Alaric Rosman

Part 3 45 minutes after single-handedly killing Kennedy, Oswald, so the Commission assures us, started to topple into an abyss of panic and confusion, causing his mind to swirl in a vortex of beastliness. It was in this mental state that Oswald let loose a fusillade of bullets at a supposedly over-inquisitive Tippit "Of that there is no manner of doubt--- No probable, possible shadow of doubt --- No possible doubt whatever” (Gilbert & Sullivan, The Gondoliers) If this seems too extreme, then consider these facts:- All three Commissioners (Joseph Ball, David Belin and Lesley Liebeler) who questioned the 9 leading witnesses in Tippit's slaying made no pretence at impartiality. Mr Dulles, at 71, was next to Earl Warren,73, the oldest and highest ranking Commission member, made it clear on three occasions in Commission Hearings (on the first occasion, right at the start of the Hearings ) that it was a matter of knowledge that Oswald was Tippit's murderer.(1) Similarly Mr Joseph Ball, who as we shall see, took Mrs Markham's testimony, made a slip of the tongue which made obvious his conviction of Oswald’s guilt.(2) The same applies --- scandalously so --- to Mr Wesley Liebeler (3) and, to a lesser degree, to David Belin.(4) One can see how, if the Commissioners had this conviction of Oswald's guilt, that it would have rubbed off on the witnesses --- as indeed it did. Occasionally witnesses, instead of saying (words to this effect) that they saw the gunman running this way or that, and that subsequently they identified Oswald as the gunman, were allowed to refer to the gunman directly as Oswald, with the implication that Oswald's guilt was beyond doubt. See Virginia Davis (5), Guinyard; (6) )Smith (7) So much for the official claim (made through Louis Nizer in his analysis and commentary on the Warren Report ) that the Commission was a "sincere testament of dedicated impartiality"!(8) However if the Commission , as we have just argued had the Idée Fixe that Oswald on his own shot Tippit, there was a heavy price to pay. Timewise the Commission was fully boxed in. To get Mrs Markham’s 1:06 in perspective, let’s see how this happened. The Commission believed that Oswald left the Depository at “approximately 12.33, (9) immediately after he'd shot Kennedy. The Commission realised that, since Oswald (in their minds) had shot Tippit at East Tenth Street at 1:15/16, then he couldn't have got there solely by walking. Why? Because he couldn't have covered the distance (via a stop at Earlene Roberts) in time. A lift was out of the question, suggestive of conspiracy. The Commission settled for a bus driver who took on board someone he identified as “Oswald” (his identification was supported by a passenger), and then there was a taxi driver who enabled “Oswald” to complete his journey to his rooming house. Estimates by the Secret Service and FBI put the journey time ( travelling in this way, from the TBD to roominghouse) between 27 (10) and 30 (11) minutes. Balancing one reckoning with another, and weighing in Earlene Robert's evidence, the Commission concluded that the last time Earlene Roberts would have seen Oswald would have been at 1:03.(12) [but the Commission’s arithmetic was hair-raising: 12:33+ 0.27= 1:00. That is, a 3-minute stay at his rooming house. Note though that 12:33+0.30= 1:03 Add to this the 3-minute stat, and that means a !:06 departure.(Ouch!)] Both the FBI and the Secret Service estimated that Oswald could have walked the 0.8miles (to East Tenth Street) in 12 minutes. (13) So there we have it: Earlene Roberts at 1.03/ 1:06, and 404 East Street at 1:15. There wasn't a minute to spare. In this time-corseted context, Mrs. Markham's 1:06 was as welcome to the Commissioners as a cowpatch in their dining-room. However the Commission did not flinch from this starkness. In three blunt, uncompromising statements the Commission confronted its problems; Statement 1: "If Oswald left his roominghouse shortly after 1 pm and walked at a brisk space he would have reached Tenth and Patton shortly after 1:15pm. Tippit's murder was recorded on police radio tape at about !:16." (14) A red herring! It fixes attention on the time of Tippit's death 1:15, and diverts from the key issue of what time Tippit and his killer were first spotted (by Mrs Markam) on Tenth & Patton. Statement 2: The Commission grimly acknowledged Mrs Markham's 1:06 claim, and honestly admitted that "this would have made it impossible for Oswald to have committed the killing since he would NOT have had time to arrive at the shooting scene by that time." (My emphasis) (15) Statement 3: In defence of its conviction, the Commission asserted: "The shooting of Tippit has been established at approximately 1:15 or 1:16 pm on the basis of a call to police headquarters on Tippit's car radio by another witness to the assassination, Domingo Benavides." (16) [A rewording of the irrelevancy of statement (1)] Then the Commission went seriously off course. It tried to dismiss Mrs Markham’s 1:06, and in doing so it committed two major errors: Error 1: The accusation itself: "In her various statements, and in her testimony, Mrs Markham was uncertain and inconsistent in her recollections of the exact time of slaying." (17) Simply not true. In her all her affidavits Mrs Markham said she left her house at 1 pm. Her house was about 5 minutes walk from her bus stop ( at the corner of Jefferson and Patton), and her walk to the corner of Tenth and Patton (where she waited to cross the road, and from where she saw Tippit shot) was about 2½ minutes. Here was her timetable: Leaves home: 1:00 pm Time spent at washateria: 4 minutes Walks to catch bus, but halted by traffic at corner of Tenth & Patton. Time taken: 2½ minutes (18) Arrives at Tenth & Patton, and spots "Oswald": 1:06/7 Moreover, it wasn't only in her affidavits that Mrs Markham stuck to 1:06. According to Mark Lane , Mrs Markham repeated 1:06 in private & at radio interviews. (19) But more of this in the next section Error 2. The statement in Error 1 was dishonestly endnoted by the Report simply to give it greater verisimilitude, The contents of the endnote were irrelevant to the assertion JOSEPH BALL & MRS MARKHAM Mrs Markham appeared before the Commission twice. Her last appearance was in Dallas on the 23nd of July '64, in front of Mr Liebeler, when she was questioned about her Mark Lane phone call, but her really significant testimony --- the one that concerns us --- was in Washington before Joseph Ball on the 26th March, 1964. Born in Stuart, Iowa in 1902, Joseph Ball had a distinguished legal career teaching Criminal law and Procedure at the University of Southern California, and he was a member of the Judicial Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; in addition, was the 'Ball' of the Californian law firm 'Ball, Hunt & Hart' At 62, he was, by 2 years, the oldest of the Commission Counsels, and the 5th oldest of the 34 Commission members. (20) It is interesting to note that Mr Ball was allocated more witnesses (4) than any other counsel, and no surprise that he was chosen to 'interrogate' Helen Markham on her critical Washington testimony. The concentration of his carefully prepared questioning was on what Mrs Markham said in her three affidavits --- that is on what she actually saw --- the shooting of Tippit and the fleeing of the gunman --- and from exactly what position . (Also, of course, her later identification of Oswald, and all matters related thereto). (There was no interest in exact times) To this end in her critical Washington session she was asked an exact total of 346 questions: Mr Ball asked 258 questions, Mr Dulles 60, and Representative Ford 28. (21) Nothing serious was asked about time . This applied to all the witnesses. None was asked to justify any time estimates they had given. Ted Callaway, for example, in two affidavits (22) said he thought he heard the fatal shouts at "approximately one o'clock". Callaway was businesslike, intelligent --- he is Myers' star witness --- always quoted by Myers with approval. So if he said "approximately one o'clock", on what did he base his estimate? On something intelligent, we can be sure. But we'll never know, because his examining Counsel, Joseph Ball --- amazingly --- never asked him. Back to Mrs Markham She worried the Commission in two ways. Firstly, she did not see the stopping of Tippit's police car as being orientated towards the gunman, but towards house 404, and neither the Dallas Police ---nor Joseph Ball --- could substantially budge her. (But that's a lengthy subject, requiring an article on its own.) Secondly, there was her 1:06. And there was one big difference between Mrs Markham and the other witnesses She was the only one who saw the whole episode from start to finish --- and she saw all that she claimed to see because, firstly, she was walking to her bus-stop, and, secondly, because she was anxiously scanning East Tenth street waiting to cross over. Therefore time came into it. Mr Ball, in his multitude of questions, (most of them elucidating the answers given to previous questions, so each question generated 3 or 4 more ), was trying (with the assistance of Mr Dulles) to establish that Mrs Markham was in the right position to see what she claimed to have seen. However a problem. Mrs Markham had to be there at the right time as well. Therefore she had to be asked about time --- there was no way out ---Mr Ball had to establish that Mrs Markham was at the corner of Tenth & Patton just before 1:15, so that she could witness Tippit's slaying at that time. Mr Ball was condemned to walk on eggs.. He did it brilliantly. He started by ascertaining when she left home (it was his 20th question to her), how far she had to walk to the bus, all to establish that she was at the appropriate corner in time to witness Tippit's murder. But --- inevitably --- there was a difficult moment. Mr Ball: You left your home to go to work at some, didn't you, that day? (23)[His 20th/258 questions] Mrs Markham: At one Mr Ball: One o'clock? [21st question] Mrs Markham: I believe it was a little after 1. [Yes, it was at 1:04] Mr Ball then asked her 9 questions about where she had to walk to in order to catch her bus. This then culminated in the following exchange: Mr Ball: You were walking south towards Jefferson? [Mrs Markham's bus stop was on the SW corner of Patton &Jefferson, about a block away from Tippit's slaying, 2½ minutes on foot] Mrs Markham: Yes sir Mr Ball: You think it was a little after 1? (31/258 question) [Her answer to this question shows that Mrs Markham has obviously been confused by the repetition. She thinks he is now asking what time she got to the corner of Tenth & Patton] And then came the exocet missile --- accidentally unleashed, because in response to a question she wasn’t asked Mrs Markham didn't think it was " a little after 1" that she got to the corner of Tenth & Patton She probably knew within a minute what time she got to the street corner, because, as I hypothesised in my first article, worried about getting to the bus-stop in time, she looked at her watch.. But --- very threatening to the commission --- IMMEDIATELY she got there she saw “Oswald”. Even Mr Ball couldn’t deny this fact. “Oswald” may or not have shot Tippit at 1:15, but Mrs Markham spotted him “walking up 10th, away from me”(24) , and she did so AS SOON AS SHE GOT THERE. (And she got there at 1:06) Mrs Markham: I wouldn't be afraid to bet it [ the time she saw Oswald] wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1 (Parenthesis mine) This was a dramatic outburst. The worst had happened. In getting Mrs Markham to admit that she was at the right corner before 1:15, she had been too precise --- far too much before 1:15 --- with all its terrible potential.. And it needed considerable mental agility to prevent Mrs Markham from sinking the Commission by claiming that ‘1:06’ was when she saw “Oswald”. Mr Ball was up to the task. He quickly returned to the bus-stop. Mr Ball; You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you? [Good work, Joseph Ball. Squash the answer!] Mrs Markham; 1:15 [Well done! Ball’s on track for a goal] Mr Ball: So it was before 1:15?. [ He’s about to score} Mrs Markham: Yes, it was. [it’s in the net! It’s all over --- the Commission has won!] (25) And that was it! Brilliant! “1:06” had fell to the ground like a shot pheasant. Mrs Markham had no alternative but to admit that 6 or 7 minutes after one o'clock was earlier than a quarter past one. And then Mr Ball finished her off completely. In his follow-up questions he changed topic --- and sent Mrs Markham in a whirl. He asked her to name the streets she’d been walking along, and what side she had walked.. Exasperated, she exclaimed : “ Now you have got me mixed up on all my streets!” (26). With Mrs Markham’s mind on crutches, “1:06” was dead and buried. In order to concrete over its grave, 5 months after she gave her last Warren Testimony, Mr Ball, at a public debate in Beverley Hills, California, on December 4th, ’64, referred to her as an “utter screwball” (27) And ---just for interest --- what about T.F. Bowley and his 1:10? Forget it! The Commission did! Since Bowley witnessed neither the killing nor the gunman's escape, he was never asked to testify. The Commission totally ignored his affidavit. After all, why should the Commissioners want to waste their time over a man with a wonky watch! End Notes (1) 3H 315, 3H 321, 3H 331 Mr. BALL. Is that where you were when you saw the shooting? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Did you move from that place from the time of the shooting until the time you saw the man on the corner? Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir. Mr. DULLES. I wonder, Mrs. Markham, if you would repeat for me, I would like to hear it, and Congressman Ford would like to hear it, the scene that you saw where the man now known to be Oswald went up and put his arms on the door of the police car, as I understand it. ( 3H 315) Mr. BALL. Those are all the questions I have of this witness. Do you have something additional? Mrs. MARKHAM. Believe me, it was just like-- Mr. DULLES. I believe Mr. Ford would like to have the witness repeat what she saw the man, now known as Oswald, do after the shooting. Will you just repeat that for Congressman Ford? Mrs. MARKHAM. After he shot the policeman-- Mr. DULLES. After he shot the policeman.(3H 321) Mr. DULLES. Referring to your tracing of the path that the man later found to be Oswald followed, he went through the lower of these two bushes there, did he? He went right through it? Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes, sir. You see there is an opening in there. Mr. DULLES. But he didn't apparently take the opening, according to this, because he went right through the bushes.(3H 331) [The point is that Scoggins was interviewed on the same day (26th March, ’04) as Mrs Markham, Mrs Barbara Jeanette Davis, and Ted Callaway. The first to be interviewed was Mrs Markham, then came Scoggins, then Mrs Markam, on a second, quick interview, and then Mrs Barbara Jeanette Davis, and, last, for that day, Ted Callaway. Note that Mrs Charlie Virginia Davis, Sam Guinyard, Domingo Benavides, and William Smith were not interviewed until a week later ( 2ndApril,’64), and Warren Reynolds not until 118 days later (22nd July, ’64). Mr Dulles’ remark then about Oswald being “later” found to be the assassin was based on the testimony only of Mrs Markham. The words “later” is meaningless since he had NOT heard the testimony of the remaining eight of the nine witnesses!] (2) 7H 499 Mr. GUINYARD. Yes. Mr. BALL. The alleyway that runs along the north side of the lot? Mr. GUINYARD. Yes. Mr. BALL. Now, where was Oswald when he passed you going south toward Jefferson? Mr. GUINYARD. Well, he was between the alley and the driveway coming off Patton. (3) 7H 499; 11H 437 Mr. LIEBELER. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler [spelling] L-i-e-b-e-l-e-r. I am an attorney on the staff of the President's Commission investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your testimony for the Commission pursuant to authority granted it by the President in Executive Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and joint resolution of Congress No. 137. I think you are somewhat familiar with the proceedings of the Commission because you have already testified before the Commission in Washington; is that right? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; but you know, I don't know nothing about the Kennedys--President Kennedy. Mr. LIEBELER. I understand you were there when Oswald shot Officer Tippit? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; that's right. (7H 499) Mr. REYNOLDS. Not the direction. In the general direction, but not to the theatre. Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, you were looking for this man who later turned out to be Oswald, in this parking lot which was some distance from the Texas Theatre at that point? Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. And you never saw Oswald continue on down the street--on down Jefferson or go in the Texas Theatre, and you never told the police that he had gone in that direction, did you? Mr. REYNOLDS. I told the police he was going in that direction. (11H 437) (4) & (5) 6H 456 Mr. BELIN. What is your sister's name? Mrs. DAVIS. Mrs. Barbara Jeanette Davis. Mr. BELIN. Do you know what her husband's name is? Mrs. DAVIS. Troy Lee Davis. Mr. BELIN. Taking you back to the afternoon of November 22, do you remember anything out of the ordinary that happened on that date? Mrs. DAVIS. Well, the boy that was known as Lee Harvey Oswald shot J. D. Tippit. Mr. BELIN. Well, now, did you see him shoot J. D. Tippit? (6H 456) (6) 7H 396 Mr. BALL. And did something else happen that day that you remember? Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. What? Mr. GUINYARD. Well, this was when Oswald shot the policeman. (7H 396) (7) 7H 84 Mr. BALL And what? You looked down that way? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. What did you see? 83 Page 84 Mr. SMITH. Saw Oswald running and policeman falling. Mr. BALL. Did you see his face, or just his back? Mr. SMITH. Saw the side of him, the side and back of him when he was running.(7H 84) [in an impartial enquiry, witnesses have to be reminded that the authenticity of identification is something that only Commission can decide upon. This stricture applies to all the previous examples] (8) Doubleday edition (1964) of Warren Report, page xlv (9) (WR 156) While it was difficult to determine exactly when the police sealed off the building, the earliest estimates would still have permitted Oswald to leave the building by 12:33. One of the police officers assigned to the corner of Elm and Houston Streets for the Presidential motorcade, W. E. Barnett, testified that immediately after the shots he went to the rear of the building to check the fire escape. He then returned to the corner of Elm and Houston where he met a sergeant who instructed him to find out the name of the building. Barnett ran to the building, noted its name, and then returned to the corner. Although Oswald probably left the building at about 12:33 p.m.,…… THE KILLING OF PATROLMAN J. D. TIPPIT (WR 157) After leaving the Depository Building at. approximately 12:33 p.m., Lee Harvey Oswald proceeded to his roominghouse by bus and taxi. He arrived at approximately 1 p.m. and left a few minutes later. At about 1:16 p.m., a Dallas police officer, J. D. Tippit, was shot less than 1 mile from Oswald's roominghouse. .(10) CD 87, National Archives Quoted and reproduced in Myers’ “With Malice”, p 514. (11) CD 5/p 123. Myers (ibid) p 573 (12) CE 1119A., p 158. (See WR p 165) (13) As (10) & (11) above (14) (WR 165) Oswald was next seen about nine-tenths of a mile away at the southeast corner of 10th Street and Patton Avenue, moments before the Tippit shooting. (See Commission Exhibit No. 1119-A, p. 158.) If Oswald left. his roominghouse shortly after 1 p.m. and walked at a brisk pace, he would have reached 10th and Patton shortly after 1:15 p.m.491 Tippit's murder was recorded on the police radio tape at about 1:16 p.m.492 End notes 491 CE119A; 492 C£1974,p52/3 (15), (16), (17) WR 651 Speculation.--Mrs. Helen Markham, a witness to the slaying of Tippit, put the time at just after 1:06 p.m. This would have made it impossible for Oswald to have committed the killing since he would not have had time to arrive at the shooting scene by that time. Commission finding.--The shooting of Tippit has been established at approximately 1:15 or 1:16 p.m. on the basis of a call to police headquarters on Tippit's car radio by another witness to the assassination, Domingo Benavides. In her various statements and in her testimony, Mrs. Markham was uncertain and inconsistent in her recollection of the exact time of the slaying.56 (18) Myers (ibid) p 59/60 (19) Rush to Judgment ps 187/8 (21) My counting (22) CD 87 and CE 2003 page 15 of Exhibit at 24H, 204) (23) 3H 306; (24) 3H, 307; (25) 3H, 306 (26) 3h, 306; (27) Rush to Judgement, ps 190 and 441 Mr. BALL. You left your home to go to work at some time, didn't you, that day? Mrs. MARKHAM. At one. Mr. BALL. One o'clock? Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe it was a little after 1. Mr. BALL. Where did you intend to catch the bus? Mrs. MARKHAM. On Patton and Jefferson. Mr. BALL. Patton and Jefferson is about a block south of Patton and 10th Street, isn't it? Mrs. MARKHAM. I think so. Mr. BALL. Well, where is your home from Patton and Jefferson? Mrs. MARKHAM. I had came--I come one block, I had come one block from my home. Mr. BALL. You were walking, were you? Mrs. MARKHAM. I came from 9th to the corner of 10th Street. Mr. BALL. And you were walking toward Jefferson? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Tenth Street runs the same direction as Jefferson, doesn't it? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. It runs in a generally east and west direction? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. And Patton runs north and south? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; up and down this way. Mr. BALL. When you came to the corner of Patton and 10th Street--first of all, what side of the street were you walking on? Mrs. MARKHAM. Now you have got me mixed up on all my streets. I was on the opposite of where this man was. Mr. BALL. Well, you were walking along the street-- Mrs. MARKHAM. On the street. Mr. BALL. On Patton, you were going toward Jefferson? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. And you were on the right- or left-hand side of the street as you were walking south? Mrs. MARKHAM. That would be on the left. Mr. BALL. Your right. Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, it would be right. Mr. BALL. Right-hand side, wouldn't it? When you came to the corner did you have to stop before you crossed 10th Street? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did. Mr. BALL. Why? 306 Page 307 (24) 3H,307; (25) & (26) 3H,306; (27) Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, ps 190 and 441

Part 2 This posting will consider two types of support ( negative and positive) for Mrs. Markham's claim in '106' that Tippit was shot at approximately 1:06 pm. I mean by negative support the suspicion that arises when a refutable falsehood isn't refuted. . The question arises: "Is the alleged falsehood really true?" Lack of denial supports an allegation. Negative Support Assuming that the Commission got it right ( and that Mrs Markham got it wrong), --- that is that Tippit was not shot at 1:06, but at 1:16 --- then the Commission should have been able to find impartial evidence to refute Mrs Markham's 1:06 pm claim, and to support the accuracy of the Dallas Police tapes (1) Whatever individual views the Commissioners may have had on the police tapes --- and we may assume that their confidence was 100% --- the Commission collectively must have realised that the authenticity of the police tapes would sooner or later be questioned(2), however unjustly, and it was in the interests of the Commissioners to anticipate this by seeking confirmation of the time ofTippit's death outside the tapes. There was plenty of opportunity. Consider: (1) Tippit was not shot at night, in a deserted unlit alley by a silenced pistol, firing just one round, but:- (i) he was shot at lunchtime, (ii) on a sunny day, (iii) on a main street (iv) passing through a middle-class, residential area, (v) with plenty of traffic. (vi) Moreover, four (if not five (3) bullets were fired. (2) The noise brought crowds to the streets --- and very quickly Remember that Mrs Markham was “screaming “He’s shot him. He is dead. Call the Police””(4) (i) The evidence of a parked-for-lunch taxi driver (Scoggins), of a nearby resident (Frank Cimino), and a visitor (Jimmy Earl Burt) establishes that a very large crowd quickly assembled, surrounding Tippit's body, even before the ambulance arrived. (5) (ii) Patrolman Jo Poe was on the scene just after the ambulance had removed Tippit's body. He put the assembled crowd at 150-200. (6) (3). Some of this large number must have taken a time check ( if only for some personal reason ), not necessarily of when they heard the shooting, but of some incident adjacent in time, and a check of this type, if the Commission were right, would have contradicted Mrs. Markham's 1:06 Why was no search made? A good example of the above is Jack Tatum. A highly intelligent man (the chief medical photographer for the Baylor University Medical Centre), he was an excellently positioned witness --- but he didn’t give his testimony until 15 years later, when the House Select Committee on Assassinations started their investigations. Tatum did not come forward at the time because “there were more than enough people there, and I could not see what I could contribute.”(7) In his affidavit to the HSCA Tatum says “although I do not remember the exact time I remember it was early in the afternoon…” However, he probably would have remembered the time (if not of the pistol shots, then of some adjacent incident ) if he had given evidence (say) 15 days later, instead of 15 years. The point of this story is that there might have been several more Jack Tatums who could have provided some sort of chronology --- and possibly, by implication, refuted Mrs Markham’s 1:06 --- but who, like Tatum, unsought for, didn’t step forward.. However some of them may have volunteered if there had been a publicised search for witnesses. Why wasn’t this search made? By failing to make it, the Commission made themselves totally dependent on the police tapes. (4) If the Commission hadn't the time to investigate as outlined in (3), then they still had four people who did phone the police within about a minute of hearing the shots, and almost certainly the Commission could have found the time of these calls, either through consulting police records, or,--- more impartially --- the records of the telephone company. The people are:- (i) Barbara Davis (8). Next door to where Tippit was shot, she phoned the police immediately she realised that a policeman had been killed. The Commission in its Report admits --- purely in passing --- that Barbara Davis made the call, but supplies no time check, even though in the Commission's eye such a check should have refuted Mrs. Markham. (ii) L.J.Lewis, standing at a nearby car lot, phoned the Dallas P.D. immediately he heard the shots. He found the D.P.D. in a state of considerable confusion, a fact which suggests that they were being inundated with more calls than they could cope with, understandable when a policeman has been shot dead on a crowded street in a residential area (9). The Commission, despite its keenness to refute Mrs. Markham, disdained this source. (iii) As the shots rang out, Frank Wright, living roughly opposite the crime scene, rushed to his front door. At the same time his wife Mary (10) went to phone the police, but, in the panic of the moment, forgot the emergency number, and so just dialed 'O': "Call the police , a man's been shot". Again, the time of this call was not investigated.. Positive Support 1. Barbara Davis. As said previously she was one of the 3 people who phoned the police immediately the shots rang out. In her affidavit to the Dallas Police, given on the Day of the Assassination, she put the time of Tippit’s murder at “shortly after 1:00pm” Nine days later, in an affidavit to the Secret Service, she was more exact and put the time as “at approximately a few minutes after 1 pm.” (11) It is reasonable to assume that the phrase “a few minutes after” reflected the time more accurately, and would have appeared in her original ( Dallas) statement had, her Dallas interviewing officer sought clarification of "shortly after".. Given the horrific and momentous nature of what had just happened --- the first policeman shot in years --- it is reasonable to suppose that Barbara Davis, galvanised into awareness by shock of the shooting, would have become aware of the time, either through glancing at her watch, or through noticing a clock face, as she moved through her flat. (12) 2. Frank Cimino. Referred to previously. On 4th December, he put Tippit’ time of death “at around 1:00pm, and remarked that he was “at his apartment listening to the radio.”