Jump to content
The Education Forum
Greg Parker

the attempted planting of the weapon on oswald

Recommended Posts

Greg, I'm unsure of what your arguments are other than that McDonald was the bad guy in all of this, and that Oswald was going to get killed in the theater. We agree on the latter point, but the conundrum lies in how you propose this to have taken place. I've got thoughts on these things, obviously, and they don't agree with yours entirely, but my purpose in raising these questions is to focus your thoughts on the mechanical aspects of this, not to convince you of the validity of my thoughts, but rather to help you flesh out your own, which could be more correct than mine when solidified.

You'd said that you've given Hill a "free ride" of suspicion because he mentioned the ALT in his testimony, yet you also point out that you suspect McDonald in part because he could've raised the issue on the radio about the ALT to cover his butt in the event someone had seen him in or near the building.

Duke, if McDonald’s call was CYA, it was not done with the thought that one day there would be a Presidential Commission so that call would throw suspicion away from him in its eyes. At this stage we are looking at a purely local investigation. It was CYA within that small world of the DPD. When the investigation went national, he suddenly wants the whole episode to go away. Hill got the “free ride” because he had no qualms about mentioning it to the commission - which for all he knew, was actually looking for the truth.

Another thought: do we actually have the audio of the Police radio logs? If not, it is open to conjecture that the call was inserted as CYA to show that the ALT had not been totally ignored in the search of the area. In this case, the CYA would not be specific to McDonald but for the whole search team.

You suggest Oswald was going to be killed in the theater, but dismiss the most obvious reason to kill him, i.e., his attempt on the life of another police officer, by saying that the whole thing about the "snap" and the cut on McDonald's hand were "concocted" and that no attempt would be made to fire the gun - it would make no "snapping" noise - "because of" a defective firing pin that had worked perfectly well just 45 minutes before when it was used to successfully fire four bullets into JD Tippit's body.

It was very unlikely that this was the weapon that killed Tippit.

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jf...-weapon-t56.htm

Tellingly(?), you "substantiate" that position by noting that "even the WC" dismissed McDonald's hand having prevented the firing of the weapon without seemingly considering that the WC also dismissed the idea of a shot from JFK's front or the involvement of a second shooter in DP. If the WC's dismissals are so readily creditable, why are we even having these discussions?

Because you can’t make blanket statements that if one dog bites you, all dogs will bite you. If we dismiss everything on the basis you say, we have very little left to work with. Ask yourself… do you really want to go down the path of claiming that if it (whatever “it” you want to name) was dismissed by the WC, “it” must therefore be true?

(The WC's position, of course, was that there was no evidence of the "misfire" - that is, a dented cartridge - despite the "snap" heard by three men, two men's conflicting claims of preventing the gun from firing, and three men's having seen an indented cartridge. Said cartridge not being in evidence, and the firing pin of the supposed Tippit murder weapon being "defective," however belatedly, could the WC have done anything else but dismiss the pistol's hammer from wounding McDonald without admitting that there was something fishy going on here that Oswald obviously had no hand in?)

Just because someone said they saw something, does not mean it is true – particularly if there is a reason to lie about it – as there is here.

Hawkins thought the snap could have been a seat … and looking at the seats posted by Bernie, they are indeed the type that make a snapping noise when springing back.

McDonald’s alleged wound in the webbing was not photographed – despite his being told to have his injuries happy snapped.

He also would not allow the press to take a photo of it.

And lastly, he shows no sign at the time that he received such an injury – which the WC expert stated would have been very painful.

Given the number of men, both civilian and trained police, who heard the snap or otherwise claimed to have prevented the hammer from falling, we cannot dismiss the likelihood of the trigger having been pulled to cause the hammer to travel. If the hammer did fall, then we must posit that someone had cocked the weapon for it to fire, and perhaps for it to fire "accidentally" with little effort, since merely squeezing the trigger of an uncocked single-action pistol will not cause the hammer to rise and it therefore could not have fallen.

Three trained officers also testified to having seen an indentation on a cartridge associated (somewhat loosely) with the gun in evidence, but that bullet (that would seemingly prove the "misfire" described) was not presented among the evidence. This leaves either those three men being "mistaken," or the evidence having been lost and/or substituted for some unexplained reason. In any case, there is substantial evidence to show that the "misfire" did occur, whether or not "even the WC" dismissed it.

Where the WC could not reconcile its available evidence with its conclusion of Oswald-as-sole-guilty-party, they ignored, dismissed, discredited or perverted it. We, on the other hand, cannot fail to take it all into account in an attempt to make sense of it to reach another conclusion. A gun was used to successfully fire four bullets into JD Tippit's body to kill him at 1:08 p.m.; we cannot dismiss other evidence and testimony of the gun's attempted use in the theater 45 minutes later "because" it had a defective firing pin that was not "defective" earlier, at least not without explaining how it became defective in that short time span.

I don't think it was the same weapon.

We cannot simply presume that merely displaying a gun would have gotten Oswald killed in the theater - especially in light of the evidence that an attempt to use it successfully did occur, albeit without effect - when Oswald supposedly did display a weapon and was not killed. The gun did not go off (for whatever reason) and Oswald did survive.

I’m sorry Duke, but I do presume exactly that. This was Dallas. This was the Dallas Police. This was 1963. This was a cop killer. Any other facts are superfluous. If need be, the weapon could be placed in his hand after he was dead.

Other available evidence suggests that a man's hand held the gun, and that hand was attached to an arm wearing a short-sleeved shirt (or that Oswald's shirt may have appeared to George Applin to be short-sleeved, perhaps from being pulled up his arm during the scuffle; in any case, neither McDonald nor any of the other officers in the theater close to Oswald was wearing a short-sleeved shirt);

Do we have any photos of McDonald just prior to, during, or just after the arrest that confirms he was not wearing a short sleeved shirt?

that Oswald was unable to let go of a gun in his hand; that a police officer's hand was cuffed during the scuffle for some reason, most likely because that hand was thought to constitute a threat at the time; and that that hand belonged to someone who was in all of the "right" places at all of the "right" times to play a part in the orchestration of Oswald's presumed guilt, at all times without corroboration of how he came to be in all of those places.

All of which may well be true.

