Duke Lane

Lee, I know in some parts of this, I am repeating information since supplied by Duke, but I had been working on this periodically over a number of days, and did not see Duke' s response until just now.

... Could McDonald's actions be a potential spanner in the works for the whole event? Hence the library call is then required to pull all of the officers east of the shooting, away from where the actual perpetrator was west of the shooting?

The one thing that I have a nagging doubt about is this; if this call was a deliberate diversion, how lucky were they that Hamby just happened to come along at precisely the right time? What if he hadn't…? His arrival is either a great stroke of luck for Walker and Hill whose geese are on the way to the ovens otherwise, or Walker's story is essentially true.

The first question that pops to my mind is "what do we really know about Adrian Hamby?" He was not apparently identified by anyone during the WC's tenure, at least inasmuch as his name is not to be found in any of the WC sources on MFF. Reading some of the other stuff to be found through an Advanced Search there, most seem to be citing Dale Myers' With Malice for information about him. What are his bona fides, how do we know he's really the kid(?) who was the object of the cops' interest, much less the circumstances of his arrival? If Myers has a major fault, it is his uncritical acceptance of what people say when what they say fits his own notions.

That said, who's then to say that Hamby - or whoever - wasn't already in the library, hadn't arrived a few minutes earlier than the call about him, or had even been a "lucky break" to have been in there when the cops came scrambling? It is the timing of the call that is suspicious, one that got everyone's attention just after McDonald had requested backup to go into the ALT ... the same ALT, of course, that was "cleared" on the word of one officer asking a receptionist if she'd seen anyone enter that huge building. I don't see this entirely as a black-and-white, either/or question, nor one that ultimately can be answered in full without further input, if possible, from Hamby himself (gee whiz, what if he said he wasn't there and never told anyone he had been, just for the sake of argument?).

The two main questions that I have for other members are:

1. Is it 100% obvious to people of an independent mind that Gerald Hill lied about ALL of his movements prior to the Texas Theater arrest?

It should be 100% obvious to any who read Rose's article that every cop who hitched a ride that day is in the same boat. If Hill was the mastermind, or even just following orders, can't we credit him with having at least enough sense to say he got lifts with cops who would actually back him up?

2. Did Hill wait around the ALT and Texaco area to get the "real" Tippit weapon, to get "a" weapon" or to assist the "real" Tippit slayer get away and out of the area?

Any or or all of those is possible, but the evidence is, frankly, weaker for it than I had previously allowed. A little "fact" checking has laid to rest the issue of corroboration - at least insofar as one leg of his journey. And we also now "know" that most every cop who went to OC had nothing by way of corroboration for their movements. Are they all now suspect as a result?

There is a difference that you seem to be overlooking, and that is that most of the rest of the cops weren't contradicted. It is one thing for someone to say that they'd been somewhere and nobody else mentioned them being there; it is quite another for Joe Smith to say that he'd been there with John Doe, and John Doe says that he was there with someone else other than Joe Smith. (The "fact-checking" you refer to above is Larry Sneed's No More Silence, which was compiled many years after the events described. In more than one instance, it can be factually shown that the interviewee's memory is incorrect; what is there to say that Ewell's is not? NMS is not a "source," IMO, inasmuch as what you find there generally needs to be verified.)

The case against McDonald otoh has not been touched, as far as I can see.

To reiterate what we "know" about McDonald – (My comments inserted in blue. I hate to do that, but oh well.)

• He left his post at Dealey Plaza without permission. (along with dozens of others)

• He abandoned his partner in Oak Cliff. (validate "abandoned" - does it depend upon what the definition of "is" is? Clearly, he and his partner were separated, but by whose actions? Did the partner - I don't recall the trainee's name, tho' I'm sure it wasn't White! - say anything about being "abandoned?" Do we know what his actions or lack thereof were such that we can say that he was "abandoned?" The word is prejudicial and needs to be qualified.)

• He was at the ALT, but fails to mention this in any subsequent interview, statement or testimony (maybe because he never actually went into it? He also didn't go into the TSBD while he was in DP, as far as we know; should he have mentioned what was going on inside there to "prove" he'd really been to DP?)

• He made a call for a squad car to come and search the basement (this is more exculpatory than incriminating)

• He claimed to have gone to the library and that he specifically went in with his shotgun and cleared the suspect – none of which is corroborated (whereas Duke wants lack of corroboration for Hill's movements to go against Hill, despite the same lack of corroboration applying to all other cops who hitched rides to and around Oak Cliff that day, he wishes to dismiss lack of corroboration for McDonald's movements as meaningless) (see above comments regarding corroboration and contradiction)

• He shook down two patrons at the TT and by his own admission to the media, was carrying a pistol as he made his way to Oswald. This pistol, like his visit to the ALT, would disappear from all future statements (whoa! That is not what he said, and not even what you quoted him as saying before! Insofar as what you just said, all cops "carry" guns. Earlier, you had taken his words that he had his gun "in [his] hand" to mean that he'd had it out of his holster, which is an interpretation and not a statement of fact. Isn't it a little difficult ot "pat down" someone when you've got a drawn gun in your hand? If he didn't have the gun drawn, why ever would he or should he mention it?)

