Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

Why Officer Tippit Stopped his Killer

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Thanks for that Jim.  I don't think I ever saw those before.

Ray and Mark:

Yes, that is a fair conclusion.  If you look at his first day evidence, its pretty clear what happened and where he dropped him off.

He then says that the FBI helped him remember better.

In this case, they did that quite often.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Holy cow, DVP, you're as clueless about my beliefs as you are about this case.  Every belief you ascribe to me above is wrong!  But that doesn't keep you from rattling on and on and on.  An "Oswald" did ride the bus and taxi, while another rode in the Nash Rambler, and the proof is HERE!

Yep. Just as I said. Nothing is ever what it seems to be in this case (per CTers).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Therefore they put together the Bus/Cab drive story. 

And then they got Oswald himself to lie about it. (Yeah, right.)*

* Obligatory Disclaimer ----> Yes, I know, you don't believe a thing uttered by Will Fritz regarding Oswald's in-custody statements, therefore CTers get to utilize the nice convenient cop-out of pretending that Oswald never really said a word about taking a bus and a cab to his roominghouse on 11/22.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

James Files

Ed Hoffman

Jean Hill

Richard Randolph Carr

Beverly Oliver

Tim [sic; Tom] Tilson

Roger Craig

Jerry Coley

Acquilla Clemons

Dr. Charles Crenshaw

Audrey Bell

Dr. Robert Livingston

Robert Knudsen

Dennis David

Jerrol Custer

Hugh Huggins

Only 4 people on that list are "l-i-a-r-s", IMO. Files, Hill, Oliver, and Craig. (And maybe Crenshaw.)

Clemons is a witness who really isn't a good "conspiracy" witness at all when you read the complete story on her that hasn't been distorted by CT fanatics. She's just like Lee Bowers in a way....a witness who has been turned into a "CT" type witness by conspiracy theorists.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/11/acquilla-clemons-and-murder-of-jd-tippit.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2019 at 5:49 PM, Michael Clark said:

Yes, it was a red falcon. I think it’s in this article. It’s a good read of a poor copy.

Vaganov, Crafafd, and Ligget all beat-feet out of town between Friday evening and Saturday morning. Vaganov and Ligget returned in a day or two.

 

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/utils/getdownloaditem/collection/po-arm/id/28787/type/compoundobject/show/1/cpdtype/document-pdf/filename/28779.pdfpage/width/0/height/0/mapsto/pdf/filesize/0/title/Page 1

This Esquire article is fascinating if hard on the eyes.  Never figured out what year it's from I'm guessing 68/69, I think Garrisons investigation was mentioned somewhere in there.  I never knew that Weisberg and Megaher were interested in him or that Salandria or Fonzi investigated him.  Then again, I didn't know anything about him other than hearing his name before.

He had a red Thunderbird with a CB radio in it at one point (not that common at the time?).  The thing is Domingo Benaivdes saw a red ford drive off after the shooting, then come back later.  After Vaganov's landlady told him JFK had been shot his wife said he was elated.  She also said he left about 12:50.  He owned a 38, which she later claimed he left at home, she kept it close after hearing there was a killer in the neighborhood.  At 4:30, on 11/22,  the FBI showed up and interviewed them for two hours, separately.  Why?  Why would they suspect him or them.  This was still classified at the time of the article.  Yet, he left Dallas early the morning of 11/23 for a few days going back to Philadelphia leaving her there, but taking his rifle along and disposing of it while there.  Then there's the guy who knocked on their door on I believe the 19th who wanted to talk to him, had business with him, but didn't identify himself.  When she asked Vaganov about it he had no idea.  But a couple of years later he tells her (jokingly he says more years later) Mike was with the CIA.  

It's weird.  After being hard to find, trying to not let his past be known, living quietly, then refusing to on the record for interview's... he agrees to go to Dallas with the author and Vincent Salandria.  There they introduce him to Helen Markham.  She say's, no, he's not Oswald (?!!!).  Then comes Domingo Benavides.  They both think they know each other but neither can remember from when and where.

Vaganov's second wife said she once asked him, how do you get away with it ?  You get in trouble (bad checks and more) and nothing happens.  You don't work regularly, but you've always got money.  He said the government can do a lot for you.  