At last, let us also consider the "chain of custody" of the presumed "murder weapon" and police officers' ability to conclusively identify it as being the gun in evidence:

McDonald sees a gun at or near Oswald's back and scuffles with him. He extracts the gun and immediately holds it out behind him. It is taken from him by Bob Carroll, whom McDonald cannot see, and cannot see what Carroll does with it. McDonald did not examine the gun that left his possession, and cannot legally identify it or any other gun in connection with the incident.

Carroll then places the weapon in the small of his back and assists with taking Oswald into custody. He in turn passes it to Jerry Hill when (according to Hill's testimony) Carroll gets into the driver's seat of the police car in front of the theater after Hill - a husky man described by some as "a fireplug with legs" - insinuates himself into the front center seat of the car.

The problem here is that there are numerous permutations available to the screen writer of what may have happened. Just read all the testimonies. Rarely will you find two accounts of even minor details the same. So while you say, Mr X saw this, and Mr Y did that, there is other testimony which could be used to suggest Mr Z saw something different than Mr X and it was Mr ABC who did that – rather than Mr Y. And you have made no effort to make a case to believe Mr X and Mr Y over Mr Z and Mr ABC. That they fit with your scenario in and of itself, does not constitute a case that they are to be believed above all others.

Hill and Walker should be considered as part of the frame team. You (and Lee) have made that case more than satisfactorily.

But nothing you have said has convinced me McDonald never had the gun, or that it was McDonald who was going to use it as an excuse for Oswald’s demise. Walker did his bit with the library diversion, and Hill did his bit with the weapon after the arrest.

If you cannot follow my arguments or logic in formulating them, I'll take responsibility for that -- but understand I do the best I can in less than ideal conditions mid many conflicting priorities.

Hill then describes how he manhandled the weapon, which effectively obliterated any identifiable prints that might have been on the weapon, be they Oswald's or someone else's. He then removed the cartridges from the pistol, accomplishing the same thing with them. This maneuver also either places Hill's fingerprints on the weapon, or explains and justifies their (prior) appearance there (what if they had been, and he'd been unable to get into a position to receive the weapon from Bob Carroll by slipping into the uncomfortable middle seat?).

When he's done, he puts the gun into his jacket pocket, out of everyone's sight. Up to this time, nobody other than he has had any opportunity to examine the weapon, and certainly not to the extent that they would be able to identify it to the exclusion of any other weapon of the same manufacture.

Upon arriving at DPDHQ, Hill assists in escorting the suspect to the second floor interrogation rooms, and leaves Oswald in the custody of "a uniform," unnamed by Hill but who is Patrolman Hutson, a particularly observant officer who'd even counted the number of people in the theater when he'd gone in the back door with McDonald. Hill then brought the weapon, still in his jacket pocket, to the personnel office with Bob Carroll, and then sent Carroll in search of McDonald and others who may have been able to identify the weapon, who eventually returned to Hill's (temporary) office, and examined and initialled the weapon and cartridges.

Near this time, Captain Westbrook returned to his office in the personnel section, to which Hill had been on temporary assignment. Seeing Hill and company in the unsecured personnel office with evidence, he causes the Homicide & Robbery Bureau to be summoned to the office to take custody of the weapon, which is done.

Even though we can identify several times when the weapon is outside of other officers' sight and possession, this might be the end of the story were it not for Officer Hutson's testimony of taking custody of Oswald in the interrogation room where Hutson also "had his pistol" with him. Do we think that a homicide detective turned the weapon over to "a uniform" supervising Oswald before officially taking it into evidence? Do we think that Hutson was lying or hallucinating? Given this statement by Hutson, can it be shown to be in error?

Given these factors, can it any longer be said that the weapon in evidence - with a defective firing pin and ostensibly tied to Oswald via mail order - was in fact the weapon that was in the theater and/or the one that shot Officer Tippit?

There is yet more to these questions to be posed, but they represent more of the totality of evidence that must be considered before any firm conclusions can be drawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that you can deny that Oswald had a rifle butt shaped injury covering from his right eye from the temple upwards, (apart from other injuries not visible in the arrest photos) shown in his mugshot (color) brought out by color adjustment from the online DPD GIF.. One way to kill someone is to hit them on the right place on the temple. (plus it may transfer gunpowder residue (cordite?))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's cool Lee. I'm suggesting that IF he had a gun then there was a switch. What I didn't elaborate on is that the gundrop (both) happened at the DPD. (suggestion).

With the guns in control bullets could be fired of a set of drop bullets and an unfired set of that set ''found'' two hours lateer. A ticket is thin. If they found the ticket they found the bullets, ie they didn't find the right bullets. (first)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg and Duke - Thanks for your comments regarding my thoughts. Much appreciated. Bernice - thanks for the info and photos. John - thanks for being you.

Lee, once in a while someone comes along whose contribution to the debate provides a much needed spark and keen insight. Kudos to you for being one of those.

I'm still toying between McDonald being the one with the gun and Hill being the one with the gun. I still plump for Hill.

Good! I haven’t entirely ruled out Hill yet either, though I think McDonald is looking better all the time. Read on as to why...

Mr. Walker: He put his hand up, not exactly as you would raise your hands to be searched, but more or less showing off his muscles, what I call it, kind of hunching his shoulders at the same time, and McDonald put his hand down to Oswald's pocket, and Oswald then hit him.

I think the hunching was a product of moving his waist back away from where McDonald was “searching”.

Mr. Applin: Well, the gun didn't come into view until after about four or five officers were there.

Yes, Applin did say that, but he appears to have misspoken. Or he was talking about the shotgun? Probably the latter, because when saying it was in view before the others arrived, they are specifically talking about a pistol:

Here is what immediately follows your quote:

Mr. BALL. Then did you see a
gun
?

Mr. APPLIN. Yes, sir; but only -- there was one
gun
. The
pistol
. It came into view
before
any of the other officers got there.

Mr. BALL. That is what I mean. What do you say happened about that?
Who pulled a gun
?

Mr. APPLIN. Well, anyhow, the officer was facing this way [indicating] and Oswald was facing this way [indicating]. And
then the gun was pointed out that way
[indicating].

Mr. BALL. Wait a minute. I can't follow you when you say it was "this way," sir. You told me that this officer asked Oswald to stand up?

Mr. APPLIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did he stand up?

Mr. APPLIN. Yes, sir; he did.

Mr. BALL. Then did he put his hand some place on Oswald?

Mr. APPLIN. Yes, sir; along about . . .

