Gil Jesus

Ron, the whole story stinks. How was Oswald sitting down with a revolver in his waistband ? That's pretty uncomfortable. He was going to do that for the length of two movies ? With that sharp hammer sticking in his gut ? The house lights were up. Allegedly, Oswald wasn't wearing a jacket. Why didn't McDonald see the revolver if it was in Oswald's waistband ? Even if the shirt was covering it, he should have seen the bulge of the handle when Oswald stood up. After all, they were looking for an armed man. If he saw it, why did he get close enough to "pat him down" instead of drawing his own weapon ? What made witness George Applin say that between Oswald and McDonald. "one of the two had a pistol in his right hand ". (CD 87, pg 558 ) Which one ? Was this weapon a "throwdown" ? I have a lot of questions about this encounter.

You make some good points here, not the least of which is his description of the gunman unloading the shells. You're spot on that you wouldn't roll the cylinder to unload a revolver. You'd roll it to load, but that's a two handed operation and he said he never saw the gunman use his left hand. It makes for great drama, but it makes no sense. My feeling is that if these guys were telling the truth, they're stories should at least have some semblance in basic details. And those details should make some sense and be supported by the facts. As you point out, they don't. So how reliable are their accounts ?

Callaway affidavit to the SS, 12/3/63 says when the gunman got about twenty feet and across the street from him he hollered at him. ( CD 87, pg. 552 ) https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=552 It was a typo that I forgot to change.

Sounds like they found the shell and were intending to keep it as a souvenir, but got second thoughts about it when the cops called.

I didn't count how many, but I was thinking along those same lines as I was reading the testimony. All those Dallas cops there and the witnesses find the shells ? What kind of police are those ? Sounds like they couldn't find a felon in a state prison. LOL

THE DAVISES Barbara Jeanette and Virginia Davis were sisters-in-law married to brothers. They lived in separate apartments in the same building, on the southeast corner of 10th Street and Patton Ave. On November 22, 1963, both women were in the apartment of Barbara when J.D.Tippit was murdered. Like many of these witnesses, their recollections of what they heard, what they saw and what they did are so different that a reasonable and prudent person has to question their credibility. They agreed that they only heard two shots, they agreed that they saw a man with a gun cutting across their lawn and they agreed on the seating arrangement when they viewed the lineup. That was about it. They did not agree on the sequence of events, the description of the man they saw, or which one of them at the lineup identified Oswald first. On November 22nd, 1963 Barbara Davis swore out an affidavit to the Dallas Police Department that gave no description of the man she saw. She made no mention of opening the door, no mention of going out onto the porch and no mention that the gunman looked up and smiled at her, all details she would add in subsequent versions of the events. As time went on, this witness' version of events seemed to take on a life of its own. With each version came an addition producing more drama. Ten days later, she gave an affidavit to the US Secret Service indicating that " a few minutes after 1:00 pm" she heard two gunshots, ran to the front and "opened the front door and also the screen door" to see a man with a gun cutting across her lawn. ( CD 87, pg. 447 ) By the time she was deposed on March 25, 1964, her story had expanded. She repeated opening the front door and screen door in her testimony ( 3 H 343 ) and added that she was standing on the porch ( ibid., pg. 344 ). That's a pretty brave lady. She said that she saw the man with the gun in his right hand shaking the shells out into his left hand. ( ibid. ) She saw Mrs. Markham and heard her screaming that "he killed him " and noticed the police car when Markham pointed at it. She claimed that the gunman looked first at Mrs. Markham, then at her and smiled. ( 3 H 344 ) She then went inside to call police. For the first time, she described the man she saw as 23-24 years old with dark hair, average height and weight, wearing a dark colored woolen sports coat with dark trousers and a light colored shirt. In fact, she called his coat a black coat. ( 3 H 347 ) Her description of the killer's clothing eliminates Oswald as that killer. Oswald was wearing neither a dark colored woolen sports coat nor a light colored shirt when he was arrested. In fact, when she was shown the jacket and shirt currently in evidence, she refused to identify either as the jacket and shirt the killer was wearing. ( ibid. ) So according to the official record, Barbara's "positive identification" was that Oswald killed Tippit wearing a dark colored woolen sports jacket, dark pants and a light colored shirt. Ridiculous. What's even more