• He put his hands on Oswald's hips as if to pat him down. Oswald reacted by moving his hips back and punching McDonald. This reaction could be explained equally by Oswald not wanting McDonald to find the pistol tucked down his waist – or by Oswald realising McDonald was trying to plant a pistol on him.

• We also know from Applin that apart from the pistol, there was a cop in the vicinity with a "riot gun" (http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0454-001.gif). I believe this is the weapon he refers to simply as a "gun" in his testimony, as opposed to the pistol. (so now we have McDonald patting people down with a shotgun in his hand, singular?)

This "riot gun", I believe, was going to be used on Oswald once the pistol was in his possession, or if that was proving too difficult, the pistol would be placed in his possession after being shot.

In the end, we now have McDonald carrying a shotgun while also brandishing his sidearm while also patting down theater patrons, and planning on planting one of them on Oswald (but Oswald instead cold-cocked this walking aresenal). The entire scenario is too awkward to make sense. I dont' feel as if the "case" against McDonald has been made, much less that it hasn't been rebutted. Just my opinion, of course.

one off the cuff thought. I think there is reason to explore the notion that that rather ramshackle house may have been an unofficial coppers safe house. (I'va always wanted to be able to read what the sign says.) afa T gun goes, was there a civilian who claimed to secure it in some way before the cops arrived? (or rather perhaps before the Other cop/s arrived.)

Off the top of my head I can't remember who said that John. Possibly Jack Tatum who called Ted Callaway out for wanting to take Tippit's pistol? Or T.F. Bowley who made the third and final call to the dispatcher after Callaway and Benavides?

Interesting that Domingo Benavides actually said that Ted Callaway took Tippit's pistol out of the officer's dead hand during his Warren Commission testimony. Curiouser and curiouser...

I don't recall whose testimony called out Ted Callaway for taking the pistol and going posse with Scoggins (who was effectively hijacked into the deal); it may have been Callaway's own if not Donnie Benavides'. Tatum did not stop at the scene, even presuming he was actually there. Tom Bowley put the pistol on the seat after removing it from beneath Tippit's body (when it was loaded into the ambulance?), and it was only his voice that was on the tape of the "citizen" radio call.

So where are we up to? We "know" that Tippit was killed between 1:00pm and 1:07pm. ... We "know" that Hugh Aynesworth claimed that he was at the scene no later than 1:10pm. ...

This, of course, would be impossible unless Aynesworth had advance knowledge of Tippit's murder: regardless of the time that Tippit was actually killed, his shooting was not reported until shortly after 1:16.

We have no corroboration from Owens (in his WC testimony) or Alexander (who gave no WC testimony) that Gerald Hill was with them when they left the TSBD.

Am I misremembering that Hill also stated that Captain Westbrook - his immediate, temporary supervisor (who had no kind words to say of his charge later), was in the car on the way to Oak Cliff?

Quick exercise: list whom Hill stated were in the car (and if applicable, where they were sitting) on the way to OC. Then, check the reports and testimony of each of those officers, and list whom each said was in the car with them. Do the same for this resulting list. What do we come up with? Can you put that in a table of some sort for future quick reference?

We cannot expect "corroboration" in any form from someone who was not asked questions or tasked with reporting his activities for any record. No inferences relative to someone else can or should be drawn from this lack.

Hill claims he arrived at the scene of Tippit's slaying at 1:22pm. Are we to believe that he arrived 12 minutes AFTER Aynesworth said he arrived at the scene even though Hill left before him?

See above.

Hill claims he spoke to Officer Joe Poe and looked at the shells. Poe mentions nothing about this in any of his statements and testimony.

Hill claims he then used Joe Poe's car to go searching for the suspect. Hill also claimed in his radio transmission that he had a witness in the car with him "to identify the suspect."

We "know" that Hill went to the Abundant Life Temple on foot and stated that he was about to shake it down.

We "know" that Nick McDonald made a call to the dispatcher asking for a "squad" to search the basement of the ALT.

Could McDonald's actions be a potential spanner in the works for the whole event? Hence the library call is then required to pull all of the officers east of the shooting, away from where the actual perpetrator was west of the shooting?

Hill then stays at the ALT and Texaco/Garage area.

We DO know that McDonald - or, worst case, someone using his call sign, which seems unlikely - made the call for "a squad" to come to the ALT, and that C.T. Walker - or, again, someone using his call sign, which also seems unlikely - made the radio call to hurry up and get squads - plural - to the library.

We also know that the latter had the effect of getting a large number - if not most or all - of the available squads away from the ALT in favor of where "the suspect" was "holed up," and that, consequently, the ALT was not officially searched or "shaken down." We also know that the theater call at least apparently kept the remaining squads from returning to the ALT to shake it down when the suspect turned out not to be at the library after all.

We don't actually know what Hill did or didn't do because, absent a few oblique references to him (and film of him leaning out of the TSBD windows), nobody corroborates anything he did. Poe, I recall (perhaps erroneously), did mention "turning over" the bullets to "a detective," and the fact is that Hill was dressed in plain clothes, just as a detective would be expected to be wearing (absent, of course, the white Stetson of the Homicide Bureau). That is at least consistent with Hill radioing in about the shells from an "automatic," which is a reasonable inference to be drawn from shells being found "ejected" along the street and absent a close examination (through cigarette-pack cellophane?) to determine their exact nomenclature.