(13) The radio very likely gave him a one o’clock time check. Otherwise why did he mention it? (3) Temple Ford Bowley One piece of evidence everyone knows about that unarguably supports Mrs Markham is T.F. Bowley's 1:10. When Bowley arrived on the scene Tippit was already dead --- must have been dead a few minutes, since Benavides was still struggling to operate the Tippit's car radio, equipment Bowley knew how to operate. Bowley's affidavit implies that he accomplished his task easily , and --- possibly within a minute --- was in touch with the Dallas Police. The police told the Commission the tapes recorded Bowley’s call at 1:16. A problem here. Bowley, did a most extraordinary thing, something which no official person did on that day; in act unique to the Tippit slaying, he looked at his watch --- 1.10 (14) Bowley was, on that day very conscious of the passing hours. In his affidavit, he records he had to pick up his daughter at 12.55, and then later his wife. Acceptance of the Commission's finding would imply that Bowley's watch (like Mrs. Markham’s) was 10 minutes (15) slow, but if that were the case his wife and daughter would have grumblingly found him 10 minutes late. It is difficult to believe that anybody as aware of the time as Bowley could have progressed to lunchtime without knowing that he was 10 minutes behind every body. Very significant are the words that Bowley uses to describe his time check: " I looked at my watch and it said 1:10pm"(16) The implication is not only that when Bowley looked at his watch he had (at that time) no reason to doubt the watch's accuracy, but also --- key point this --- that when he was writing these words ( in his affidavit, ten days later), he still had, after that lapse of time, no reason to doubt the accuracy of his time check on Assassination day. Myers had an interview with Bowley in 1983, but(17) -- queerly --- he doesn't mention any discussion about the accuracy of Bowley's watch The question he should have asked Bowley --- but obviously didn't --- was: "When did you notice on that fateful day that your watch was 10 minutes slow". I would love to have heard the answer! Next and final article :The how and why of the reaction of Joseph Ball and the Commission to ‘106’. ENDNOTES (1) The Commission, desperate to refute Mrs Markam, told two untruths. But more in my last article. (2) Possibly this realisation prompted the Commission to get the FBI, 7 weeks before the publication of its definitive Report, to make its own special transcription of the police tapes (4H, 183-4, & 23H, 832). Certain inconguences between the two have lead to disputes. In this connection see Mark Lane,Rush to Judgment ('66), p 204-208. More recent surveys: Jim Marrs "Crossfire"(''89), p 349: Michael T. Griffith "Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?", 2002, 2nd edition, p14/17. http:// gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/With_Malice.html. Myers’s handling of his ‘adjustments’ to police tape times is unsatisfactory, as he has explained it on p 21. & 86 .He does not vouchsafe the mathematics used, nor does he explain on what basis some witnesses are chosen as a yardstick. (3) Although Callaway in his first affidavit to the Dallas Police on the actual day (24H,202) refers to hearing "some shots", in his second affidavit, given 11 days later to the Secret Service, he mentions "five gunshots"(.A facsimile of this affidavit is on M 270.), and he repeated this figure in his Commission testimony (3H, 352). Myers (p 645, Endnote 749) refers to 6 interviews (including two with him, and his WCT) in which Callaway has stick to his "five gunshots" (4) 6H,457 (5) Scoggins 3H,336; Frank Cimmino CD7/411.Unindexed WC document. Facsimile M 538 (Appendix D); see also M 102 (Main text) ; Jimmy Earl Burt: FBI Record Information Form 124-10011-1024: facsimile M 534/5 (Appendix D); (6) 7H,68 (7) HSCA Record Information Form 180-10087 10355. See Facsimile M 532 (8) 6H,458/9; WR 168. Quick reference: M 75 (9) For making a phone call, see:(i) Quick reference: M86; (ii) for primary source: FBI interview 21/1/63: WC Lewis(LJ) Exhibit A, 20H, 534; facsimile M 547 (Appendix D). For police confusion see:(i) for quick reference: M 90; (ii) for primary source:15H,703, 21H,26. (10) The New Leader, 10-12-64; The Other Witnesses, by George and Patricia Nas, p 7/8; told in M 84 (main text). (11) Affidavit to Dallas Police: 24H, 205. Affidavit to Secret Service, CD 87, not indexed. Facsimile in M 525 (Appendix D) (12) It is only fair to point out that when Barbara Davis testified before the WC on her only appearance (26/3/64), 116 days after her affidavit to the Secret Service, she forgot about her galvanisation into awareness, and seemed to remember only her pre-shooting very relaxed state. When Mr Ball was hearing her testimony, Mr Dulles intervened to ask her if she knew what time the gunman ran across her lawn ,to which Barbara Davis replied: “ No, sir; not exactly because I had laid down with the children and didn’t pay any attention to what time it was”. (3H, 346/7).She was not questioned on this answer, even though it followed her recounting phoning the police.(3H,345). (13) Cimino facsimile M 538 (See footnote 5) (14) Affidavit of T.FÊBowley, CE 2003/11; 24H,202. Facsimile M 521 (Appendix D) (15) Bowley ( his affidavit) arrived on the scene at 1:10, and found Benavides, still trying to work the radio (say for a minute), having previously been nervously lying low in his van for (say) 3 minutes. This would put Tippit's death (by Bowley's watch) at 1:06 --- in full agreement with Mrs Markham, and making both watches 10 minutes slow by the Commission’s 1:16. (16) Line 8 of his affidavit (17) M 604 (Endnotes). Endnotes 235/238.

This is the first of a series of three Forum postings, dealing with what I call “Document 106'' (or simply '106'). '106' is the affidavit that Helen Markham gave to the Dallas Police within 90 minutes of Tippit's slaying (1) From the Warren Commission's perspective, ‘106’ was a threat because of its assertion that Tippit was shot at "approximately 1:06" (hence my title '106'), whereas the Commission was arguing for 1:16. (2) This later time, as we shall see in my third article, was essential to the Commission's purpose. The second posting will consider all the supportive evidence for Mrs. Markham's "approximately 1:06", limiting itself to what actually was (or could have been) known at the time. The third posting will assesses the Commission response to '106'. It concentrates on Commission lawyer Joseph Ball, who 'evasively' examined the testimonies of Helen Markham, Ted Callaway and Earlene Roberts. '106' says "At approximately 1:06 pm, November 22, 1963 --- I was standing on the corner of E.10th and Patton Street, waiting for traffic to go by when I saw a squad car stop in front of 404 E. 10th Street about 50feet from where I was standing. I saw a young white man walk up to the squad car opposite the driver's side, lean over and put his arms on the door of the car for a few seconds, then straighten up and step back from the car two or three feet. At this point the officer got out of his squad car and started around in front of the car and just as he got even with the left front wheel this young white man shot the officer and the officer fell to the pavement. I screamed and the man ran west on E. Tenth across Patton Street and went out of sight."(3) Three reasons why this document is important. (I) Mrs. Markham's status as a witness. She is the only witness we know of who saw the incident in its entirety (4) In ‘106’ Mrs. Markham interprets the stopping of Tippit’s car by reference to house 404 (an interpretation which she maintained at her Hearings (5) She does not see Tippit as stopping to speak to the gunman --- she reports the gunman as initiating the interaction. (6) (II) ‘106’ has the ring of truth. Five facts support this assertion. (1) The statement was made to the Dallas police about 90 minutes after Tippit's death at a time when his death was a total mystery. Their minds were like blank pieces of paper on which Mrs. Markham, within reason, could write what she liked. The Dallas Police were at that time --- but later on, as I'll submit, only at that time -- passive receptacles into which she could do the pouring. (2) She was in emotional shock ---- really frightened --- and certainly in no frame of mind to fabricate or consciously exaggerate (7) (3) Her statement was to the point, unambiguous, and she claimed to have witnessed nothing that she could not have reasonably been expected to have seen. Her vantage point would have given her an unobstructed view, situated only about 150 ft (8) from the incident. (4) She wasn't influenced by the opinion of other witnesses. She was the first witness. (5) Of all those who gave evidence to the Warren Commission on Tippit's slaying, only Helen Markham was conscious of the time. (3) ‘106’ contributes (more so than any other affidavit) to an assessment of when Tippit died--- an issue central to whether Oswald was Tippit’s murderer. Because of its controversial time-check, '106' has been elbowed into the margins. Dale Myers (“With Malice”) does not include it in his Selection of Documents, nor is it referred to in his text. There are key points in Dale Myers’ book --- his discussion of Mrs. Markham's movements (p60), and the time of Tippit's death (p86/87.) --- where reference to ‘106’ is essential, but nothing appears (9). More on this in the third posting. Another thing that makes '106 'interesting is the way it gives its time-check: "approximately 1:06" --- a ‘precise approximation’ (very rare) --- which indicates that Mrs. Markham looked at her watch at 1:06, and that Tippit’s death was moments later. What occasioned the time-check? I infer that Mrs. Markham's time-check was the outcome of a four-link chain of events: - (i) Mrs. Markham, on Assassination day, was carrying out a routine schedule, the only exception to which was that on that particular day she wanted to phone her daughter. As a waitress, she had to be at the Eat Well Restaurant by 2.35 It was her custom to leave her house at 1 pm (10) (ii) The walk to the bus stop would have taken her 5 minutes, ensuring that she would have arrived 6/7 minutes before the bus's scheduled time (1:12pm), and about 10 minutes before the its modal time (1:15) (11) Why so early? The most likely answer is that Mrs. Markham suffered from punctuality anxiety: a fear of being late. For this reason she left her house earlier than she need. (iii) In her March '64 affidavit to the FBI, she remembers, that keen to phone her daughter, on this particular day, she dropped off at the nearby washateria (which was on the first floor of her block of flats)(12), but unable to get a reply to her call, she departed quickly, noting, as she left, that the washateria clock said 1.04 (13) If she left her flat at one o'clock, and was able to depart from the washateria, after attempting a ‘phone call, by 1:04, she was obviously a fast mover. This reinforces the idea that she was anxious --- her mind was possibly gripped by the fact that she had a bus to catch. (iv) Therefore she would have moved quickly to her bus stop at the south-west corner of Jefferson and Patton, but there was a delay (she says so in ‘106’) --- her anxiety would have increased. The path to her bus stop required her to cross over 10th Street, southwards along Patton to the intersection at Jefferson, where the bus stop was. The delay arose from the fact that she couldn't cross over. There was too much traffic. Given her character, how would she have reacted? I would say in the same way that she reacted when she was delayed (and frustrated) at the washateria: she would --- surely? --- have taken an immediate time check. She would have looked at her watch the moment she reached the corner and found that she couldn't cross over. And it said 1:06. She then would have averted her eyes and lowered her wrist, and immediately afterwards she would have seen the gunman and then Tippit's approaching police car. The killing would have been less than a minute away That's probably why she said "approximately 1:06". It wasn't exactly at 6 minutes past that Tippit was killed, but just after --- may be one minute later, say 7 minutes after one o’clock. Well, that's what she was obviously struggling to tell Mr Ball at her Hearing, (14) but he cut her short. I wonder why? Endnotes M denotes Dales Myers, “With Malice” (1) 7H, 251/2. Detective L.C. Graves was the man on Oswald’s left when Oswald was shot (2) WR. 165, 651, CE1974 (3) 24H, 214 (CE 2003, p37) (4) Scoggins didn’t see the gunman walking (implication 3H, 325). His assertion about the gunman moving west (Secret Service Affidavit, 2/12/63; M 522) was based on an erroneous inference. I am preparing a detailed submission on this. (5) 3H, 307,314,317 (6) 6H, 457. 3H, 325. M534.If Tippit was a frequent visitor to 404, perhaps on Assassination day he was merely paying a routine call? (7) 7H, 251/2. M 215. Whatever one may think of Mrs. Markham’s honesty, she had on this occasion neither the motive nor the calmness of mind to fabricate. (8) M 62,161.Mrs Markham’s estimate was in error. She probably meant yards. (9) ‘106’ is not even listed in the asterisked footnote on P 64, nor on ps 214,220, where Graves is mentioned. (10) M 59 (11) M 60, 597 (12) M 59 (13) M 60, 61. Myers’ claim that Mrs. Markham left the washateria at 1.11 (so essential to his Commission-bound timing) ignores ‘106’, the document he doesn’t mention. Furthermore is it likely that Mrs. Markham, who routinely allowed herself so much time, would have cut things that fine? (14) See Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, Ch 14, 187