ridiculous was the confusing testimony of her sister-in-law, Virginia. Virginia agreed that they heard two shots and ran to the door, but in her affidavit given to Dallas Police on the evening of November 22nd, ( which BTW lists her as a 16 year old white male ) she said that "we ran to the side door on Patton Street". ( 19 H 429 ) Like her sister-in-law, she offered no description of the man she saw. Ten days later she swore out another affidavit, this one to the Secret Service, that they heard two gunshots and "ran to the front door" and "went out on the porch." ( CD 87, pg. 447 ) In this affidavit, she swears that the man she saw had the weapon in his left hand and was shaking the shells out into his right. But in her deposition given on April 2, 1964, she reverses that, saying that the gunman had the weapon in his right hand and was emptying the shells into his left palm. ( 6 H 459-460 ) She testified that the gunman "didn't look like he was over 20 " and for the first time she describes him wearing a tan jacket and dark trousers. ( ibid., pg. 457 ) Her "description" comes almost 6 months after the assassination, well after Oswald and his clothing were known. She testifies that when they ran to the front door, they never opened the door and never went out onto the porch, but instead looked out a screen door that remained closed. ( ibid., pg. 459 ) She's asked if the gunman looked up at them and she replied no. ( ibid. pg. 466 ) Then there's the sequence of when Barbara called the police. Was it before or after they saw the man with the gun ? First she claims it was before ( ibid., pg. 460 ) then after ( ibid, pg 466 ). It's at this point that her testimony becomes so confusing, the Commission's counsel has to give her an unprecedented 3 minute break in order to get the sequence right. ( ibid., pg. 467 ) She finally settles on Barbara calling the police after they saw the man with the gun. At the police lineup, each one of the Davises testified that she was the first one who identified Oswald. Barbara claimed that right ( 3 H 350 ) as did Virginia ( 6 H 462 ). The Davises viewed lineup # 3. Detective Sims conducted lineup # 3 at 6:30 pm on Friday. As I've said before, the person conducting the lineup is not supposed to know which man is the suspect. According to Capt. Fritz, Sims was present at the first interrogation session between 2:15 and 4:05 ( 4 H 209 ) and thus knew that Oswald was the suspect prior to his conducting the 6:30 lineup. In addition, Sims testified that he KNEW ALL THREE OF THE POLICE FILLERS that were used in the lineup he conducted. ( 7 H 179 ) That's another no-no. As if having one blond in the first two lineups was not enough, the Dallas Police put TWO blonds in the lineup with Oswald and Ables for lineup # 3. ( 7 H 179 ) In this lineup, the witnesses, Barbara and Virginia Davis described the man they saw running across their lawn as a white male, slender, light complexion, with either light brown or black hair ( 3 H 349 ) ( 6 H 457 ). But both fillers Richard Walter Borchgardt and Ellis Carl Brazel had blond hair, and a ruddy complexion. ( 7 H 179 ) And Ables also had a ruddy complexion ( 7 H 242-243, 7 H 168 ) None of these men matched the description given by either of the witnesses, making Oswald the only choice. According to their testimonies, this is how they were seated during the lineup: Because they were allowed to view the lineup together rather than separately and the fact that the seating was so close together, it was impossible for any identification to not to be heard by the other. Finally both women denied having seen Oswald in the newspaper before viewing the lineup. While Virginia's excuse was that they didn't get the paper until the following morning, ( 6 H 461 ) Barbara testified that they got an evening paper but she was too busy to read it. ( 3 H 348 ) While the world was glued to its TV sets and the front pages of newspapers around the globe flashed news of the President's assassination, these women were too busy to notice. These gals couldn't agree on which door they ran to, whether or not that door was opened, which hand the gunman held the weapon, how old he was, what he was wearing, whether or not he looked up at them, when Barbara called police or which one identified Oswald first. They couldn't even agree on what part of the day they received the newspaper. But the Commission had no problem with these witnesses' credibility as long as they "positively identified" Oswald as the man they saw. Their contradictory and ever changing statements create for these witnesses a credibility issue. Their statements and testimony create more questions than they answer. Which version is correct ? Who's telling the truth and who's mistaken ? What did they really see ? So far we've seen six witnesses whose stories have consistently changed over the years, whose accounts of what they saw conflicted and whose "positive identification" of Oswald was a result of pressure and manipulation of the lineups by the Dallas Police. But there is more. NEXT WEEKEND: PART IV ---THE JEFFERSON AVE WITNESSES

