Two Dallas cops were involved in the pre-arranged murder of Tippit...

[Sandy Larsen]

Isn’t it interesting that Honest Ken Croy…

… contradicted himself on numerous occasions in his WC testimony.

I don't remember any contradictions. Please give examples.

Well, for example, ...

... [Croy] forgot to mention that he either found or was given ... a wallet at the Tippit murder scene that contained identification of Lee Harvey Oswald and Alec Hidell, ...

You said that Croy contradicted himself ("on numerous occasions") in his WC testimony. It wasn't till decades later that he claimed to have recovered the wallet. We don't know whether he conveniently forgot that in his WC testimony, or if he lied about recovering the wallet in his decades-later statement.

Regardless, this hardly constitutes Croy contradicting himself "on numerous occasions" in his WC testimony.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Isn’t it interesting that Honest Ken Croy…

… was on site before the ambulance arrived, and therefore must have seen Ted Callaway take the gun from Tippit’s body and get into a taxi to look for the shooter. Why would a police officer, in uniform, allow a civilian to take a weapon from a dead police officer?

It's rather odd that you wish to make a point of this, Jim, as if it somehow supports your allegation that Croy was involved in murdering Tippit.

You (like myself and most others) believe that Croy was at the scene when Callaway and Scoggins set out in the taxicab to find the shooter. If Croy was involved in Tippit's assassination, as you believe, then surely he would NOT have wanted Callaway and Scoggins to find the shooter. Given that, why did Croy allow them to take Tippit's gun and search for the shooter? You need to answer your own question.

I'll be happy to answer your question. There are many possible explanations... here's one: Callaway was helping to load Tippit into the ambulance. He saw that the ambulance attendants had it under control, so he stopped and then grabbed Tippit's gun. Croy arrived at this time and saw the very end of Tippit being loaded. Croy didn't know Callaway has Tippit's gun. Callaway recruited Scoggins into driving after the shooter. Meanwhile Croy began asking questions and interviews Helen Markham.

Croy could hardly have been more helpful if he had hidden Tippit’s killer in the back seat of his car. He talked, he said, to a witness for “a good 5 or 10 minutes.”

Mr. Croy. The only information I could get out of her was the description of what Oswald had on, and him shooting him.

Mr. Griffin. What did she tell you at the time that he had on?

Mr. Croy. “I don’t recall what he had on.”

That’s right! The only information he could get out of a witness he interviewed for a “good 5 or 10 minutes” was her “description of what Oswald had on,” but he didn’t know what Oswald had on!! But wait, there’s more:

Mr. Croy. I believe it was a man that was standing there in the yard. He said he saw Oswald just walk up the street.

Mr. Griffin. What direction did he say?

Mr. Croy. He didn’t say.

….

Mr. Griffin. Were you able to determine from them what direction he saw Oswald walking?

Mr. Croy. No.

Mr. Griffin. Do you recall this man’s name?

Mr. Croy. No; I found the witness and took him to the other officers.

Mr. Griffin. Now, after the Tippit—how long did you remain at the scene of the Tippit killing?

Mr. Croy. Oh, I would say a good 30 minutes. Thirty or forty minutes, something like that.

Mr. Griffin. Then where did you go?

Mr. Croy. Home. I went to eat.

Mr. Griffin. I take it, at some restaurant or something.

Mr. Croy. Yes.

Mr. Griffin. Did you remain home the rest of the day?

Mr. Croy. Yes.

Of course, all the time Honest Ken Croy was failing to find one single clue about the man who had just killed a police officer, and all the time he drove slowly past the Texas Theater to make sure he wasn’t needed there, either, his wife is waiting patiently at the Austin BBQ. This is the story you expect us to believe, Sandy?

Bump.

I agree that Croy didn't do his job at the Tippit scene. I believe he was preoccupied with his apparent marital problems and the fact that every minute he spent at the Tippit scene was a minute he was going to be late meeting his wife. He did testify that he handed off witnesses to other officers.

Anyway, nice job deflecting my question. Actually, your question... the one I answered but you need to answer as well. Given that Croy was on the scene (the whole time, according to your and John's theory), why did he allow Callaway to take Tippit's gun and take hot pursuit after the shooter in Scoggin's taxi? (I guess it was Scoggin's taxi.)

[Jim Hargrove]

Isn’t it interesting that Honest Ken Croy…

… was the only police officer known to have chosen to go home only minutes after the shooting of the President of the United States.

Apparently Croy had recently had a serious spat with his wife and had moved in with his parents. His mind was on that, as is suggested by his desire to try and reconcile with his wife when such an opportunity presented itself. Which it did when he saw her downtown and made a lunch date with her. Patching up his marriage was apparently more important to him than trying to solve the JFK assassination.

You seriously believe this story, Sandy? By his own testimony, minutes (or seconds) after JFK is assassinated, Croy is sitting in his car at city hall at Main near Griffin and was “right in the middle of the street with my car hemmed in from both sides. I couldn’t go anywhere.” He said it took him twenty minutes to drive a couple of blocks to Houston and Main. Even though his own affidavit indicates reserve cops were being called in to monitor the transfer of LHO on 11/24, this reserve cop asks policemen he didn’t recognize if he could be of assistance in the matter of the shooting of the President of the United States at this very location minutes earlier, but they, he said, said no and so he “preceded home.”

Of course, he didn’t go home. Instead, he later testified that earlier, while he was at the courthouse, his estranged wife happened to drive by, despite the traffic jam,and, since he wasn’t needed to help investigate the shooting of President Kennedy, they decided to go have lunch at Austin’s Barbecue.