I am not concerned with what Mrs Markham should or would have said, but what she actually DID say:- From her affidavit (90 minutes after Tippit’s death) The first affidavit to the Dallas Police. 11/22/1963 At approximately 1:06, November 22, 1963 --- I was standing on the corner of E.10th and Patton Street waiting for traffic to go by when I saw a squad car stop in front of 404 E.10th about 50 ft from where I was standing. I saw a young white man walk up to the squad car opposite the driver's side………………………..” (24H, 214; CE2003, p37) Note that Tippit, in stopping his car outside 404, pulls to a halt ahead of the gunman, and not alongside the gunman, and that the gunman walks up to Tippit’s car from behind. This suggests that Tippit and the gunman were travelling in the same direction, and that Tippit overtook the gunman This impression is fully confirmed by the following:-. I (i) Statement to the Secret Service, December 2 '63. "I saw a Dallas Police Patrol Car driving down 10th Street, and just after it crossed Patton Avenue, it pulled over to the curb and it stopped. I then saw a man who had been walking down Tenth Street approach the stopped patrol car on the passenger side. He bent down and looked into the car; he folded his arms and rested them on the door as… (ii) Jack Tatum. He gave no evidence to the Dallas Police at the time of the killing because he thought that "there were more than enough people there and I could not see what I could contribute." However he was very happy 15 years later to make statement to the investigators of HSCA. This is the relevant part of what he said: "I was driving north on Denver and stopped at 10th Street when I first saw the squad car and a man walking on the sidewalk near the squad car. Both the squad car and this young white male were coming in my direction (East on 10th Street). " (HSCA, 1978, accessed through Myers, p 532) It is obvious from this statement (and from those above) that the Tippit and his assassin were both travelling in the same direction.………….

I notice that everybody accepts my basic geometry (it couldn't be more elementary!). I am not trying to put forward a theory as to what happened at Dealey Plaza. However, I appreciate those who have raised interesting points on what the SB theory was covering up. I am simply saying that the version of the Single Bullet theory put forward by Dale Myers doesn't make sense. He is forced to bring in a "magical" deflection, for which there is not the slightest medical justification. The two angles I mention are from Dale Myers' website. The angle of 37 degrees accords with Z223, and the angle of the bullet with the shoulder line (66.5 degrees) is from the HSCA. If you want to confirm my theory very quickly carry out the following 20-second practice. Face the front. Put the tips of your left fingers against your right (front) armpit. Protude your thumb from your hand, and turn your hand leftwards until your thumb is over your right nipple. This is the HSCA path of the bullet through Connally. Now turn your shoulders 37 degrees rightwards (just short of half a right angle). This is the angle of Connally's rightward shoulder turn when, according to Myers, the Single Bullet struck. You will find that your finger tips point to a bullet path L ---> R. You have in 20 seconds disproved the SB theory of Dale Myers. I only say the Dal -Tex building simply on the assumption that he fired from a building. For aq bullet 13.5 L ---->R

That doesn't stop us from taking up the leads - Bill Kelly The belief that the gunman was originally walking West (and that he changed his direction on seeing Tippit's police car) has its origin in an affidavit that Scoggins made on the day of the assassination to the Dallas Police, and its fully explicit and starker reiteration ( 11 days after the assassination) in an affidavit made during the course of an interview with two Secret Service Special Agents In the opening paragraph of his Dallas Police Scoggins deposed as follows:- "............ About the time I started to eat my lunch I saw a police car going East on Tenth. The police stopped on Tenth just east of Patton. The officer got out of the car and evidently said something to a man walking west on Tenth." This assertion that the gunman was walking west on Tenth was taken up eagerly by the Dallas Police, who were obviously baffled by Tippit's murder. Wondering why any intercepted person would so sensationally panic as to not only shoot their interrogator, but to do so as an immediate response, they concluded that the proximity of the two killings --- two miles in distance, 45 minutes in time --- pointed to some linkage. "When you have a president killed and a few minutes later you have an officer shot within a couple of miles, you're going to think they're connected. A. person that doesn't think they're connected is an idiot. That's going to be his first thought. If it's not, he's not normal " That was the quoted opinion of Captain Westbrook, one of the police officers at the scene of the Tippit killing. (Myers 98,99) A similar thought was expressed by the Assistant District Attorney Bill Alexander: "We all knew," he recalled some 20 years later, " the same man that killed the President had killed Tippit. We had made up our minds by the time we got there." (Myers 99) [it is difficult to see how this sameness could possibly be a matter of knowledge.] One thought was that Tippit had heard over his car police radio what the police later admitted was a meagre description of the suspect, and that he thought --- in what must have been such an astonishingly intuitive insight as to constitute a mystical experience --- that the gunman ( the man waking on the sidewalk) was the suspect --- or, at least, sufficiently like him to be stopped for questioning. But why did the idea of the gunman walking west appeal to the police? The answer is simple. Because if the gunman had been walking west he would have been approaching Tippit's easterly moving police car, and the encounter would have been face to face, something which gives credibility (if only superficially) to the idea forming in the police minds. And that idea was that the seemingly inexplicable --- the apparently meaningless gunning down of a patrolman performing a regular stop and earch --- could only be explained by something equivalently incredible, that in some amazing feat of inspired intuition, Tippit, sub-consciously working on meagre police description of an average sort of young man, had experienced a sort of mystical identification, and had been spiritually (?) moved to see in this particular man --- no features to distinguish an appearance replicated tens of thousands in twenty-something Dallas males --- the likely features of Kennedy's assassin ( as described by the police ) and then, carrying out a stop and interrogate action, Tippit had got himself gunned down by the consequently panicked assassin. On the other hand, the gunman had been walking in an easterly direction, the identifcation would have had to have been a rear view one, which would have considerably weakend the credibility of the supposed incident, reducing it to an entirely mystical --- a Voice from the Beyond --- experience. Scoggins's statement was then obviously welcomed by the Dallas Police. A case report, filed on the day of the Assassination, reported that Oswald "was walking West on the 400 blk. of East 10 when stopped by the above complainant to be questioned."(Myers 443) [ Incidentally in this introductory part of the report,and in the reference to Mrs Markham which follows,one cannot help noticing that the Dallas Police falsified what Mrs Markamtold them. As I've pointed out in the main text,she said nothing in her affidavit to support the notion that Tippit stopped the gunman. She connected the stopping of his caronly with the house he stopped outside., numbr 404 an address which there is, despite what Myers says, good reason to believe he was in the habit of visiting rergularly. What all this showsis that the Dallas Police had very early on --- one is inclined to say 'immediately' (it was certainly within a few hours)--- formed a very clear of what happened, that Tippit had been killed by Kennedy's assassin, and that they were starting to impose this pre-judgement on what witnesses were aying.] In the Homicide Report on Tippit's death, the report under "Details of Offense", asserted "Deceased driving Squad Car ‡10 east on 10 th street stopped to interrogate a suspect who was wallking west on Tenth......." (Myers 447) The key sentences appear in the last two sentences of the fourth paragraph of his deposition,, and in the opening sentence of the paragraph following. Thus we have: "I saw the cruiser stop on the south side of 10th street about one or two houses east of the intersection of East 10th and Patton Streets. I noticed a man walking west on 10th street on the south side which is the same side of the street the cruiser is on." And, "The man walking west on 10th street stopped at a point just directly in line with the front bumper of the polce car" The relevant excerpts from William Scoggins' two affidavits are as follows: (1) The first affidavit, given to the Dallas Police on the 23rd November. Leading excerpts are: "About the time I started to eat my lunch I saw a police car going east on Tenth. The Police stopped on Tenth just east of Patton. The officer got out of the car and evidently said something to a man who was walking west on Tenth [Later, under cross examination at a Warren Commission Hearing, Scoggins admitted that the "walking west was purely an inference.] When the Policeman spoke to him the man stopped .The next thing that attracted my attention was a gun firing. I heard three or four shots, and I saw smoke near the squad car. The officer fell beside the squad car on the driver's side." Note: (i) The word “evidently” refers not to what has been observed, but to what has been inferred. Scoggins infers that Tippit got out his car --- and (presumably) stopped it also --- to speak to the gunman. (ii) Scoggins describes the gunman as “walking west” when the police car stopped. This affidavit became the basis of the Tippit myth. The second affidavit, given to the Secret Service 12/2,1963, has the following pertinent excerpt: " Just as I started eating my lunch I noticed a police car going east on 10th Street at the intersection of Patton. I saw the cruiser stop on the south side of 10th Street about one or two houses east of the intersection of East 10th and Patton streets. I noticed a man walking west on 10th street the south side [An on-the-spot inference] which is the same side of the street the cruiser was on. " The man walking west on 10th Street stopped at a point just about directly in line with the front bumper of the police cruiser. I started to continue eating my lunch after I saw the police officer get out of the police car on the driver's side and start around the front of the car. At this point I could not see the man that had stopped at the car. " I heard three or four gunshots....................... Mr Scoggins: I noticed he [Tippit] stopped down there, and I wasn't paying too much attention to the man, you see, just used to see him every day, but then I kind of looked down the street, saw this, someone, that looked to me like he was going west, now, I couldn't exactly say whether he was going west or was in the process of turning around, but he was facing west when I saw him [Notice there is an obvious sequence of events here: Scoggins sees Tippit in his polce car. Nothing unusual in this. Seen him so often before. Tippit stops. Scoggins wonders why, and whilst wondering why he spots the gunman.] Mr Belin: All right Mr Scoggins: And he was --- he stopped there. Mr Belin: Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the olice car stopped or not? Mr Scoggins: Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping,you see,and I saw this man with a light-cooured jacket on. [Mr Belin hasn't fully grasped what Scoggins has just said --- the sequenceof events that he has impl ied.] Mr Belin: Now you saw a man with a light-colored jacket. With relation to the polce car, was that man east of the police car, west of the police car,or kind....... Mr Scoggins: Just a liitle east is the best I can remember. (3H, 325) Mr Belin: I wonder if you would take Exhibit 523 and see if there is any number on Exhibit 523 which corresponds to the position of the man who was walking along East 10th Street, or wherever he was when you first saw him. Mr Scoggins: Approximately where 16 is. Mr Belin Yes; you are pointing to the position where the arrow is in number 16? Mr Ball: Mr Belin, he didn't see him walking. ( 3H,329)

Great, and welcome to the Forum. Can you upload the diagrams? Thanks.

