Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send these  to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Alaric Rosman

The Affidavit That Destroys “With Malice”

Recommended Posts

This is the first of a series of three Forum postings, dealing with what I call “Document 106'' (or simply '106').

'106' is the affidavit that Helen Markham gave to the Dallas Police within 90 minutes of Tippit's slaying (1)

From the Warren Commission's perspective, ‘106’ was a threat because of its assertion that Tippit was shot at "approximately 1:06" (hence my title '106'), whereas the Commission was arguing for 1:16. (2) This later time, as we shall see in my third article, was essential to the Commission's purpose.

The second posting will consider all the supportive evidence for Mrs. Markham's "approximately 1:06", limiting itself to what actually was (or could have been) known at the time.

The third posting will assesses the Commission response to '106'. It concentrates on Commission lawyer Joseph Ball, who 'evasively' examined the testimonies of Helen Markham, Ted Callaway and Earlene Roberts.

'106' says

"At approximately 1:06 pm, 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 Street about 50feet from where I was standing. I saw a young white man walk up to the squad car opposite the driver's side, lean over and put his arms on the door of the car for a few seconds, then straighten up and step back from the car two or three feet. At this point the officer got out of his squad car and started around in front of the car and just as he got even with the left front wheel this young white man shot the officer and the officer fell to the pavement. I screamed and the man ran west on E. Tenth across Patton Street and went out of sight."(3)

Three reasons why this document is important.

(I) Mrs. Markham's status as a witness. She is the only witness we know of who saw the incident in its entirety (4)

In ‘106’ Mrs. Markham interprets the stopping of Tippit’s car by reference to house 404 (an interpretation which she maintained at her Hearings (5) She does not see Tippit as stopping to speak to the gunman --- she reports the gunman as initiating the interaction. (6)

(II) ‘106’ has the ring of truth. Five facts support this assertion.

(1) The statement was made to the Dallas police about 90 minutes after Tippit's death at a time when his death was a total mystery. Their minds were like blank pieces of paper on which Mrs. Markham, within reason, could write what she liked. The Dallas Police were at that time --- but later on, as I'll submit, only at that time -- passive receptacles into which she could do the pouring.

(2) She was in emotional shock ---- really frightened --- and certainly in no frame of mind to fabricate or consciously exaggerate (7)

(3) Her statement was to the point, unambiguous, and she claimed to have witnessed nothing that she could not have reasonably been expected to have seen. Her vantage point would have given her an unobstructed view, situated only about 150 ft (8) from the incident.

(4) She wasn't influenced by the opinion of other witnesses. She was the first witness.

(5) Of all those who gave evidence to the Warren Commission on Tippit's slaying, only Helen Markham was conscious of the time.

(3) ‘106’ contributes (more so than any other affidavit) to an assessment of when Tippit died--- an issue central to whether Oswald was Tippit’s murderer.

Because of its controversial time-check, '106' has been elbowed into the margins. Dale Myers (“With Malice”) does not include it in his Selection of Documents, nor is it referred to in his text.

There are key points in Dale Myers’ book --- his discussion of Mrs. Markham's movements (p60), and the time of Tippit's death (p86/87.) --- where reference to ‘106’ is essential, but nothing appears (9). More on this in the third posting.

Another thing that makes '106 'interesting is the way it gives its time-check: "approximately 1:06" --- a ‘precise approximation’ (very rare) --- which indicates that Mrs. Markham looked at her watch at 1:06, and that Tippit’s death was moments later. What occasioned the time-check?

I infer that Mrs. Markham's time-check was the outcome of a four-link chain of events: -

(i) Mrs. Markham, on Assassination day, was carrying out a routine schedule, the only exception to which was that on that particular day she wanted to phone her daughter.

As a waitress, she had to be at the Eat Well Restaurant by 2.35 It was her custom to leave her house at 1 pm (10)

(ii) The walk to the bus stop would have taken her 5 minutes, ensuring that she would have arrived 6/7 minutes before the bus's scheduled time (1:12pm), and about 10 minutes before the its modal time (1:15) (11)

Why so early? The most likely answer is that Mrs. Markham suffered from punctuality anxiety: a fear of being late. For this reason she left her house earlier than she need.