Mr. Griffin. Where did you see her downtown? Where were you and she when you saw each other?

Mr. Croy. At the courthouse. She pulled up beside me. I asked if anybody needed me there, and they said, “no,” and here she comes and I said, “Do you want to get something to eat? And she said, “Yes.”

This is the story you want me to believe, Sandy? But wait… there’s more to this ridiculous saga.

… cared nothing about the assassination of President Kennedy, but involved himself in the shooting of a police officer—without any orders or authority to do so.

He probably saw that the fort was being held down around Dealey Plaza, and he wasn't needed there. He was probably pleased that he wasn't needed, given that he had a date with his wife. (Though according to his testimony, he did ask some officers if they need assistance, and they said no.)

And you believe this???

… contradicted himself on numerous occasions in his WC testimony.

I don't remember any contradictions. Please give examples.

Well, for example, look at the bottom half of p. 192 in his testimony. But let’s just cut to the chase.

At the beginning of Honest Ken Croy’s testimony, Griffin said to him “if you have any other information that you feel would be useful to us in any other areas of our inquiry, we would like very much to have that.” And near the very end, Griffin added:

“Is there anything else that you think that you could tell us as a result of your experiences on the 22nd, 23rd, or 24th, or any other time that would be helpful to us, either in the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy, or the murder of Jack Ruby.”

And Honest Ken Croy answered, “None that I know of. This is as well as I can remember it of what happened.”

According to Honest Ken, though, it turns out that he forgot to mention that he either found or was given ( depending on which version of his story you with to go with) a wallet at the Tippit murder scene that contained identification of Lee Harvey Oswald and Alec Hidell, and that he held on to it, apparently showing it to no one, until he gave it to Captain Westbrook when he arrived much later.

Was Honest Ken lying during his testimony, or was he lying when he told the world about that wallet? Was he lying then or later? Answer: He was probably ALWAYS lying!

… forgot the names of each and every witness at 10^th and Patton, and forgot the names of each and every police officer at 10^th and Patton.

Croy was a reserve officer and didn't know the names of most the DPD officers. Though he did recognize many faces. He states this in his WC testimony. (Many people -- including myself -- have a hard time remembering names.)

He was a reserve officer for more than four years. You want us to believe he asked some cops standing around the corner that he didn’t know if he was needed at the crime scene of a presidential assassination, and he didn’t catch a name? REALLY?

… was on site before the ambulance arrived, and therefore must have seen Ted Callaway take the gun from Tippit’s body and get into a taxi to look for the shooter. Why would a police officer, in uniform, allow a civilian to take a weapon from a dead police officer?

It's rather odd that you wish to make a point of this, Jim, as if it somehow supports your allegation that Croy was involved in murdering Tippit.

You (like myself and most others) believe that Croy was at the scene when Callaway and Scoggins set out in the taxicab to find the shooter. If Croy was involved in Tippit's assassination, as you believe, then surely he would NOT have wanted Callaway and Scoggins to find the shooter. Given that, why did Croy allow them to take Tippit's gun and search for the shooter? You need to answer your own question.

I'll be happy to answer your question. There are many possible explanations... here's one: Callaway was helping to load Tippit into the ambulance. He saw that the ambulance attendants had it under control, so he stopped and then grabbed Tippit's gun. Croy arrived at this time and saw the very end of Tippit being loaded. Croy didn't know Callaway has Tippit's gun. Callaway recruited Scoggins into driving after the shooter. Meanwhile Croy began asking questions and interviews Helen Markham.

Croy could hardly have been more helpful if he had hidden Tippit’s killer in the back seat of his car. He talked, he said, to a witness for “a good 5 or 10 minutes.”

Mr. Croy. The only information I could get out of her was the description of what Oswald had on, and him shooting him.

Mr. Griffin. What did she tell you at the time that he had on?

Mr. Croy. “I don’t recall what he had on.”

That’s right! The only information he could get out of a witness he interviewed for a “good 5 or 10 minutes” was her “description of what Oswald had on,” but he didn’t know what Oswald had on!! But wait, there’s more:

Mr. Croy. I believe it was a man that was standing there in the yard. He said he saw Oswald just walk up the street.

Mr. Griffin. What direction did he say?

Mr. Croy. He didn’t say.

….

Mr. Griffin. Were you able to determine from them what direction he saw Oswald walking?

Mr. Croy. No.

Mr. Griffin. Do you recall this man’s name?

Mr. Croy. No; I found the witness and took him to the other officers.

Mr. Griffin. Now, after the Tippit—how long did you remain at the scene of the Tippit killing?

Mr. Croy. Oh, I would say a good 30 minutes. Thirty or forty minutes, something like that.

Mr. Griffin. Then where did you go?

Mr. Croy. Home. I went to eat.

Mr. Griffin. I take it, at some restaurant or something.

Mr. Croy. Yes.

Mr. Griffin. Did you remain home the rest of the day?

Mr. Croy. Yes.

Of course, all the time Honest Ken Croy was failing to find one single clue about the man who had just killed a police officer, and all the time he drove slowly past the Texas Theater to make sure he wasn’t needed there, either, his wife is waiting patiently at the Austin BBQ. This is the story you expect us to believe, Sandy?

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

… said that he spoke with a witness who was watering her yard, yet no known witness to the Tippit shooting was watering their yard during the shooting.