Mr. BALL. Where?

Mr. APPLIN. I guess about his hips.

Mr. BALL. Then what did Oswald do?

Mr. APPLIN. He took a right-hand swing at him.

Mr. BALL What did the officer do?

Mr. APPLIN. The officer grabbed him then.

Mr. BALL. Had you seen the pistol up to that time?

Mr. APPLIN. No, sir; there was not one in view then.

Mr. BALL. How soon after that did you see the
pistol
?

Mr. APPLIN. I guess it was about -- I guess it was about 2 or 3 seconds.

Mr. BALL. Who pulled the
pistol
?

Mr. APPLIN. I guess it was Oswald, because -- for one reason, that he had on a short sleeve shirt, and I seen a man's arm that was connected to
the gun
.

Mr. BALL. What did the officer do?

Mr. APPLIN. Well, the officer was scuffling with him there, and --

Mr. BALL. Did you hear anything?

Mr. APPLIN. Well, about the only thing I heard was the snap of the
gun
and the officer saying, "Here he is."

Mr. BALL. You heard the snap of a
gun
?

Mr. APPLIN. Yes, sir.

There may be one or two instances there where he says "gun" while meaning "pistol", but to me, he does appear to be talking about two different weapons. A pistol that appeared before any of the other cops arrived, and a [shot]gun that appeared after the other cops arrived.

On reflection, I think McDonald had the pistol, tried to plant it on Oswald and calls out “here he is” as a signal to someone with a shotgun to come and put Oswald into a deep and permanent sleep. When Oswald starts hollering about “not resisting”, it becomes too risky to shoot him, so… as per Applin’s testimony, he gets shoved in the back with the butt of it, instead.

Do you have an opinion on why McDonald seems to be the only uniformed man without his shotgun – despite testifying that he stormed into the library with one?

Mr. Hawkins: Well I'm sure Bob [Carroll] was in there. I couldn't say where he was exactly or - I do remember Sergeant Hill being there, and I believe he said, "I've got the gun." I think I read an account of where Bob Carroll may have had the gun, but I was under the impression it was Sergeant Hill.

Yes. Hill seems to have ended up with it at some stage. But as Hawkins suggests, there had been various conflicting reports on whose hands it passed through, and in what order.

Having Bernice post some of Ian Grigg's thoughts from Lancer makes me doubt even more the stories of Julia Postal and Johnny Brewer. I think it more than possible that these were added in later. Brewer's affidavit being taken on the 6th December and Postal's on the 4th December. Most of the arresting officer's reports were not completed until 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th of December. This allowed them time to recruit and weave Postal and Brewer into their story. I know Ian Grigg's "implicitly" believes Brewer's story and I know Butch Burroughs backs it up somewhat. I still don't or can't believe it. It's interesting that during his Warren Commission testimony there is no mention from Brewer whatsoever of his IBM friends he was chatting to in his store when the "scared" Oswald walked through the door. These men could have corroborated Brewer's statement but were never looked for or spoken to. Possibly because the Oswald event didn't happen the way Brewer describes it happening?

I’m with you there. The story reeks of fabrication.

Apart from anything else, just look at his statements about Oswald and compare them to that other delightfully misinforming witness, Mrs Bledsoe.

Brewer: Oswald looked funny/scared

Bledsoe: Oswald looked contorted/maniacal

Everyone else had him as “calm” – even McDonald described him that way initially. I think Brewer and Bledsoe had the same would-be schlock Hollywood script writer who was second guessing what a deranged lone nut should look like and act like.

But where does that leave us? If not Brewer, then who pointed out Oswald to McDonald? Or did McDonald already know who he was looking for?

Can I ask Greg and Duke who do you think the "Secret Service" men were who told Adrian Hamby to go into the Oak Cliff library and tell everyone else inside to stay put, prior to the call going out regarding the suspect entering the library? I believe it was C.T. Walker who made the initial call to the dispatcher. Could the "SS" men be two members of our inside group (led by Hill) working with Walker to cause the diversion from the ALT? Could it perhaps be Bentley and Carroll at the library telling Hamby to "run" inside, with a perfectly positioned Walker ready to call in a suspicious looking man running into the library? Thus giving Hill and/or McDonald the breathing space at the ALT?

I think you may be right. I don’t think there was any certainty it was Secret Service agents – I’m not even sure they were described as Secret Service agents by everyone in any case.

The thing I can't get my head around regarding the "snap" of the pistol is that if "someone" pulled the trigger, and "someone" else's thumb webbing got caught in the gun there wouldn't be a "snap." There would just be a rather loud "ouch." So you can't have both a snap AND an ouch. It's one or the other. Or nothing. I do believe Oswald was to be taken down in the theater. Something got in the way of it. Cue Jack...

Right again. Where was that “OUCH!”?

But the non-cop witnesses heard the click too, and without any reason to suspect they were got at (apart from Brewer), I have to think there was indeed, a click. If you can rule the pistol out (and I think you just have?), then it has to be either one of those sprung seats or a different weapon – Applin’s “gun” i.e. shotgun.

Quick final question. What's the deal with Ted Calloway doing a "dusty" with Tippit's gun?

Haven’t dived into that particular morass. Maybe Duke or someone else can offer an informed opinion.

Greg asked if Owens was involved in this? I don't know, but I find his memory lapse concerning receiving Tippit's pistol quite unbelievable. Also strange is the 2pm radio transmission:

22 (Patrolman L.L. Hill); In case (unable to read) regarding Officer Tippit's pistol, I gave it to Sergeant Owens.

They sure they've got the right Hill there?

Leonard Hill did respond to the Oak Cliff call. But then maybe “Mr Everywhere” has a confused chronology at least partly due to confusion with this Hill?

These are the most bizarre course of events in the history of crime.

Or is it just the accounts of it make it look that way? (and here I'm drawing a distinction between "out of the ordinary" which it certainly was and "bizarre")

I intuitively gravitate toward Gerald Hill. I think he arrived at the TSBD very early. I believe he left early. I believe he arrived at the Tippit scene early. I believe he left early. My gut tells me he's got something to do with the shells at the TSBD.

No argument there.

My gut tell me he's got something to do with the shells and wallet at 10th & Patton.

Quite possibly – maybe even probably.

The grey zipper jacket.

Ditto.

The gun on Oswald.

