Lee Oswald’s Departure from the TSBD

[Alaric Rosman]

I am not concerned with what Mrs Markham should or would have said, but what she actually DID say:-

From her affidavit (90 minutes after Tippit’s death)

The first affidavit to the Dallas Police. 11/22/1963

At approximately 1:06, November 22, 1963 --- I was standing on the corner of E.10th and Patton Street waiting for traffic to go by when I saw a squad car stop in front of 404 E.10th about 50 ft from where I was standing. I saw a young white man walk up to the squad car opposite the driver's side………………………..” (24H, 214; CE2003, p37)

Note that Tippit, in stopping his car outside 404, pulls to a halt ahead of the gunman, and not alongside the gunman, and that the gunman walks up to Tippit’s car from behind.

This suggests that Tippit and the gunman were travelling in the same direction, and that Tippit overtook the gunman

This impression is fully confirmed by the following:-.

I

(i) Statement to the Secret Service, December 2 '63.

"I saw a Dallas Police Patrol Car driving down 10th Street, and just after it crossed Patton Avenue, it pulled over to the curb and it stopped. I then saw a man who had been walking down Tenth Street approach the stopped patrol car on the passenger side. He bent down and looked into the car; he folded his arms and rested them on the door as…

(ii) Jack Tatum. He gave no evidence to the Dallas Police at the time of the killing because he thought that "there were more than enough people there and I could not see what I could contribute." However he was very happy 15 years later to make statement to the investigators of HSCA. This is the relevant part of what he said:

"I was driving north on Denver and stopped at 10th Street when I first saw the squad car and a man walking on the sidewalk near the squad car. Both the squad car and this young white male were coming in my direction (East on 10th Street). " (HSCA, 1978, accessed through Myers, p 532)

It is obvious from this statement (and from those above) that the Tippit and his assassin were both travelling in the same direction.………….

[Duke Lane]

At approximately 1:06, November 22, 1963 --- I was standing on the corner of E.10th and Patton Street waiting for traffic to go by when I saw a squad car stop in front of 404 E.10th about 50 ft from where I was standing. I saw a young white man walk up to the squad car opposite the driver's side……………………….." (24H, 214; CE2003, p37)

Note that Tippit, in stopping his car outside 404, pulls to a halt ahead of the gunman, and not alongside the gunman, and that the gunman walks up to Tippit's car from behind. This suggests that Tippit and the gunman were travelling in the same direction, and that Tippit overtook the gunman.

She saw a patrol car stop and a man "walk up" to it, on the side "opposite the driver's side," which would be the right side of the car. Am I correct in understanding that one can only "walk up" to a "side" from a particular direction? One can only "walk up" to it from the rear? What would she have said (tho' you're "not concerned" with that!) if he had approached from the front of the car? That he had "walked down" to the side opposite the driver's side? "Walk up" only means "approach" and one can do that from any direction.

There is nothing in Mrs. Markham's statement that says that Tippit stpped "ahead of the gunman" or that the young white man approached the car "from behind." If there is, please point it out to me. I really do need to know where you draw your inferences when no such words exist.

You will note in this statement, Mrs. Markham did not even say that she saw the patrol car pass in front of her, only that she saw it when it stopped in front of 404.

This impression is fully confirmed by the following:

I saw a Dallas Police Patrol Car driving down 10th Street, and just after it crossed Patton Avenue, it pulled over to the curb and it stopped. I then saw a man who had been walking down Tenth Street approach the stopped patrol car on the passenger side. He bent down and looked into the car; he folded his arms and rested them on the door as…

"Confirmed?" She saw this man "approach" the patrol car "on the passenger side" and lean up against it, but nowhere does she say she saw the man approach the car from behind ... nor does she say she saw him approach the car from in front, but merely that he "approached" it.

When two people are walking down the street toward each other, is one "approaching" the other? What if one was walking behind the other and walks up to him as the second man pauses to look into a window: is the first man "approaching" the other? What about if he comes from across the street? The word "approach" does not imply a direction. One can approach from the front, rear or side equally.

(ii) Jack Tatum. He gave no evidence to the Dallas Police at the time of the killing because he thought that "there were more than enough people there and I could not see what I could contribute." However he was very happy 15 years later to make statement to the investigators of HSCA. This is the relevant part of what he said:

I was driving north on Denver and stopped at 10th Street when I first saw the squad car and a man walking on the sidewalk near the squad car. Both the squad car and this young white male were coming in my direction (East on 10th Street). (HSCA, 1978, accessed through Myers, p 532)

It is obvious from this statement (and from those above) that the Tippit and his assassin were both travelling in the same direction.

Tatum's belated statement does in fact say what you quote. Nevertheless, even while Tatum's statement does make the distinction of both the patrol car and the pedestrian moving in an easterly direction toward Tatum, it is the only one of the three you've quoted that does indicate any direction of the pedestrian. It nevertheless was made 15 years after the fact, which certainly permits for some slight factual errors, including whether he actually saw (or noticed) either the patrol car and/or pedestrian in motion.