Poe does not mention anyone else using his car, and one might be left to wonder how Hill knew the car that he commandeerd was Poe's car since keys in a squad car, or the service number of the car, don't give any clues to whom it's assigned to: Hill's statement of Poe's "ownership" of the vehicle is unchallenged, and could as easily as not have been the result of seeing a name badge on a jacket in the car, a notation on the dashboard scratch pad, or any of a number of things.

We know Hill radioed about being at "12th & Beckley" - the location of the Dallas 5th Precinct municipal courts and constable's office, then and now - but we don't, of course, know that he was actually there or, presuming that he was, what he was doing while there (e.g., did he remain outside or merely drive by? If he stopped, did he enlist the assistance of the constables, or even mention the shooting to any of them?). These questions simply never arose or were addressed in the course of any investigation.

(For all we know, he could have been the police officer in the car seen by Earlene Roberts, the number of which is quite nebulous according to Roberts' own descriptions, plural. I don't know offhand if Hill filed any reports in conjunction with the Car 109/209/106/etc. investigation that took place later. As for 209, it was assigned to Jim Valentine, Hill's supposed ride to DP, who took it there and left the keys either in it or with the sergeant in charge at the crime scene. This or Poe's car - or virtually any other car! - could've been that car.)

Contrary to your statement, however, we don't really know anything about Hill's presumed witness/passenger:

... This witness was Herbert Russell. Lo and behold, Russell doesn't appear before the Warren Commission, and he mentions nothing about his Starsky and Hutch adventures with Gerald Hill in his FBI report of January 21st 1964. Russell does claim in his FBI report that Tippit's gun was laying on the front seat of the patrol car when he arrived at the scene.

Russell (actual first name Harold) doesn't mention anything about this because he did not apparently take part in any such search, with or without Hill. The report of his interview with the FBI is found at 21H383, and his affidavit attesting to its accuracy as a report is at 7H594.

In the FBI report, which Russell verified and validated, he speaks only of going to 10th & Patton from Warren Reynolds' used car lot, of seeing Tippit's service revolver on the front seat of the squad car (which Tom Bowley speaks in his affidavidt of having placed there), and of a man (Ted Calloway, according to his own testimony) taking it from the seat and going off (with William Scoggins, the cab driver, according to both of their testimonies) in search of the killer. He does not attest to having ridden in any police car with any police officer.

Hill's witness/passenger's identity is, as far as I can recall from memory, still a mystery.

The two main questions that I have for other members are:

1. Is it 100% obvious to people of an independent mind that Gerald Hill lied about ALL of his movements prior to the Texas Theater arrest?

2. Did Hill wait around the ALT and Texaco area to get the "real" Tippit weapon, to get "a" weapon" or to assist the "real" Tippit slayer get away and out of the area?

I think question two is the main sticking point in all of this and depending upon your own belief, your perception of events that then later happen at the TT will be altered accordingly.

My final question is this:

Does it really matter? Who handed the gun off to Oswald, or even if ANY gun was handed off to Oswald in the theatre?

If the Gerald Hill movements and obvious lies could be put into a coherent timeframe could it alter non-believers beliefs about what happened in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas on that eventful day?

It was WC assistant counsel David Belin who, in his book November 22, 1963: You Are the Jury, labeled the Tippit shooting "the Rosetta Stone" of the assassination. That phrase is taken by many to mean that he was calling the events in Oak Cliff the "proof" that Oswald killed Kennedy because he wouldn't have killed Tippit if he hadn't.

The real Rosetta Stone, however, wasn't "proof" of anything. Instead, it is a tablet with the same inscriptions made in three languages: known, classical Greek script, and then-unknown Egyptian Demotic and Hieroglyphic writings. Comparing the known languages' script with the unknown languages', the Rosetta Stone was "the key that unlocked the puzzle" of early Egyptian writings.

Is it possible that the (in)famous counsel was speaking out of both sides of his mouth with a forked tongue, ostensibly supporting the conclusions of the Report to which he had "contributed" much, while on the other hand pointing others in the right direction to solve a hitherto indecipherable event? Whether or not he actually meant to impart this wisdom, I find it odd that such a reasonably learned man as he would "mix metaphors" (as it were) to use such a characterization to make an unrelated point. I also do find the events in Oak Cliff to present an entirely different perspective of the killings than when viewed from Dealey Plaza. The current debate about the gun in the Texas Theater are but a portion of the submerged part of that iceberg.

More to the point:

Is it 100% obvious to people of an independent mind that Gerald Hill lied about ALL of his movements prior to the Texas Theater arrest?

It is apparent that he probably lied about most of his actions and activities; it is 100% obvious that any honest, independent investigation would want to clarify these and much more about him and his activities that day. For a downtown "beat sergeant" on temporary loan to Captain Westbrook's personnel department to help vet incoming Police Academy cadets, he managed to be center stage at all of the strategic locations and events of the day with a depth of knowledge seemingly unsurpassed by any other Dallas flatfoot.

2. Did Hill wait around the ALT and Texaco area to get the "real" Tippit weapon, to get "a" weapon" or to assist the "real" Tippit slayer get away and out of the area?