(iii) In her March '64 affidavit to the FBI, she remembers, that keen to phone her daughter, on this particular day, she dropped off at the nearby washateria (which was on the first floor of her block of flats)(12), but unable to get a reply to her call, she departed quickly, noting, as she left, that the washateria clock said 1.04 (13)

If she left her flat at one o'clock, and was able to depart from the washateria, after attempting a ‘phone call, by 1:04, she was obviously a fast mover. This reinforces the idea that she was anxious --- her mind was possibly gripped by the fact that she had a bus to catch.

(iv) Therefore she would have moved quickly to her bus stop at the south-west corner of Jefferson and Patton, but there was a delay (she says so in ‘106’) --- her anxiety would have increased.

The path to her bus stop required her to cross over 10th Street, southwards along Patton to the intersection at Jefferson, where the bus stop was.

The delay arose from the fact that she couldn't cross over. There was too much traffic.

Given her character, how would she have reacted? I would say in the same way that she reacted when she was delayed (and frustrated) at the washateria: she would --- surely? --- have taken an immediate time check.

She would have looked at her watch the moment she reached the corner and found that she couldn't cross over. And it said 1:06.

She then would have averted her eyes and lowered her wrist, and immediately afterwards she would have seen the gunman and then Tippit's approaching police car. The killing would have been less than a minute away

That's probably why she said "approximately 1:06". It wasn't exactly at 6 minutes past that Tippit was killed, but just after --- may be one minute later, say 7 minutes after one o’clock.

Well, that's what she was obviously struggling to tell Mr Ball at her Hearing, (14) but he cut her short. I wonder why?


M denotes Dales Myers, “With Malice”

(1) 7H, 251/2. Detective L.C. Graves was the man on Oswald’s left when Oswald was shot

(2) WR. 165, 651, CE1974

(3) 24H, 214 (CE 2003, p37)

(4) Scoggins didn’t see the gunman walking (implication 3H, 325). His assertion about the gunman moving west (Secret Service Affidavit, 2/12/63; M 522) was based on an erroneous inference. I am preparing a detailed submission on this.

(5) 3H, 307,314,317

(6) 6H, 457. 3H, 325. M534.If Tippit was a frequent visitor to 404, perhaps on Assassination day he was merely paying a routine call?

(7) 7H, 251/2. M 215. Whatever one may think of Mrs. Markham’s honesty, she had on this occasion neither the motive nor the calmness of mind to fabricate.

(8) M 62,161.Mrs Markham’s estimate was in error. She probably meant yards.

(9) ‘106’ is not even listed in the asterisked footnote on P 64, nor on ps 214,220, where Graves is mentioned.

(10) M 59

(11) M 60, 597

(12) M 59

(13) M 60, 61. Myers’ claim that Mrs. Markham left the washateria at 1.11 (so essential to his Commission-bound timing) ignores ‘106’, the document he doesn’t mention. Furthermore is it likely that Mrs. Markham, who routinely allowed herself so much time, would have cut things that fine?

(14) See Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, Ch 14, 187

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another thing that makes '106 'interesting is the way it gives its time-check: "approximately 1:06" --- a ‘precise approximation’ (very rare) --- which indicates that Mrs. Markham looked at her watch at 1:06, and that Tippit’s death was moments later. What occasioned the time-check?

.... She would have looked at her watch the moment she reached the corner and found that she couldn't cross over. And it said 1:06.

Alaric: Thank you for this posting, and I am looking forward to the sequels. Duke Lane discussed this issue on an earlier thread


where Duke describes his own reenactments of Markham's route, beginning at 1.04 when she left the washateria in her apartment building. Based on Duke's experience [and the reenactment described in CD630] there is no need to assume that Markham was even wearing a watch that day. She knew from experience that it was about a two-minute walk to 10th & Patton, which meant that it HAD to be about 1.06 when she reached that corner

CD 630(h) indicates that "the distance from the front door of the washateria at 328 East 9th Street to the northwest corner of the intersection at East 10th and Patton Streets was walked and timed and this time was two minutes and thirty seconds." This, basically, was to determine how long it took Mrs Markham to leave the front door of her residence and get to the corner where she witnessed a murder.