I wondered at points if he wasn't a planned diversionary tactic.  Then again he was around really close by at the time, recently moved there.  Salandria and Fonzi remained unconvinced he was totally innocent.  Worth reading for yourself, a magnifying glass might help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

This Esquire article is fascinating if hard on the eyes. 

.................

Worth reading for yourself, a magnifying glass might help.

Here is a better copy. I can’t say that it is a faithful reproduction. 

 

https://classic.esquire.com/article/1967/8/1/if-theyve-found-another-assassin-let-them-name-names-and-produce-their-evidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

If you look at his [Whaley's] first day evidence, it's pretty clear what happened and where he dropped him off.

How long will CTers continue to ignore the "95 cents" proof that I've mentioned multiple times in this thread? "95 cents" was the taxi fare for Oswald's Nov. 22nd cab ride (revealed early on by Whaley---in his 11/23 affidavit and again in his 11/23 FBI interview), and it's a figure that pretty much PROVES that Whaley dropped Oswald off at Neely Street and not the "500 block". If Oswald had gone all the way to the 500 block of Beckley, does anybody think the fare would STILL have been exactly 95 cents?

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Jim,

Here are the photos Reed took:

Reed_Bus_Front.jpgReed_Bus_Back.jpg

Dealey_by_Reed.jpg

Stuart%20reed%201.jpg

Stuart%20Reed-2.jpg

 

Reed%20Release.jpg

Jim Hargrove and Jim DiEugenio,

Reed's photos are even more conspiratorial than those above - check this out: Reed took a photo of the front of Hardy's Shoes, site of the infamous (nonexistent) Johnny Brewer/"Oswald" encounter! This was BEFORE Brewer had emerged in the public eye!

Reed took one of the sidewalk from Hardy's Shoes to the Texas Theater. (The route "Oswald" would have walked.)

Reed took one looking east to the TSBD while riding past the Triple Underpass - it shows the route the limo took to Parkland, but notice, Reed centered the TSBD. Reed took this while riding out to Oak Cliff. This was waaaaaay before anyone knew anything!

No wonder the FBI had a cow when they saw these! These were proof positive of prior knowledge of the "official" version of the assassination. Robert Groden told me that Stuart Reed told him that Reed was on a cruise ship in the Gulf of Mexico within two days of the assassination, but the FBI chartered a helicopter to fly directly to the cruise ship to get the above affidavit. The FBI then buried those photos. 

This link takes you to the entire Stuart Reed photo montage (I know it is from the Prayer Man site, and I am not going down that road right now, but just look at the photos!)

http://www.prayer-man.com/stuart-reed/#lightbox[group]/8/

Edited by Paul Jolliffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Jim Hargrove and Jim DiEugenio,

Reed's photos are even more conspiratorial than those above - check this out: Reed took a photo of the front of Hardy's Shoes, site of the infamous (nonexistent) Johnny Brewer/"Oswald" encounter! This was BEFORE Brewer had emerged in the public eye!

Reed took one of the sidewalk from Hardy's Shoes to the Texas Theater. (The route "Oswald" would have walked.)

Reed took one looking east to the TSBD while riding past the Triple Underpass - it shows the route the limo took to Parkland, but notice, Reed centered the TSBD. Reed took this while riding out to Oak Cliff. This was waaaaaay before anyone knew anything!

No wonder the FBI had a cow when they saw these! These were proof positive of prior knowledge of the "official" version of the assassination. Robert Groden told me that Stuart Reed told him that Reed was on a cruise ship in the Gulf of Mexico within two days of the assassination, but the FBI chartered a helicopter to fly directly to the cruise ship to get the above affidavit. The FBI then buried those photos. 

This link takes you to the entire Stuart Reed photo montage (I know it is from the Prayer Man site, and I am not going down that road right now, but just look at the photos!)

http://www.prayer-man.com/stuart-reed/#lightbox[group]/8/

Incredible!  The Hardy's Shoes image is complete news to me (as is the TSBD shot from the Triple underpass). 