Great, and welcome to the Forum. Can you upload the diagrams? Thanks.

Let's look more deeply into this mystery. The suspect's alleged suspicious behaviour, for all the police knew at the time, could have been because he was mute and mentally subnormal. The lead could have been a totally dry run. Moreover the police as they entered the Texas Theatre had no grounds whatsoever for forcefully questioning the 'suspect' --- at the most they could in fairness do no more than politely check him out; certainly not arrest him. After all, the suspect had caused no disturbance outside the cinema (other than looking and behaving 'oddly'), and caused no disturbance within it. What 'saved' the police from utter humiliation. was that the suspect was carrying a revolver (as has been said, strange that neither Julia Postal nor Johnny Brewer had noticed it). (Had the suspect not been armed, the police would have been made to look wild, bullying and idiotic. And it's difficult to believe that the police would have behaved in such a ludicrously ostentatious fashion unless they knew in advance --- if they were as certain as they could be --- that the suspect would be armed. In this connection, the Dallas Police seem to have had a double standard. Consider this WC Testimony from Walker, the third Dallas Policeman to arrive at the Tippit scene:- Mr. BELIN. Why do you think he stopped this man? Mr. WALKER. I believe that the description given on the radio, that he probably stopped just to check him out as a general procedure, as we do. Mr. BELIN. Well, if he stopped him for that reason, this man, he would have stopped him because the man was a suspect for perhaps the assassination, why wouldn't he have had his gun out when he stopped him? Mr. WALKER. Well, there are a lot of people of that description, and it is just not police practice to pull your gun on a person because he fits the description of someone, unless you are positive almost that it is the suspect. You just don't do it. (7H,42) Oh, yes you do! The police did precisely that at the Texas Theatre. 15 of them. Rifles, pistols, shotguns. There is an alternative explanation of course. Though police may not have known of themselves that the suspect would be armed, they may have known that the suspect was a 'Lee Harvey Oswald', someone, so they may have been told, who was either deeply connected with the assassination, or who was (possibly for reasons of state security) to be framed for it. In this circumstance the police would have known that the suspect was going to be armed --- because they were --- in the spirit of their instructions --- going to arm him.! The revolver being, of course, a plant. One thing is certain: the police story as Mr Myers relates it simply doesn't at any stage hold water.. 15) Oswald's pursuers ---remember we are taking the official point of view --- lose sight of him at the Texaco service station. Three questions arise: (i) If Oswald had shaken off his pursuers, then he was ---for the moment--- free; so why didn't he continue do what Myers (p 363) claims that he had been doing all along: travelling by sidestreets and alleyways --- that's presumably how he escaped his pursuers --- until he got back to his rooming- house? Instead Oswald goes to the cinema. What was the point of going to the cinema?. Of course the Texas Theatre had its advantages --- hours of quiet under the cover of darkness, etc.--- but as Myers observes (M, 363) “returning to the heavily traveled boulevard was extremely risky". And there was nothing in terms of seclusion that that his rooming- house couldn’t have given him. Why was Oswald so obsessed with going to the movies? [Wickedly, one could comment that it was strange that Oswald, who at the last minute declined the 1.20 showing, on the grounds that he would arrive (say) 8 minutes late, eventually turns up to see War is Hell at 1:40 ( 20 minutes into the film). Surely, it would be better, if Oswald, on leaving his rooming-house had crossed the road, turned left again --- and gone straight to the cinema, and not bothered with East Street and Tippit.] (ii) Why did Oswald throw away his jacket? Admittedly the jacket was a distinguishing feature, but he had, for the time being, escaped his pursuers ,so why worry about changing his appearance? Anyway it was a very common type of jacket; amongst crowds of people, and within a few days, it would be much less of a noticeable item. He should have had other priorities Keeping the jacket would have two advantages: firstly, it was, as I’ve said above, a good cover for his revolver; secondly, if Oswald was not going to return to his rooming-house, then possibly he might be out late at night, when, at that time of the year the nights got very cold. (iii) At this stage, with his pursuers out run, why didn't Oswald get rid of his gun? If he hadn't had his gun on him in the movie house, the police could never .have arrested him What an idiot the official version makes him! And this why I cannot believe that the official view tells us anything like the truth. And in this connection, Myers' soundness is highly questionable. He writes: "With Tippit dead in the street, Oswald quickly reloaded his revolver, a sure sign he anticipated similar encounters with law enforcement." (p 355) It is difficult to believe that this is the true situation. The point that Myers finds difficult to accept is that if Oswald was the sole killer of Kennedy in every way: the sole designer and executor of his death, then (as I've said before), once Oswald had left the 6th floor undetected, what had he to fear? Being a solitary assassin, he would have nobody to betray him to the police, so why should he be frightened of them? The Tippit encounter was inexplicable; its multiplication would have been baffling beyond comprehension. Instead of arming himself, Oswald should have disarmed. As a lone assassin, his failure to do doesn't make sense. [i am putting aside, as I've said before, the alleged palm prints, and all the mail order rifle because if Oswald were the sole assassin he would never have gone about things in such an absurdly self-incriminating way. The Assassination was not an impulsive affair --- it could not have been an atrocity committed, as it were on the spur of the moment, because if the official view is correct Oswald had to re-assemble his disassembled Mannlicher Carcano in a few minutes. The re-assembly of such a gun would involve total accuracy in a 17- stage process (http://attila.stevens-tech.edu/~gliberal/carcano/general.html), something, which though not inherently difficult, would require plenty of practice --- and that points to planning.] (16) We seem geographically and psychologically to be dealing with two Oswalds. Geographically Oswald always seems to be walking away from where he ends up. He is seen orientating himself northwards along Beckley (by bus?) and ends up southwards along East Tenth Street; moving eastwards along East Tenth Street, he ends southwestwards at Jefferson Boulevard. It seems as if we are dealing with two people. But the confusion psychologically is far greater. First we have the Assassination itself: clearly an act of derring-do, with so many things that could have gone wrong. The Oswald of the Assassination is a “chancer” of cast iron nerves. Secondly, we have the shooting of Tippit: an act of utter, spontaneous reactive panic. Thirdly, we have the getaway: an act of nonchalant calm, ironclad Oswald; then we have the nervous wreck outside the cinema, and then we have, at the point of arrest, and under sharp interrogation, the Oswald with nerves of steel. Clearly two people here. Conclusion Myers --- in an unguarded moment? --- has written: "... it is important to recognize what is clear. Oswald's actions after the assassination suggest some desperate purpose. The ride on the bus, the change to a taxi, the quick stop at his rooming house to grab his pistol: all seem focused toward some obscure goal." (p 363) I would disagree with the "focused". As I have argued, Oswald's behaviour seems all over the place, and he always seems to be moving in two directions at once. But I agree with the "desperate purpose", and I wholeheartedly agree with the word “obscure”. My contention is that if Oswald were the sole assassin, or, come to think of it, even if he were just part of a conspiracy whose purpose had no extension beyond the killing of the President, he would not have left he building. I have argued this point in my opening paragraphs, so I have no need to argue the matter further. Once Oswald had got to the coke machine, as I've said so often, he was (or should have been) home and dry. I can see only 3 reasons why Oswald would have left the TBD so quickly: (1) He was involved in a conspiracy whose purposes went beyond the killing of the President. The death of Kennedy, on this view, was just the initial event of a far greater happening, which, in order to come to fruition, would require some very prompt --- and of course, pre-arranged --- action by Oswald. Quite what this event could be, or what Oswald's part in it would be, boggles the imagination. But the idea has some explanatory power. The next two ideas seem more realistic, having more explanatory than the first idea, since both explain why Oswald, when outside the cinema, would have looked very apprehensive. Briefly, what these next two ideas have in common --- it all seems very surprising at first --- is that Kennedy's death meant to Oswald that something had gone horribly wrong. There are two ways in which this could happen: (i) Oswald was conned by rogue CIA agents into believing that President Kennedy, keen to invade Cuba (to retrieve his loss of face over the Bay of Pigs), and desperate for a justification for such an action, sanctioned a plan whereby an unsuccessful assassination attempt on him could be trailed through Oswald back to Castro. Oswald's role was to be a 'Communist' plant with appropriate Moscow baggage to whom the assassination rifle could be traced. A bit more complicated this one. Some rogue FBI agents (Mafia friendly) could have made out to Oswald that they had for some time suspected a plot to kill Kennedy. Oswald, because of his past intelligence work, could have been conned into thinking that he was to infiltrate the group and to feed back information. This Oswald may have done consistently and accurately. The group could have been directed by pro-Castroists operating through FBI/Mafia contacts. Not impossible. On September 7th, '63 Castro had issued a veiled warning to Kennedy: "if the American leaders persist in their terrorist attacks upon the lives of the American leaders, they themselves would not be safe." (Michael Kurtz, "The Crime of The Century", 2nd edt.,'93, xlix ) Castro was convinced that since the summer of 1960, the CIA had been instigating assassinations attempts on him. Possibly working through some specially selected Mafia members --- ‘privileged’ Mafiosi through whom he did drug deals --- Castro could have decided to get Kennedy before Kennedy got him, and these rogue FBI members may have told Oswald that the FBI had got wind of it. Oswald may well have been chosen to “infiltrate” such a group; his selection for the task could have seemed reasonable to him because of his successfully manufactured Communist past and because he had something of a genuine Mafia backround, largely through his Mafia uncle, Charles Murret. [Oswald was born in the crime-ridden section of the French Quarters of New Orleans: his childhood was sent in a Mafia controlled area of bars, strip joints, gambling house. In this area he often lived with hs mother's sister and her husband Charles "Dutz" Murret, who helpde run an illegal gambling network for Carlos Marcello. Charles Murret kept in close touch with Oswald throughout Lee's entire life. He visited Lee when he was in prison following his arrrest over the Free Cuba leaflet fracas, and stayed with him immediately after his return from the Soviet Union. And he kept in touch with Lee whilst he(Lee) was in the marines and the Soviet Union. “The Mafia Killed President Kennedy”, David Scheim, WH Allen, ’88, P 43] Oswald would then have had, through his uncle, ready contact with key Mafia elements. However, although intelligent, Oswald was through inexperience and its accompanying uncritical eagerness, very open to being conned. He may well have thought he was working for the FBI when in fact he was feeding back to corrupt, Mafia friendly FBI and CIA agents. The process of information gathering, the collation of all Oswald's feedback, may well have been surreptitiously organized by the conspirators themselves in order to set Oswald up as a Patsy. Oswald, of course, would have been convinced that his activities were designed to thwart an assassination, that he was therefore, through his supposedly FBI directed activities, making a substantive input into preserving Kennedy's life. It is easy to see how Oswald would have been so shattered by Kennedy's death if either of these last two scenarios were true: in (ii), Oswald would have expected to hear rifle fire, but for Kennedy ---narrowly (but deliberately) --- to escape; in (iii) there would be no rifle fire at all. Oswald, which ever scenario it was, would have realized immediately that either, inexplicably, something at the last minute had gone Horribly Wrong, or that he was involved in a vast web of deception, betrayal and murder. Moreover, he would have realized that, if the latter was true, that he knew too much. My submission is that Oswald's behaviour after the Assassination --- the pursuit of the "desperate purpose" to which Myers refers ---best explained by the fact that Kennedy's death meant for Oswald that something had gone Horribly Wrong, possibly as in scenario (ii) or (iii). How does the death of Tippit fit into the Assassination? Quite possibly, not all. As I have argued in my Presentation, Tippit's death seems very much the work of a hitman. It was the Dallas Police who linked the two, and this linkage was later politically exploited by President