B.S. The witness wasn't watering her yard. She was doing something in somebody's yard, according to Croy's testimony. This witness was almost positively Helen Markham.

Mr. Croy. I don’t recall. I think she lived across the street. She was standing out in front watering her yard or doing something in her yard.

…

Mr. Griffin. Well, you stated that she was watering her yard?

And on and on.

… was able to go directly to the scene of the Tippit shooting when four different addresses were given by the police dispatcher.

Apparently Croy picked the correct address. Or maybe he was on his way to the wrong address and was nearly there when the address correction was announced. Officer Poe also found the correct address just a minute or two later. He arrived later than Croy because he had further to drive.

Yet another coincidence in this remarkable case! With honest Ken Croy, they just keep piling up! Like the fact that he just happened to be the last person talking to Jack Ruby before Ruby shot Oswald. And, according to his affidavit, he “reached for this individual and touched his coat tail attempting to stop him.” For a guy who couldn’t find a clue if it fell on his head, Honest Ken Croy sure got around!

… first said he was given the wallet by an unidentified witness, yet later said that he was the man who found the wallet.

References please. There is nothing in Croy's WC testimony about the wallet.

No, Sandy. The references, including YouTube videos, photographs signed by Croy indicating he found the wallet and was first on the Tippit murder scene, and much more are ALL OVER THE INTERNET! There’s this thing called Google….

… was the first officer on the scene of the Tippit shooting, yet failed to file one report about his activities at 10^th and Patton.

I don't know why Croy wasn't required to file a report. Or if he did file a report but it contained information unacceptable to the official story, and therefore was destroyed. What I do know is that he was asked in his WC questioning if he had filed a report, and his reply was "no."

See what I mean? Stunning! Maybe his estranged wife was STILL waiting at Austen’s Barbeque, and he was thinking about her instead. Poor guy!

If anyone thinks that Honest Ken Croy or his testimony can be trusted, I invite them to read similar nonsense provided by him regarding his activities when Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby two days later.

I skimmed through it, and read the parts pertaining to Ruby. But I saw nothing unusual. He was standing next to Ruby and he asked Ruby to move back when he instructed to do so. He tried to grab Ruby when he rushed toward Oswald but failed.

Yes, by all means, read Croy's testimony.

Try not to laugh! Only the Warren Commission could give this guy a pass.

Click here to read Croy's testimony.

Bump.

Sorry Jim. But I think this is a bunch of ado about nothing. And I'm trying to save people from believing something that IMO is not true.

You should be a defense attorney, Sandy. Apparently you can keep a straight face no matter what BS is put in front of you. If Honest Ken Croy didn't help Ruby get into the basement without a press pass, who did?

People can read Croy's testimony and decide for themselves. INDEED!!!

For some unknown reason, Sandy is referring back to this post... and then altering my words to make it seem like I am ducking his question. I just wanted to get this post up on the new page here, and now I'll show you what I mean.

[Jim Hargrove]

Isn’t it interesting that Honest Ken Croy…

… contradicted himself on numerous occasions in his WC testimony.

I don't remember any contradictions. Please give examples.

Well, for example, ...

... [Croy] forgot to mention that he either found or was given ... a wallet at the Tippit murder scene that contained identification of Lee Harvey Oswald and Alec Hidell, ...

You said that Croy contradicted himself ("on numerous occasions") in his WC testimony. It wasn't till decades later that he claimed to have recovered the wallet. We don't know whether he conveniently forgot that in his WC testimony, or if he lied about recovering the wallet in his decades-later statement.

Regardless, this hardly constitutes Croy contradicting himself "on numerous occasions" in his WC testimony.

You see what I mean? As a blatant example of Croy contradicting himself, I directed Sandy to the bottom half of page 192 of his testimony, in which he claimed he didn't see Jack Ruby in front of him. When Burt Griffin pointed out that Croy admitted he saw Ruby in his affidavit, Croy mumbled about until Griffin had the court reporter read back Croy's own words.

Sandy indicates that above I wrote "Well, for example, ...." but what I REALLY wrote was "Well, for example, see the bottom half of page 92 of his testimony." That's where Croy denied seeing Ruby standing right in front of him before Griffin forces him to admit that he saw him.

I'd call that a blatant contradiction, but Sandy sees nothing suspicious about it... and nothing suspicious in altering my words. Perhaps Sandy would like to type in the bottom half of page 192 here to show me that I'm wrong! Go ahead, Sandy.

[Sandy Larsen]

Isn’t it interesting that Honest Ken Croy…

… said that he spoke with a witness who was watering her yard, yet no known witness to the Tippit shooting was watering their yard during the shooting.

B.S. The witness wasn't watering her yard. She was doing something in somebody's yard, according to Croy's testimony. This witness was almost positively Helen Markham.

Mr. Croy. I don’t recall. I think she lived across the street. She was standing out in front watering her yard or doing something in her yard.

…

Mr. Griffin. Well, you stated that she was watering her yard?

And on and on.

And "on and on??" LOL

Now let's look at the full exchange between Mr. Griffin and Croy without Jim's cherry-picking:

Mr. GRIFFIN. Do you know the name of the woman you talked to across the street?

Mr. CROY. I don't recall. I think she lived across the street. She was standing out in front watering her yard or doing something in her yard.

Mr. GRIFFIN. But you have the impression that she lived across the street, in a house across the street?

Mr. CROY. I believe she did. I am not sure either, or it was in the neighborhood and she was there in the yard. She was across the street when it happened.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, you stated that she was watering her yard?