…. And... back to the one major sticking point…

The bullets in his pocket.

Again possibly/probably.

The bus transfer and it was quite convenient that Cecil McWatter's bus just happened to be at Jefferson & Marsalis during the library scene? Duke's nickname of Officer Everywhere sums it up really...

Do either of you know why Paul Bentley and K.E. Lyons didn't give testimony to the Warren Commission?

No. But we can sure guess!

Lee

P.S. Duke - I can't tell you how much I enjoy reading your posts. When I first discovered the EF about 5-6 years ago I started saving your posts and print them off to a dedicated folder. Please keep up the good work and know that there are some people out there who have learned so much from your knowledge and expertise. Can I throw a question out to you please? What is the possibility that it was Charles Givens driving the Rambler that Roger Craig saw Oswald get into?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know its weak but could the snap have been the cuffs as there was no ouch ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hill and Walker should be considered as part of the frame team. You (and Lee) have made that case more than satisfactorily. But nothing you have said has convinced me McDonald never had the gun, or that it was McDonald who was going to use it as an excuse for Oswald's demise. Walker did his bit with the library diversion, and Hill did his bit with the weapon after the arrest.
We cannot simply presume that merely displaying a gun would have gotten Oswald killed in the theater - especially in light of the evidence that an attempt to use it successfully did occur, albeit without effect - when Oswald supposedly did display a weapon and was not killed. The gun did not go off (for whatever reason) and Oswald did survive.
I'm sorry Duke, but I do presume exactly that. This was Dallas. This was the Dallas Police. This was 1963. This was a cop killer. Any other facts are superfluous. If need be, the weapon could be placed in his hand after he was dead.

... It was very unlikely that this [the gun in the theater] was the weapon that killed Tippit. ... I don't think it was the same weapon.

After much thought on this, here is the problem with all of this logic:

If the gun in the theater could have been any .38 caliber pistol - or any pistol - that could've been reconciled with the Tippit weapon later, then what was the purpose of retrieving a weapon before going to the theater?!?

Doesn't that necessarily complicate things, and potentially expose the cop-conspirators needlessly? Think about it.

If the "theater pistol" wasn't the "Tippit pistol" - and moreover, didn't need to be - then wouldn't it have been a simple matter for anyone to have simply had the "theater pistol" with them throughout the day, ready to pull down when needed? Couldn't everyone have carried a dummy pistol, with the murder weapon being substituted for whichever of them turned out to be used?

Going into the ALT or anywhere else to get the dummy "theater pistol" from an accomplice only created a situation in which they stood to be seen, all for the sake of getting "any old pistol" that didn't need to be - and wasn't - associated with Tippit's murder.

If the dummy had gone off and hit - or killed - someone, the forensics would have eliminated the person who owned or was carrying that weapon from being implicated in the Tippit murder.

Of course, the slug from that weapon could have been switched out later, but that is just yet another complicating issue that might not have worked as well as planned. The more issues that complicate the situation unnecessarily increase the odds that something's going to go wrong.

It could have been retrieved in the theater by someone other than Bob Carroll, who might've handed it off to someone other than Jerry Hill, or not handed it off at all. He might've scratched his initials on it or made some other identification that the murder weapon didn't have.

If you posit that anyone went into the ALT or somewhere else to retrieve "a" pistol, then the only sensible pistol they'd have retrieved would have been the one tied to Tippit's murder.

If you eliminate the "theater pistol" from being the Tippit murder weapon, then you eliminate the need to "retrieve" any weapon that someone could have been carrying all along. You could even have multiple dummy weapons if having a particular pistol was unnecessary.

You also have the conundrum of why it might be necessary to have two cops - McDonald and Hill - retrieve two different weapons from the same place, when either of them having retrieved one weapon would have sufficed.

If McDonald retrieved a different weapon than the "Tippit pistol," why? If Tippit's killer had hidden in the ALT, presumably with the murder weapon, where was the need to introduce another weapon? Just take the "real" one and be done with it. And why give one weapon to one cop, and another weapon to a different cop?

If it's this difficult trying to explain how this might've worked (or not!), imagine the problems with actually working it!

Occam's Razor is not a theorem stating that "the simplest explanation is always the right one," but rather only an admonition against introducing more complex issues unnecessarily, that a simple explanation probably explains things better than a needlessly complex one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drop-guns can be problematic. It wasn't unusual for them to be readily available. On one instance in NO, the police photographer had to ask two of the three placed by over eager cops under an ''accidentally'' shot guy to be removed before he could take his photos.

The issue of what type of gun is eased if one accepts that Oswald had a gun, he had to be able to say at least it looks like it or be unable to deny.

imo This matter pivots on the found ticket and the not found bullets in Oswalds pockets. Plainly absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Greg

Very interesting stuff. I've just been reading Mark Lane's "Lawyer's Brief" that was printed in The Guardian publication on December 19th 1963. In it Lane outlines the 15 assertions made by Henry Wade, after Oswald's death, that he felt proved guilt. These assertions are laughable given what we know today. Assertion fourteen claims:

"Oswald drew a pistol and attempted to kill the arresting officer. The firing pin stuck and marked the bullet but it did not explode."

Lane then points out that in the Washington Post of December 1st, Officer McDonald told the story differently: "I got my hand on the butt of his gun," said McDonald. "I could feel Oswald's hand on the trigger. I jerked my hand and was able to slow down the trigger movement. He didn't have enough force to fire it."

If I add to this a section from McDonald's report that he completed on December 3rd, two days AFTER his comments published in the Washington Post on the 1st December we read:

"I managed to get my right hand on the pistol over the suspects hand. I could feel his hand on the trigger. I then got a secure grip on the butt of the pistol. I jerked the pistol and as it was clearing the suspects clothing and grip I heard the snap of the hammer and the pistol crossed over my left cheeck (sic), causing a four inch scratch."

Lee, as pointed out by RCD, in his first public statement, McDonald told reporters that Oswald had given no trouble and had been calm. Additionally, I think the news clips provided by Bernie showed more variations on the themes you note above.

Funnily enough Wade had actually told reporters, printed in the New York Times, Tuesday 26th November 1963, "...I know he didn't snap the gun is all I know about it."

So we have the introduction of the "snapping" pistol in early December. Possibly around the 2nd or 3rd, just before they all started filling in their reports.

