Dale Myer's Tippit book

[Denis Pointing]

They were? When? By what instrument? In the testimony he didn't give? In the affidavit he didn't make? Who was the police officer who got them from the Davises? Whom did he give them to, and to whom?

Testimony such as this perhaps? Its there to be found if you look Duke.

Wait. Let me get this straight: you make the statement that "the chain of evidence is solid," and I'm supposed to gather the data to support your claim? I don't think so!

I'm not asking you to gather data for me, I'm pointing out that testimony you said didn't exist does exist. Anyway, forget semantics and move on.

Read this below from: "Evidence for the Law Enforcement Officer" by Gilbert B. Stuckey. Pay particular attention to#3. If there had been a trial those shells would have been admissible as they were marked by both Brown and Dhority. Case closed?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECT AS ONE FOUND

Although the connection of an object with a crime scene or as a part of the transaction at hand is seldom difficult, the presentation of proof that a particular article offered in evidence is the one found by the officer sometimes becomes complicated. Also it is often equally difficult to prove that the object examined or analyzed has not been changed, tampered with, or contaminated between the time of its discovery and the analysis. When these things cannot be proved the object will in most instances be excluded from evidence. It behooves the officer therefore to be fully cognizant of the procedures which may be followed in order that the necessary proof may be presented, and the value of the physical evidence not be lost forever.

There are three procedures which may be followed by the officer that will enable him to positively identify an object as the one he found, and to establish that it has a relation to the case at hand:

1. He may keep the object in his complete and exclusive custody and control from the time it was found until it is presented in court.

2. He may maintain a complete and accurate record of the chain of possession.

3. He may mark the object in some distinctive manner which will enable him to recognize it at a later time.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Earlier in this thread I posted that Benevides claimed that a car was stranded in the the middle of Patton, between 10th and Jefferson. He was on his way to get a part and had to travel east-west down 10th as he forgot the part number and this is the reason he witnessed the shooting of Tippit. Does anyone have any more info about this stranded car? From Benevides description I imagine it would have been south of Scoggins parked taxi and north of Calloway and Guinard. No one else seems to mention it in their testimony. The driver of this vehicle, if he stayed with his car (and one assumes he would) should have witnessed the shooter's escape.

From Benavides testimony I don't think HE ever saw the car again and I think you are correct that no one else mentions this car or how it apparently disappeared on its own steam despite having been disabled only minutes earlier.

At Lancer's conference in 1999 Officer Jez answered questions and I asked him if he knew anything about this car. He just gave me a dumb look and said this was the first he heard of it. He suggested I ask Joe Poe. I did not try to contact Poe but I would bet he knew nothing about it either. Jim Leavelle has often boasted about his investigation but as far as I know he has never explained how a disabled car could seemingly fix itself and disappear before the replacement part arrived. ANd how that could not be considered a significant clue in the Tippit murder.

[Neville Gully]

Thanks for your response Raymond. If I recall correctly, Benevides was associated with Calloway and Guinard (at Dootch Motors). Also his mother lived near the end of the driveway between 404 and 410 10th Street. There was an alleyway there that ran parallel to Jefferson that connected to this driveway. It was down this driveway that he walked to his mother's yard from the scene and at some point decided to return to look for the shells that eventually were given to Poe.

Is Benevides worth a second look? He supposedly was assisting a motorist stranded due to a faulty carburettor. According to Benevides this car was in the middle of Patton. So, either Scoggins drove around this car before he went to the gentleman's club to park at the corner or the breakdown occurered after he parked and went to the club. It must have been there, almost outside the club when he left to return to the cab. I see nothing of a stranded car mentioned in Scoggins' WC testimony.

Calloway claimed to be standing on the porch when the shots were fired and immediately moved to the east side of the street to look north. He did not mention a car in the middle of the street. One might think he would have joined Benevides in assisting the stranded driver originally. Similarly, Guinyard says nothing of this event. No mention of anyone coming forward to either substantiate Benevides' claims. After all months had elapsed since the event. This stranded motorist would have been in the path the killer was supposed to have taken. So we must believe that the driver managed to move his car in the minutes Benevides took to double back down 10th to get the part number.