Mr. CROY. Or something. She was standing in the yard doing something.

Mr. GRIFFIN. But the first thing you indicated was, she had been watering her yard? Apparently that was something that stuck with you from, of course, talking with her?

Mr. CROY. I don't remember what she said she was doing. She was doing something in the yard, and I presume that is where she lived was across the street.

Croy clearly misspoke when he said THAT ONE TIME that the woman witness was watering her yard. Even in the very sentence where he says that, he backs off and said she was "doing something."

It is obvious from reading the exchange above that Croy did not believe that the woman was watering her yard. He didn't even know if it was her yard. He just knew she was doing something in the yard... somebody's yard.

At the end, Jim's makes the "on and on" comment as though the exchange continues to support what he says. In reality it refers to Croy saying three more times that the woman was "doing something" in the yard. Not watering it... "doing something." It does NOT "on and on" support what Jim says.

(The importance of whether or not the woman was watering the yard is that it helps in identifying the woman. Jim says it likely wasn't Helen Markham and I say it likely was.)

[Sandy Larsen]

For some unknown reason, Sandy is referring back to this post... and then altering my words to make it seem like I am ducking his question. I just wanted to get this post up on the new page here, and now I'll show you what I mean.

Jim,

In all my posts responding to your single post, I made so-called "alterations" on one. But I didn't alter what you wrote... I condensed it. As I will shortly illustrate.

(BTW, the condensation I made, and the post I made it on, have nothing to do with the question you ducked. I pointed out the ducked question on another of my posts. I don't know why you're connecting the two.)

Specifically, I condensed (the red text in) this:

Isn’t it interesting that Honest Ken Croy…

… contradicted himself on numerous occasions in his WC testimony.

I don't remember any contradictions. Please give examples.

Well, for example, look at the bottom half of p. 192 in his testimony. But let’s just cut to the chase.

At the beginning of Honest Ken Croy’s testimony, Griffin said to him “if you have any other information that you feel would be useful to us in any other areas of our inquiry, we would like very much to have that.” And near the very end, Griffin added:

“Is there anything else that you think that you could tell us as a result of your experiences on the 22nd, 23rd, or 24th, or any other time that would be helpful to us, either in the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy, or the murder of Jack Ruby.”

And Honest Ken Croy answered, “None that I know of. This is as well as I can remember it of what happened.”

According to Honest Ken, though, it turns out that he forgot to mention that he either found or was given ( depending on which version of his story you with to go with) a wallet at the Tippit murder scene that contained identification of Lee Harvey Oswald and Alec Hidell, and that he held on to it, apparently showing it to no one, until he gave it to Captain Westbrook when he arrived much later.

Was Honest Ken lying during his testimony, or was he lying when he told the world about that wallet? Was he lying then or later? Answer: He was probably ALWAYS lying!

to this:

Isn’t it interesting that Honest Ken Croy…

… contradicted himself on numerous occasions in his WC testimony.

I don't remember any contradictions. Please give examples.

Well, for example, ...

... [Croy] forgot to mention that he either found or was given ... a wallet at the Tippit murder scene that contained identification of Lee Harvey Oswald and Alec Hidell, ...

Which I believe to be a fair condensation.

You're accusing me of doing something wrong because I cut out the following phrase:

[Well, for example,] look at the bottom half of p. 192 in his testimony. But let’s just cut to the chase.

and replaced it with an ellipsis.

For your information, when you point to a particular page in the testimony, and say nothing about it except "But let's cut to the chase..." it sounds like you are about to explain what it is on that page you object to. That is why I cut it out. I left in-place the alleged inconsistency that you detailed.

Did you actually expect me to read page 192 and try to figure out what contradictions you see there?

Edited July 12, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Isn’t it interesting that Honest Ken Croy…

… contradicted himself on numerous occasions in his WC testimony.

I don't remember any contradictions. Please give examples.

Well, for example, ...

... [Croy] forgot to mention that he either found or was given ... a wallet at the Tippit murder scene that contained identification of Lee Harvey Oswald and Alec Hidell, ...

You said that Croy contradicted himself ("on numerous occasions") in his WC testimony. It wasn't till decades later that he claimed to have recovered the wallet. We don't know whether he conveniently forgot that in his WC testimony, or if he lied about recovering the wallet in his decades-later statement.

Regardless, this hardly constitutes Croy contradicting himself "on numerous occasions" in his WC testimony.

You see what I mean? As a blatant example of Croy contradicting himself, I directed Sandy to the bottom half of page 192 of his testimony, in which he claimed he didn't see Jack Ruby in front of him. When Burt Griffin pointed out that Croy admitted he saw Ruby in his affidavit, Croy mumbled about until Griffin had the court reporter read back Croy's own words.

Sandy indicates that above I wrote "Well, for example, ...." but what I REALLY wrote was "Well, for example, see the bottom half of page 92 of his testimony." That's where Croy denied seeing Ruby standing right in front of him before Griffin forces him to admit that he saw him.

I'd call that a blatant contradiction, but Sandy sees nothing suspicious about it... and nothing suspicious in altering my words. Perhaps Sandy would like to type in the bottom half of page 192 here to show me that I'm wrong! Go ahead, Sandy.

LOL, so you did indeed expect me to dig through the page you mentioned in passing, and look for things you believe are inconsistencies!

[Jim Hargrove]

Did you actually expect me to read page 192 and try to figure out what contradictions you see there?