Anyone know of better versions of the two shots than the crappy images Southeastern sold them?  Thanks Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think most of us know the problem that the WC had with the timeline.

As illustrated above, there was one with the bus/cab ride, and there was another with the alleged walk from the rooming house to 10th and Patton.(I dealt with the latter at length in my essay, "The Tippit Case in the new Millenium" https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-case-in-the-new-millennium)

As we have seen, the WC and FBI understood both of these problems and worked assiduously to, shall we say, "correct them".

But in addition, even if one accepts the official story, there are still problems.  As I noted above, the  FBI had to get Whaley to change his story about which  way Oswald went after he got out  of the cab. Also, the landlady at Beckley said she peered through her window and saw LHO at a bus stop which would have taken him the wrong way. Further, the Dallas police made out his identification affidavit for Whaley. He then signed it.  Talk about a cooperative witness. (Joe McBride, Into the Nightmare, p. 444) . But its worse than that. He signed the affidavit before he saw the line up. (Lane, RTJ, p. 166)

In addition to that there is the other problem about Whaley misrepresenting the so called 15 minute intervals in which he recorded his rides.  As many commentators have noted, that is simply not the case. (Lane, RTJ, p. 164) Now, why did the WC have to distort this?  Because in his log Whaley said he picked up LHO at 12:30.  Which, of course, is not possible.(ibid, Lane.) Then, of course, there is Whaley and the two jackets.Whaley said that Oswald had a jacket on that did not match either one the WC had in evidence.  So when he misidentified the color, he then seemed to say that Oswald wore two jackets that day, one over the other. The WR said he was wrong about both of them. (Lane, p. 166)

The point is dual.  First, to me, this aspect of the case is not central.  To me, the medical and ballistics evidence is--and we know all the problems there.  But yet, even with something that is not central, you have all of these problems when you press ever so lightly.  Secondly, I have always thought that what Thompson wrote near the end of Six Seconds in Dallas was one of the most compelling passages in the first generation of literature on the case. This of course is the Robinson/Craig matching testimony about the guy coming down the embankment and entering the Nash station wagon. (Thompson, pp. 242-43) Further, the guy driving the car was described as being dark complected with dark short hair.  When the archives opened up in 1993, Anna Maria Kuhns Walko found a photo of a man who resembled Oswald in the place where Craig described him.  At the old Lancer forum, there were photos of a man resembling Oswald in the crowd in that area.

(I won't got into all the problems with the bus ride.  Sylvia Meagher did a sterling job on that. AAF, pp. 76-82. About the unbelievable Mary Bledsoe, click here https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/deeper-into-dave-perry)

So, from measuring the totality of the evidence, and factoring in the alterations performed on it by the FBI and the WC, there seems to be two alternatives.  The bus ride/cab ride WC option, and the Thompson Nash Rambler option.  But to be as honest as I can be, there is really a third option.  Thompson mentions it in his book as the RIchard Popkin alternative.  He says that the guy Robinson and Craig saw was most likely the guy described by Popkin in his book, The Second Oswald, the guy seen so often in places and at times where the real Oswald could not have been.

The Commission, predictably, ran away from this alternative faster than a racehorse.  They did not give it the time of day.  In my view, as with everything the WC did, the alacrity with which they ran is a reverse indication of the credibility of the evidence.  I always thought that Popkin's book was one of the most underrated of the early volumes on the case.  And I think his thesis is solidly supported: there was a guy impersonating Oswald prior to the murder of Kennedy.  And by overlooking that, the WC was able to dismiss Thompson's third option.  Is it the right one? Thanks to the hapless clowns on the WC we will never know.

 

 

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I think most of us know the problem that the WC had with the timeline.

As illustrated above, there was one with the bus/cab ride, and there was another with the alleged walk from the rooming house to 10th and Patton.(I dealt with the latter at length in my essay, "The Tippit Case in the new Millenium" https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-case-in-the-new-millennium)

As we have seen, the WC and FBI understood both of these problems and worked assiduously to, shall we say, "correct them".