Johnson. Possibly --- I think its very likely --- the Dallas Police genuinely believed that the slayer of Tippit was the also the Presidential assassin .But I don't believe the Dallas Police had anything like a free hand. There were those --- very likely President Johnson was the driving force ---who feared the supposed consequences of an openly discovered conspiracy: if an internal plot, such a disclosure would have devastatingly de-stabilizing consequences, or, if the plotters (and their backers) came from another country (Cuba being the most cited example), public awareness could lead swiftly to war, possibly even a nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union. It is easy to see then how President Johnson, if he accepted such a conspiracy view, would, through the FBI, have imposed on the Dallas Police the full force of his Presidential Office to get them to nail Oswald as the lone assassin, hammering home to them that it was a matter of national security which overrode any of the niceties of police procedure. Most likely it was the FBI who tipped off the Dallas Police about the Texas Theatre.. The only possible reason that Oswald would have gone to the movies would have been to meet somebody. [in this connection, note the evidence given by Jack Davis (18 at the time of the incident) to Jim Marrs ("Crossfire", p 353) that the man arrested in the movie house sat next to him (strange in a sparsely attended 900-seater theatre), and then frequently changed his seat, on each occasion sitting next to somebody, giving the imresson that he was trying to locate a contact. This supports the idea that Oswald went to theatre to meet somebody]. The following quotations may illuminate some of the foregoing text:- (i) Detective Jim Leavelle on interrogating Oswald: “He was calm, talked in a natural manner, and was generally very cool in the situation he found himself in. I thought he was a lot cooler than anyone should have been in a similar situation --- a lot cooler than I would have been.” (Interviewed by Myers, P 599) (ii) Will Fritz, on interrogating Oswald: Mr Dulles: What was Oswald's attitude toward the police and police authority? Mr Fritz: You know I didn't have trouble with him. If we would just talk to him quietly like we are talking right now, we talked all right until I asked him a question that meant something, that would produce evidence he immediately told me that he wouldn't tell me about it and he seemed to anticipate what I was going to ask. In fact, he got so good at it one time, I asked him if he had any training, if he hadn't been questioned before." (4H, 214) [Myers quotes this, but omits,as most people do, the last sentence.] (iii) During the spring of 1962, Kennedy's light reading would include a novel by Fletcher Knebal and Charles Bailey, “Seven Days in May” (available at the time of writing on the internet) in which military leaders engineer a coup against a President who seems to them too pacifistic. Asked by a friend whether something of the sort could actually happen, Kennedy said he thought it could." (Richard Reeves, President Kennedy: Profile of Power, 93, p 305.) (iv) "Biographer Evan Thomas concluded that Bobby [Kennedy] "gave lipservice to the single-gunman explanation" in the government's official report on the assassination, but "he never quieted his own doubts." Bobby, according to Thomas, thought the killing might have been the work of the CIA or mobster Sam Giancana or Castro or Jimmy Hoffa or Cuban exiles. Lyndon Johnson shared the conviction that an undetected conspiracy was behind Kennedy's assassination: "President Kennedy tried to get Castro, but Castro got Kennedy first.", he told Joseph Califano, his domestic affairs chief. To overcome Georgia Senator Richard Russell’s resistance to joining the Commission, Johnson warned him that forty million Americans might loose their lives in a nuclear conflict if accusations about Kennedy and Castro were not refuted” (John F. Kennedy: “An Unfinished Life,” Robert Dallek, Allen Lane,’03, ps 698/9)

The time from Lee Oswald’s Departure from the TSBD (12:33:30) to his arrest at the Texas Theatre (1:51) is 77½ minutes A period in which everybody’s behaviour was inexplicable to reason and baffling to experience. I have great respect for Dale Myers’ "With Malice ". A good 75% of the facts for my 2005 DPUK Canterbury Seminar Presentation (“Did Tippit Stop Anybody?”) came from Mr Myers' research. His book is an absolute 'must' for anybody who wants to understand the Tippit slaying. “With Malice” is an immensely impressive effort: well put together, clearly and concisely written, with excellent maps, and digitally enhanced photographs.. If this book doesn’t convince you of Oswald’s guilt, then nothing by any other author would do so. However, for all that it is a far from being an unblemished book.. Michael Grifffith has provided a very detailed critique (“Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?”: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g...ith_Malice.html and I have myself many criticisms additional to those of Mr Griffith. But the book's failures --- well, nearly all of them --- fall under one heading: "With Malice" is dominated by a mind set so fixed on Oswald's guilt that evidence becomes emptied of its immanent value and coherence, and instead is judged transcendentally --- solely by whether it fits into the jigsaw of Oswald's guilt. That the jigsaw of Oswald’s guilt has many well-placed pieces is unarguable --- the jacket evidence and the ballistic results, for example, are impressive --- but, for all that, there is still plenty of room for doubt, and nothing (including the jacket and ballistic coverage) is ironclad. For example, I even very much doubt whether in fact Tippit did stop anybody, let alone confront Oswald. The certainty that Mr Myers searches for doesn't exist. Oswald may have killed Tippit --- but equally he may not have. One thing I do feel, and that is that the official version (despite its excellent mediation by Mr Myers) is totally unconvincing, especially Oswald’s behaviour after leaving the Depository. Mr. Myers is a wonderful singer, but it’s a poor sheet he sings from. I simply can't get any of the Dallas Police version into my head, nor can I reverse the attempt, and get my head into what the Dallas Police say happened. But of course the deficiency could be with me. If so, then I hope (and expect) that others will point it out. There are 16 issues connected with Oswald’s movements and behaviour after the Assassination --- not to mention his gunning down of Tippit --- that completely blitz my mind.. If Mr Myers, or any mainstream student of the Assassination, can answer some of these questions --- no man could answer the lot --- I would consider revising my position. As things are, my feeling is that from when Oswald leaves the Depository( 12:30:30) until he is arrested(1:51), we are dealing with 77½ minutes of madness in which neither Oswald’s behaviour nor that of the Dallas police is penetrable to reason or experience. Well, anyway, here are the questions:- [Note ‘M’ as a reference refers to Dale Myers’ book] If Oswald was entirely the lone assassin, if within the darkest recesses of his mind there cannot be heard even the whisper of a conspirator’s voice, then why did he leave the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD)? Contrary to what Gerald Posner says the TSBD was not the scene of the crime; it was the 6th floor (and only the 6th floor) that was the scene of the Assassination.. Once Oswald had descended the stairs unobserved, and got to the 2nd floor coke machine, he was free. (Remember there were no witnesses to put him on the 6th floor at the time of the Assassination, let alone with a rifle.) [i am putting on one side for the moment (see my later comments) such self-incriminating follies as alleged palm prints and the traceability of a mail-order (?!) rifle.] It would surely have been in Oswald's interests to stay on in the building and to make a point of convincingly talking to as many people as possible. His hope would be that within a few weeks there would be a lot of people who would incorrectly believe that when Kennedy was shot, Lee Oswald was actually with them. However by racing from the building, more or less immediately after the shots have rung out, Oswald was doing two dangerous things: he was, for a start, drawing attention to himself in a way, which however tenuously, could link him ---it would all be very hypothetical, of course --- to the assassination: certainly the police would be obliged to seek him immediately his absence was noted. Secondly, by absenting himself without permission (and without telling anybody) --- and thereby displaying a most disdainful attitude towards his employers --- Oswald was possibly putting his job in jeopardy; almost certainly any promotion. So why did he rush out of the TSBD? The official version --- what we asked to believe --- is that Oswald wanted to go to the movies! Well, according to Captain Will Fritz and Special Agent James B Bookhout that’s what Oswald told them (4H,211; WR 601, 613,619) and they accepted it. And --- at a wide stretch of a very wild imagination --- it could have been true. Oswald was something of a film fan (7H,318)! So that answers our first question --- or does it? Somehow, I don’t think so. (2) But Oswald, keen as he is to get to the local cinema, goes first to his rooming-house to pick up his pistol (and whilst about it he changes his shirt, and trousers), and then --- understandably, because he doesn't want to miss the main film --- he rushes out of the house. He has every reason to be in a hurry. The film he longs to see, “War is Hell”, will be screened in 17 minutes, and Oswald is faced with a 25 minute walk to get there (combine M, 363,514,617). Question: why does Oswald need a pistol to go the cinema? The answer, in effect, that he gives Will Fritz (M 601; WR) is that, like most young men, he likes carrying a gun with him --- for no other reason! Incredibly --- we have Will Fritz's word for it ---Oswald gave no further answer. Acceptable? (3) But --- in a nano second --- Oswald, on immediately rushing out of the house, changes his mind (possibly because he realizes he’ll miss the main feature). Suddenly he doesn't want to go the cinema. We know this sudden change of mind happens (that is, if we believe the official version of events) because Earlene Roberts, Oswald's acting landlady, sees him standing at a bus stop, to the right (north) of the house, which will take him in an opposite direction to the cinema.(7H, 439;Report Map 158, M360). Why did Oswald in a split second change his mind? (4) We next hear of Oswald --- official version --- when he is on Tenth Street, walking in an easterly direction. Tenth Street, like the movie house, is to the south of Oswald’s rooming house, but it lies eastwards, whereas the movie house is westwards. But this is amazing. At 1:03 Oswald is at a bus stop taking him away from Tenth Street So how then did Oswald get to Tenth Street --- and so quickly too, within 11 minutes (or 3 minutes, if we accept Mrs. Markham’s time keeping) --- if initially he got a bus in the wrong direction? One suggestion has been that Oswald was not waiting for a bus, but waiting to cross the road. This solves the problem of bussing in the wrong direction, but raises another question. Crossing the road would be right for walking to the cinema, as the map shows, but if Oswald was planning to go the Texas Theatre, he firstly, would have turned left (not right) on leaving his rooming house, and then, secondly, have crossed the road. Turning right on leaving Mrs Roberts’ wouldn’t make sense. A further point: if we put the movie house out of our mind (Oswald has decided to go later), and fix on East Tenth Street, then crossing the road wouldn’t make sense either, since that would imply that Oswald was going to West Tenth Street. We can conclude then that if it was Oswald’s intention to move eastwards on East Tenth Street, then he would never have crossed the road, and he would never have turned right on leaving his rooming house. [This is an awkward fact for certain Mafia conspiracists, for example, Jim Gatewood (in "Captain Will Fritz and the Dallas Mafia" (2004)). They argue that Oswald was going eastwards on East Street to meet Jack Ruby at his apartment. Oswald’s getaway was to be organized from there; Ruby’s apartment being 3 blocks east of where Tippit was killed. However although this intriguing hypothesis fully explains why Oswald was on East Tenth Street, it doesn't explain how he got there so quickly (within 3/11 minutes) if his original movement was to bus northwards.]