Dan, I'll be posting part III of "The Tippit Witnesses" tomorrow, centering on the Davises. I'm planning on Part IV the following weekend to cover the witnesses on Jefferson Ave.. That will conclude the nine witnesses that the WC said "positively identified Oswald" as killer of Tippit. Then I hope to post Part V the following weekend with the witnesses FOR Oswald's innocence. Part VI will be the last installment and will be the summary by defense counsel. ( I like playing a lawyer ) 🙂

oh yeah :-)

TED CALLAWAY AND SAM GUINYARD Ted Callaway and Sam Guinyard both worked at a used car lot a block south of the Tippit murder. Callaway was the manager and Guinyard was a lot porter. The way he told it, either Ted Callaway was the bravest man who ever lived or he was the biggest xxxx. Knowing how many car salesmen I've known in my life, the fact that he was a car salesman makes my choice of the two easier. After hearing gunshots, he confronted an armed man who approached him while himself being unarmed, a man who he testified came within 20 feet of him. This is the kind of heroism that put Hollywood on the map. But I doubt it happened this way. I don't believe that either one of these witnesses were ever close enough to the gunman to be able to identify him. As proof of that I cite their original affidavits given to the Dallas Police on the day of the assassination. Neither witness described the man he saw as being anything other than a "white man". https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/callaway-guinyard-affis.png No description of the man. No description of his clothing. No description of his weapon. Nothing. Another reason to doubt that either of these men got more than a passing glance at the gunman: although they were in the same location and witnessing the same thing, each of them had the gunman running on opposite sides of the street. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/WH_Vol17_236-tippit-map.jpg Then there's the 1:35 Dallas Police broadcast that the gunman was armed with an automatic weapon, a description attributed to Callaway. Both witnesses described the gunman as holding the weapon with the barrel up. Callaway testified that the gunman got within 20 feet of him, Guinyard testified the gunman was 10 feet away. How could anyone that close to the gun mistake an automatic for a revolver when they look nothing alike ? https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/38auto-vs-revolver.jpg Then there are the lineups from which the witnesses chose Oswald. They witnessed Lineup # 2, which included two police detectives and the police clerk Don Ables. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/OSWALD_LINEUP.jpg Jim Leavelle conducted lineup #'s 1,2 and 4 and spoke to the witnesses prior to lineup 2. Leavelle indicated in testimony that he knew that two officers from the Vice Unit and a jail clerk had been used for the first lineup. ( 7 H 263-264 ) Leavelle testified that he had seen Oswald, " the first day he was arrested and when they brought him in and out of the office taking him to and from the jail, and of course, I had saw him at the lineups, what-have-you ". ( 7 H 268 ) So Leavelle was more than aware that Oswald was the suspect. He knew it. This is a no-no. See my essay on the police lineups. Sam Guinyard lied under oath when he testified that no police officer spoke to him prior to his viewing the lineup. Mr. Ball : Did the police officer say anyhting to you before you went in there ? Mr. Guinyard : No Sir. Mr. Ball: Did he say that he thought they had the man who killed the police officer ? Mr. Guinyard: No sir, he didn't tell me that. ( 7 H 400 ) But Detective Jim Leavelle DID speak to the witnesses before they viewed the lineup. Callaway quoted that Leavelle told himself, Guinyard and McWatters that Tippit's killer was in the lineup before they viewed it: Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this busdriver and myself......and Jim told us, "When I show you these guys, be sure, take your time, see if you can make a positive identification.........We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." ( 3 H 355 ) Leavelle influenced their choice by telling the witnesses that the suspect in Tippit's killing and the President's assassination was in the lineup they were about to see. That's another no-no. Guinyard also lied when he said that he was at the murder scene before Domingo Benevides and that Benevides didn't drive up until they loaded Tippit into the ambulance. ( 7 H 398 ) Benevides was the closest witness to the murder and the fact that he went right to the spot and picked up the cartridge shells is proof that he was present AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING. Guinyard's eyesight was so good that he could see the gunman rolling the cylinder of the gun with his right thumb from almost a block away !!!! ( 7 H 397 ) Give me a break. The natural reaction when one hears gunshots and sees a man with a gun heading your way is to take cover. The natural instinct is for self-preservation. Callaway's version of challenging the gunman while himself being unarmed may make for great Hollywood script, but it's unrealistic. He didn't display any courage until he had Tippit's gun in his hand. Then he wanted to go after the guy. I doubt that these witnesses ever got more than a glimpse of the gunman. The more likely scenario was they saw him coming down the street, took cover by ducking between the cars in the lot, then emerged after the man had passed. Yet these were two more of the witnesses who the Commission claimed "positively identified" Oswald as the man they saw. Two witnesses who: 1. Originally could only identify the gunman as nothing more than a white man 2. Saw him fleeing on opposite sides of the street 3. Misidentified his weapon from a distance of 10-20 feet away 4. Lied under oath 5. Were coaxed by a Dallas Police detective in choosing Oswald from a lineup consisting of himself and three police employees. Those are some credible witnesses. And that's some positive identification. But there's more. NEXT WEEKEND: THE DAVISES

Yes. It's just so long and takes a while to research. I spend the week researching and the weekend posting. When it's done I'll have it on my website ( gil-jesus.com) in one narrative or I can e-mail you a copy in an Wordpad .rtf file if you message me with your e-mail address.