But in addition, even if one accepts the official story, there are still problems.  As I noted above, the  FBI had to get Whaley to change his story about which  way Oswald went after he got out  of the cab. Also, the landlady at Beckley said she peered through her window and saw LHO at a bus stop which would have taken him the wrong way. Further, the Dallas police made out his identification affidavit for Whaley. He then signed it.  Talk about a cooperative witness. (Joe McBride, Into the Nightmare, p. 444) . But its worse than that. He signed the affidavit before he saw the line up. (Lane, RTJ, p. 166)

In addition to that there is the other problem about Whaley misrepresenting the so called 15 minute intervals in which he recorded his rides.  As many commentators have noted, that is simply not the case. (Lane, RTJ, p. 164) Now, why did the WC have to distort this?  Because in his log Whaley said he picked up LHO at 12:30.  Which, of course, is not possible.(ibid, Lane.) Then, of course, there is Whaley and the two jackets.Whaley said that Oswald had a jacket on that did not match either one the WC had in evidence.  So when he misidentified the color, he then seemed to say that Oswald wore two jackets that day, one over the other. The WR said he was wrong about both of them. (Lane, p. 166)

The point is dual.  First, to me, this aspect of the case is not central.  To me, the medical and ballistics evidence is--and we know all the problems there.  But yet, even with something that is not central, you have all of these problems when you press ever so lightly.  Secondly, I have always thought that what Thompson wrote near the end of Six Seconds in Dallas was one of the most compelling passages in the first generation of literature on the case. This of course is the Robinson/Craig matching testimony about the guy coming down the embankment and entering the Nash station wagon. (Thompson, pp. 242-43) Further, the guy driving the car was described as being dark complected with dark short hair.  When the archives opened up in 1993, Anna Maria Kuhns Walko found a photo of a man who resembled Oswald in the place where Craig described him.  At the old Lancer forum, there were photos of a man resembling Oswald in the crowd in that area.

(I won't got into all the problems with the bus ride.  Sylvia Meagher did a sterling job on that. AAF, pp. 76-82. About the unbelievable Mary Bledsoe, click here https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/deeper-into-dave-perry)

So, from measuring the totality of the evidence, and factoring in the alterations performed on it by the FBI and the WC, there seems to be two alternatives.  The bus ride/cab ride WC option, and the Thompson Nash Rambler option.  But to be as honest as I can be, there is really a third option.  Thompson mentions it in his book as the RIchard Popkin, Second Oswald alternative.  He says that the guy Robinson and Craig saw was most likely the guy described by Popkin in his book, The Second Oswald, the guy seen so often where and when the real Oswald could not have been there.

The Commission, predictably, ran away from this alternative faster than a racehorse.  They did not give it the time of day.  In my view, as with everything the WC did, the alacrity with which they ran indicates the credibility of the evidence.  I always though that Popkin's book was one of the most underrated of the early volumes on the case.  And I think his thesis is solidly supported: there was a guy impersonating Oswald prior to the murder of Kennedy.  And by overlooking that, the WC was able to dismiss Thompson's third option.  Is it the right one? Thanks to the hapless clowns on the WC we will never know.

 

 

 

 

Jim D.

Yes, I agree with you that the LHO-like figure seen by Craig and Robinson was almost certainly a look-a-like for our "Oswald." Yes, I agree (and wrote) that Mary Bledsoe's identification of "Oswald" on the 1213 McWatters bus was worthless. I agree (and wrote) that William Whaley was a very compliant witness, willing to say whatever the authorities wanted him to say.

But all of that does not mean that no one was on the McWatters bus, nor that no one rode (somewhere) to Oak Cliff in Whaley's cab.

No, a man (vaguely) fitting "Oswald's" description really did board the McWatters bus in the manner described by both McWatters and Roy Milton Jones, and that man really did leave the bus as they described.

Further, a man (vaguely) fitting "Oswald's" description really did ride with Whaley to Oak Cliff (although the exact drop-off point remains murky.) 

To me, the "Two Oswald's" theory is the simplest, most logical explanation for this. If our "Oswald" was never on the McWatters bus, then the bus search (with weapons drawn!) by the unnamed Dallas cops makes no sense. Remember, Jones detailed the DPD search of the bus and told us that it occurred within moments of "Oswald's" departure. Since that DPD search went completely unreported in the "official" narrative, it is safe to conclude that the DPD did not want that search to become public knowledge.