Yes, Sandy, since you were urging everyone to read Honest Ken's testimony, I didn't think it would be too difficult for you to read half a page of it. But to save time, here it is (it's getting late and I'm not going to clean up any OCR anomalies):

Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you recognize this other fellow?

Mr. CROY. No.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, then, what did you do?

Mr. CROY. I turned back around and watched the reporters in front of me.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you see someone there that you recognized?

Mr. CROY. Where?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Where the reporters were in front of you?

Mr. CROY. No.

Mr. GRIFFIN.Well, maybe I don’t understand your affidavit here. You stated in here, “someone in authority gave instructions to move the press back against the rail. At that time I turned and told two men standing to my left to move back against the rail. One of these men had a motion picture camera. The other one was in a dark maroon coat with black thread woven into it. He was wearing a black hat. My father has a coat something similar to the man I spoke to. “I then turned my attention back to the reporters which were standing in front of me. I believe this man to have been Jack Ruby.”

The “to” is underlined. Which man are you referring to?

Mr. CROY. The man with the maroon coat that was standing to my left. The other man I told to move back against the rail.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Miss Reporter, would you please turn back in your notes and read where he referred to the position of the reporters?

(The following questions and answers were read :

“Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you see someone there that you recognized?

“Mr. CROY. Where?

“Mr. GRIFFIN. Where the reporters were in front of you?

“Mr. CROY. No.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Will the reporter please indicate in the record what portion was read back to the witness?

Now, you heard the reporter read back that testimony.

Mr. CROY. Yes ; I did.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I don’t understand. You have said here, if I understand it in your affidavit, that you saw a man whom you believed to be Jack Ruby.

Mr. CROY. I believe when I wrote that up it was him.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I see. Now, have you since come to believe that that man wasn’t Jack Ruby?

Mr. CROY. No.

Mr. GRIFFIN. You still believe that man was Jack Ruby?

Mr. CROY. To myself, I still believe it was Jack Ruby.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Okay.

Mr. Croy. I don’t know whether it was or not.

Good night.

[Sandy Larsen]

Did you actually expect me to read page 192 and try to figure out what contradictions you see there?

Yes, Sandy, since you were urging everyone to read Honest Ken's testimony, I didn't think it would be too difficult for you to read half a page of it. But to save time, here it is (it's getting late and I'm not going to clean up any OCR anomalies):

Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you recognize this other fellow?

Mr. CROY. No.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, then, what did you do?

Mr. CROY. I turned back around and watched the reporters in front of me.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you see someone there that you recognized?

Mr. CROY. Where?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Where the reporters were in front of you?

Mr. CROY. No.

Mr. GRIFFIN.Well, maybe I don’t understand your affidavit here. You stated in here, “someone in authority gave instructions to move the press back against the rail. At that time I turned and told two men standing to my left to move back against the rail. One of these men had a motion picture camera. The other one was in a dark maroon coat with black thread woven into it. He was wearing a black hat. My father has a coat something similar to the man I spoke to. “I then turned my attention back to the reporters which were standing in front of me. I believe this man to have been Jack Ruby.”

The “to” is underlined. Which man are you referring to?

Mr. CROY. The man with the maroon coat that was standing to my left. The other man I told to move back against the rail.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Miss Reporter, would you please turn back in your notes and read where he referred to the position of the reporters?

(The following questions and answers were read :

“Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you see someone there that you recognized?

“Mr. CROY. Where?

“Mr. GRIFFIN. Where the reporters were in front of you?

“Mr. CROY. No.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Will the reporter please indicate in the record what portion was read back to the witness?

Now, you heard the reporter read back that testimony.

Mr. CROY. Yes ; I did.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I don’t understand. You have said here, if I understand it in your affidavit, that you saw a man whom you believed to be Jack Ruby.

Mr. CROY. I believe when I wrote that up it was him.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I see. Now, have you since come to believe that that man wasn’t Jack Ruby?

Mr. CROY. No.

Mr. GRIFFIN. You still believe that man was Jack Ruby?

Mr. CROY. To myself, I still believe it was Jack Ruby.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Okay.

Mr. Croy. I don’t know whether it was or not.

Good night.

Jim,

I just re-read page 192 of Croy's WC testimony, as well page 191 and a number of pages following 192. Here is what happened:

Croy was standing behind a line of reporters. To his left were two civilians, and to his right were several civilians and some police officers.

Among the two men to Croy's left, one was a cameraman holding a movie camera on his shoulder. The other man was a little further back. This man was wearing a dark maroon coat with a black thread woven into it. Croy noticed the coat because his dad had one similar to it.

A person with some authority instructed the police in Croy's area to move the reporters/civilians back. Croy told the two men to his left to move back. A moment later, Croy looked and saw that the cameraman had moved back to a a rail. But he couldn't see the guy with the maroon jacket. Croy wondered if the guy was now behind him, but he didn't look back to confirm it.

After Oswald was escorted out, a man rushed out from behind Croy, on Croy's left. Croy saw him out the corner of his eye as he rushed by and thought he saw on him the black-threaded dark maroon jacket. He tried to grab the man's jacket but the guy was running too fast. The man ran through the line of newspaper reporters, shot Oswald, and was taken down by the surrounding police.

Croy later learned that the gunman was Ruby. As I mentioned, Croy thought he'd seen the black-threaded dark maroon jacket on Ruby as he rushed by. And so he figured that the guy who'd been standing to his left and a little behind must have been Ruby. But he wasn't certain.