The Witnesses By Gil Jesus ( 2021 ) https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/witnesses.jpg Two eyewitnesses saw the shooting and seven eyewitnesses saw the gunman leave the scene with the revolver in hand. These nine witnesses positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man they saw. ( Report, pg. 20 ) First, I'll take on the two witnesses who the Commission claimed saw the shooting : Helen Markham and William Scoggins. HELEN MARKHAM The Commission's star witness to the Tippit murder was Helen Louise Markham, a 47 year old mother of five who was on her way to catch the 1:15 bus to to her waitress job. Her bus stop was a block away from the murder scene and she had stopped at the corner of Patton Ave. and 10th St. to allow traffic to pass before she crossed. Mrs. Markham witnessed that the police cruiser had stopped alongside a young man who had been walking and that the man walked over to the passenger door of the cruiser and seemed to have a conversation with the officer. According to her testimony, the man then backed away from the cruiser and the officer got out of the car slowly. When the officer got to about the front wheel of the cruiser, the man pulled a gun and shot him three times. The fact that this occurred unexpectedly in front of her very eyes caused Mrs. Markham to go into a state of shock, by her own admission, she could not move or speak. In the hours after the murder, Mrs. Markham's state of mind can only be described as "hysterical". Was this because she saw a policeman murdered and the killer was someone she knew and threatened to kill her ? Mrs. Markham was taken to police headquarters to view a lineup before she could fully regain her composure. That lineup ( # 1 ) consisted of three police employees and Oswald. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/OSWALD_LINEUP.jpg For her "positive identification" she chose Oswald even though she testified under oath that she hadn't seen him before, including at the murder scene. ( 3 H 310 ) https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/markham-testimony.png So why would Mrs. Markham identify Oswald if she had never seen him before ? Because she was being pressured by the Dallas Police to choose one of the men in the lineup. She testified that she was surrounded by policemen in the lineup room. ( 3 H 310 ) "..and they kept asking me, which one, which one." ( 3 H 311 ) The fact that they kept pressuring her to pick one indicates that her choice of Oswald was NOT a positive identification. It implies that she hesitated before her choice because she knew that the man she saw kill Tippit was NOT in the lineup. Her testimony that when she picked Oswald she "got weak" and "just kind of fell over" (ibid.) may have been from the fact that she knew she had just identified an innocent man. But Markham left a clue that the man she saw was not Oswald by failing to identify the jacket and shirt in evidence as the same jacket and shirt worn by the killer. ( 3 H 312 ) In fact, her sworn affidavit taken on November 22nd gave NO description of the killer to the Dallas Police other than that he was a "young white man". https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/markham-affidavit_-106.jpg In her statement to the FBI on the same day, Mrs. Markham described Tippit's killer as an "18 yo" with a red complexion and wearing dark trousers. Then she denied she ever said it. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/markham-to-FBI-18yo.png But in a video interview on my Youtube Channel, she says the killer had a ruddy complexion and wore a light shirt, a brown jacket and light grey trousers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMpCeAfrE1s She told reporters that the killer was short, stocky and had bushy hair. Then denied she said that. In a telephone interview, she told attorney Mark Lane that the killer was short, not too heavy and had bushy hair. ( 7 H 502 ) Then denied she ever talked to Lane. Mrs. Markham's description of the killer changed drastically from interview to interview. So you have to question, what exactly DID she see ? WILLIAM SCOGGINS https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/scoggins-1.jpg The second witness who the Commission said saw the shooting was William Scoggins, a cab driver who was parked on the corner of Patton Ave. and 10th St. taking his lunch break. Scoggins' cab was in the path of the killer as he fled. But Scoggins neither saw the shooting nor the face of the killer. When he heard the shots and saw the smoke, he bailed out of his cab. He testified that he did not see the killer's face before the shooting and at the time of the shooting his view of the killer was obstructed by shubbery. ( 3 H 325 ) https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/WH_Vol17-234-scoggins-view-1.jpg Scoggins testified that he heard three or four shots and they were fast. I was excited when I heard them shots...so I started to get out...I must have seen him ( Tippit ) fall as I was getting out of my cab and in the process of getting out of my cab I seen this guy coming around so I got out of sight. ( ibid. ) But other witnesses said the killer walked around the back of the cruiser up to the front and shot Tippit point blank in the head. So how could Scoggins see Tippit fall and the killer run by his cab in the short time it took for him to get out ? He couldn't. By the time the killer passed Scoggins' cab, he would have been outside squatting alongside it. I saw him kind of coming toward me around that cutoff , through there and he never did look at me. He looked over his left shoulder like that as he went by. It seemed like I could see his face, his features and everything, you see. ( 3 H 327 ) It SEEMED like he could see his face ? Either he did or he didn't. Scoggins' cab was to the right of the killer, so if the killer looked over his LEFT shoulder as he passed the cab, how could Scoggins' have seen his face ? Again, he couldn't have. For his "positive identification" Scoggins picked Oswald out of a lineup that included two teenagers and a Mexican. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/PBS-Frontline-Who-Was-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-_Part-3__0002.jpg In addition, Scoggins identified Oswald after seeing his photo in the morning paper. ( 3 H 334 ) After viewing the live lineups, Scoggins was shown a photographic lineup of 4 or 5 men by the FBI. Commission Document 5, pg 77 is an FBI report that says that Scoggins was shown a photograph of Oswald and "could not be sure" that the man he saw in Oak Cliff was Oswald. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/scoggins-no-ident.png In fact, not only was he not sure the man was Oswald, he picked another photo as the man he saw. "he gave me some pictures...I think I picked the wrong picture...after I got through looking at them and I says, I told them one of these two pictures is him...and the one who was actually him looked like an older man than he was to me......he told me the other one was Oswald." ( 3 H 335 ) Scoggins testified that the photo he saw of Oswald looked too old to be the man he saw. Why on earth would the FBI show him a photographic lineup if he had already positively identified Oswald in a live lineup ? Coming in Part II: The Commission's Magnificent Seven

Good point. And if it were an automatic weapon and it jammed, it would look like he was reloading to the untrained eye.

Excellent point and they're different lengths.

Steve, here's another point you don't hear anyone raising: if only four shots were fired, why didn't the unfired rounds drop out of the cylinder when the killer went to unload ? Those rounds were heavier than the empty shells. Why did the lighter empty shells fall to the ground but the heavier unfired rounds stay in the gun ? Doesn't sound right to me.

Good point. I doubt anybody investigating the murder of a brother officer would assume anything. These were either the lousiest most incompetent detectives who couldn't find a criminal in a state prison, or the worst XXXXX and con artists ever to don a police uniform.