That possibility is emphasized by your further quotation of Tatum, in which he explains that he didn't come forward (or remain on the scene) in 1963 because "there were more than enough people there and I could not see what I could contribute." Please note what he said before that: "I sped off in my auto" and "All I saw [was?] him [run?] to the intersection and run south on Patton towards Jefferson."

So where did the "more than enough people" come from? Did Scotty beam them all down to stand around the patrol car nanoseconds after the shooting took place? Did they appear in a puff of smoke? As Tatum "sped off," Donnie Benavides was still hunkered down in his pickup truck, Helen Markham was still at the corner watching the gunman thru her fingers, Bill Scoggins was slinking out of his cab in the hope of not being seen, Bill Smith and Jimmy Burt were still around the corner on Denver, Frank Wright was still in his house, Tom Bowley hadn't shown up yet, the men at the lots over on Jefferson were still down the street until after the shooter had run by them onto Jefferson, and Acquilla Clemons was still west of where Tatum had been when he "sped off," or more accurately, made the decision to speed off.

It took them a couple of minutes to gather 'round the scene of the shooting by which time Tatum, if he "sped off" would have been a block or more away, if even still in sight. If Jack Tatum did what he said he did and saw what he said he saw, then he could not have seen "more than enough people there" because they simply hadn't gotten there by the time the gunman started running toward him and he sped off.

(If he did see "more than enough people there," then he came by at least a couple of minutes after the shooting had taken place, and could not have seen the gunman, in which case his disclaimer that he "could not see what [he] could contribute" makes much better sense that the disclaimer of a man who was one of only two people - not counting Tippit and his killer - who were in his sight, three if he saw Scoggins in his cab ... not quite "more than enough people.")

If he thinks he saw those "more than enough people" when clearly he couldn't have (if his description of speeding off is accurate!), then he may also simply think that he saw the patrol car and pedestrian in motion; they may only have been standing there facing him ... and that only if Tatum was actually there, which based on his "more than enough people" statement, I'm not convinced that he was.

Remember that his statement was simply an interview, not given under oath (ergo not an "affidavit" as Myers calls it), and given to committee investigators and not to law enforcement personnel.

All of that said, outside of the questionable statement of Jack Ray Tatum, there is no proof of what direction the pedestrian was walking - or even if he was walking, as opposed to just standing there. It appears to be there only because you seem to wish it to be there, because the words you quote simply don't exist in the statements you draw from.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

all these items belonged to him and were found by the FBI back at 1026 Beckley Avenue. The FBI even found a "blue and black travel bag with zipper" he could have used to carry these items.

Tony

Tony: Can you please post the citation (or a link) for the FBI report(s) you are discussing here?

[Tony Austin]

all these items belonged to him and were found by the FBI back at 1026 Beckley Avenue. The FBI even found a "blue and black travel bag with zipper" he could have used to carry these items.

Tony

Tony: Can you please post the citation (or a link) for the FBI report(s) you are discussing here?

No problem, you will find it here:

Warren Commission Hearings Volume XXI

TurnerFM Ex 1 - Copy of a list of property taken from 1026 North Beckley Street in Dallas, dated November 22, 1963.

Best wishes,

Tony

[J. Raymond Carroll]

No problem, you will find it here:

Warren Commission Hearings Volume XXI

TurnerFM Ex 1 - Copy of a list of property taken from 1026 North Beckley Street in Dallas, dated November 22, 1963.

Best wishes,

Tony

Thank you Tony. For continuity of the thread, here is a link to the Turner Exhibit:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0351b.htm

[J. Raymond Carroll]

outside of the questionable statement of Jack Ray Tatum, there is no proof of what direction the pedestrian was walking - or even if he was walking, as opposed to just standing there.

Sorry I don't have the links handy (they are on another Markham thread), but in her statement to the FBI Markham said that after she left the washeteria, as she was walking south on Patton Avenue, she noticed a man who was just about to step up on the pavement on Tenth Street, on the south-east side and who continued walking East on Tenth. Markham seemed to have no idea whether this man had come from the direction of Jefferson, or dropped in by parachute, or whether he had been walking East on Tenth all along, as the Warren Commission arbitrarily assumed.

The distance from that corner to No. 404 (as a wild guess from memory) is little more than a 30-second walk. Since the prosecution side has no problem with dear old Helen's eyesight, then neither have I, and I submit that Helen was a good deal more than a half-minute walk away from the corner when she first noticed this man. The corner where she saw the man was in her line of vision practically the moment she left the washateria. Since the prosecution assumes Markham had normal or corrected vision, then I will make the same assumption. She must have seen that man at least one full minute before she reached the corner. Assuming the man Markham saw is the gunman (as the FBI & WC assumed), he must have stopped walking when he got to 404, otherwise he would have been much further down the road by the time Markham reached the corner. Thus, when Goggins saw him he was standing at 404 facing WEST as the police car approached

[Jack White]

It has been a long time, and the buildings are gone now, but...

...as I recall the Davis sisters lived at 400, ON THE CORNER OPPOSITE MARKHAM.