Why not?

Because that DPD search of McWatters bus around 12:45-50 (just like the Stuart Reed photos) smacked of foreknowledge and conspiracy. And that was a path down which the authorities would do everything to avoid (unless it led directly to Fidel Castro, which it did not.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Jake Sykes of ROKC on Mr Reed:

Visited Robin Unger's collection to see the pictures. To me it looks like a photo assignment for contextual documentation feeding the official story line. Photos to fact check and build a story by. Better be sure there was a bus where and when it should have been before you put a patsy on it. 

I'm struck by the framing of the photos. The bus is center frame (random chance not likely) with nice wide shots to pick up all the available surrounding information. Same over at the theater. Taken from across the street. Circumspect. Not some bystander caught up in the events. At the theater he's standing back, getting the wide shots again, including the street scenes next door and nearby to the theater. Shoe stores and such.

If there's going to be a story line, use information that is absolutely accurate, as taken from photographic documentation. Get the times. Avoid all screw-ups. Makes me wonder what other photo assignments maybe were active that day that we'll never see. Shots of the cab by the bus stop, or activity around Beckley. Tippit even. Not to mention Dealy.

As for the wider interrelationships of the various entities involved, I don't have the background to speculate. Sliding in from NO, dropping the film, then sliding out on a slow boat to Panama all looks spooky enough to me, that's all. Plus the odds of getting those shots without anything for him to go on but the emerging circumstances of the day? Yeah right.

Also the surfacing of the pics themselves seems operational. These are the pics they wanted put out for the public since they bolstered the official story, so do a little song and dance about granting permission and get them into the record. Didn't have to happen otherwise. Could have buried them just as easily. A little risky I'd say given Reed's sketchy background but sliding by on thin ice was the order of the day. Someone must have thought it was important to get those pictures out there.

 

Need I add: the FBI knew about Reed. The WC never called him.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Greg Parker on Mr Reed:

Visited Robin Unger's collection to see the pictures. To me it looks like a photo assignment for contextual documentation feeding the official story line. Photos to fact check and build a story by. Better be sure there was a bus where and when it should have been before you put a patsy on it. 

I'm struck by the framing of the photos. The bus is center frame (random chance not likely) with nice wide shots to pick up all the available surrounding information. Same over at the theater. Taken from across the street. Circumspect. Not some bystander caught up in the events. At the theater he's standing back, getting the wide shots again, including the street scenes next door and nearby to the theater. Shoe stores and such.

If there's going to be a story line, use information that is absolutely accurate, as taken from photographic documentation. Get the times. Avoid all screw-ups. Makes me wonder what other photo assignments maybe were active that day that we'll never see. Shots of the cab by the bus stop, or activity around Beckley. Tippit even. Not to mention Dealy.

As for the wider interrelationships of the various entities involved, I don't have the background to speculate. Sliding in from NO, dropping the film, then sliding out on a slow boat to Panama all looks spooky enough to me, that's all. Plus the odds of getting those shots without anything for him to go on but the emerging circumstances of the day? Yeah right.

Also the surfacing of the pics themselves seems operational. These are the pics they wanted put out for the public since they bolstered the official story, so do a little song and dance about granting permission and get them into the record. Didn't have to happen otherwise. Could have buried them just as easily. A little risky I'd say given Reed's sketchy background but sliding by on thin ice was the order of the day. Someone must have thought it was important to get those pictures out there.

 

Jim,

I agree completely with the above. Reed's photos were to document the "official" story.

So why were some of them buried?

Because they revealed a foreknowledge that just could not be explained away easily to a curious public. Too many people might notice just how "coincidental" it all seemed.

So, most of them never saw the light of day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

This Esquire article is fascinating if hard on the eyes.  Never figured out what year it's from I'm guessing 68/69, I think Garrisons investigation was mentioned somewhere in there.  I never knew that Weisberg and Megaher were interested in him or that Salandria or Fonzi investigated him.  Then again, I didn't know anything about him other than hearing his name before.