THE TIPPIT SHELLS By Gil Jesus ( 2021 ) https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/shells.png ...the cartridge cases found near the scene of the shooting were fired from the revolver in the possession of Oswald at the time of his arrest, to the exclusion of all other weapons.." ( WC Report, pg. 176 ) Based on the evidence I've seen, I would concede that the empty shells currently in evidence were, in fact, fired from the revolver also in evidence. I base this opinion on the fact that the breech and firing pin markings on the shells in evidence matched the breech and firing pin markings on the test shells fired by the FBI. But I cannot accept that they were fired at the Tippit murder scene. I believe that there is sufficient evidence that police tampered with these shells by means of substitution. Back in 1964, at least one member of the Warren Commission suspected this. A QUESTION OF SUBSTITUTION Warren Commission member Rep. Boggs began a line of questioning of FBI expert Cortlandt Cunningham that suggested that Boggs suspected evidence tampering by police. He asked Cunningham if the Oswald bullets were the same bullets used by police departments: Representative BOGGS. Is this a police weapon as well? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; and a very good one. Not in that particular caliber. In other words, the caliber---- Representative BOGGS. That is what I meant. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. 38 S&W is not a popular cartridge in this country. The .38 Special is. Representative BOGGS. 38 Special is? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That cartridge. Representative BOGGS. With police forces? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We use it. Most of your larger police forces use the . 38 Special. It is a better cartridge. ( 3 H 478 ) Boggs' line of questioning was then cut off by assistant counsel Eisenberg, who changed the subject. WITNESS IDENTIFICATION But there IS evidence that the shells currently in the National Archives my not be the shells that were found at the murder scene. Four shells were found at the scene: two by Domingo Benevides, which he gave to Officer J.M. Poe. One by Barbara Davis, who lived in the corner house, which she gave to Capt. G.M. Doughty and the last by her sister Virginia Davis later that day, which she gave to an unidentified Dallas Officer. ( they say C.N. Dhority ) Commission Exhibit 2011 is the FBI report on the shells recovered at the Tippit murder scene. It says that NONE of the three witnesses who found the shells were able to identify the shells currently in evidence as the shells they found. In addition, Officer Poe, who marked the shells with his intials, was unable to find his initials on ANY of the shells and thus could not identify the shells as the ones Benevides gave him. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/discovery.png In spite of this lack of evidence that the shells were found near the Tippit scene, the Commission accepted the identification of officers who handled the shells further down the chain of possession as evidence that the shells were found at the murder scene. Of course, they never considered the shells may have been switched. THE SHELLS AT THE SCENE INDICATE.... More evidence of substitution comes in the radio broadcast of Sgt. Gerald Hill. He allegedly got two shells from Sgt. Pete Barnes who got them from Officer Poe. Sawyer Exhibit A is a transcript of the Dallas Police radio traffic. In that transcript, Sgt. Hill radioed that "the shells at the scene indicate the suspect is armed with an automatic 38 rather than a pistol." https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/shells-indicate.jpg The fact that he used the terminology "the shells indicate" says he read them. Over the years, Hill has admitted making a mistake in his description of the shells. He claimed that he saw "38" and assumed they were automatics. But this is not a mistake a veteran detective could have made because these shells like all shells are clearly headstamped with identification. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/shell-markings.jpg 38 automatic shells are marked "38 AUTO", 38 Special shells are marked "38 SPL" and regular 38 shells are marked "38 CAL". One would think that if he were assuming the shells were one thing or another, he would assume that they were the more popular shell. But in this case, he assumed that they were the less popular automatics. I find that hard to believe. And yet with all this evidence of substitution by police there is still more evidence: the bullets removed from Tippit's body do not match the shells. THE MATCH GAME Four bullets were removed from Tippit's body, one at the hospital so the Dallas Police would have a "known" for their bullet tests and the other three at his autopsy. Three of the bullets in evidence are Winchester-Westerns and the fourth is a Remington-Peters. But of the four shells in evidence, two are Winchester-Westerns and two are Remington-Peters. How is it that the shells don't match the bullets ? The Commission and its apologists theorize that there was a fifth shot ( a Remington-Peters ) that missed and a Winchester-Western shell that was never found. But missed shots don't vanish into thin air. They hit things. What did it hit ? A house ? A tree ? A car ? In order to prove a missed shot, you have to show where it hit, like the shot that missed in Dealey Plaza. That hit the curb. Otherwise, the theory that a shot missed is just that---- a theory. Not evidence. All of these many years later, no evidence of a missed shot has ever surfaced. You would think that the fame associated with the discovery of that bullet would drive any Dale Myers wannabe to his local TruValue store for a metal detector. Finally, there's the Dallas Police broadcast that the killer was armed with an automatic pistol. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/32-automatic.jpg THE UNFIRED ROUNDS The Dallas Police claimed to have retrieved 5 unfired 38 special cartridges from the shirt pocket of Lee Harvey Oswald. but upon closer examination of these cartridges, we see corrosion on the shell part. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/38.bullets.jpg For those of us who have carried guns or worked with guns know that this corrosion is a result of the cartridge having been in a gunbelt or bullet slide for a long period of time. Before the days of speed loaders and bullet pouches, this was the way we carried extra ammunition for revolvers. Oswald owned neither a bullet slide nor a gunbelt. But the police did. CONCLUSION There seems to be enough evidence here to question whether or not the Dallas Police tampered with the shells in this murder. The witnesses who found the shells could not identify the shells in evidence as the shells they found. The first police officer who came into possession of the shells and marked them could not identify the shells as the ones he received. A veteran detective Sergeant identified the shells as automatics. The shells do not match the bullets in number and type. 38 Special ammunition was commonly used by police departments at that time and readily available to anyone who wanted to make a switch. The unfired rounds show corrosion consistent with having spent a long time in a gunbelt or bullet slide both of which Oswald didn't own but were commonly used by police officers.