......Today I was in the neighborhood, parked my truck and walked it myself at a "normal" pace. It took me ONE minute and 30 seconds, perhaps a little longer, but only by a few seconds. I walked it four times at different paces and it never took me longer than UNDER two minutes, even sauntering like I was watching the birds in the trees, stopping to smell the roses and doing anything but worrying about catching my bus.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not well versed on this issue, but is the 1:16 time not based on a call that a witness made to DPD using Tippit's radio? I assume such a call would have been made almost immediately after witnesses arrived on the scene, which as I recall was quickly (contrary to Markham's story that she talked with Tippit, or at least to him, for a while before anyone else got there). I assume the 1:16 time for that call is documented on a DPD transcript, though of course I don't know how much that's to be trusted. But I assume you will be covering this issue.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not well versed on this issue, but is the 1:16 time not based on a call that a witness made to DPD using Tippit's radio? I assume such a call would have been made almost immediately after witnesses arrived on the scene, which as I recall was quickly (contrary to Markham's story that she talked with Tippit, or at least to him, for a while before anyone else got there). I assume the 1:16 time for that call is documented on a DPD transcript, though of course I don't know how much that's to be trusted. But I assume you will be covering this issue.

Absolutely correct, Ron: Tippit's death was estimated by the "citizen" radio call at 1:16, which if the so-called "critics' tape" is to be trusted, is accurate.

The police and WC had other evidence, however, that showed Tippit's murder actually taking place prior to 1:10. This caused a problem because, while we might argue whether Lee Oswald could have walked/run from his rooming house to 10th & Patton in 11 minutes (1:04 to 1:15), he clearly could not have walked it - and run it only as a record-holder - in two to four minutes.

Contrary to the axiom that "when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth," investigators started with a conclusion and made the facts fit the theory, ignoring those that made it impossible.

Markham's having to catch the 1:12 bus and consequently being at the corner at "approximately 1:06" was one such inconvenience; the arrival of T.F. Bowley on his way to pick up his wife to go on weekend trip was another inasmuch as he glanced at his watch and saw that it was 1:10. He arrived after several people had gathered around Tippit's car.

Domingo Benavides had pulled his pickup truck to the side of the road about a car-length east of the patrol car on the opposite side of the street when he heard the first shot. He heard two more shots, then looked up to see the shooter leaving. Benavides watched him round the corner onto Patton Street, then "set there for a few minutes" to be sure the shooter wouldn't be coming back and "start shooting again."

He got out of his truck, crossed the street and checked over the fallen officer, whom he believed "was dead when he hit the ground, because he didn't put his hand out or nothing." The patrol car door was open about half-way. Benavides then:

I don't know if I opened the car door back further than what it was or not, but anyway, I went in and pulled the radio and I mashed the button and told them that an officer had been shot, and I didn't get an answer, so I said it again, and this guy asked me whereabouts all of a sudden, and I said, on 10th Street. I couldn't remember where it was at at the time. So I looked up and I seen this number and I said 410 East 10th Street. ... Then he started to--then I don't know what he said; but I put the radio back. I mean, the microphone back up, and this other guy was standing there, so I got up out of the car, and I don't know, I wasn't sure if he heard me, and the other guy sat down in the car.

The "other guy" was T.F. Bowley, who as we've already seen had come upon the scene after people had already gathered around the police car. He had parked about half-way down the block because his grade-school daughter was with him and he didn't want her to see what he already perceived as something tragic. He walked the rest of the way to the patrol car, saw Benavides inside of it trying to use the radio, but didn't believe that Benavides was getting through. When Benavides got out of the car, Bowley got in and made the call.

Police took an affidavit from Bowley on Monday, December 2, after he had returned from his week-long vacation; he didn't give it on Friday because, he told investigators on the scene, he hadn't actually seen the shooting and was late picking his wife up, so he was let go with the promise to file a statement when he returned, which he did. This affidavit is part of CE2003 and was available to both police and, subsequently, the WC (who must have known about it since they culled several other affidavits from it when taking testimony, but did not call this inconvenient witness to testify).