This is the exact time the case they intend to go with is solidifying. Convenient evidence is being found e.g. the clip board. Troublesome witnesses are being put under pressure e.g. Buell and Linnie Mae. And so it goes…

If I had time, I’d compile a complete list of evidence “found” in the first few days of December and the witnesses revisited in the same time-frame. I believe this would show the case they were trying to build and the holes they were trying to plug. Nearly everything that happened in those two or three days should be treated as suspect.

Re-reading Gerald Hill's interview with Eddie Barker from CBS there is the telling comment from Hill that was ultimately cut off:

BARKER: "The -- keep rolling."

(VOICES OFF MIKE)

HILL: "...was the first one that actually got..."

BARKER: "I thought that McDonald said that he did."

HILL: "McDonald said a lot of things. But Carroll was actually the one that put the gun in my hand. And..."

VOICE: "Roll 204, Take 3."

Is this Hill's freudian slip Greg? Telling us that perhaps McDonald wasn't a part of it? Just a thought...

The response that Carroll was the one who “put the gun in my hand” indicates to me that Hill’s words prior to that went something like “Carroll was the first one that actually got a hold of the gun.” Not. “Carroll was the first one that actually got there.”

But yes, McDonald did say a lot of things, of which we now have a number of examples. Hill’s remark, in context sounds more like a fear that McDonald’s loud mouth might give something away.

On the point of why he didn't take his shotgun? That obviously falls quite neatly into your theory. He could, however, have handed it off to another officer upon entering the theater. If he's the first man to approach Oswald and he's going through the motions of searching "other" people on the way up toward Oswald's seat then he can't do it with the shotgun.

It depends whether he actually searched them or not. In one or more version/s, he said he “talked” to them.

But if Brewer had actually pointed Oswald out, like he said he did, it would have been unnecessary to search anyone BUT Oswald and would have made more sense for him to have the shotgun, and then shouted for Oswald to "eat carpet." I've never understood why the officers in the ground floor of the theater went about doing what they did if Brewer's story was true.

Since I don’t believe Brewer’s story, I don’t think he pointed anyone out, unless he was in on it pre-arrest. I think if he did stop and speak to/search others, it was a ruse to make Oswald think he specifically, was not being targeted...that it was just a general search. Having the shotgun and ordering Oswald to “eat carpet” makes no sense if the aim was to kill him in the theatre and make it look like self defense.

I can only again conclude that Brewer's story wasn't true. Brewer wasn't in the theater. So does this mean that by McDonald searching other people that he didn't know who his suspect was, or that he was trying to "goad" Oswald into doing something stupid, like trying to leave?

Answered above.

Cheers

Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Greg Parker @ May 30 2010, 12:28 AM)

Hill and Walker should be considered as part of the frame team. You (and Lee) have made that case more than satisfactorily. But nothing you have said has convinced me McDonald never had the gun, or that it was McDonald who was going to use it as an excuse for Oswald's demise. Walker did his bit with the library diversion, and Hill did his bit with the weapon after the arrest.

QUOTE (Duke Lane @ May 30 2010, 01:42 AM)

We cannot simply presume that merely displaying a gun would have gotten Oswald killed in the theater - especially in light of the evidence that an attempt to use it successfully did occur, albeit without effect - when Oswald supposedly did display a weapon and was not killed. The gun did not go off (for whatever reason) and Oswald did survive.

I'm sorry Duke, but I do presume exactly that. This was Dallas. This was the Dallas Police. This was 1963. This was a cop killer. Any other facts are superfluous. If need be, the weapon could be placed in his hand after he was dead.

... It was very unlikely that this [the gun in the theater] was the weapon that killed Tippit. ... I don't think it was the same weapon.

After much thought on this, here is the problem with all of this logic:

If the gun in the theater could have been any .38 caliber pistol - or any pistol - that could've been reconciled with the Tippit weapon later, then what was the purpose of retrieving a weapon before going to the theater?!?

Doesn't that necessarily complicate things, and potentially expose the cop-conspirators needlessly? Think about it.

Duke, you could make the same statement about all of what are generally regarded as actual evidence tampering or planting episodes.

I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again here – elements of the Dallas police were used to securing convictions via the route of manufactured evidence. They did not have to worry about risk. There was virtually none. That lack of risk led to a certain amount of sloppiness. This sloppiness is evident in the JFK case simply because of the work of early critics, the release of the DPD files, and the publication of the 26 volumes of the WC. These were truly Keystone Kops who had to continually improvise to cover their own blunders and to negate early statements that now contradicted their intended direction.

So what was the purpose in retrieving a weapon? It had probably been fired and then disabled.

If the "theater pistol" wasn't the "Tippit pistol" - and moreover, didn't need to be - then wouldn't it have been a simple matter for anyone to have simply had the "theater pistol" with them throughout the day, ready to pull down when needed? Couldn't everyone have carried a dummy pistol, with the murder weapon being substituted for whichever of them turned out to be used?

Pity for them that they did not have you doing the planning. :D I think the real murder weapon was an automatic or semi-automatic weapon, just as described in one of the initial reports. The greater risk was to try and plant that weapon on Oswald. I think their sloppiness extended to having at least two pistols ready for planting (though only one would need to be used) but due to another stuff up, the other ended up as a throwdown at the Tippit scene. They improvised their way out of this by claiming the gun (and Hidell ID laden wallet) being displayed for Reiland’s TV camera belonged to Tippit – absurd on its face. But… they got away with it.

Going into the ALT or anywhere else to get the dummy "theater pistol" from an accomplice only created a situation in which they stood to be seen, all for the sake of getting "any old pistol" that didn't need to be - and wasn't - associated with Tippit's murder.

Not “any old pistol” but one which could be traced to “AJ Hidell”, and that had been fired for ballistics and then disabled.

If the dummy had gone off and hit - or killed - someone, the forensics would have eliminated the person who owned or was carrying that weapon from being implicated in the Tippit murder.

Which was why it was disabled.

Of course, the slug from that weapon could have been switched out later, but that is just yet another complicating issue that might not have worked as well as planned. The more issues that complicate the situation unnecessarily increase the odds that something's going to go wrong.

These guys were clueless weren’t they?

It could have been retrieved in the theater by someone other than Bob Carroll, who might've handed it off to someone other than Jerry Hill, or not handed it off at all. He might've scratched his initials on it or made some other identification that the murder weapon didn't have.