Later, the WC's Mr. Griffin questioned Croy. When Croy told him about the two men standing to his left, Griffin asked Croy if he had recognized the man with the dark maroon jacket. Croy said no. (He also asked if Croy recognized anybody in the line of reporters standing in front of him, to which Croy replied no. It makes no sense for Griffin to have asked that. But he did) This confused Griffin because he thought that Croy had said in his affidavit that he had recognized the man as Ruby. So Griffin had the affidavit read to Croy. Croy, of course, discerned no discrepancy. (Because there was none.)

The bottom line is that there is nothing inconsistent in this part of Croy's testimony either.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Jim Hargrove]

Sandy,

It seems quite obvious to me that Croy was trying, in his testimony, to distance himself from his handling of Ruby prior to Oswald's murder. In his Dec. 1 affidavit, Croy said, "I believe this man that I spoke to to have been Jack Ruby." A few lines later he adds, "At this time I observed a blur come from my left side. I was off balance. I saw a man running into the crowd in a crouch. At that moment I reached for this individual and touched he coat tail attempting to stop him. I saw him run up to Oswald and I heard a shot..."

In his testimony, he tries to tell Griffin he didn't recognize anyone in the area in front of him where the reporters were standing, and, when confronted by Griffin about his affidavit, says he didn't mention Ruby because he was next to him. But since he said in his affidavit that he tried to grab Ruby's "coat tail attempting to stop him," Ruby obviously WAS right in front of him when he was rushing toward Oswald.

In his affidavit, he said, "I believe this man that I spoke to to have been Jack Ruby." But here's how... uh... unsure he becomes during his testimony.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I don’t understand. You have said here, if I understand it in your affidavit, that you saw a man whom you believed to be Jack Ruby.

Mr. CROY. I believe when I wrote that up it was him.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I see. Now, have you since come to believe that that man wasn’t Jack Ruby?

Mr. CROY. No.

Mr. GRIFFIN. You still believe that man was Jack Ruby?

Mr. CROY. To myself, I still believe it was Jack Ruby.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Okay.

Mr. Croy. I don’t know whether it was or not.

If that isn't a contradiction on an absolutely crucial matter, I don't know what is.

At any rate, with Honest Ken Croy, you have to look at the Big Picture. Croy either lied about the Westbrook wallet in 1963/1964, or he lied about it in the 1990s. No matter how you spin it or say it doesn't matter, there is no innocent explanation!

And then there are all the stunning coincidences. Croy happens to drive by his wife and set a lunch date in the traffic bedlam at City Hall minutes or seconds after the assassination, he's the first cop at the Tippit murder scene despite all the wrong addresses given by the dispatcher, he talks to a witness for "5 or 10 minutes" about what the killer wore but dosen't know what the killer wore... or what direction he walked from Tenth & Patton, and of course, being the one cop who talked to Ruby and even tried to stop him just before the LHO hit.

I think Croy died a few years ago, and so he is no longer with us to defend himself, and I have no problem with someone giving John's theory a run for its money... but there is no way Croy is totally innocent in this matter. The wallet alone seals his fate as either a co-conspirator or a conspirator after the fact. And there is so much more that a real investigation undoubtedly would have uncovered. Interesting discussion, though.

[Jim Hargrove]

And "on and on??" LOL

Now let's look at the full exchange between Mr. Griffin and Croy without Jim's cherry-picking:

Mr. GRIFFIN. Do you know the name of the woman you talked to across the street?

Mr. CROY. I don't recall. I think she lived across the street. She was standing out in front watering her yard or doing something in her yard.

Mr. GRIFFIN. But you have the impression that she lived across the street, in a house across the street?

Mr. CROY. I believe she did. I am not sure either, or it was in the neighborhood and she was there in the yard. She was across the street when it happened.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, you stated that she was watering her yard?

Mr. CROY. Or something. She was standing in the yard doing something.

Mr. GRIFFIN. But the first thing you indicated was, she had been watering her yard? Apparently that was something that stuck with you from, of course, talking with her?

Mr. CROY. I don't remember what she said she was doing. She was doing something in the yard, and I presume that is where she lived was across the street.

Croy clearly misspoke when he said THAT ONE TIME that the woman witness was watering her yard. Even in the very sentence where he says that, he backs off and said she was "doing something."

It is obvious from reading the exchange above that Croy did not believe that the woman was watering her yard. He didn't even know if it was her yard. He just knew she was doing something in the yard... somebody's yard.

At the end, Jim's makes the "on and on" comment as though the exchange continues to support what he says. In reality it refers to Croy saying three more times that the woman was "doing something" in the yard. Not watering it... "doing something." It does NOT "on and on" support what Jim says.

(The importance of whether or not the woman was watering the yard is that it helps in identifying the woman. Jim says it likely wasn't Helen Markham and I say it likely was.)

Helen Markham was on the corner when the shooting occurred. She lived several blocks away--not across the street. It is not likely that she was "watering her lawn" or doing "something" on any lawn at 10th and Patton at the time of Tippit's murder. LOL!

[Jim Hargrove]

More contradictions in Honest Ken Croy's testimony:

Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you talk with the taxi driver?
Mr. CROY. Yes; I did. I talked to the taxi driver.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, did you talk with him on the scene of the crime?
Mr. CROY. Yes.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Do you remember what his name was?
Mr. CROY. No; I didn't get his name. There was a private detective agency. There was a report that a cabdriver had picked up Tippit's gun and had left, presumably. They don't know whether he was the one that had shot Tippit, or whether the man, I think it was he, brought someone out there, something. Anyway, he saw it and he picked up Tippit's gun and attempted to give chase or something like that.
Mr. GRIFFIN. There was a detective who was an eyewitness?
Mr. CROY. No; he brought the taxi driver back to the scene.
Mr. GRIFFIN. But the taxicab driver was an eyewitness?
Mr. CROY. As far as I know.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you talk to the taxicab driver?
Mr. CROY. No; I took Tippit's gun and several other officers came up, and I turned him over to them and they questioned him.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, who was the third eyewitness that you say you talked with there?