I've spoken with both men and they do not sound anything alike either in person or on the phone. There is only one "citizen" voice on the radio tape; it sounds more like Bowley to me. Bowley, however, is unable to say for certain that it is he, and his daughter likewise is unsure. I don't know if Benavides has ever heard the tape. I cannot state with absolute certainty which of the two it was, but I'm more inclined to posit it being Bowley.

Since both DPD and the WC had already determined that Oswald was the killer, and likewise knew he could not have travelled on foot from his rooming house to the murder scene in under two to six minutes (at least, not without an accomplice driving him there ... and then inexplicably leaving him there!), they were obliged to ignore the only facts they had - that Helen Markham had seen the crime committed at "approximately 1:06" and Bowley had arrived at "1:10" - and reconstruct Oswald's movements as follows:

Oswald was next seen about nine-tenths of a mile away at the southeast corner of 10th Street and Patton Avenue, moments before the Tippit shooting. (See Commission Exhibit No. 1119-A, p. 158.) If Oswald left. his roominghouse shortly after 1 p.m. and walked at a brisk pace, he would have reached 10th and Patton shortly after 1:15 p.m. Tippit's murder was recorded on the police radio tape at about 1:16 p.m. [

The average walking pace of an adult male is approximately 4.3 feet per second. There are about 4750 feet in 9/10 of a mile, which would take about 1100 seconds or roughly 18 minutes to cover the distance. To cover that same distance in 11 minutes requires someone to be moving at about 1½ times that speed, or at a brisk walk, a trot, or intermittently running or jogging. Nobody saw Oswald travelling from one place to the other - possibly because they were glued to the TV like Earlene Roberts was, and possibly because it was in the middle of a work day - which leaves open the possibility that he did, in fact, make the trip, and make it in the requisite time.

Thus, to make the "facts" conform to the conclusion, they then had to have Benavides making the call, which they did:

Benavides stopped and waited in the truck until the gunman ran to the corner. He saw him empty the gun and throw the shells into some bushes on the southeast corner lot. It was Benavides, using Tippit's car radio, who first reported the killing of Patrolman Tippit at about 1:16 p.m. [

This required Benavides' no longer "set[ting] there for a few minutes" after he had seen the gunman round the corner, and getting out of his truck immediately to make the radio call. It had to be he who made the call, for otherwise it would have had to have been someone else, namely the inconvenient Bowley who'd have testified to having been there earlier than Oswald could have been.

Which would mean that Oswald couldn't have done the shooting - it was impossible and had to be excluded - or else he had an accomplice who drove him there (and again, inexplicably left him there). With no known associates who drove him to Oak Cliff, and his not having made a phone call to anyone while at the rooming house, who could this mysterious accomplice have been who eluded identification, much less capture?

Since he wasn't in custody, and nobody went looking for him, and Oswald didn't admit to the shooting much less having help, he therefore could not have existed.

So if Oswald couldn't go 9/10 of a mile in four minutes, and didn't have an accomplice, then either <a> Oswald didn't shoot Tippit and another suspect had to be identified (or a cop-killing left uninvestigated), or <b> the facts were "wrong" and had to be ignored.

Edited by Duke Lane

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 2

This posting will consider two types of support ( negative and positive) for Mrs. Markham's claim in '106' that Tippit was shot at approximately 1:06 pm.

I mean by negative support the suspicion that arises when a refutable falsehood isn't refuted. . The question arises: "Is the alleged falsehood really true?" Lack of denial supports an allegation.

Negative Support

Assuming that the Commission got it right ( and that Mrs Markham got it wrong), --- that is that Tippit was not shot at 1:06, but at 1:16 --- then the Commission should have been able to find impartial evidence to refute Mrs Markham's 1:06 pm claim, and to support the accuracy of the Dallas Police tapes (1)

Whatever individual views the Commissioners may have had on the police tapes --- and we may assume that their confidence was 100% --- the Commission collectively must have realised that the authenticity of the police tapes would sooner or later be questioned(2), however unjustly, and it was in the interests of the Commissioners to anticipate this by seeking confirmation of the time ofTippit's death outside the tapes. There was plenty of opportunity.


(1) Tippit was not shot at night, in a deserted unlit alley by a silenced pistol, firing just one round, but:-

(i) he was shot at lunchtime,

(ii) on a sunny day,

(iii) on a main street

(iv) passing through a middle-class, residential area,

(v) with plenty of traffic.

