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.

Along with a few other relevant records.

http://jfkcountercou...it-murder-case/

Don B. Thomas' The Tippit Case:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=1538456


HSCA Vol. XII Oswald-Tippit Associates - The Wise Allegation:


http://www.maryferre...84&relPageId=37

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

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0018b.htm


#30 Duke Lane

Duke Lane

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Universally loved and admired for his keen wit, sharp intellect, loathsome egoism, and awe-inspiring self-delusion, Lane studies the JFK assassination from afar, offers few opinions, and generally keeps to himself.

Posted 08 October 2010 - 01:00 AM

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users