. So again, how did Oswald get to East Tenth Street --- and why? No answer has yet been given. One answer could be that having missed the 1:20 screening, he put off his visit until the second screening, and was going for a stroll to kill time, and ---unexpectedly --- Tippit! (5) Oswald encounters Tippit on 10th street. But what's Tippit doing on Tenth Street.? Tippit's area was District # 78.. Tenth Street is District #91, so why was Tippit out of his area? Myers' answer (P 43, 44, 45) was that Tippit's Dispatcher sent him there because, following the Assassination, all the patrol cars had been sent to Dealey Plaza, except two:#87 (Patrolman R.C.Nelson), and #78 (Patrolman J.D.Tippit). Because Central Oak Cliff had become emptied of patrol cars (all of them supposedly having gone to Dealey Plaza), Nelson and Tippit were asked to stay behind and patrol this central area. Thus on this view, Tippit was in #91 because it was one of the areas he was (unexpectedly) asked to patrol. However, there are 4 difficulties:- (i) Patrolman R.C. Nelson ---- no arguments about this, Myers admits it ---was known to have gone to Dealey Plaza, and not to have covered Central Oak cliff. Did Nelson disobey his instructions, or is it possible that he never received them? And if Nelson never received his instructions, could it be that they were never issued? From this point of view, it is disturbing to know (M, 45) that Nelson was unwilling to discuss the affair with Myers. (ii) When 3 of Tippit’s supervisors, Calvin Owens (7H, 78), Tippit's sergeant supervisor on the fateful day, James Putnam (7H, 74) a sergeant whose job it was to supervise the radio patrol division, and C.E.Hulse (12H, 99), the senior radio dispatcher on Assassination day, gave their separate testimonies, each of them made it clear that he thought that Tippit must have proceeded to Tenth Street on his own initiative, following a general emergency alert for all cars in downtown Dallas to go to Elm & Houston The problem is that the call did not properly apply to Tippit, because# 78 was not a downtown district. Reading their individual testimonies it becomes obvious that even 4 to 5 months after Tippit's death (let alone at the time things were happening), none of these supervisors knew of any specific instructions given to Tippit to move into Central Oak Cliff, and that they could --- in effect --- only guess as to why Tippit assigned to #78, was shot in #91. (iii) About two weeks after the Assassination, and on the very first day that the Commission started its work (5th Dec.’63), the Dallas Police submitted the tapes of all the dispatcher calls associated with both deaths, Kennedy's and Tippit's. This original submission did not contain any instructions to Tippit to proceed to the Central Oak Cliff area.(4H,185/6). However, 4/5 months after this original submission, on 22 April, '64,, Jesse Curry, as the Chief of Dallas Police, was called to give his testimony to the Commission, and in the course of doing so he brought along a new version of the dispatcher calls, one which included the Tippit instructions (4H, 185/6). Amazing! 145 days after Tipipt's death, the instructions sending him into Central Oak Cliff (which none of Tippit's supervisory personnel knew existed) suddenly appear! But where had the dispatcher calls been all that time? Why did it take 4/5 months to discover them? And why did none of Tippit’s hands-on-supervisors know about these instructions, either at the time they were issued, or even 145 days later? Why was each of one of his supervisors --- Owens, Putnam and Hulse --- allowed to appear before the Commission ignorant of the instructions (allegedly) given to Tippit, and because of this ignorance, were reduced to near floundering speculation when questioned on Tippit’s seemingly irregular movements? (d) Myers tells us that because so many cars had been sent to Dealey Plaza from Oak Cliff that the central area of Oak Cliff was left uncovered in consequence, and that this lack of coverage explains why Tippit, along with Nelson, was sent into the central area. But this is difficult to understand as it contradicts the original dispatcher instruction --- the one Tippit would have heard over his car radio ---- “Attention all squad cars in the downtown area, code 3 [full speed, red light and siren] to Elm Street & Houston, with caution.….” (7H, 81). In other words, the Oak Cliff area was not being emptied of cars (the instruction applied only to downtown cars) and there was therefore no reason why Tippit should have been called away from #78. Myers inadvertently confirms this when he says (P 54) that there were other patrol cars within 2 miles of Tenth Street, and on page 115 that “within a few minutes dozens of police cars converged on the area of the Tippit shooting.” (6) Why did Oswald feel threatened by Tippit's approaching police car? (I am assuming Myers' Directional Change Theory) Oswald was doing nothing wrong. He was just walking along a sidewalk. Why should he be singled out? Anyway, Oswald was quick witted, highly articulate and assertive. Myers describes him as a "master of self control" (p208) Oswald could certainly have masterfully parried any interrogative swipes from a DP patrolman. So what had he to worry about? And if Oswald was apprehensive of police cars (frightened of being stopped and searched?), then what was he doing carrying a revolver? And if Oswald was so frightened of police cars, where ever did he get the nerve to shoot President? Surely shooting the Most Powerful Man in the World and then getting wobbly knees on seeing a police is like a Big Game hunter quailing at the approach of a Pekinese dog? [but putting aside Myers' erroneous Change of Direction Theory, and returning to reality Oswald in fact would never have seen Tippit's police car until it overtook him and stopped in front of him]. (7) But why would Tippit have noticed Oswald? Oswald was: (i) 6 years younger than the suspect, and (ii) about 2 stones lighter, and, according to the original dispatcher tapes, (iii) 3 inches taller than wanted man (Compare 7H, 81 and 21H, 398 with WR 614) Moreover all Tippit would have seen of Oswald would have been his rear view. Myers uses Directional Change Theory to explain Tippit's suspicions of Oswald, but, as I showed in my Presentation to the DPUK Canterbury Seminar in 2005, this theory is incorrect. Myers writes (p 354) of Oswald's noticeable "demeanor and suspicions actions", but, again, as I showed in my Presentation, none of this has any basis in fact. And anyway, what questions could Tippit possibly ask Oswald? How do you interrogate a man whose only offence is just to walk along a sidewalk? (8) Within the context of the official view, Oswald could have had no reason for shooting Tippit. We have discussed this earler (see 6). So if Oswald shot Tippit, then Oswald must have "flipped", and shot Tippit in blind panic. But here is a problem: Oswald when he left the killing scene --- as I showed in my Presentation --- didn't flee in a panic --- which is what would be expected considering he killed in a panic --- but in a comparatively slow, 'leisured' way, without the slightest sign of fear. How can this difference ( between blind panic and iron coolness) be reconciled? (9) Myers tells us that Oswald felt severely threatened by police cars. He comments (p 363) that Oswald seemed to have taken 20 minutes to move from Tenth Street to the movie house --- normally a ten minute walk. Myers attributes slowness this to Oswald fleeing from main roads to alleyways and side streets, in order to avoid all the hustle and bustle around him: Oswald, says Myers, is trying to avoid the lawmen who have poured into the area (mostly concentrated on Tenth Street) and the siren-shrieking police cars. Later. Oswald encountered a stream of police cars on Jefferson Boulevard. Johnny Brewer, a manager of a shoe shop very near the cinema, notices both Oswald and the siren-blasting police cars. He sees that Oswald looks nervous and disheveled, and he associates this with the passing police cars. But why? A police car with its siren on tells everybody four things: (i) the police car has a destination in view; (ii) it is in an extreme hurry to get there; (iii) the car's driver puts more emphasis on quick arrival than on surprise and (iv), in consequence of these three factors, that neither the driver (nor any one of the other occupants of the car) is interested on what's going on in any of the sidewalks they speed by. And the reason is obvious: at 75 mph, the 60 yards separation between Johnny Brewer’s shoe shop (Hardy’s Shoe Store) and the Texas Theatre (M 141), can be covered in 1.7 seconds. No time for noticing anything! Oswald was sensible enough to know this. He should in fact have been reassured by the fast moving police cars: if they were passing through an area, they would obviously not be concerned with anything in the area. So why was the "calculating" Oswald (M 359), the" master of self control" (M 208) so frightened? The story, as it’s told, simply doesn’t make sense. And, for the same reasons, just to recover the same ground for emphasis, why did both Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal think that police cars speedily passing through Jefferson Boulevard were trailing Oswald in Jefferson Boulevard? (M, 144,158) Again, the story doesn’t make sense. (10) If Oswald was so frightened of police cars, what was he doing carrying the very revolver with which he had shot Tippit --- the one and only thing that could incriminate him? Oswald’s behaviour is completely senseless. (11) Oswald, we are told, in the heat of his getaway, discarded his jacket. This would have created a problem for him, especially when it came to concealing his revolver. A revolver tucked into his belted trousers, but under his shirt, would have been conspicuous by its bulge. To avoid this, he would have had to wear his shirt outside his trousers. But Oswald didn’t wear his shirt outside his trousers. Pictures of him taken on his arrival at City Hall, immediately after his arrest, show his shirt firmly in his trousers --- a tight fitting shirt (judging by photographs) --- and as Oswald was rushed at full speed from the cinema to a police car, it is very difficult to believe that there would have been time (or that anybody would have had the inclination) to tuck in his shirt!. Indeed, the picture Myers has (P 401) of Oswald being pushed into the rear seat of a police car, shows that his shirt, in the struggle, had been nearly wrenched from him. Moreover, had Oswald been wearing his shirt outside trousers, this would have been a very distinguishing feature. Surely, then, Johnny Brewer, in describing the suspicious man to a member of the cinema staff (M, 144) would not have restricted his description to "wearing a brown shirt", but would have added the most distinguishing feature "outside his trousers". . (12) If Oswald was not wearing his shirt outside his trousers, why didn't Johnny Brewer notice the strange bulge in Oswald's waist band --- and deduce what it was? Actually, there is a big problem here. Johnny Brewer claimed that, unlike Julia Postal, who knew only of Kennedy's death, that he also knew of Tippit's murder (M 141), that is, he knew that 25 minutes ago, 6 blocks away (M 141), a policeman had been gunned to his death. Johnny Brewer noticed that Oswald's hair seemed sort of "messed up" (M, 141); that he was “walking a little faster than usual" (M, 142), and looked as if he had been running (M, 141); in addition, Oswald looked “scared”, and “funny” (M, 141). Brewer also described Oswald's shirt as a brown sports one, and recalled that "his shirt tail was out" (M 141, 142), an observation which implies that the rest of his shirt --- the front, for example, the bit covering the gun --- was tucked in. But, despite the fact that through the news of the President's death, and then through the news of the murdered Tippit, Brewer had been alerted to Oswald as a suspicious persons, and claimed to have frisked him visually, Brewer never noticed that Oswald was concealing, within a tight-fitting shirt, a handgun. It is scarcely conceivable, given the context of his suspicions, that Brewer never looked. So the question must obviously be, if Oswald was stupid enough to carry a gun into the movie house, why did neither Johnny Brewer nor Julia Postal notice it? Could it be that Oswald was never carrying one? (13) About that jacket: if the police were so confident that it really was Oswald's (the one he as wearing when he shot Tippit, and the one he made his get away in ), then why didn't they make him wear it at his line-up? Also the very famous colour custody- photograph of Oswald (M, 394) shows him clad above the waist in only his vest: why wasn’t the photograph taken with Oswald wearing his reddish brown “pepper and salt” shirt (WR 615) --- the one he is alleged to have shot Tippit in --- plus the discarded jacket? People would then know what the allegedly fleeing Oswald looked like --- and whether the jacket actually fitted him. (14) Police cars going up and down Jefferson Boulevard, but we are never told why. Where were they going? Why the sirens? Were they following 'leads'? Then suddenly, amongst all this siren screeching of police cars, something happens. At 1:42 (27 minutes after the police time for Tippit's death), Julia Postal phones Dallas Police Headquarters: "I know you men are very busy, but I have a man in the theatre that is running from you for some reason...... (M, 158)" She answers a few standard questions, and gives a description of the man. 5 minutes later, most of the police in Oak Cliff --- one witness counted 20 to 30 "frenzied" officers---are at the movie house.( M, 146 386, 387). They are very heavily armed: "rifles, pistols --- you name it ---", said the same witness (M, 146). Actually there were 15 of them (M, 556) --- it’s just that they seemed more --- by the excited way they behaved! And in addition to rifles, one or two had shotguns, according to Julia Postal (M,554). But what on earth is going on here? The lead from Julia Postal was very insubstantial and vague. Obviously the police had to act on it, but their response was out of all proportion to the lead as received by them. All the police knew was that a young man had entered the Texas Theatre and hadn't paid for his ticket, and that this man acted 'suspiciously' in that he appeared to be entering the cinema, not in a relaxed way, with the intention of enjoying the film, but in a very fraught way, as if trying to avoid something (or some one) outside the theatre. Now, so far as the police were concerned, this could have been a very sound perception, or, alternatively, it could have been a very mistaken one, an aberration of observation and deduction induced by the very excited and fearful atmosphere of the Assassination. And yet as soon as the lead (sound or aberrational) was received, it became transformed from just one lead among many (think of all those police cars racing --- chasing leads? --- along Jefferson Boulevard) into the lead. After Oswald is arrested, we never hear of any more leads. His guilt is never in doubt (M 178,179, 180). And this transformation --- from a lead into the lead --- happened immediately. But how? We are never told. Strangely the question is never asked.

Yes, I will get the Tippit presentation ready for posting after Easter.