Or all of the above? It seems plainly obvious that the ALT cannot and could not be ruled out as a possible refuge of the killer, who was last seen running in its direction before disappearing from sight so quickly and cleanly, unless of course one accepts as fact that the escaping killer was Oswald and that he ran (or walked) from there, unseen through the alleyway or by other uknown route(s) to the Texas Theater. The first mention of this location was followed swiftly by an urgent call for "all squads" to leave its vicinity and surround the library several blocks away, and the only time that it was ostensibly attempted to be "shaken down" - by Hill - it was without any sort of witness other than "Bob Apple" who was not in the area but who nevertheless commisserated with Hill after Hill apparently took the word of women working at the ALT that nobody had entered that large building - or could have entered it by any of its numerous, distant entrances - or was still there, and consequently left the possibility unexplored. Heckuva a way to look for the killer of one of your fellow officers, isn't it?

(3.) Does it really matter who handed the gun off to Oswald, or even if ANY gun was handed off to Oswald in the theatre?

Only to the extents of illustrating how the mechanics of his demise might have have been brought about, how the "Tippit gun" was introduced into the events if not by Oswald (whose "admission" to carrying a gun "like boys do" is only reported by the police captain who "kept no notes" and whose notes that "weren't taken" don't contain that admission, and probably wouldn't have been admissible at trial if they did), and what became of it afterward. It matters who handed it off and who handled it at all times, particularly if it wasn't Oswald.

(4.) If the Gerald Hill movements and obvious lies could be put into a coherent timeframe could it alter non-believers beliefs about what happened in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas on that eventful day?

Maybe. They and they alone, however, weren't all that make for a "coherent timeframe" of the events leading up to and after the theater events. Even if he did take possession of the (or "a") weapon at the ALT, he obviously didn't take it from himself, inside the ALT waiting for himself to arrive to take it. Other events that attach to such a timeframe would make a better and more complete case; in and of themselves, they might raise a brow or two, but aren't likely to convert any true believers.

Putting things "on the record" is generally beyond the ken and capacity of most if not all of us here. Only if the answers to these questions are spread upon the acta of a criminal - or even civil! - trial would they have any real significance.

I have been trying to stick to a discussion on the evidence, but you seem to prefer a rhetorical debate. Can we just have one or the other? You can choose.

Choosing would be easier if both of us agreed what is evidence and what is not. You've said in other posts that you choose not to believe testimony, so whatever value it might have if it's actually true is moot. You've also indicated your preference for DPD to be "Keystone Kops" who routinely planted evidence to support a case, but you don't cite any such case or show where the "evidence" was actually shown to be planted, and consequently ask us to move forward on a conjectural belief to "prove" or advance a point. Case in point:

I've said it before but I'll say it again here – elements of the Dallas police were used to securing convictions via the route of manufactured evidence. They did not have to worry about risk. There was virtually none.

How is that "evidence" as opposed to "rhetoric?"

You've likewise cited statements that are other than sworn testimony as being more reliable or truthful than what was said under oath by Hill, et al., as if what one says to a reporter is somehow more true than what is sworn to, or that people are more apt to lie to a lawyer deposing them (and taking others' testimony, which might contradict your own) than to a newsman or director who is only interviewing you for tonight's news or this month's special. On what can you make that determination with any accuracy such that you can reliably choose one over the other?

While I can't think of an instance that you've chosen this particular vehicle, there is also a tendency among some people to alternately cite sworn versus unsworn statements to invalidate one or the other. That is to say that what a witness says in one, if not consistent with the other, is made to "show" that one of them - pick whichever one you choose - is false. Sometimes what one testifies to "proves" that someone else lied to a reporter; other times what one says in an unguarded moment "on the air" proves that another lied on the stand. At still other times, the contradictory (or at least inconsistent) statements can be made by the same person, and one is used to "prove" the other was a lie, or sometimes the other is used to "prove" the first was a lie. These can be alternated back and forth between the circumstances involving the same deponent/interviewee.

Ultimately, it comes down to which supports what the writer believes that is the "true" version of events.

One can only, in my opinion, look at the totality of what's been said and take it all at face value until and unless some other information comes forth that supports or refutes one or the other of the contradictory statements; that only lends further credence to the scenario, but doesn't necessarily "prove" anything other than that sometimes two people can lie as effectively as one.

There is then the question of whether no evidence is, in fact, evidence against something. Case in point, an earlier question about whether McDonald actually sustained an injury on his thumb "webbing" caused by a "snapping" hammer or not, and the fact(?) that he "did not allow" - or that someone else simply didn't take - a photo of said injury as indicative of the injury not taking place, or the suggestion that he didn't yell out in pain the way someone else thinks that he should have (or that the suggester thinks that he would have) "proves" that it didn't happen.

... And of course, the old fall-back position that, if such a photo existed, it was "planted" after the fact and should be suspect at best. Why, because it could have happened that way, or because it provably did?

One can only take what's put before them and attempt to make sense of it. Ultimately, none of it "proves" what happened in the melee over control of "a" weapon, but "common sense" (which isn't always so common!) can be used to eliminate a possibility,

Why, for example, if "gun A" - that used to kill Tippit - was obviously in the area when it was used to kill Tippit, and the ALT is only a block away, and the killer was last seen heading in the direction of the ALT (last seen running behind the Texaco station), and either the killer or someone else was in the ALT to hand off a weapon to a "planting" officer, why in the world would anyone with a modicum of intelligence leave the area with the murder weapon, not leave the murder weapon with whoever was in the ALT, and why would the killer or whoever else was in the ALT not pass along the murder weapon itself to said planting officer, but instead interject another weapon into the scenario that later had to somehow be replaced with the actual murder weapon, which was always available in the first place?