He had a red Thunderbird with a CB radio in it at one point (not that common at the time?).  The thing is Domingo Benaivdes saw a red ford drive off after the shooting, then come back later.  After Vaganov's landlady told him JFK had been shot his wife said he was elated.  She also said he left about 12:50.  He owned a 38, which she later claimed he left at home, she kept it close after hearing there was a killer in the neighborhood.  At 4:30, on 11/22,  the FBI showed up and interviewed them for two hours, separately.  Why?  Why would they suspect him or them.  This was still classified at the time of the article.  Yet, he left Dallas early the morning of 11/23 for a few days going back to Philadelphia leaving her there, but taking his rifle along and disposing of it while there.  Then there's the guy who knocked on their door on I believe the 19th who wanted to talk to him, had business with him, but didn't identify himself.  When she asked Vaganov about it he had no idea.  But a couple of years later he tells her (jokingly he says more years later) Mike was with the CIA.  

It's weird.  After being hard to find, trying to not let his past be known, living quietly, then refusing to on the record for interview's... he agrees to go to Dallas with the author and Vincent Salandria.  There they introduce him to Helen Markham.  She say's, no, he's not Oswald (?!!!).  Then comes Domingo Benavides.  They both think they know each other but neither can remember from when and where.

Vaganov's second wife said she once asked him, how do you get away with it ?  You get in trouble (bad checks and more) and nothing happens.  You don't work regularly, but you've always got money.  He said the government can do a lot for you.  

I wondered at points if he wasn't a planned diversionary tactic.  Then again he was around really close by at the time, recently moved there.  Salandria and Fonzi remained unconvinced he was totally innocent.  Worth reading for yourself, a magnifying glass might help.

I forgot to include this question.  In the article it states that former Warren Commission counselor, Arlen Specter, at the time Philadelphia District Attorney later had him (Vaganov) arrested.  But it doesn't say when, why/for what.  Does anyone have any idea?  It does say elsewhere in the article something about him passing bad checks but I don't remember if it said where/when. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg Parker on Whaley:

Whaley
 
He testified that his passenger was a wino

When you drive a taxi that long you learn to judge people and what I actually thought of the man when he got in was that he was a wino who had been off his bottle for about two days, that is the way he looked, sir, that was my opinion of him. 
Mr. BALL. What was there about his appearance that gave you that impression? Hair mussed? 
Mr. WHALEY. Just the slow way he walked up. He didn't talk. He wasn't in any hurry. He wasn't nervous or anything. 
Mr. BALL. He didn't run? 
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir. 
Mr. BALL. Did he look dirty? 
Mr. WHALEY. He looked like his clothes had been slept in, sir, but he wasn't actually dirty. The T-shirt was a little soiled around the collar but the bottom part of it was white. You have to know those winos, or they will get in and ride with you and there isn't nothing you can do but call the police, the city gets the fine and you get nothing. 
 
Oswald was penny-pinching to save for an apartment to reunite his family. He would not get a cab. But a wino would because they live in the moment. A wino would also look like he slept in his clothes and have multiple layers of clothing on if he had slept rough the night before.  We also know Whaley originally said he dropped him at the 500 block. A reasonable inference from all of this is that Whaley's passenger was a wino who lived on the 500 block.

Whaley also testified that when he saw Oswald on TV, he recognized him as his passenger and told his supervisor who phoned the cops.  I don't believe it at all. Whaley knew the guy was a wino and knew he picked him up at about the time the assassination was taking place. 


This is how it developed. Porter Bledsoe phones police to advise his mother thinks the killer was on her bus because he laughed like a maniac on news of the assassination. The cops weren't interested until they were told to stop looking for confederates. That ruled out the Rambler. Now they could put him on a bus. Except that it turned out that Mary's man was Milton Jones. Then they learned there was a second male passenger who got off when the bus was stalled in traffic. So now he became the suspect. But they still had to get him o Oak Cliff and the Tippit killing on time. Solution. Find a cab driver who dropped any male passengers in Oak Cliff in the approximate time frame. Whaley was it. So then the whole BS story about logging in 15 minute intervals was invented so the timeframe could be stretched to fit.

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...