The gunman walked through the Davis front yard to Patton, discarding shells as he went.

Tippit was shot in front of 404, the second house from the corner. Markham was

about 100 feet from the shootings.

Jack

Edited May 9, 2008 by Jack White

[Duke Lane]

... at 400 E 10th, diagonally across from where Helen Markham stood. Tippit was shot, according to Virginia or Charlie Davis, "in front of the hedgerow between the house next door [to us] and the house that he lived in." In fact, he was shot in front of the driveway between the second and third houses from the corner, opposite where Frank and Peter Cimino lived at 405 ("in front of" their house, according to Frank).

400 and the house next door are gone, but the third house, I think, remains. See Google map here.

[Jack White]

Thanks, Duke.

Jack

Edited May 9, 2008 by Jack White

[J. Raymond Carroll]

In fact, he was shot in front of the driveway between the second and third houses from the corner

So this is only a very short walk from the corner. If Markham was still some distance from the corner when she noticed the man walking East towards number 404 (and I submit that it is reasonable to infer that this was the case), then that man must have been standing or loitering in the area of No. 404 for perhaps a minute or more before Markham reached the corner and before Tippit's patrol car approached.

I submit that this evidence is consistent with a gunman who anticipated Tippit's imminent arrival at the scene.

The question then becomes whether this man had signalled or "flagged down" the patrolman while Markham's attention was elsewhere, causing the patrolman to slow down and stop. Markham's testimony that the pedestrian "approached" the patrol car and that the two men were having a nice friendly conversation, as though the pedestrian was reporting some disturbance in the house, is consistent with a scenario in which it was the pedestrian who stopped Tippit, and not the other way round as the WC assumed.

I have heard about a presentation on this topic that Alaric Rossman gave at DPUK's annual conference a few years ago, but have not been able to find a transcript. I am hoping that Alaric will post his presentation on this forum in the near future.

[Duke Lane]

[Regarding Jack's map:]

... A distance that Google Earth measures at 100± feet, 4.3 ft/sec 23 seconds walking, half that running.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Duke Lane

[Duke Lane]

... I submit that this evidence is consistent with a gunman who anticipated Tippit's imminent arrival at the scene.

The question then becomes whether this man had signalled or "flagged down" the patrolman while Markham's attention was elsewhere, causing the patrolman to slow down and stop. Markham's testimony that the pedestrian "approached" the patrol car and that the two men were having a nice friendly conversation, as though the pedestrian was reporting some disturbance in the house, is consistent with a scenario in which it was the pedestrian who stopped Tippit, and not the other way round as the WC assumed.

I'm not disagreeing when I say that such a pedestrian would have had to have some sort of reason to "anticipate Tippit's imminent arrival at the scene." What could it have been?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I'm not disagreeing when I say that such a pedestrian would have had to have some sort of reason to "anticipate Tippit's imminent arrival at the scene." What could it have been?

My theory on that is still in gestation, but I will give you a call in the near future to discuss.

[Jack White]

Coincidentally, looking thru my computer JFK files, I found this

photo of Markham reenacting where she stood.

Jack

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Mr Belin: Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?

Mr Scoggins: Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping,you see,and I saw this man with a light-cooured jacket on.

[Mr Belin hasn't fully grasped what Scoggins has just said --- the sequenceof events that he has impl ied.] Mr Belin: Now you saw a man with a light-colored jacket. With relation to the polce car, was that man east of the police car, west of the police car,or kind.......

Mr Scoggins: Just a liitle east is the best I can remember. (3H, 325)

Mr Belin: I wonder if you would take Exhibit 523 and see if there is any number on Exhibit 523 which corresponds to the position of the man who was walking along East 10th Street, or wherever he was when you first saw him.

Mr Scoggins: Approximately where 16 is.

Mr Belin Yes; you are pointing to the position where the arrow is in number 16?

Mr Ball: Mr Belin, he didn't see him walking. ( 3H,329)

Earlier in this thread Duke Lane took issue with Alaric Rosman's suggestion that Markham saw the gunman walk up to the police car from the rear, i.e. the gunman walking East towards the patrol car which was also facing East. In that scenario the patrol car pulled up just forward (East) of the pedestrian and the pedestrian walked up (Eastwards) to the car from the rear.

Someone will please correct me if I am misreading this, but it seems to me that Scoggins testimony cited here by Alaric should put this issue to rest. As I read Scoggins, he is saying that the patrol car came to a stop just before BEFORE it reached the pedestrian, and that the pedestrian then had to walk WEST to reach the passenger window. Scoggins marked number 16 on Exhibit 523 as the spot he saw the pedestrian, which (unless my eyes deceive me) was just East of the

stationary patrol car

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0128a.htm

No contemporaneous witness contradicted Scoggins on this issue (I am discounting the value of Tatum's 15-year-old recollection), so I submit we have undisputed evidence that the patrol car stopped JUST BEFORE it reached the pedestrian.

Again, this is consistent with a scenario in which it was the pedestrian who stopped the patrol car, and not vice versa, as the Warren Commission assumed.