(vi) Moreover, four (if not five (3) bullets were fired.

(2) The noise brought crowds to the streets --- and very quickly Remember that Mrs Markham was “screaming “He’s shot him. He is dead. Call the Police””(4)

(i) The evidence of a parked-for-lunch taxi driver (Scoggins), of a nearby resident (Frank Cimino), and a visitor (Jimmy Earl Burt) establishes that a very large crowd quickly assembled, surrounding Tippit's body, even before the ambulance arrived. (5)

(ii) Patrolman Jo Poe was on the scene just after the ambulance had removed Tippit's body. He put the assembled crowd at 150-200. (6)

(3). Some of this large number must have taken a time check ( if only for some personal reason ), not necessarily of when they heard the shooting, but of some incident adjacent in time, and a check of this type, if the Commission were right, would have contradicted Mrs. Markham's 1:06 Why was no search made?

A good example of the above is Jack Tatum. A highly intelligent man (the chief medical photographer for the Baylor University Medical Centre), he was an excellently positioned witness --- but he didn’t give his testimony until 15 years later, when the House Select Committee on Assassinations started their investigations.

Tatum did not come forward at the time because “there were more than enough people there, and I could not see what I could contribute.”(7)

In his affidavit to the HSCA Tatum says “although I do not remember the exact time I remember it was early in the afternoon…” However, he probably would have remembered the time (if not of the pistol shots, then of some adjacent incident ) if he had given evidence (say) 15 days later, instead of 15 years.

The point of this story is that there might have been several more Jack Tatums who could have provided some sort of chronology --- and possibly, by implication, refuted Mrs Markham’s 1:06 --- but who, like Tatum, unsought for, didn’t step forward..

However some of them may have volunteered if there had been a publicised search for witnesses.

Why wasn’t this search made? By failing to make it, the Commission made themselves totally dependent on the police tapes.

(4) If the Commission hadn't the time to investigate as outlined in (3), then they still had four people who did phone the police within about a minute of hearing the shots, and almost certainly the Commission could have found the time of these calls, either through consulting police records, or,--- more impartially --- the records of the telephone company.

The people are:-

(i) Barbara Davis (8). Next door to where Tippit was shot, she phoned the police immediately she realised that a policeman had been killed. The Commission in its Report admits --- purely in passing --- that Barbara Davis made the call, but supplies no time check, even though in the Commission's eye such a check should have refuted Mrs. Markham.

(ii) L.J.Lewis, standing at a nearby car lot, phoned the Dallas P.D. immediately he heard the shots. He found the D.P.D. in a state of considerable confusion, a fact which suggests that they were being inundated with more calls than they could cope with, understandable when a policeman has been shot dead on a crowded street in a residential area (9).

The Commission, despite its keenness to refute Mrs. Markham, disdained this source.

(iii) As the shots rang out, Frank Wright, living roughly opposite the crime scene, rushed to his front door. At the same time his wife Mary (10) went to phone the police, but, in the panic of the moment, forgot the emergency number, and so just dialed 'O': "Call the police , a man's been shot".

Again, the time of this call was not investigated..

Positive Support

1. Barbara Davis. As said previously she was one of the 3 people who phoned the police immediately the shots rang out. In her affidavit to the Dallas Police, given on the Day of the Assassination, she put the time of Tippit’s murder at “shortly after 1:00pm” Nine days later, in an affidavit to the Secret Service, she was more exact and put the time as “at approximately a few minutes after 1 pm.” (11)

It is reasonable to assume that the phrase “a few minutes after” reflected the time more accurately, and would have appeared in her original ( Dallas) statement had, her Dallas interviewing officer sought clarification of "shortly after"..

Given the horrific and momentous nature of what had just happened --- the first policeman shot in years --- it is reasonable to suppose that Barbara Davis, galvanised into awareness by shock of the shooting, would have become aware of the time, either through glancing at her watch, or through noticing a clock face, as she moved through her flat. (12)

2. Frank Cimino. Referred to previously. On 4th December, he put Tippit’ time of death “at around 1:00pm, and remarked that he was “at his apartment listening to the radio.”(13) The radio very likely gave him a one o’clock time check. Otherwise why did he mention it?