Croy also stated this in his testimony:

Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, after the Tippit--how long did you remain at the scene of the Tippit killing?
Mr. CROY. Oh, I would say a good 30 minutes. Thirty or forty minutes, something like that.

If he stayed thirty minutes he would still be at the scene when Oswald was being dragged out of the theater. If he stayed forty minutes then he was still at the scene when Oswald was being walked into the Homicide and Robbery Offices at City Hall.

Nothing concerning CROY'S appearance or experiences at the Tippit site was ever officially recorded.

Mr. GRIFFIN. You were living in your mother's and dad's house at that time?
Mr. CROY. I slept there.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, was your wife living there also?
Mr. CROY. No.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Were you separated from her?
Mr. CROY. No.
(To reporter: Don't put that in there.)
Mr. GRIFFIN. Were you separated at that time?
Mr. CROY. At that time.

Croy reported for duty on Sunday morning along with a group of other DPD reservists and said that as police dispatches came in different reservists were sent out for duty. When he was interviewed by the FBI on December 4, 1963, he said that was asked by a Sergeant, name of whom he couldn't recall, to search the building. Once the search had been completed he then states he entered the basement under his "own volition" at 10:00 am. Therefore, according to Croy's own words he was not assigned to the basement that morning once the search had been completed and went down there on his own orders to "aid the security."

[Sandy Larsen]

And "on and on??" LOL

Now let's look at the full exchange between Mr. Griffin and Croy without Jim's cherry-picking:

Mr. GRIFFIN. Do you know the name of the woman you talked to across the street?

Mr. CROY. I don't recall. I think she lived across the street. She was standing out in front watering her yard or doing something in her yard.

Mr. GRIFFIN. But you have the impression that she lived across the street, in a house across the street?

Mr. CROY. I believe she did. I am not sure either, or it was in the neighborhood and she was there in the yard. She was across the street when it happened.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, you stated that she was watering her yard?

Mr. CROY. Or something. She was standing in the yard doing something.

Mr. GRIFFIN. But the first thing you indicated was, she had been watering her yard? Apparently that was something that stuck with you from, of course, talking with her?

Mr. CROY. I don't remember what she said she was doing. She was doing something in the yard, and I presume that is where she lived was across the street.

Croy clearly misspoke when he said THAT ONE TIME that the woman witness was watering her yard. Even in the very sentence where he says that, he backs off and said she was "doing something."

It is obvious from reading the exchange above that Croy did not believe that the woman was watering her yard. He didn't even know if it was her yard. He just knew she was doing something in the yard... somebody's yard.

At the end, Jim's makes the "on and on" comment as though the exchange continues to support what he says. In reality it refers to Croy saying three more times that the woman was "doing something" in the yard. Not watering it... "doing something." It does NOT "on and on" support what Jim says.

(The importance of whether or not the woman was watering the yard is that it helps in identifying the woman. Jim says it likely wasn't Helen Markham and I say it likely was.)

Helen Markham was on the corner when the shooting occurred. She lived several blocks away--not across the street. It is not likely that she was "watering her lawn" or doing "something" on any lawn at 10th and Patton at the time of Tippit's murder. LOL!

That's right! Markham was probably just standing there on somebody's lawn.

And -- according to his testimony -- Croy presumed she was in her yard, but didn't know if that was the case. And said she was doing something, but didn't know what.

In other words, Croy had no idea what Markham was doing there and was simply making erroneous assumptions.

[Jim Hargrove]

A far more likely scenario is that Honest Ken Croy didn’t just happen to run into his wife driving by City Hall a couple of minutes after the assassination because such an encounter in that bedlam is a coincidence beyond belief. Perhaps he decided to use his wife and the lunch date as an excuse, thinking he could invoke spousal privilege if it was ever legally necessary. I don't think he ever asked cops he didn't know and couldn't name if he was needed at the scene of the shooting of the President of the United States. And I certainly don't think any cop would have told him, under the circumstances, that he wasn't needed.

Croy may not have interviewed anyone at 10th and Patton, which would explain why he couldn’t remember who anyone was, couldn’t remember anything anyone said, and wasn’t remembered as being there by any of the witnesses or police. I think he probably more or less hid in the narrow driveway or somewhere similar until Westbrook came back to Tippit’s murder site with the evidence against LHO in hand. Then, perhaps, he popped out briefly to make a Big Deal about the planted wallet with the Oswald/Hidell IDs, and then disappeared again.

I think it is likely that Croy let Ruby slip into the basement without proper press credentials because, by his own admission, he went to the basement on his own accord—without orders to do so. I don’t think he really made any effort at all to stop Jack Ruby. His heroic attempt to stop him sure doesn’t appear on any video I’ve seen.

For anyone who believes Croy's story... can I offer to sell you the George Washington Bridge?

Edited July 14, 2016 by Jim Hargrove

[Sandy Larsen]

If the authorities wanted a LATER time-of-death so as NOT to exclude Oswald as a suspect, why would they choose a time of death earlier than the time he actually arrived at the hospital? 1:15 instead of 1:18? And why choose a time of death that is inconsistent with the ambulance driver's testimony and ambulance logs? (Or MORE inconsistent.)