All because you'd like to imagine all of DPD to be "Keystone Kops" and so need to inject a comedy routine into it to complete the caricature? It makes no sense.

I have been trying to stick to a discussion on the evidence, but you seem to prefer a rhetorical debate. Can we just have one or the other? You can choose. ... I do presume exactly that [that merely displaying a gun would have gotten Oswald killed in the theater]. This was Dallas. This was the Dallas Police. This was 1963. This was a cop killer. Any other facts are superfluous. If need be, the weapon could be placed in his hand after he was dead.

You're right: This was Dallas. This was the Dallas Police. This was 1963. This was a [presumed] cop killer. All absolute facts. But what, really, do they mean? What you want them to mean? Those facts do not lead to the inescapable conclusion regarding the planting of evidence. If they do, prove it with facts, and then we can have "a discussion on the evidence." Until then, a "rhetorical debate" is all that we can have since your argument is based on only that itself.

Pity for them that they did not have you doing the planning.

I know. And a pity the WC didn't have me as an investigator! It would've save a lot of people a lot of work!

Hill and Walker should be considered as part of the frame team. You (and Lee) have made that case more than satisfactorily. But nothing you have said has convinced me McDonald never had the gun, or that it was McDonald who was going to use it as an excuse for Oswald's demise. Walker did his bit with the library diversion, and Hill did his bit with the weapon after the arrest.

We cannot simply presume that merely displaying a gun would have gotten Oswald killed in the theater - especially in light of the evidence that an attempt to use it successfully did occur, albeit without effect - when Oswald supposedly did display a weapon and was not killed. The gun did not go off (for whatever reason) and Oswald did survive.

I'm sorry Duke, but I do presume exactly that. This was Dallas. This was the Dallas Police. This was 1963. This was a cop killer. Any other facts are superfluous. If need be, the weapon could be placed in his hand after he was dead.

... It was very unlikely that this [the gun in the theater] was the weapon that killed Tippit. ... I don't think it was the same weapon.

After much thought on this, here is the problem with all of this logic:

If the gun in the theater could have been any .38 caliber pistol - or any pistol - that could've been reconciled with the Tippit weapon later, then what was the purpose of retrieving a weapon before going to the theater?!?

Doesn't that necessarily complicate things, and potentially expose the cop-conspirators needlessly? Think about it.

If the "theater pistol" wasn't the "Tippit pistol" - and moreover, didn't need to be - then wouldn't it have been a simple matter for anyone to have simply had the "theater pistol" with them throughout the day, ready to pull down when needed? Couldn't everyone have carried a dummy pistol, with the murder weapon being substituted for whichever of them turned out to be used?

Going into the ALT or anywhere else to get the dummy "theater pistol" from an accomplice only created a situation in which they stood to be seen, all for the sake of getting "any old pistol" that didn't need to be - and wasn't - associated with Tippit's murder.

If the dummy had gone off and hit - or killed - someone, the forensics would have eliminated the person who owned or was carrying that weapon from being implicated in the Tippit murder.

Of course, the slug from that weapon could have been switched out later, but that is just yet another complicating issue that might not have worked as well as planned. The more issues that complicate the situation unnecessarily increase the odds that something's going to go wrong.

It could have been retrieved in the theater by someone other than Bob Carroll, who might've handed it off to someone other than Jerry Hill, or not handed it off at all. He might've scratched his initials on it or made some other identification that the murder weapon didn't have.

If you posit that anyone went into the ALT or somewhere else to retrieve "a" pistol, then the only sensible pistol they'd have retrieved would have been the one tied to Tippit's murder.

If you eliminate the "theater pistol" from being the Tippit murder weapon, then you eliminate the need to "retrieve" any weapon that someone could have been carrying all along. You could even have multiple dummy weapons if having a particular pistol was unnecessary.

You also have the conundrum of why it might be necessary to have two cops - McDonald and Hill - retrieve two different weapons from the same place, when either of them having retrieved one weapon would have sufficed.

If McDonald retrieved a different weapon than the "Tippit pistol," why? If Tippit's killer had hidden in the ALT, presumably with the murder weapon, where was the need to introduce another weapon? Just take the "real" one and be done with it. And why give one weapon to one cop, and another weapon to a different cop?

If it's this difficult trying to explain how this might've worked (or not!), imagine the problems with actually working it!

Occam's Razor is not a theorem stating that "the simplest explanation is always the right one," but rather only an admonition against introducing more complex issues unnecessarily, that a simple explanation probably explains things better than a needlessly complex one.

Greg, I'm unsure of what your arguments are other than that McDonald was the bad guy in all of this, and that Oswald was going to get killed in the theater. We agree on the latter point, but the conundrum lies in how you propose this to have taken place. I've got thoughts on these things, obviously, and they don't agree with yours entirely, but my purpose in raising these questions is to focus your thoughts on the mechanical aspects of this, not to convince you of the validity of my thoughts, but rather to help you flesh out your own, which could be more correct than mine when solidified.