Benevides is a key witness here with potentially a much better view than Markham or Scoggins of the killer. Yet he does not ID LHO until much later, after influence from pictures of Oswald in the media and discussion with Calloway, (who was significantly influenced by police at his ID of LHO at the lineup). Benevides is also the man who had second thoughts after leaving the scene and going back to find the 2 shells given to Poe. Do we know whether these shells were the Winchester or Remmington or one of each? Why does Benevides claim that he contacted dispatch on Tipipit's radio, when he knows it was Bowley? His statements to the WC are deceptive at best.....why?

In this discussion of shells as evidence it is worth remembering that the Davis sisters only found their shells some hours after the shooting. I have seen that the Tippit scene some minutes after the shooting had a large number of people congregated. Not a very secure crime scene.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Neville Gully

[Denis Pointing]

In this discussion of shells as evidence it is worth remembering that the Davis sisters only found their shells some hours after the shooting. I have seen that the Tippit scene some minutes after the shooting had a large number of people congregated. Not a very secure crime scene.

Hi Neville, so long as the shells were proven to have come from Oswald's gun, which they were to the exclusion of any other gun, I really cant see a problem. Don't forget that at this time no one knew it would latter prove impossible to positively match the actuall bullets with the weapon. So a plant, if that's what your suggesting, would seem highly unlikely. A couple of "researchers" have claimed the Davies girls were "in on it" but that is plainly ridiculous.

I certainly agree its worth taking a closer look at Benavides, I've been searching all over since reading your post and your right, there doesn't seem to be any mention of a stranded car anywhere else other than Benavides's testimony. Denis.

[Neville Gully]

Hi Dennis,

first my point about the unsecure crime scene. I think the shells were only discovered by the Davis sisters at 4-4.30pm (ie 3 hours post shooting and 2 hours post LHO's arrest. However I do see your point re the planting of evidence. Given the pressure on the Dallas police to find a killer for JFK, and be seen at least to "solve" the crime and "absolve" themselves somewhat, the planting of evidence either before (or most likely after Oswald's death) is not so unlikely I believe. The "we got our man", "it's a cinch" and "moral certainty" quotes from the likes of Curry, Fritz and Wade very early in the investigation are hints of this. Also the pressure from LBJ to find only evidence that supports the lone nut to avoid WWIII is powerful in this. The cover-up started early on this case and may well have been put in place by many individuals who thought they were doing the right thing.

Another point on Benevides, he claimed that he was following a red car that parked 6 car lengths or so in front of him at the shooting scene. The reported the driver to be 20-30 and this man did not leave the car. Again nobody else reports this event during WC testimony. Scoggins & Markham say nothing of this. Given Benevides estimates the car must have parked near Scoggins cab. The WC obviously wanted to use Benevides as the citizen caller as it allows for a later shooting time. Putting Bowley at 1.16, after Benevides couldn't get through, makes it harder to get a walking LHO to the scene in time.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Neville Gully

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Another point on Benevides, he claimed that he was following a red car that parked 6 car lengths or so in front of him at the shooting scene. The reported the driver to be 20-30 and this man did not leave the car. Again nobody else reports this event during WC testimony.

Benavides was corroborated when the HSCA interviewed Jack Tatum, the man driving the red car. I can't find Tatum's HSCA interview online so if anyone can post it that would be great.

[Neville Gully]

Another point on Benevides, he claimed that he was following a red car that parked 6 car lengths or so in front of him at the shooting scene. The reported the driver to be 20-30 and this man did not leave the car. Again nobody else reports this event during WC testimony.

Benavides was corroborated when the HSCA interviewed Jack Tatum, the man driving the red car. I can't find Tatum's HSCA interview online so if anyone can post it that would be great.