In discussing the Single Bullet (SB), the discussion has centred mainly on the medical evidence. The geometrical evidence has largely been ignored. Artistic illustrations exist in abundance, but not scaled drawings*. A full geometrical analysis would involve angles and distances. However, I have discovered that the Single Bullet theory (SBt) can easily be disproved geometrically simply by concentrating on the LONGITUDINAL component of each of the angles. I can prove that, given the basic data of the SBt, the bullet must have come into the car from one of two buildings, the Dal-Tex or the Records. My argument goes as follows:- (1) The Zapruder film shows Kennedy passing out of view, seemingly unhurt, at Z205, and coming into view, wounded, at Z225. From this fact, on the official view, only one conclusion is possible: that the SB strike must have been in this Zapruder range. (2) Leading defenders of the SBt (Posner, Myers, Bugliosi) put the SB strike at Z223, when, according to Myers' interpretation of the Zapruder film, Connally's shoulders were turned 37° to the right.** (3) The LONGITUDINAL path of the bullet through Connally's chest made an angle of 66.5° with his shoulder-line.*** This angle comes from the HSCA, and is supported by Myers on his website (www.jfkfiles.com). (4) The Single Bullet (CE399) emerged in a near-pristine state, which means that in its passage through Connally it could not have struck any bony substance. Therefore the bullet could not have undergone any deflection: the bullet must, if the SBT is true, have passed through Connally in the same straight path that it went through Kennedy. (5) Michael Baden, the Chairman of the HSCA medical panel, confirmed this fact (4) in conversation with Gerald Posner. ["Case Closed", ps 334/5 ]**** (6) These facts by themselves (the 37° shoulder turn, the 66.5° chest transit of the bullet, and its straight path) geometrically establish that Oswald could NOT have been the shooter. Why?. (7) Because ONE VERY SIMPLE POINT AND LINE DIAGRAM SHOWS that the angles involved necessitate a bullet coming into the car(rear view) from L---> R, that is from a location opposite to the TSBD. To facilitate quick comprehension of my diagram, I have added two more diagrams. These additional diagrams are far from being a necessity, but some people may find them helpful. (9) No mathematics is required, other knowing what an angle is, and what parallels and perpendiculars are. (10) FIRST DIAGRAM AB is the actual midline of the Presidential car. The lines either side of AB are imaginary lines drawn parallel to AB. A bullet enters the car travelling across AB in the direction Y <--- X. It will be noticed that the bullet crosses all the imaginary lines in the same way (angle and direction) that it crosses AB. (11) A very important point follows from this. If, on any two-dimensional, point-and-line diagram, we mark where the SB strikes Connally's shoulder, and draw through this point an imaginary line parallel to the actual midline of the car, then we can determine, from this imaginary parallel, the direction of the bullet (L ---> R, or R --- L) with reference to the midline of the car. (12) DIAGRAM TWO Helicopter, over-head View E is the centre of the top of Connally's head (helicopter, over-head view); passing through E, is A1B1 an imaginary line parallel to the midline of the car; CD is an imaginary line at right angles to A1B1. EF is a section of Connally's shoulder-line. When it coincides with CD, Connally is facing the front. According to the SBt, when Connally is struck by the SB, EF makes an angle of 37° with CD. The SB travels H --- > I, and in doing so it strikes Connally at F, his right armpit, passing through his chest at an angle of 66.5°.[Myers, as I said in (3) on his website accepts this figure from the HSCA] The dotted line IG is the perpendicular from I to EF. It shows that as the SB travels F ---> I, it moves also from F to G, ie., with reference to Connally's shoulder's-line, it is moving R ---> L. (13) DIAGRAM THREE This the diagram that exonerates Oswald This is exactly the same as Diagram Two, except that at F (where the bullet strikes Connally's right armpit), an imaginary line JK has been drawn. JK is parallel to A1B1, and therefore parallel to AB, the car's actual midline. The construction of JK shows clearly that H ---> I, the path of the bullet, comes into the car on the left of JK --- ie., the bullet comes into the car from L ---> R. (12 ) Therefore Oswald cannot be the shooter, because any bullet that he could have fired into the car would travel R ---> L. QED ENDNOTES *The Report, despite its discussions on the bullet's trajectory, and its mention of angles and distances did not produce a single accurate, scaled diagram. Robert Frazier offered only one diagram to the Commission (CE 556), and that was to illustrate the trajectory of the bullet from its supposed point of fire in the TSBD to Kennedy’s right shoulder/neck; he did not offer any diagrams illustrating the Single Bullet trajectory across the car, even though he made definite statements about Connally's shoulder turns and the trajectory of the SB.(5H,169/74). He told the Commission: " ....I can only say that my opinion must be based on your assumption that there was not a deviation of the bullet through the President's body and no deviation of the bullet through the Governor's body, no deflection. On that basis then you can say that it is possible for both of them to have been hit with one bullet." (5H,173) His failure to supply diagrams (so vitally needed where there are important references to significant angles) render his statements purely guesswork. Why the Commission did not insist on getting something better from him is a mystery. The modern defenders of SBt (Posner,Myers and Bugliosi) disdain diagrams, believing that geometrical issues can be solved by words alone ** See Myers' website " Secrets of A Homicide"( Summary & Conclusions, Section 1, page 1/3, "Zapruder Frames" 223 & 224). Myers (referring to Frame 223) writes: "...he (Connally) is rotated 37° right ......" *** On his website ("Summary & Conclusions", Section 2, page 2 ) Myers writes: "......the bullet was found to pass through JBC at an angle 24.5° downward and about 23.5° right to left." [A bullet entering Connally's right armpit and moving longitudinally 23.5° leftwards would make a longitudinal angle of (90 -23.5)° ie., 66.5° with his right shoulder-line. ] **** The Commission believed --- it was never questioned by them--- that the bullet that passed through Kennedy's back and exited just below his Adam's apple (ie in the region of his tie) passed through his body without deflection, and continued in its straight path through Connally's right armpit and in this straight path exited just below his right nipple. It must be remembered that the Commission believed that the bullet that entered Kennedy’s neck(shoulder/back), and exited just below his Adam’s apple, did so in a straight path. The principles which underlay such a belief must, out of consistency, be applied to Connally. The Report (p88), in describing the passage of the shoulder/ neck bullet through Kennedy, pointed out that the bullet struck no bone, and on this basis, by assuming a straight-line passage through Kennedy (at the believed downward angle), concluded that the bullet exited from the just below his Adam's apple. Arlen Specter put the matter very clearly and simply. by suggesting that the bullet passed directly through Kennedy because it struck "only soft tissue and exiting on his neck"(6H,93). Later, when hearing testimony from Frazier, Specter described the bullet that went through Kennedy's neck/ shoulder as "hitting no bones, and proceeded in a straight line"(5H,168). Two years later, in the famous “Life” magazine Assassination article of November 25th,’66 entitled “A Matter of Reasonable Doubt”, Arlen Specter was even more explicit, claiming that the Single Bullet could not have undergone a deflection through Kennedy “since it struck no bone in the President’s neck” Clearly the assumption was that a high- velocity bullet would proceed through somebody in a straight line unless deflected by a bony substance. The corollary of this is that unless there is some bone matter in its path, a bullet will move through a body in a straight line. This has a very dark consequence for Myers because he should be asked to explain what bone in Connally caused the deflection he (rather vaguely) writes about. Arlen Specter took it for granted that the Single Bullet travelled in a straight line until it exited Connally . As did Robert Frazier who believed that for the Single Bullet theory to be credible, there had to be no deflection. (5H,172) Dr Shaw, who operated on Connally, attending to all parts of Connally's entry and exit wounds, never made any reference to a deflection, except when, on exiting Connally, the Single Bullet took out a portion of rib, but even then, according to Dr. Shaw, there was "probably very little in the way of deflection" (6H,86; see (4H,105) ). When, on 9th November ’77, Dr Shaw was interviewed by HSCA Forensic Panel, he made no reference to any deflection.(HSCA Volume 1,272/5) A point to be emphasized is that if there had been a deflection it couldn't have passed unnoticed. The reason is that, as Dr Shaw pointed out to the WC, "When bone is struck by a high-velocity missile it fragments and acts much like bowling pins when they are struck by a bowling ball --- they fly in all directions" (6H,88) Had there been a deflection --- had some bone matter been struck --- then the shattered bits of bone would have been immediately noticeable. Dr. Michael Baden, Chairman of the HSCA Forensic Panel, was presumably of this opinion when he told Gerald Posner in a November ’92 interview that Connally’s “ wounds were clearly the result of one bullet passing straight through him" [ Posner, “Case Closed, Chapt. 14 (p335, paper b. edtn.; my emphasis)]. This explains why Posner does not himself accept the deflection theory. On page 477 (Appendix A, pb edtn.), he writes that the trajectory of the Single Bullet was “not significantly altered until the bullet was slightly deflected by Connally’s rib.” Myers offers no explanation for his deflection at Z223: he simply implies that a deflection must have occurred because the Single Bullet demands it. "In order to exit just below JBC's right nipple (based on JBC's position at Zapruder frame 223), the bullet would then have to follow a slightly altered course after entering the Governor's body....." (Section 2, Summary & Conclusions, "Secrets of a Homicide") Dale Myers offers no explanation for his deflection at Z223: he simply implies that a deflection must have occurred because the Single Bullet demands it. The diagram below illustrates what Myers is saying. The legend and the diagram are the same as in the main text, except with one difference: a bullet path H1--->I1 has been added. This is the bullet path that Myers believes in. He has to put his faith in it because he is convinced that Oswald was the shooter, and that therefore the bullet must have come into the car from R --- > L . Dale Myers believes that this R ---> L angle (the bullet path H1--->I1 ) is 10°. [On his website, he has a computer illustration of the bullet coming into the car at 100] The problem for Dale Myers is that this bullet path only makes an angle of 43° with Connally's shoulder-line. The angle, as we have seen, should be 66.5°. Therefore the bullet, on striking Connally's right armpit must turn through 23.5° right --- Dale Myers' "slightly altered course" --- thereby giving the 'illusion' (as Dale Myers would see it )that the bullet's path has been the L ---> R trajectory H ---> I. This diagram illustrates Dale Myers’ bullet that that, on striking no bony substance,’ magically’ changes its direction on hitting Connally’s right armpit Interestingly, on his website, Myers only quotes the opinions of 2 doctors: Dr Charles Petty, who sat on the HSCA Forensic Panel, and the aforementioned Dr. Michael Baden. DR. Petty was one of the HSCA Forensic Panel who interviewed Dr Shaw . In his summary of the interview to the Forensic Panel, Dr Petty expressed the opinion that Dr Shaw could not establish that all the bone damage done to Connally’s lung came from the shattered rib; and Dr Petty thought that possibly, because of this seeming inadequacy, some other bone might have been struck, with a consequent deflection.(HSCA 8,149/50). However all the other Panel members rejected Dr Petty’s doubts, and Dr Baden in his testimony to the Committee made no mention of a deflection. (HSCA 1,276?7). Neither did Dr. Petty in his testimony to the HSCA Committee (HSCA Vol 1, 376/81) The truth is that no medical authority testified either to the Warren Commission or to the HSCA that the bullet that passed through Connally underwent a deflection whilst transiting his body. l

My name is Alaric Rosman. I was born in Rottingdean, Sussex in 1934. My last two jobs were as a Maths teacher at an East London Comprehensive School, and as a Room Day Warder at the National Gallery, where I was a union secretary for 3 years. I have been interested in the Kennedy Assassination on and off for most of my life, but very intensely so since my retirement in ’99. I have had 11 articles published:- 5 in Walt Brown’s Deep Politics Quarterly:- a critical review of Dale Myers’ With Malice, July 2002, and Did Tippit Stop Anyone? A 4-part series running from October 202 to July 2003 In addition, I have had 6 articles published in the Dealey Plaza Echo: Helen Louise Markham and Document 106, a 3-part series, starting in March 2004, continuing to November 2004, and 2.3 Seconds on Elm Street, a trilogy dealing with Clint Hill’s run from one car to another, published March 2005; Also in June 2005, I gave a 60-minute presentation entitled Did Tippit Stop Anyone? (an extension and revision of my Deep Politics Quarterly article) to the Third Dealey Plaza International Weekend Seminar held at Christ Church University College, Canterbury, Kent.