(3) Temple Ford Bowley One piece of evidence everyone knows about that unarguably supports Mrs Markham is T.F. Bowley's 1:10.

When Bowley arrived on the scene Tippit was already dead --- must have been dead a few minutes, since Benavides was still struggling to operate the Tippit's car radio, equipment Bowley knew how to operate.

Bowley's affidavit implies that he accomplished his task easily , and --- possibly within a minute --- was in touch with the Dallas Police. The police told the Commission the tapes recorded Bowley’s call at 1:16.

A problem here.

Bowley, did a most extraordinary thing, something which no official person did on that day; in act unique to the Tippit slaying, he looked at his watch --- 1.10 (14)

Bowley was, on that day very conscious of the passing hours. In his affidavit, he records he had to pick up his daughter at 12.55, and then later his wife.

Acceptance of the Commission's finding would imply that Bowley's watch (like Mrs. Markham’s) was 10 minutes (15) slow, but if that were the case his wife and daughter would have grumblingly found him 10 minutes late. It is difficult to believe that anybody as aware of the time as Bowley could have progressed to lunchtime without knowing that he was 10 minutes behind every body.

Very significant are the words that Bowley uses to describe his time check: " I looked at my watch and it said 1:10pm"(16)

The implication is not only that when Bowley looked at his watch he had (at that time) no reason to doubt the watch's accuracy, but also --- key point this --- that when he was writing these words ( in his affidavit, ten days later), he still had, after that lapse of time, no reason to doubt the accuracy of his time check on Assassination day.

Myers had an interview with Bowley in 1983, but(17) -- queerly --- he doesn't mention any discussion about the accuracy of Bowley's watch The question he should have asked Bowley --- but obviously didn't --- was: "When did you notice on that fateful day that your watch was 10 minutes slow". I would love to have heard the answer!

Next and final article :The how and why of the reaction of Joseph Ball and the Commission to ‘106’.


(1) The Commission, desperate to refute Mrs Markam, told two untruths. But more in my last article.

(2) Possibly this realisation prompted the Commission to get the FBI, 7 weeks before the publication of its definitive Report, to make its own special transcription of the police tapes (4H, 183-4, & 23H, 832). Certain inconguences between the two have lead to disputes. In this connection see Mark Lane,Rush to Judgment ('66), p 204-208.

More recent surveys: Jim Marrs "Crossfire"(''89), p 349: Michael T. Griffith "Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?", 2002, 2nd edition, p14/17. http:// gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/With_Malice.html.

Myers’s handling of his ‘adjustments’ to police tape times is unsatisfactory, as he has explained it on p 21. & 86 .He does not vouchsafe the mathematics used, nor does he explain on what basis some witnesses are chosen as a yardstick.

(3) Although Callaway in his first affidavit to the Dallas Police on the actual day (24H,202) refers to hearing "some shots", in his second affidavit, given 11 days later to the Secret Service, he mentions "five gunshots"(.A facsimile of this affidavit is on M 270.), and he repeated this figure in his Commission testimony (3H, 352). Myers (p 645, Endnote 749) refers to 6 interviews (including two with him, and his WCT) in which Callaway has stick to his "five gunshots"

(4) 6H,457

(5) Scoggins 3H,336; Frank Cimmino CD7/411.Unindexed WC document. Facsimile M 538 (Appendix D); see also M 102 (Main text) ; Jimmy Earl Burt: FBI Record Information Form 124-10011-1024: facsimile M 534/5 (Appendix D);

(6) 7H,68

(7) HSCA Record Information Form 180-10087 10355. See Facsimile M 532

(8) 6H,458/9; WR 168. Quick reference: M 75

(9) For making a phone call, see:(i) Quick reference: M86; (ii) for primary source: FBI interview 21/1/63: WC Lewis(LJ) Exhibit A, 20H, 534; facsimile M 547 (Appendix D). For police confusion see:(i) for quick reference: M 90; (ii) for primary source:15H,703, 21H,26.

(10) The New Leader, 10-12-64; The Other Witnesses, by George and Patricia Nas, p 7/8; told in M 84 (main text).