But guess what... there is one more thing to consider. In his statement, T.F. Bowley says that the ambulance arrived "a few minutes" after he made his call. If we conservatively use 2 minutes for "a few minutes," then the ambulance ends up arriving at 1:20. I ask again, why wouldn't the officials have used that time as the official time of death? Instead of choosing 1:15?

"Time of Death" is an ambiguous term. Does it mean the time of the fatal shot, or the time he was pronounced dead? There are documents that put the time he was declared dead at 1:25. IMO, they wanted the shooting time at about 1:15 and the declared time of death as about 1:25. This gives LHO another 10 minutes to arrive and kill JDT.

It doesn't matter what time they say the ambulance arrived, or what time they called him dead at the hospital - as long as it doesn't conflict with the 1:15 shooting time, which coincides perfectly with a 1:18 time of arrival for the ambulance, and the documentation of this time is conveniently missing.

Tom

Tom,

You make a fair and logical point.

(To which I'll just make the following remark: Suppose the true arrival time of the ambulance to the hospital was 1:15... a time supported by my current timeline. The doctors could have announced Tippit DOA at 1:15. The coroner could have overruled this time and announced the true time of death as being 1:06. The authorities could have later decided that the original 1:15 time of death was necessary in order to implicate Oswald, but the fact that is was DOA time had to be suppressed. And this would explain the 1:06 on the death certificate being changed to 1:15. This is scenario that makes sense to me.)

But regardless of that, I'm willing to consider what you're saying here.

Now, let me ask you the something:

We all believe the true TOD to be 1:06 PM. I think we all believe that Mrs. Frank Wright called the police pretty fast... no later than 1:07. The question is, how long would it have taken for the ambulance to arrive after Mrs.Wright made her call? All the reports I've seen suggest that it took little more than one minute. I personally believe it could have taken as long as two minutes. On my current timeline, I have the time delay at three minutes, so that the ambulance arrives at 1:10. (I made it longer than my personal 2 minute belief so that it could be reasonably reconciled with T.F. Bowley's statement.)

What is your position on this?

I haven't really devoted much time on the ambulance, because in the larger scheme of things it doesn't affect the evidence that the actual shooting took place at 1:06. That gives LHO his alibi, as he was seen at his rooming house at 1:04. If he really went there just to pick up his gun, where in that closet-sized room had he been hiding that pistol and holster? The woman that cleaned his room never saw either item.

Trying to get events down to the correct minute when dealing with all the variables...I don't know. I think that the shots were fired at 1:06, Mrs. Wright called at 1:07, and Hughes had the call by 1:08. It would certainly be easy to change 1:08 to 1:18 to give LHO more time to arrive as the shooter. The statement that the call was logged and machine time-stamped at 1:18 is told only in the 3rd-person from what I've read. It would be interesting to find out from J. Clayton Butler or Hughes IF that was the system used at that time, and did DPD, FBI, SS or someone take the original? Considering how often 'time-stamped at 1:18' is stated in publications I had at first believed this document was available. I have found numerous statements from researchers that they were unable to find it. You'd think it would have been published in the WCR. Also, Butler's HSCA testimony is not printed in the volumes as far as I can tell, but both Bugliosi and Myers list it as a source. If the ambulance driver's testimony wasn't considered important enough to print, why was he called to testify? Or did he perhaps contradict the 1:18 time?

Have you tried listing one column with times by the minute, and then in the next columns what event each witness stated had occurred at that time, and how they determined that time?

01:06 *** Mr/Mrs Wright - Shots fired (TV time hack) *** Helen Markham - Shots fired (her arrival time at the bus stop)

01:07

01:08

In the above example, the 1:06 time was determined independently by Markham and the Wrights, both of whom had good time references. This format would make it easier to evaluate and compare the witnesses statements with events such as the arrival of the ambulance.

BTW,

Ann McRavin (Mrs. Charles McRavin) of 404 East 10th St. (the shooting occurred in HER front yard!)

In the 1964 BBC program "The Day the President Died":

"I was standing at the window and I saw a man run by, and then there was a police car coming down the street and the policeman jumped out of the car, and just as he did the man turned around and shot him, and the man fell." Killer described by narrator as "fair-haired young man in shirt sleeves."

Although she witnessed the entire event, Mrs. McRavin was NOT called to testify by the WC, and I can't find a DPD record of an interview.

If an actual investigation had taken place, DPD would have a stack of records from each owner/tenant of the entire 400 block on 10th Street. Even if the statement said "didn't see a thing" or "wasn't home" the records would be kept to prove they had interviewed ALL POSSIBLE witnesses. Has DPD ever claimed they did this?

Tom

Tom.

Thanks for your comments, and I apologize for not responding earlier. I got a little burned out working on the timeline, followed by my Croy debate with Jim.

I think you have a good point, that 1:08 could have easily been changed to the reported 1:18 ambulance dispatch time. My current thinking is that the 1:08 time was changed to 1:18 as you stated; that Tippit was declared DOA at 1:15 (the time at which his body arrived at the hospital), but this was changed to 1:06 by someone with the authority to do so (autopsist?) based on the shooting time as given by witnesses. Later, 1:06 was changed back to 1:15 by the FBI so that Oswald could be blamed for the murder (1:06 was too early); and this was later changed again, to 1:25, by the FBI so that the 1:18 ambulance dispatch time didn't precede the official time of death.