It wasn’t necessarily Carroll. Without going through all the reports and testimonies again, I think the chain of possession was nowhere near as clear cut as you seem to believe it to be.

As for what “might’ve” happened… well, any number of things might’ve – even with the best laid plans, unthought of things can still go wrong. And did. Oswald got to live an extra couple of days. He bought himself a reprieve with his hollering and got a butt in the back instead of a “hit” in the head.

If you posit that anyone went into the ALT or somewhere else to retrieve "a" pistol, then the only sensible pistol they'd have retrieved would have been the one tied to Tippit's murder.

Well… it was tied to it, wasn’t it? The question is, how it became tied….

If you eliminate the "theater pistol" from being the Tippit murder weapon, then you eliminate the need to "retrieve" any weapon that someone could have been carrying all along. You could even have multiple dummy weapons if having a particular pistol was unnecessary.

Answered.

You also have the conundrum of why it might be necessary to have two cops - McDonald and Hill - retrieve two different weapons from the same place, when either of them having retrieved one weapon would have sufficed.

I have never claimed two cops did that. It was one or the other. I believe the evidence points more to McDonald, while you and Lee (unless you've talked yourself out of it?) believe it points more to Hill. I don't think it's hugely important which.

If McDonald retrieved a different weapon than the "Tippit pistol," why? If Tippit's killer had hidden in the ALT, presumably with the murder weapon, where was the need to introduce another weapon? Just take the "real" one and be done with it. And why give one weapon to one cop, and another weapon to a different cop?

Answered.

If it's this difficult trying to explain how this might've worked (or not!), imagine the problems with actually working it!

Occam's Razor is not a theorem stating that "the simplest explanation is always the right one," but rather only an admonition against introducing more complex issues unnecessarily, that a simple explanation probably explains things better than a needlessly complex one.

As the historian Pamela Crossley has pointed out, Occam’s Razor is a rhetorical device inappropriate for use in the study of historical events.

http://www.tonsethhouse.net/DB/jfk_theses.shtml

In the end, the event is as simple or as complex as the evidence indicates. Here, we are also dealing with variables such as fabricated evidence, incompetence and etc.

I have been trying to stick to a discussion on the evidence, but you seem to prefer a rhetorical debate. Can we just have one or the other? You can choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the comment about McDonald interesting (all of it is tho) if so, one way to redeem himself or to be bound into the loop would be to go point which could explain the comments about him ''leading the charge''. Friendly fire is just as deadly as ...

edit typo

Edited by John Dolva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Lee imo you're asking many q's in need of answers.

_____

one off the cuff thought. I think there is reason to explore the notion that that rather ramshackle house may have been an unofficial coppers safe house. (I'va always wanted to be able to read what the sign says.) afa T gun goes, was there a civilian who claimed to secure it in some way before the cops arrived? (or rather perhaps before the Other cop/s arrived.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been trying to stick to a discussion on the evidence, but you seem to prefer a rhetorical debate. Can we just have one or the other? You can choose.
Choosing would be easier if both of us agreed what is evidence and what is not. You've said in other posts that you choose not to believe testimony, so whatever value it might have if it's actually true is moot. You've also indicated your preference for DPD to be "Keystone Kops" who routinely planted evidence to support a case, but you don't cite any such case or show where the "evidence" was actually shown to be planted, and consequently ask us to move forward on a conjectural belief to "prove" or advance a point. Case in point:
I've said it before but I'll say it again here – elements of the Dallas police were used to securing convictions via the route of manufactured evidence. They did not have to worry about risk. There was virtually none.
How is that "evidence" as opposed to "rhetoric?"

You've likewise cited statements that are other than sworn testimony as being more reliable or truthful than what was said under oath by Hill, et al., as if what one says to a reporter is somehow more true than what is sworn to, or that people are more apt to lie to a lawyer deposing them (and taking others' testimony, which might contradict your own) than to a newsman or director who is only interviewing you for tonight's news or this month's special. On what can you make that determination with any accuracy such that you can reliably choose one over the other?

While I can't think of an instance that you've chosen this particular vehicle, there is also a tendency among some people to alternately cite sworn versus unsworn statements to invalidate one or the other. That is to say that what a witness says in one, if not consistent with the other, is made to "show" that one of them - pick whichever one you choose - is false. Sometimes what one testifies to "proves" that someone else lied to a reporter; other times what one says in an unguarded moment "on the air" proves that another lied on the stand. At still other times, the contradictory (or at least inconsistent) statements can be made by the same person, and one is used to "prove" the other was a lie, or sometimes the other is used to "prove" the first was a lie. These can be alternated back and forth between the circumstances involving the same deponent/interviewee.

Ultimately, it comes down to which supports what the writer believes that is the "true" version of events.

One can only, in my opinion, look at the totality of what's been said and take it all at face value until and unless some other information comes forth that supports or refutes one or the other of the contradictory statements; that only lends further credence to the scenario, but doesn't necessarily "prove" anything other than that sometimes two people can lie as effectively as one.

There is then the question of whether no evidence is, in fact, evidence against something. Case in point, an earlier question about whether McDonald actually sustained an injury on his thumb "webbing" caused by a "snapping" hammer or not, and the fact(?) that he "did not allow" - or that someone else simply didn't take - a photo of said injury as indicative of the injury not taking place, or the suggestion that he didn't yell out in pain the way someone else thinks that he should have (or that the suggester thinks that he would have) "proves" that it didn't happen.

... And of course, the old fall-back position that, if such a photo existed, it was "planted" after the fact and should be suspect at best. Why, because it could have happened that way, or because it provably did?

One can only take what's put before them and attempt to make sense of it. Ultimately, none of it "proves" what happened in the melee over control of "a" weapon, but "common sense" (which isn't always so common!) can be used to eliminate a possibility,

Why, for example, if "gun A" - that used to kill Tippit - was obviously in the area when it was used to kill Tippit, and the ALT is only a block away, and the killer was last seen heading in the direction of the ALT (last seen running behind the Texaco station), and either the killer or someone else was in the ALT to hand off a weapon to a "planting" officer, why in the world would anyone with a modicum of intelligence leave the area with the murder weapon, not leave the murder weapon with whoever was in the ALT, and why would the killer or whoever else was in the ALT not pass along the murder weapon itself to said planting officer, but instead interject another weapon into the scenario that later had to somehow be replaced with the actual murder weapon, which was always available in the first place?