(11) Affidavit to Dallas Police: 24H, 205. Affidavit to Secret Service, CD 87, not indexed. Facsimile in M 525 (Appendix D)

(12) It is only fair to point out that when Barbara Davis testified before the WC on her only appearance (26/3/64), 116 days after her affidavit to the Secret Service, she forgot about her galvanisation into awareness, and seemed to remember only her pre-shooting very relaxed state. When Mr Ball was hearing her testimony, Mr Dulles intervened to ask her if she knew what time the gunman ran across her lawn ,to which Barbara Davis replied: “ No, sir; not exactly because I had laid down with the children and didn’t pay any attention to what time it was”. (3H, 346/7).She was not questioned on this answer, even though it followed her recounting phoning the police.(3H,345).

(13) Cimino facsimile M 538 (See footnote 5)

(14) Affidavit of T.FÊBowley, CE 2003/11; 24H,202. Facsimile M 521 (Appendix D)

(15) Bowley ( his affidavit) arrived on the scene at 1:10, and found Benavides, still trying to work the radio (say for a minute), having previously been nervously lying low in his van for (say) 3 minutes. This would put Tippit's death (by Bowley's watch) at 1:06 --- in full agreement with Mrs Markham, and making both watches 10 minutes slow by the Commission’s 1:16.

(16) Line 8 of his affidavit

(17) M 604 (Endnotes). Endnotes 235/238.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Part 2

Again, the time of this call was not investigated..

From memory, another call to the police was made by Warren Reynolds, from a telephone at a car dealership on Jefferson Avenue. The time of this call was never ascertained either, although it should have been easy to do so.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

L.J. Lewis was at the same dealership that Warren Reynolds was. Reynolds' testimony doesn't say that he did. His brother Johnny owned the place. It would have been or would be easy to ascertain the time of the call, but only if a record was made of it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would have been or would be easy to ascertain the time of the call, but only if a record was made of it.


Because the Warren Commission was able to compile Jack Ruby's phone records, I have been under the impression that similar records COULD have been obtained for, say, the telephone in the Davis home (I think Alaric may be under the same impression). If you have more detailed information on this I'm sure we would all appreciate your further elucidation of said info.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your point is well taken, Ray. I was thinking from the standpoint of records of incoming calls being made at DPD, such official records having more likelihood of surviving to today than those of a private company that - unless they had a Sylvia Meagher on staff! - might not have realized in the course of the (non-)investigation that they might have been important, and thus - just like several government agencies (TFIC) - would have routinely destroyed them.

The investigation zeroed in on Ruby, et al., almost immediately, and certainly within the time frame that a customer - such as Ruby - might have called requesting a second copy of their bill, and thus was able to get ahold of them. After a period of time - say, six months? - other records would have been destroyed; I wonder, for example, if the 1963 phone company's successor company still has Ruby's records available 45 years later, as historically important (or at least curious) they might be?

(I know for a fact that the Civil Air Patrol has none of Oswald's records available, the originals and all copies having been rounded up during the WC investigation.)

Ruby's phone calls survive because someone "made a record" of them. Unless someone did the same with the Davises', etc., then no "record" was presumably made. Is it possible, much less likely, that the phone records for Dallas, November 22, 1963, were preserved out of simple historical importance? Wouldn't THAT be a find!!

So to continue the thinking, if no official anybody requested copies of the relevent (and inconvenient) phone records for those particular individuals, my guess is that they've vanished into the ether. If the investigators had deemed these inconvenient witnesses' records relevent, I'm sure they'd have been saved ... but they were, after all, inconvenient, so why save them?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it possible, much less likely, that the phone records for Dallas, November 22, 1963, were preserved out of simple historical importance? Wouldn't THAT be a find!!

Duke, I take it from your response that you are confirming (or at least not disputing) that the Phone Company could have and would have (under Subpoena) produced the time-stamped records of phone calls made from the Davis home IF they had been asked ON A TIMELY BASIS by Joseph Ball or David Belin or the Dallas Police or the FBI.

If anyone reading this (e.g. a certain Gary Mack) has solid information pro or con about phone company record-keeping in 1963 that would shed light on what the Warren Commission COULD have done if they had wanted, then I would love to hear about it.