You'd said that you've given Hill a "free ride" of suspicion because he mentioned the ALT in his testimony, yet you also point out that you suspect McDonald in part because he could've raised the issue on the radio about the ALT to cover his butt in the event someone had seen him in or near the building.

You suggest Oswald was going to be killed in the theater, but dismiss the most obvious reason to kill him, i.e., his attempt on the life of another police officer, by saying that the whole thing about the "snap" and the cut on McDonald's hand were "concocted" and that no attempt would be made to fire the gun - it would make no "snapping" noise - "because of" a defective firing pin that had worked perfectly well just 45 minutes before when it was used to successfully fire four bullets into JD Tippit's body.

Tellingly(?), you "substantiate" that position by noting that "even the WC" dismissed McDonald's hand having prevented the firing of the weapon without seemingly considering that the WC also dismissed the idea of a shot from JFK's front or the involvement of a second shooter in DP. If the WC's dismissals are so readily creditable, why are we even having these discussions?

(The WC's position, of course, was that there was no evidence of the "misfire" - that is, a dented cartridge - despite the "snap" heard by three men, two men's conflicting claims of preventing the gun from firing, and three men's having seen an indented cartridge. Said cartridge not being in evidence, and the firing pin of the supposed Tippit murder weapon being "defective," however belatedly, could the WC have done anything else but dismiss the pistol's hammer from wounding McDonald without admitting that there was something fishy going on here that Oswald obviously had no hand in?)

Given the number of men, both civilian and trained police, who heard the snap or otherwise claimed to have prevented the hammer from falling, we cannot dismiss the likelihood of the trigger having been pulled to cause the hammer to travel. If the hammer did fall, then we must posit that someone had cocked the weapon for it to fire, and perhaps for it to fire "accidentally" with little effort, since merely squeezing the trigger of an uncocked single-action pistol will not cause the hammer to rise and it therefore could not have fallen.

Three trained officers also testified to having seen an indentation on a cartridge associated (somewhat loosely) with the gun in evidence, but that bullet (that would seemingly prove the "misfire" described) was not presented among the evidence. This leaves either those three men being "mistaken," or the evidence having been lost and/or substituted for some unexplained reason. In any case, there is substantial evidence to show that the "misfire" did occur, whether or not "even the WC" dismissed it.

Where the WC could not reconcile its available evidence with its conclusion of Oswald-as-sole-guilty-party, they ignored, dismissed, discredited or perverted it. We, on the other hand, cannot fail to take it all into account in an attempt to make sense of it to reach another conclusion. A gun was used to successfully fire four bullets into JD Tippit's body to kill him at 1:08 p.m.; we cannot dismiss other evidence and testimony of the gun's attempted use in the theater 45 minutes later "because" it had a defective firing pin that was not "defective" earlier, at least not without explaining how it became defective in that short time span.

We cannot simply presume that merely displaying a gun would have gotten Oswald killed in the theater - especially in light of the evidence that an attempt to use it successfully did occur, albeit without effect - when Oswald supposedly did display a weapon and was not killed. The gun did not go off (for whatever reason) and Oswald did survive.

Other available evidence suggests that a man's hand held the gun, and that hand was attached to an arm wearing a short-sleeved shirt (or that Oswald's shirt may have appeared to George Applin to be short-sleeved, perhaps from being pulled up his arm during the scuffle; in any case, neither McDonald nor any of the other officers in the theater close to Oswald was wearing a short-sleeved shirt); that Oswald was unable to let go of a gun in his hand; that a police officer's hand was cuffed during the scuffle for some reason, most likely because that hand was thought to constitute a threat at the time; and that that hand belonged to someone who was in all of the "right" places at all of the "right" times to play a part in the orchestration of Oswald's presumed guilt, at all times without corroboration of how he came to be in all of those places.

At last, let us also consider the "chain of custody" of the presumed "murder weapon" and police officers' ability to conclusively identify it as being the gun in evidence:

McDonald sees a gun at or near Oswald's back and scuffles with him. He extracts the gun and immediately holds it out behind him. It is taken from him by Bob Carroll, whom McDonald cannot see, and cannot see what Carroll does with it. McDonald did not examine the gun that left his possession, and cannot legally identify it or any other gun in connection with the incident.

Carroll then places the weapon in the small of his back and assists with taking Oswald into custody. He in turn passes it to Jerry Hill when (according to Hill's testimony) Carroll gets into the driver's seat of the police car in front of the theater after Hill - a husky man described by some as "a fireplug with legs" - insinuates himself into the front center seat of the car.

Hill then describes how he manhandled the weapon, which effectively obliterated any identifiable prints that might have been on the weapon, be they Oswald's or someone else's. He then removed the cartridges from the pistol, accomplishing the same thing with them. This maneuver also either places Hill's fingerprints on the weapon, or explains and justifies their (prior) appearance there (what if they had been, and he'd been unable to get into a position to receive the weapon from Bob Carroll by slipping into the uncomfortable middle seat?).

When he's done, he puts the gun into his jacket pocket, out of everyone's sight. Up to this time, nobody other than he has had any opportunity to examine the weapon, and certainly not to the extent that they would be able to identify it to the exclusion of any other weapon of the same manufacture.