THE MARKHAM BOYS Two of Mrs. Markham's children, sons William and James come to light when researching this murder. William was interviewed by Mark Lane sometime during June-July 1964 and did what he could to destroy his mother's credibility. He told Lane that " she lied on many occasions, even to members of her immediate family". (CD 1379, pg. 4 ) Such condemnation from her own flesh and blood would seem to cast doubt on anything Mrs. Markham might say, including who she REALLY saw kill Officer Tippit. When it came to the Markham boys, the apple apparently didn't fall far from the tree. William told Lane that "he had no first hand knowledge.....of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer Tippit.....that he had never known Tippit....and at the time of the murder he was in Norfolk, Virginia and did not return to Dallas until May 7, 1964." (ibid., pg. 4-5) But on August 18, 1964, William was interviewed by the FBI on another matter and said that "around October and November 1963, he was sharing an apartment on the second floor of the Monte Leon Apartment House located at 221 Lancaster St., Dallas, Texas." ( CD 1518, pg. 80 ) The point is that he lied to Mark Lane about his whereabouts. He wasn't in Norfolk Virginia until May 1964, he was in Dallas. How much of what he told Lane was the truth and how much was a lie ? Or was it all a lie ? Did he really have no knowledge about Tippit's murder and about knowing Tippit or was that a lie also ? Not to be outdone, the other brother James, was not only a xxxx but had a criminal record to boot. In 1959, at the age of 16, James Markham spent a month incarcerated at the juvenile facility at Gatesville, Texas for burglary and escape. (CD 1456, pg. 4) In 1962, he spent 14 months at the adult correctional facility at Huntsville, Texas, again for burglary. He was paroled on August 23, 1963 and was out of jail when Tippit was murdered. ( ibid. ) James Markham had a reputation as a troublemaker. He was barred from the Oak Cliff Bowling Lanes, a hangout for teenagers in the area, due to his "previous misconduct." (CD 1518, pg. 84 ) Another place the young people liked to hang out was the Texas Theater. There's no evidence that James Markham was barred from there. JAMES MARKHAM, "JERRY TOLLIVER" AND "OZZIE" In August, 1964, James Markham was interviewed by the FBI in regard to his claim that he met Lee Harvey Oswald through a man he called Jerry Tolliver. Markham was in the Dallas County jail awaiting trial for burglary and having been arrested on a warrant for violating his parole. Markham told the FBI that two weeks before the assassination, he was introduced to a "Jerry Tolliver" by an unknown person at the Oak Cliff Bowling Lanes on Jefferson Ave.. He described "Tolliver" as being 27-28 years old, 5'9" tall, 170 lbs with black thinning hair and looking like a weight-lifting type. Three days after this introduction, Markham was on his way to the Oak Cliff Grille when a car pulled up with "Tolliver" at the wheel. Markham could not remember the make model or year of the car. Tolliver had a passenger, a man they referred to as "Ozzie" and Tolliver offered Markham a ride. They dropped Markham off at the Grille. Four days after this ride, he ran into "Ozzie" at Kidd Springs Park in Oak Cliff while he was fishing. They spoke for a while and then "Ozzie" left. He next ran into "Ozzie" at a party at his brother William's apartment two days later. He claimed that "Ozzie" was in a car in the parking lot with three other young men whom he had never met before, whose names he did not know and whom he had not seen since. They spoke for a hour and then the car with "Ozzie" left. He said "Ozzie" was not driving, but because of his intoxicated state, he could not remember who was driving. The next day, he went to the Texas Theater to see a picture whose name he could not remember, where he again ran into "Ozzie" and "Tolliver". They watched the movie together then walked to the Beckley Club on Jefferson and stood around drinking soda and talking. It was here that "Ozzie" started talking about killing the President. Although Markham invited them to his mother's house, they ended up splitting up on the way there with Markham going home and "Tolliver" and "Ozzie" going in another direction. After the assassination, he recognized Lee Harvey Oswald as the man referred to as "Ozzie". So why did it take him almost a year to report this ? Because the whole story was a lie. The timeline, beginning two weeks before the assassination, was within the time Oswald had rented a room at 1026 North Beckley. The housekeeper there, Mrs. Earlene Roberts, testified that when Oswald came home from work, he never left his room. ( 6 H 437 ) And his weekends were spent in Irving with his kids. The FBI searched for "Tolliver". Their search involved the water department, gas & electric, credit bureaus and even the selective service bureau without success. They asked Mrs. Markham, William Markham and the folks at the Oak Cliff Bowling Alley. No one ever heard of Jerry Tolliver. They got three hits from the Texas Department of Public Safety, when they searched the driver database. Two of those lived too far from Dallas to be THE Tolliver and the third did not match the description they got from Markham. Based on the evidence we can assume that "Tolliver" and "Ozzie" were fictitious names. James Markham at the time was in deep trouble and heading back to prison. I believe that he was trying to make a "deal" and using real encounters with people he knew and just substituting their names with "Tolliver" and "Ozzie" in an attempt to stay out of prison. One person described James Markham as "one who is not beyond fabricating a story in order to benefit himself for some unknown ulterior motive." ( CD 1518, pg. 84 ) And there were two more young criminals who hung out with James Markham and who I suspect could have been candidates for "Tolliver" and "Ozzie". ALIAS SMITH AND BURT Two more troubled youth come up in this research as "witnesses", William Arthur Smith and Jimmy Earl Burt. Like Mrs. Markham, these guys give different accounts of what happened that day, where they were, how they got to the scene and what they did after the shooting. First, William Smith. The FBI interviewed Smith on December 12, 1963 at his brother in-law's house. He told them that he was in the area of the shooting to visit a friend, Jimmy Burt, who was living at 505 East 10th St. He said he wasn't sure if Burt saw the shooting because he got to Burt's house before Burt did. In fact, during his testimony Smith made no mention of Burt's presence or anything Burt claimed to have done. Smith further stated that he "immediately went up to talk to Mrs. Markham, a neighbor of his". Yet Mrs. Markham, for all her versions of the shooting, makes no mention of this neighbor "talking" to her. In his Warren Commission testimony, Smith was asked if he ran up to Mrs. Markham to talk to her. His response was, "No sir, she talks to me " ( 7 H 84 ) Smith told the Commission that he did not pursue the shooter. (ibid.) Smith also testified that he was there for about 45 minutes. ( ibid.) And that