What did William Scoggins see ?

[Gil Jesus]

The chain of possession issue is a joke in the TIppit case.

You bring up the issue of the ridiculous idea that no one frisked Oswald for two hours.

Baloney. And the late Roger Feinman proved this was baloney with the excerpts he got through the discovery process when he internally protested the one sidedness of the CBS 1967 special.

The Dallas Police Department was simply a disgrace at that time. One of the very worst in the country. And the Wade/Fritz regime encouraged that kind of crap. God knows how many innocent men went to jail on phoney charges. I mean what is the count today that have been proven innocent, like over 30? Would we have ever learned of this if Watkins had not been elected DA?

Absolutely not. Their power was such that NO defense lawyer in Dallas dared step forward to take Oswald's case. Last I knew, 25 people who had been convicted under the Wade tenure had had their convictions overturned by DNA evidence. The credibility of the Dallas prosecutory system in 1963 was garbage, from the police all the way up to the DA.

But you'll never see David Von Pein or the Warren Commission apologists address that.

Knowing what I know today, I believe that Ruby killed Oswald in order to prevent him from going to trial. IMO, that's why Ruby couldn't talk in Dallas. He needed to get away from there in order to tell the truth.

I think it's absolutely shameful that the Commission declined to take him to Washington, but had no problem paying for plane tickets for right-wing nuts like Revilo Oliver and Edwin Walker, who had NOTHING of evidence in the assassination.

When you arrest a suspect, ESPECIALLY WHEN HE'S ARMED, you frisk him before you put him in the cruiser, not two hours later as he's going to a lineup. Anybody who's seen an episode of COPS can tell you that. We always emptied out their pockets and inventoried what we found so they couldn't say we stole something from them.

Another thing that shocks me about this case is how poorly informed the Chief of Police was. We always kept our chief informed of all aspects of our investigations. When Curry testified, he didn't know this and didn't know that. He was never at the lineups, he was never at the interrogations and he seems to have been so detached from the whole investigation. It seems that his role was reduced to that of a PR man. When the police got threats against Oswald's life, they couldn't contact the chief for permission to secretly move the prisoner because the chief's home phone was off the hook. I've never heard of anything so ridiculous. The Chiefs I served under were always at the center of things. Everything went through the Chief and he was always available 24 hours a day.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Gil Jesus

[Karl Kinaski]

Mrs Higgins told Barry Ernest, the shots rang out just the moment, when the narrator on her telly said. "It is now 13.06 pm..." and she automatically compared the time to her watch on the wall...To me, this, 13.06 pm 22.11.1963, is the exact time of the Tippit shooting...by that time Oswald was already in the Texas Theater. (Acc. to

...the Theater Manager...)

KK

[Gil Jesus]

Mrs Higgins told Barry Ernest, the shots rang out just the moment, when the narrator on her telly said. "It is now 13.06 pm..." and she automatically compared the time to her watch on the wall...To me, this, 13.06 pm 22.11.1963, is the exact time of the Tippit shooting...by that time Oswald was already in the Texas Theater. (Acc. to

...the Theater Manager...)

KK

And there's another issue that needs to be addressed in the Tippit case. Many of the witnesses who "identified" Oswald from a photograph were never shown a "photographic lineup". Instead, they were shown photographs only of Oswald and nearly every time that photograph was either the New Orleans mugshot or the DPD mugshot. One time, they even showed a witness the "backyard" photograph. So you have planted in the witness' mind the guy they saw was a criminal and armed. Talk about influencing a witness. There was even one witness, I think it was Patterson, who the FBI said identified Oswald from a photo, but who told the Commission that he had never been shown a photo.

The Commission's answer to that was to have the FBI show him two photos of Oswald. One was a mugshot, the other the BY photo.

They never questioned why the FBI lied in its report.

[Ed LeDoux]

Nice catch in the witness statement of Scoggins Gil!

Seems Scoggins was farther away than we've believed and never had a good look at the suspect.

The clues that a human eye would use when the words pronounced are relativeley close, such as poor "Dumb" cop or poor "Damn" Cop, could not be used by the cabbie as he could not see the face or lips to aid his auditory senses.
The shooters head was turned away from him and thus the confusion as to the exact words spoken.
Clearly the witness did not actually see the shooter. He heard the shooter!
Nothing in any statement by Scoggins is there anything about LHO sounding like the shooter. Why not? Maybe because he didn't even sound like the shooter. Can you imagine LHO running along saying "I refuse to answer questions. I have my T-shirt on, the other men are dressed differently. . . . Everybody's got a shirt and everything, and I've got a T-shirt on. . . . This is unfair."
All that but not once is Scoggins listening and with wide eyes points at LHO and says 'Yep I'd know that voice anywhere!!'

Did not happen because they got the WRONG GUY.

"I didn't shoot anyone" ~LHO

Ed

[Karl Hilliard]

On 2/26/2013 at 9:33 AM, David Von Pein said:

 

And I won't even place Helen Markham on the list of Tippit witnesses, due to her "screwball" nature.

 

Bump

Quickly, Ms Markham stated a couple things that interested me....

Quote

Mr. BALL. The police car stopped?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What about the man? Was he still walking?
Mrs. MARKHAM. The man stopped.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you see the man do?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I saw the man come over to the car very slow, leaned and put his arms just like this, he leaned over in this window and looked in this window.
Mr. BALL. He put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. MARKHAM. The window was down.
Mr. BALL. It was?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. MARKHAM. On the ledge of the window.
Mr. BALL. And the policeman was sitting where?
Mrs. MARKHAM. On the driver's side.
Mr. BALL. He was sitting behind the wheel?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.

Quote

Mr. BALL. So you were walking south toward Jefferson?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You think it was a little after 1?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1.
Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.
Mr. BALL. So it was before 1:15?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, it was.

Others [I think Scoggins also] saw the killer walking from east to west down 10th St.
This [if you map it] is going towards the downtown Oak Cliff area towards the Texas Theater.
Where in hell was he coming from?

Cars [back then] had side vents. Maybe that's what Ms Markham saw. She was scared. That translates to some people as 'screwball'. She denied talking to Mark Lane and reporters. I understand the DPD dusted for prints from Tippit's car. If Oswald's were lifted, we would certainly have heard no end to that.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4499/37221953390_cc2207409c_b.jpg

  

 

[Karl Hilliard]

On 2/26/2013 at 11:30 PM, David Von Pein said:

 

And we've got ballistics proof in the form of those bullet shells dropped at the crime scene that says: It was Oswald's gun that killed Tippit, to the exclusion of all other guns on the planet.

 

Quote

Mr. EISENBERG. Winchester-Western, you say--
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; that is Remington--
Mr. EISENBERG. Let's go over that. We have 603
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. 602, 603, and 605 are your copper-coated lead bullets of Winchester-Western manufacture.
Mr. EISENBERG. And 604?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And 604 is a Remington-Peters lead bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets have been fired in this weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
First of all, Commission Exhibit No. 602 was too mutilated. There were not sufficient microscopic marks remaining on the surface of this bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine whether or not it had been fired from this weapon.
However, Commission Exhibits 603, 604, and 605 do bear microscopic marks for comparison purposes, but it was not possible from an examination and comparison of these bullets to determine whether or not they had been fired--these bullets themselves--had been fired from one weapon, or whether or not they had been fired from Oswald's revolver.
Further, it was not possible, using .38 Special ammunition, to determine whether or not consecutive test bullets obtained from this revolver had been fired in this weapon.

What the Report said and what the Testimony in the Hearings said were too often not the same.