Upon arriving at DPDHQ, Hill assists in escorting the suspect to the second floor interrogation rooms, and leaves Oswald in the custody of "a uniform," unnamed by Hill but who is Patrolman Hutson, a particularly observant officer who'd even counted the number of people in the theater when he'd gone in the back door with McDonald. Hill then brought the weapon, still in his jacket pocket, to the personnel office with Bob Carroll, and then sent Carroll in search of McDonald and others who may have been able to identify the weapon, who eventually returned to Hill's (temporary) office, and examined and initialled the weapon and cartridges.

Near this time, Captain Westbrook returned to his office in the personnel section, to which Hill had been on temporary assignment. Seeing Hill and company in the unsecured personnel office with evidence, he causes the Homicide & Robbery Bureau to be summoned to the office to take custody of the weapon, which is done.

Even though we can identify several times when the weapon is outside of other officers' sight and possession, this might be the end of the story were it not for Officer Hutson's testimony of taking custody of Oswald in the interrogation room where Hutson also "had his pistol" with him. Do we think that a homicide detective turned the weapon over to "a uniform" supervising Oswald before officially taking it into evidence? Do we think that Hutson was lying or hallucinating? Given this statement by Hutson, can it be shown to be in error?

Given these factors, can it any longer be said that the weapon in evidence - with a defective firing pin and ostensibly tied to Oswald via mail order - was in fact the weapon that was in the theater and/or the one that shot Officer Tippit?

There is yet more to these questions to be posed, but they represent more of the totality of evidence that must be considered before any firm conclusions can be drawn.

[Oswald] allegedly did admit carrying a pistol into the theatre, but denied he purchased it by mail order, instead allegedly saying he bought it in Irving. I don't recall ever seeing anything suggesting that the possibility of such a purchase in Irving was ever investigated.

When one only has the word of someone else about what someone says, the hearsay is only "alleged." When the person alleging something has a stake in its acceptance, it's more rightly called "suspicious."

Wow, Lee: a brilliant synopsis if ever I've seen one! We differ in some minor details, but essentially we're singing from the same page in the same hymnal. It's good to know that I'm not the only one who sees the possibilities. I'd feared over the years that I'd made something out of whole cloth, seen things that "couldn't" have been, but feel somewhat vindicated now.

Something worthwhile to note, as you did in part, that "Officer Everywhere" was not corroborated by virtually anyone who was where he claimed to be. This is true beginning with Valentine (whom he claimed to have ridden from DPDHQ to DP with, practically "commandeering" the ride) or the news guy (Ewell?) whom Valentine reported picking up and taking to DP with him; none of the people in TSBD (tho' Hill was, I recall, photographed or videoed in an upper window) including those he "reported" events to on their later arrival; and none of the men with whom he said he rode from DP to Oak Cliff with, including his own temporary supervisor, Capt. Westbrook (even tho' each of them were generally consistent in terms of who the other men were in the car that they rode to Oak Cliff in).

The possibilities exist either that he was not with them, or that they deliberately left him out of the people they'd been with, whether to disassociate themselves from him and/or to undermine his bullet-riddled story, or for some other reason, is hard to say. Anyone can check each of these men's stories and find that OE doesn't appear in any of their narratives.

While Hill had taken Poe's car, remember that he also reported being at 12th & Beckley, which is both south of Jefferson and well west of the Tippit scene; it is also where the Dallas County constabulary headquarters (a constabulary - constables - in Texas is a supernumary county police force associated with the county courts and assigned to assist other law enforcement agencies in their duties as needed).

Bob Apple, with whom OE said he'd been commisserating on 10th Street after having "shaken down" the ALT and with whom he supposedly rode to the theater in "his" (Apple's) car, had actually been assigned to a three-wheeler (a motorcycle for non-motorcycle officers, effectively a more maneuverable car, not quite a "real" motorcycle) in the downtown area, and was last heard from - presuming call letters being consistently and correctly used - dealing with an intoxicated person on the railroad track "at the end of Laws" after the JFK shooting. Apple did not apparently file a report of his activities that afternoon, so there is no explanation how he went from being a three-wheel patrol officer downtown to a car-driving investigator in Oak Cliff remains either a mystery or a fabrication.

If the shooter had hidden out in the ALT after fleeing from the murder scene, then it is every bit as likely that OE was who retrieved the gun as it was that McDonald had retrieved it. This consideration is one of my main differences with Greg's analysis, and one of the reasons why I don't think it's likely that McDonald was part of the whole thing, at least not in the capacity Greg posits.

In Greg's scenario (as I understand it), McD enters the ALT and gets the gun, then "signals" that he's been successful in retrieving the gun by radioing that he intends to enter the building, which is also a CYA to explain why he'd been in the building in case anyone had seen him go in or come out (but wait! He only said he intended to go in, so why did I see him come out of it?). If I didn't explain that well, it's because it doesn't make sense to me, so I can't make it make sense in the explanation; sorry.

Alternately, McD innocently and rightly makes known his intention to enter the large building, which potentially held any number of perils; best not to enter alone. So he calls for backup and gets a response. Immediately, a diversion is made and the major part of the responding officers rush over to the library where the killer is presumably "holed up." That Patrolman McDonald is not mentioned by other officers as having responded is, to me, no surprise because, after all, he is "just" a patrolman, one of dozens in the area: why would he be particularly noteworthy?