he never told police what he saw because he was on two years probation for auto theft and he was afraid that being a witness to a policeman's murder might get him in trouble. ( ????? ) And that he had a conversation with about the shooting with none other than James Markham. ( ibid.) Jimmy Burt was no less suspicious in his version of events. He told the FBI that he and his friend William Smith were sitting in his brother Billy Burt's house located at the corner of 9th and Denver Sts. in Dallas. They heard the shots, jumped in his 1952 two-tone blue ford and drove down to 10th St. Where they saw the Officer lying in the street. Burt said that he parked his car in front of the police car on the same side of the street facing west (front end-to front end). But there is a problem with this part of his story. Dallas Police Sgt. Pete Barnes took the photos of the Tippit murder scene. He testified that he arrived around 1:40 and started taking photos within 5 or 10 mins. of his arrival. ( 7 H 273 ) Smith testified that they were there 45 minutes. If Tippit was killed at 1:15, they should have been there until 2pm. Yet Burt's car is not in the crime scene photographs. Kinda reminds me of the brown paper gunsack. Burt said the man ran south on Patton Ave. and he ran up to the intersection of 10th and Patton just in time to see the man turn into the alley between 10th and Jefferson running west. He said that he and Smith "returned to the site of the shooting", implying that Smith was with him. In February 1968, Burt gave an interview with Al Chapman at which time he gave a different version of what happened. This time he said he and Smith were at 505 East 10th and saw the shooting from there and "ran down" the street. Burt told Chapman that he had known Tippit for 3 or 4 years, something he never told the FBI. This time, he told Chapman that he and Smith both ran down Patton to the alley and saw the killer heading west. In this version, he tells Chapman that someone said the shooter was at the library on Jefferson so they followed the crowd down there. CONCLUSION I understand that other alternatives to the Oswald-did-it scenario have been presented in the past. One such alternative has Tippit in an affair with a married woman and her husband doing the killing. I don't buy it because even if the affair was true, the husband couldn't have possibly known where Tippit would be. He would have had to have known that Tippit was outside his patrol sector and that he had been dispatched to that area at the last minute. And there's no evidence of that. I believe that the killer was from the neighborhood. I believe that Helen Markham recognized him and that the proof that he was still at large after Oswald's arrest was the attempted murder of Warren Reynolds. Witnesses may differ in the details they observe. Some may have seen the gun and can describe it, others the shooter's clothing and some the way he walks or talks. But these guys' basic stories are so different, it's hard to determine what they saw or did. The evidence indicates that these people were pathological XXXXX and thus their credibility is nil. Where did they start from ? How did they get there ? Did Burt run up to the intersection of Patton Ave. and 10th St. or did he run down Patton Ave. to the alley ? How could William Smith run up to Mrs. Markham and be running south on Patton Ave. with Jimmy Burt at the same time ? Why didn't Smith mention being together with Burt when the FBI interviewed him ? Why isn't Burt's car in the crime scene photographs if they were there for 45 minutes as Smith testified ? Did one of them pull the trigger and the other one happen onto the scene and told "the killer to just go" like Mrs. Clemons said ? Could the "man with the gun" have simply taken the gun and the jacket from the killer and told him to get going", then run south on Patton Ave to the alley and throw both under that '55 Oldsmobile in the parking lot behind the gas station ? All of the witnesses who saw the "man with the gun" after the shooting gave NO description of him, other than to say he was a white man. Could one of these guys have killed Tippit or have seen the killer and knew him ? And where was James Markham when Tippit was killed ? What was it that Mrs. Markham didn't want to see so badly that she brought her hands up to cover her eyes ? Both of these guys described the killer as 5'7" or 5'8", James Markham was 5'9". If James Markham was caught in possession of a handgun, it would have been a violation of his parole and sent him back to prison. The same goes for Smith. He was on probation and getting caught with a firearm would have been a violation of his probation. Burt was AWOL from Fort Hood. He was looking at a year in the brig if apprehended with a firearm. Could this have been the motive for killing J.D. Tippit ? The final shot to Tippit's right temple tells me that he knew his killer. With witnesses close by, the killer could not take the chance that Tippit would utter his name before he died. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any record that Tippit had arrested any of these individuals prior. I've laid the groundwork and I'm hoping some future researcher will take this football and run with it. We may find Tippit's killer if we can connect any of these guys with a prior arrest by him. In his interview with Al Chapman, Jimmy Burt admitted knowing Tippit for 3 or 4 years. Too bad Chapman didn't ask him how he knew Tippit. But if these guys weren't involved in the murder, I believe they knew who was. Their changing stories and their criminal records make them less than credible witnesses. In my opinion, they should be considered "persons of interest ". Then there's the testimony of William Smith that he talked about the Tippit murder with James Markham. The Commission never asked any questions about that conversation. Not one. When a man's guilt is determined by the President of the United States ( " you have your man, the investigation's over " ) there is no justice. On July 24, 1964 the Dallas Police came to Helen Markham's house to arrest James on a burglary charge. James Markham went into the bathroom and closed the door. The police report stated that they heard a noise, rushed into the bathroom and found that James had jumped out the second floor window and was lying on the concrete driveway, 20 feet below. He was rushed to Parkland Hospital where he was treated for his injuries. While they were at the house, Mrs. Markham gave police all sorts of items that she said James had stolen. ( CD 1379, pg. 5 ) And yet, she knew the items were stolen and never reported it to police. I mention this only because if she wouldn't turn her son in for stealing, I doubt she would have turned him in if she saw him murder someone. More than likely she would have reluctantly "fingered" someone she never saw before rather than see one of her sons go to the electric chair. When he recovered, James Markham would later claim that a Dallas Police officer pushed him out the window. Because he could have died from that fall, one has to wonder if this was an attempt at "payback" for the Tippit killing.