Here is a summary of Tatum's testimony from McAdams site

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscalojt.htm

"Committee investigators interviewed Jack Ray Tatum at his office at the Baylor University Medical center in Dallas on February 1, 1978. Tatum stated that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was driving north on Denver Street and stopped at Tenth Street.(97) At that point he saw a police squad car, and a young white male walking on the sidewalk near the squad car.(98) Both the police car and the young man were heading east on Tenth Street.(99) As Tatum approached the squad car, he saw the young male leaning over the passenger side of the police car with both hands in his zippered jacket.(100) Tatum said that as he drove through the intersection of Tenth and Patton Streets he heard three shots in rapid succession; Tatum said he went through the intersection stopped his car and turned to look back.(101) At that point he saw the police officer lying on the ground near the front of the police car, with the young male standing near him.(102) Tatum said the man ran toward the back of the police car with a gun in his hand.(103) The man then stepped back into the street and shot the police officer as he was lying on the ground.(104) The man then started to run in Tatum's direction.(105) Tatum said he then sped off in his car and last saw the man running south on Patton toward Jefferson.(106)"

Tatum was driving north on Denver and at the intersection east of the scene. Benevides describes a red car that was west of him and close to 10th and Patton headed east. So it's not Tatum. note that Tatum did not see the shooting but heard the shots. Second, nobody saw the shot to the head in this fashion. Some doubts about this version when you analyse it.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Neville Gully

[Denis Pointing]

Neville, you raise some real good points and I dont doubt that there was indeed a cover up, ordered by LBJ to ensure a "lone nut" verdict by the WC. But the planting of evidence by police, or anyone else, is always a very risky business and is often counter productive. Especially risky when its the crime of the century and the eyes of the world are watching. This was the most public and televised murder case in history. Personally, I'M not convinced there was any planting of evidence re the Tippit murder, not because I belive "all policeman are wonderful" but because of the above. Now, as for the investigators being VERY selective concerning witnesses and possibly altering testimony....arh,now that's another matter. Denis.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[Neville Gully]

I think that because the "world was watching" was a large part of the motivation. How do you explain the flawed lineups? These occurred on day 1. The reporting to the press of the parrafin tests were highly predudicial and inaccurate. Why no stenographer present in the interviews. No legal representation. The motivation for Dallas police to catch the killer of the president was extreme.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Neville Gully

[Denis Pointing]

I think that because the "world was watching" was a large part of the motivation. How do you explain the flawed lineups? These occurred on day 1. The reporting to the press of the parrafin tests were highly predudicial and inaccurate. Why no stenographer present in the interviews. No legal representation. The motivation for Dallas police to catch the killer of the president was extreme.

I really cant argue with any of the above...I agree with you Neville, except for the planting of evidence regarding Tippit.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[Neville Gully]

OK.......the planting in this case could have occurred after the death of the accused. Not quite the same focus on procedure when there will be no "trial of the century".

[Denis Pointing]

OK.......the planting in this case could have occurred after the death of the accused. Not quite the same focus on procedure when there will be no "trial of the century".

But Neville, all the physical evidence concerning Tippit was found/collected long before Oswald was killed. This thread is about the Tippit murder and that evidence, not the JFK assassination in general.

[Neville Gully]

Perhaps I am missing something. Was all the Tippit evidence analysed and publically announced before the death of LHO? I am sure you can see that the death of the accused changed things considerably. Many of the lineups were related to the Tippit killing, do you think they would have stood up in court? Same reasoning.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Here is a summary of Tatum's testimony from McAdams site

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscalojt.htm

Does anyone have the complete transcript of Tatum's HSCA interview?

[Denis Pointing]

Perhaps I am missing something. Was all the Tippit evidence analysed and publically announced before the death of LHO? I am sure you can see that the death of the accused changed things considerably. Many of the lineups were related to the Tippit killing, do you think they would have stood up in court? Same reasoning.

Neville, I very much doubt if the physical evidence was analysed and publicly announced before the death of LHO because of the time frame. But that doesn't alter the content of the physical evidence one iota. And no, I cant see that the death of the accused changed things considerably as far as the physical evidence IE the shells are concerned. Do you really not think if there was any planting going on the police wouldn't have planted bullets that actually matched Oswald's gun?

And yes, I do think many, if not all, of the lineups would have stood up in court. But that's just IMO and as such isn't worth a light. I prefer facts and the facts show that the physical evidence re the Tippit murder IE the shells found by the Davies is solid and would have been admissible in court. This alone would have been enough to convict Oswald even without witnesses, remember Oswald was found a short distance away WITH the murder weapon. And attempted to kill yet another police officer with it!!

Edited November 29, 2008 by Denis Pointing