I suspect that I am only one of many who are under the distinct impression that the FBI & the WC failed -- either deliberately or through simple neglect, or possibly some species of hybrid combination of Fear, Deliberation and Neglect for which we do not yet have a name (Weisberg suggests WHITEWASH) -- to obtain the time-stamped phone records of the witnesses named in Alaric's article.

Such records should have been a big help to the prosecution and would have been a logical way of refuting the times given by Markham and Bowley, so it raises the question whether someone said "don't go there."

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to this topic "The affidavit that destroys "With Malice"".

How do members see the following facts related to the Topic and the Tippit killing in partular?


Benavides says he was threatened by DPD. Benavides' brother Eddie was shot in the head in a Dallas club. Domingo Benavides is convinced that the assailant was targeting him (Domingo) and mistakenly attacked his brother instead. Shot in the head mid February 1964.

Most interesting is also this from the Benavides page on Spartacus (link above):

Domingo's father-in-law, J.W. Jackson, was so unimpressed with the police investigation of Eddy's death that he launched a little inquiry of his own. Two weeks later Jackson was shot at in his home. The assailant secreted himself in the carport, fired once into the house, and when Jackson ran outside, fired one more time, just missing his head. As the gunman clambered into an automobile in a nearby driveway, Jackson saw a police car coming down the block. The officer made no attempt to follow the gunman's speeding car; instead, he stopped at Jackson's home and spent a long time inquiring what had happened. Later a police lieutenant advised Jackson, "You'd better lay off of this business. Don't go around asking question; that's our job." Jackson and Domingo are both convinced that Eddy's murder was a case of mistaken identity and that Domingo, the Tippit witness, was the intended victim.

Another Tippit case witness, car dealer, Warren Reynolds was the victim of a shooting soon after the Kennedy/Tippit slayings as well. Soon after his attack, Warren Reynolds changed his testimony. Shot in the head on January 23, 1964.


Question: What are the possibilities that two persons being witnesses in the Tippit slaying become victims of violent crimes (and/or threats) just by chance? The difference in the time elapsed beween the Benavides attack and the Reynolds attack was some 3 weeks?

(Granted that in Benavides' case it was his brother who was the victim.)

Reynolds' WC testimony is interesting to read as well.



I wonder how can anyone defend that there is nothing seriously suspicious related to the Kennedy and Tippit cases?

In my opinion these related cases here provide additional evidence supporting a conspiracy, which unfortunately, it seems some members of the DPD attempted to conceal to the very end.

Comments welcome!

Edited by Antti Hynonen

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
If anyone reading this (e.g. a certain Gary Mack) has solid information pro or con about phone company record-keeping in 1963 that would shed light on what the Warren Commission COULD have done if they had wanted, then I would love to hear about it.

Email from Gary Mack:

I cannot recall the exact source, but there was either testimony or documentation before the WC that no telephone company records were made or kept of local phone calls, only long distance ones. So a call from the Davis house or anywhere in the Dallas area to the Dallas Police would not have been registered.

When I get the chance I will check the Ruby phone records obtained by the WC. If Gary's memory is accurate (and I do have a niggling recollection of hearing something like this before) then none of Ruby's LOCAL phone calls were recorded by Date & Time and I was unfair to the FBI & WC in accusing them of negligently (or deliberately) failing to obtain the Davis phone records.

Of course, If Gary is correct then there is NO EVIDENCE anywhere in the record to contradict Markham's 1.06 time estimate, and NO EVIDENCE to contradict Bowley's affidavit which says the murderer had already left the scene by 1.10.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary Mack follow-up:

I think you’ll find that then and now, no phone companies, other than cell phone providers, track local calls. There would be billions of calls every month if phone companies did that.

In those days, and now, calls from Dallas to Fort Worth were long distance and that’s why there’s a record of Ruby calling his backer, Ralph Paul, and Little Lynn calling Ruby from her apartment in Fort Worth.

Long distance records are kept only to charge an additional fee for the service.

Thank you Gary. That is most helpful.

Looking down the opposite end of the telescope, as far as I know there is no record of the time the Dallas Police received the Davis phone call, although here you would expect that the Police SHOULD have routinely time-stamped the receipt of such a call.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now