All because you'd like to imagine all of DPD to be "Keystone Kops" and so need to inject a comedy routine into it to complete the caricature? It makes no sense.

I have been trying to stick to a discussion on the evidence, but you seem to prefer a rhetorical debate. Can we just have one or the other? You can choose. ... I do presume exactly that [that merely displaying a gun would have gotten Oswald killed in the theater]. This was Dallas. This was the Dallas Police. This was 1963. This was a cop killer. Any other facts are superfluous. If need be, the weapon could be placed in his hand after he was dead.
You're right: This was Dallas. This was the Dallas Police. This was 1963. This was a [presumed] cop killer. All absolute facts. But what, really, do they mean? What you want them to mean? Those facts do not lead to the inescapable conclusion regarding the planting of evidence. If they do, prove it with facts, and then we can have "a discussion on the evidence." Until then, a "rhetorical debate" is all that we can have since your argument is based on only that itself.
Pity for them that they did not have you doing the planning. :D
I know. And a pity the WC didn't have me as an investigator! It would've save a lot of people a lot of work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So where are we up to? We "know" that Tippit was killed between 1:00pm and 1:07pm. ... We "know" that Hugh Aynesworth claimed that he was at the scene no later than 1:10pm. ...
This, of course, would be impossible unless Aynesworth had advance knowledge of Tippit's murder: regardless of the time that Tippit was actually killed, his shooting was not reported until shortly after 1:16.
We have no corroboration from Owens (in his WC testimony) or Alexander (who gave no WC testimony) that Gerald Hill was with them when they left the TSBD.
Am I misremembering that Hill also stated that Captain Westbrook - his immediate, temporary supervisor (who had no kind words to say of his charge later), was in the car on the way to Oak Cliff?

Quick exercise: list whom Hill stated were in the car (and if applicable, where they were sitting) on the way to OC. Then, check the reports and testimony of each of those officers, and list whom each said was in the car with them. Do the same for this resulting list. What do we come up with? Can you put that in a table of some sort for future quick reference?

We cannot expect "corroboration" in any form from someone who was not asked questions or tasked with reporting his activities for any record. No inferences relative to someone else can or should be drawn from this lack.

Hill claims he arrived at the scene of Tippit's slaying at 1:22pm. Are we to believe that he arrived 12 minutes AFTER Aynesworth said he arrived at the scene even though Hill left before him?
See above.
Hill claims he spoke to Officer Joe Poe and looked at the shells. Poe mentions nothing about this in any of his statements and testimony.

Hill claims he then used Joe Poe's car to go searching for the suspect. Hill also claimed in his radio transmission that he had a witness in the car with him "to identify the suspect."

We "know" that Hill went to the Abundant Life Temple on foot and stated that he was about to shake it down.

We "know" that Nick McDonald made a call to the dispatcher asking for a "squad" to search the basement of the ALT.

Could McDonald's actions be a potential spanner in the works for the whole event? Hence the library call is then required to pull all of the officers east of the shooting, away from where the actual perpetrator was west of the shooting?

Hill then stays at the ALT and Texaco/Garage area.

We DO know that McDonald - or, worst case, someone using his call sign, which seems unlikely - made the call for "a squad" to come to the ALT, and that C.T. Walker - or, again, someone using his call sign, which also seems unlikely - made the radio call to hurry up and get squads - plural - to the library.

We also know that the latter had the effect of getting a large number - if not most or all - of the available squads away from the ALT in favor of where "the suspect" was "holed up," and that, consequently, the ALT was not officially searched or "shaken down." We also know that the theater call at least apparently kept the remaining squads from returning to the ALT to shake it down when the suspect turned out not to be at the library after all.

We don't actually know what Hill did or didn't do because, absent a few oblique references to him (and film of him leaning out of the TSBD windows), nobody corroborates anything he did. Poe, I recall (perhaps erroneously), did mention "turning over" the bullets to "a detective," and the fact is that Hill was dressed in plain clothes, just as a detective would be expected to be wearing (absent, of course, the white Stetson of the Homicide Bureau). That is at least consistent with Hill radioing in about the shells from an "automatic," which is a reasonable inference to be drawn from shells being found "ejected" along the street and absent a close examination (through cigarette-pack cellophane?) to determine their exact nomenclature.

Poe does not mention anyone else using his car, and one might be left to wonder how Hill knew the car that he commandeerd was Poe's car since keys in a squad car, or the service number of the car, don't give any clues to whom it's assigned to: Hill's statement of Poe's "ownership" of the vehicle is unchallenged, and could as easily as not have been the result of seeing a name badge on a jacket in the car, a notation on the dashboard scratch pad, or any of a number of things.

We know Hill radioed about being at "12th & Beckley" - the location of the Dallas 5th Precinct municipal courts and constable's office, then and now - but we don't, of course, know that he was actually there or, presuming that he was, what he was doing while there (e.g., did he remain outside or merely drive by? If he stopped, did he enlist the assistance of the constables, or even mention the shooting to any of them?). These questions simply never arose or were addressed in the course of any investigation.

(For all we know, he could have been the police officer in the car seen by Earlene Roberts, the number of which is quite nebulous according to Roberts' own descriptions, plural. I don't know offhand if Hill filed any reports in conjunction with the Car 109/209/106/etc. investigation that took place later. As for 209, it was assigned to Jim Valentine, Hill's supposed ride to DP, who took it there and left the keys either in it or with the sergeant in charge at the crime scene. This or Poe's car - or virtually any other car! - could've been that car.)

Contrary to your statement, however, we don't really know anything about Hill's presumed witness/passenger:

... This witness was Herbert Russell. Lo and behold, Russell doesn't appear before the Warren Commission, and he mentions nothing about his Starsky and Hutch adventures with Gerald Hill in his FBI report of January 21st 1964. Russell does claim in his FBI report that Tippit's gun was laying on the front seat of the patrol car when he arrived at the scene.
Russell (actual first name Harold) doesn't mention anything about this because he did not apparently take part in any such search, with or without Hill. The report of his interview with the FBI is found at 21H383, and his affidavit attesting to its accuracy as a report is at 7H594.