Thanks Steve for having my back. Sometimes my explanations don't come out clearly. BTW, I don't believe Oswald was in that cab. <wince>

A lot of interesting questions there.

I recently joined Greg Parker's forum and I like their no BS approach to it all. If you post something that's not right, they're not bashful in correcting you. Not harshly, but they're direct in their approach. I learned there that if you're going to quote Armstrong, you better not use anything he uses without a source. And if he uses a source, you better double check it. That's what I learned there in one post. LOL. And don't get me wrong, I like Armstrong. I've had conversations with him, he seems like a nice guy. But from now on, I'm going to double-check his work before I cite it. You're right about the movie plot, great story. But what does the evidence say ? I know about those stories that somebody-told-somebody-told-somebody they're all over the place and a dime a dozen. You can put together a scenario that fits any theory just by using circumstantial evidence. So a cruiser pulled up in front of his rooming house and sounded the horn. And then drove away. I ask you, if you were a cop would you do that if you were hunting for someone ? If you were deer hunting, would you stand out in the middle of an open field or would you take cover and wait ? I was a cop and I'd NEVER do something like that. Because if you're hunting, you want the element of surprise on YOUR side. There were people in that house. Why would you risk creating a hostage situation (assuming he killed the President and was in the act of fleeing and was armed) when you could just wait and grab him after he left the house ? And whose cruiser was it ? Who was in it ? Nobody knows. You're right Jeremy, great movie plot, great story. Maybe a good one for Unsolved Mysteries. But unless someone can tell me which cruiser it was that stopped in front of 1026 North Beckley at 1pm on November 22, 1963 and the names of the two officers who were in that cruiser, it's just another story that can't be verified. And without verification, in my book, it's certainly interesting but not evidence. My research is not about chasing ghosts. I'm not in it for the fame or the money. I've never appeared on TV, I've done one radio interview in last 50 years. I've never written a book or profited in any way from this tragedy. For me, it's all about justice. It's about proving that the HSCA's assessment that the FBI's investigation into the Kennedy assassination was "seriously flawed", that the Dallas Police framed Oswald for two murders he did not commit and that the FBI and the Warren Commission covered up that framing by rubber-stamping the DPD case. Who did it ? I'll leave that for future generations to debate. All I can tell you is that Oswald didn't. I don't believe that Oswald killed Tippit. I don't believe that Tippit's murder had anything to do with the assassination at all. In fact, nearly all of the witnesses to the Tippit murder gave NO DESCRIPTION of the killer in their original affidavits. Most described him as a young man, a white man or a young white man. That's it. I'll cover all of that in Part 2. When I'm finished, I'll post it on my website. Anything I post on the website will come to the forums first, so you folks will get first dibs.

Yes, that's a good point, Steve. And if Hoover didn't like the Chief or had a problem with the department, they got nothing. Remember how he refused DPD officers to the FBI academy after Curry made public they knew about Oswald but never told the DPD ? He was very vindictive.

All I'm saying that as a former police officer looking at the EVIDENCE ( the transcripts and the audio ) I didn't see anything sinister. I didn't say it was impossible, I said I didn't SEE anything. And from EXPERIENCE I find it hard to believe that at a time when most of the units were tied up downtown and the city needed every available unit to cover the rest of the city, they would take out of service ( because that's what it would take if they were hunting someone, believe me I've done that ) not one cruiser but TWO cruisers on a hunting expedition. And the dispatchers would have had to have been ordered not to give either car any calls. For me knowing how police departments work, that's quite a stretch. Not impossible, just hard to believe. Good God, everytime I express an opinion, someone gets their nose out of joint and all hell breaks loose. So let me go the full gamut: I also don't believe Bill Greer shot JFK. I'm sure Bill Cooper is rolling over in his grave. There. I said it.

Because I've read the transcripts of the radio transmissions and listened to the dictabelt at the same time. Unless they were speaking in code, I can't find anything that leads me to think they were sent to Oak Cliff to purposely hunt Oswald down. I can't find any evidence that the Dallas Police knew Oswald was in Oak Cliff on November 22nd. The address the TSBD had for him was 605 Ellsbeth St., an old address. he got his mail through a post office box and he didn't get the job through the Texas Employment Commission. Without info from their informants in the USPS and the TEC, the FBI couldn't track him. That's why Hosty went to the Paine's house around November 1st and again a week later. I suppose they could have gotten the location of his rooming house through the phone number that Marina gave Agent Hosty if Hosty shared that with them. But that's only speculation, I've seen no evidence of that. And if they in fact knew where he lived there was no need to hunt him, all they had to do was to get a arrest warrant and go pick his ass up, or stake his rooming house out and grab him when he came outside. They didn't have to put one of their own in mortal danger. I thought you were proposing the scenario that they were out to kill Oswald, but Oswald got Tippit first. My apologies for the error.

This incident, if true, proves my point that Oak Cliff was a bad place and there was nothing sinister about them wanting police coverage in that area. I have no evidence that shows otherwise. Thanks for that info. It certainly would make sense. He didn't have to be dispatched. It could have been that a passerby may have stopped him and told him about it. And if the man was walking in a direction TOWARDS the cruiser and turned around when he saw it, that would have been suspicious enough a reason to stop him, IMO. If it was me and I was looking for a man with a knife, I would have done the same thing he did when he stopped the man: a threshold inquiry followed by a request to have the man empty his pockets on the hood of the cruiser. I've done it before. I would have also called dispatch to tell them what I had, which he tried to do twice at 1:08. The fact that he started to pull his gun from his holster tells me that he recognized he was in trouble albeit too late. The fact that he was shot in the head after being shot 3 times tells me he knew his killer and that killer wanted to make sure Tippit didn't tell anyone the name of the person who shot him. I don't find that Tippit did anything wrong or out of the ordinary in encountering this man.