In the FBI report, which Russell verified and validated, he speaks only of going to 10th & Patton from Warren Reynolds' used car lot, of seeing Tippit's service revolver on the front seat of the squad car (which Tom Bowley speaks in his affidavidt of having placed there), and of a man (Ted Calloway, according to his own testimony) taking it from the seat and going off (with William Scoggins, the cab driver, according to both of their testimonies) in search of the killer. He does not attest to having ridden in any police car with any police officer.

Hill's witness/passenger's identity is, as far as I can recall from memory, still a mystery.

The two main questions that I have for other members are:

1. Is it 100% obvious to people of an independent mind that Gerald Hill lied about ALL of his movements prior to the Texas Theater arrest?

2. Did Hill wait around the ALT and Texaco area to get the "real" Tippit weapon, to get "a" weapon" or to assist the "real" Tippit slayer get away and out of the area?

I think question two is the main sticking point in all of this and depending upon your own belief, your perception of events that then later happen at the TT will be altered accordingly.

My final question is this:

Does it really matter? Who handed the gun off to Oswald, or even if ANY gun was handed off to Oswald in the theatre?

If the Gerald Hill movements and obvious lies could be put into a coherent timeframe could it alter non-believers beliefs about what happened in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas on that eventful day?

It was WC assistant counsel David Belin who, in his book November 22, 1963: You Are the Jury, labeled the Tippit shooting "the Rosetta Stone" of the assassination. That phrase is taken by many to mean that he was calling the events in Oak Cliff the "proof" that Oswald killed Kennedy because he wouldn't have killed Tippit if he hadn't.

The real Rosetta Stone, however, wasn't "proof" of anything. Instead, it is a tablet with the same inscriptions made in three languages: known, classical Greek script, and then-unknown Egyptian Demotic and Hieroglyphic writings. Comparing the known languages' script with the unknown languages', the Rosetta Stone was "the key that unlocked the puzzle" of early Egyptian writings.

Is it possible that the (in)famous counsel was speaking out of both sides of his mouth with a forked tongue, ostensibly supporting the conclusions of the Report to which he had "contributed" much, while on the other hand pointing others in the right direction to solve a hitherto indecipherable event? Whether or not he actually meant to impart this wisdom, I find it odd that such a reasonably learned man as he would "mix metaphors" (as it were) to use such a characterization to make an unrelated point. I also do find the events in Oak Cliff to present an entirely different perspective of the killings than when viewed from Dealey Plaza. The current debate about the gun in the Texas Theater are but a portion of the submerged part of that iceberg.

More to the point:

Is it 100% obvious to people of an independent mind that Gerald Hill lied about ALL of his movements prior to the Texas Theater arrest?
It is apparent that he probably lied about most of his actions and activities; it is 100% obvious that any honest, independent investigation would want to clarify these and much more about him and his activities that day. For a downtown "beat sergeant" on temporary loan to Captain Westbrook's personnel department to help vet incoming Police Academy cadets, he managed to be center stage at all of the strategic locations and events of the day with a depth of knowledge seemingly unsurpassed by any other Dallas flatfoot.
2. Did Hill wait around the ALT and Texaco area to get the "real" Tippit weapon, to get "a" weapon" or to assist the "real" Tippit slayer get away and out of the area?
Or all of the above? It seems plainly obvious that the ALT cannot and could not be ruled out as a possible refuge of the killer, who was last seen running in its direction before disappearing from sight so quickly and cleanly, unless of course one accepts as fact that the escaping killer was Oswald and that he ran (or walked) from there, unseen through the alleyway or by other uknown route(s) to the Texas Theater. The first mention of this location was followed swiftly by an urgent call for "all squads" to leave its vicinity and surround the library several blocks away, and the only time that it was ostensibly attempted to be "shaken down" - by Hill - it was without any sort of witness other than "Bob Apple" who was not in the area but who nevertheless commisserated with Hill after Hill apparently took the word of women working at the ALT that nobody had entered that large building - or could have entered it by any of its numerous, distant entrances - or was still there, and consequently left the possibility unexplored. Heckuva a way to look for the killer of one of your fellow officers, isn't it?
(3.) Does it really matter who handed the gun off to Oswald, or even if ANY gun was handed off to Oswald in the theatre?
Only to the extents of illustrating how the mechanics of his demise might have have been brought about, how the "Tippit gun" was introduced into the events if not by Oswald (whose "admission" to carrying a gun "like boys do" is only reported by the police captain who "kept no notes" and whose notes that "weren't taken" don't contain that admission, and probably wouldn't have been admissible at trial if they did), and what became of it afterward. It matters who handed it off and who handled it at all times, particularly if it wasn't Oswald.
(4.) If the Gerald Hill movements and obvious lies could be put into a coherent timeframe could it alter non-believers beliefs about what happened in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas on that eventful day?
Maybe. They and they alone, however, weren't all that make for a "coherent timeframe" of the events leading up to and after the theater events. Even if he did take possession of the (or "a") weapon at the ALT, he obviously didn't take it from himself, inside the ALT waiting for himself to arrive to take it. Other events that attach to such a timeframe would make a better and more complete case; in and of themselves, they might raise a brow or two, but aren't likely to convert any true believers.

Putting things "on the record" is generally beyond the ken and capacity of most if not all of us here. Only if the answers to these questions are spread upon the acta of a criminal - or even civil! - trial would they have any real significance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
one off the cuff thought. I think there is reason to explore the notion that that rather ramshackle house may have been an unofficial coppers safe house. (I'va always wanted to be able to read what the sign says.) afa T gun goes, was there a civilian who claimed to secure it in some way before the cops arrived? (or rather perhaps before the Other cop/s arrived.)
Off the top of my head I can't remember who said that John. Possibly Jack Tatum who called Ted Callaway out for wanting to take Tippit's pistol? Or T.F. Bowley who made the third and final call to the dispatcher after Callaway and Benavides?

Interesting that Domingo Benavides actually said that Ted Callaway took Tippit's pistol out of the officer's dead hand during his Warren Commission testimony. Curiouser and curiouser...

I don't recall whose testimony called out Ted Callaway for taking the pistol and going posse with Scoggins (who was effectively hijacked into the deal); it may have been Callaway's own if not Donnie Benavides'. Tatum did not stop at the scene, even presuming he was actually there. Tom Bowley put the pistol on the seat after removing it from beneath Tippit's body (when it was loaded into the ambulance?), and it was only his voice that was on the tape of the "citizen" radio 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

×
×
  • Create New...