Once the patrols have been diverted, there is now the opportunity to retrieve the weapon. There is nobody to witness what we don't want to be seen, and the "shakedown" is its own rationale for not having responded to the library call. Then, all that's left is to wait for the call to the theater or wherever the patsy might be, and what better way to do it (while everyone else is surrounding the library several blocks away) than by lounging around and chewing the fat with a patrolman who's not actually even there?

Then, to the library and behind the suspect ... and it is noteworthy, I think, that another of those behind the suspect is also unaccounted for during the time leading up to the theater call and with a confused (that is to say, uncorroborated) history of getting from DPDHQ to Oak Cliff and to the theater while managing to be in the thick of things to boot. Once behind the suspect, how easy is it to introduce a weapon from behind, to have your hand confused with the suspect's (and handcuffed ... because it had a gun in it?), and maybe even squeeze the trigger?

You've of course noted how (without saying as much) OE's fingerprints on the weapon were later explained by his taking possession of the gun (which neither McDonald or Carroll ostensibly ever saw and technically couldn't even officially identify in a court of law) and/or obliterating anyone else's by his manhandling of the weapon and shells in the car (per his testimony) and later at DPDHQ. And we have yet to go into "the old switcheroo" involving the two(?) pistols in the personnel office and the interrogation room.

That's all I've got time to add for now: I am, after all, on holiday and supposed to be spending time with folks around me, not with my nose in a computer screen! More later as time allows ....

Remind me - did Oswald say anything that can be construed as a notice that DPD tried to plant a pistol on him at the theatre?

Well, of course, we don't really know what he said other than what was captured on tape at DPDHQ; we only have what he was reported to have said, right?

While nothing he was reported to have said can be said to directly address this, at one point in the theater he was apparently told to let go of the gun, to which he supposedly replied "I can't."

Does this mean that someone was holding his hand to the gun with the intent of firing it from his hand? Can't say that it does, but taken as part of the whole, it's not an impossible thing.

Capt Westbrook made note of a "funny thing" during the scuffle to subdue Oswald, noting that a police officer's hand was cuffed by mistake. I wondered about that: what would make someone take ahold of an arm that was clothed differently than Oswald was - i.e., with a blue uniform sleeve, or a jacket and shirt - and attempt to manacle it? I wondered, "was it because there was a gun in it?"

It seemed as good a rationale as any, albeit without basis ... until I learned whose hand it was - from the man whose hand it was. Oddly enough, he was someone who was always in all the "right" places that afternoon and had, in fact, been at the Abundant Life Temple after everyone else had gone on the library call, and who'd just hung out there and chatted with another officer (who was demonstrably somewhere else) until the theater call came in.

Then he was right back in the thick of things, right alongside another officer who had been tagging along and lagging behind around 10th & Patton while everyone else went to the library and until the theater call.

Both were in a position to have gotten the pistol from either the ALT or other nearby source and to have both shot someone and put - and held - the gun in Oswald's hand until they or someone else had managed to "recover" it from him. One did manage, in any case, to totally obscure the chain of evidence of that pistol, and even to have potentially put another one into play.

(Isn't it odd, as we discuss this, that we note that the "theater pistol" couldn't have shot McDonald because it had a "defective firing pin," yet that same pistol lacked such a defect when it supposedly fired four shots into Officer Tippit less than 45 minutes before? Does that qualify as an "oops" that was overlooked?)

Actually, the position you're shifting me to is more along the lines of Walker being in on it with McDonald. That would explain the diversionary call to the library, and possibly some other contentious issues.

I readily accept that the McDonald call on the ALT is the weak point in my scenario and my explanation for it is far from airtight. But I also see that as the only potential weakness.

My position, as may be deduced from many of my other postings on the Tippit/Oak Cliff subjects, would make it a much more complex issue than simply "Walker being in on it with McDonald." Your comment ...

I don't agree that another cop had to be sacrificed in order to kill Oswald. It only had to look like he pulled a weapon - a scene which could be quickly and easily arranged after the fact without any danger

... would effectively isolate the theater incident from all of the other events of the day. This is not uncommon, as many people will point out, for example, that Oswald might not have been able to get to 10th & Patton in time to shoot Tippit, but then continue to analyze that aspect of the case as if Oswald - who "couldn't have gotten there" - was the one "escaping" from there (e.g., if it wasn't Oswald at 10th & Patton, why is it necessary to either determine how "he" got to the theater, or to postulate that the real shooter went there also?).

You might be spot-on about your "only potential weakness" in the scenario you've drawn, but that's maybe true only insofar as the scenario goes. It's only the tip of the iceberg.

For example, you note that McDonald "was given a specific duty order in Dealey Plaza but abandoned that duty to head for Oak Cliff without consent," but don't consider at the same time that well more than a score of officers did exactly the same thing. Have you ever followed #87 R.C. Nelson's exploits after ignoring the order to "move into central Oak Cliff?" If so, had you noticed how dispatch kept deflecting him from responding to the Tippit shooting? What about the diversion of officers from Oak Cliff starting minutes before the motorcade arrived in DP and continuing through and to immediately after Tippit was reassigned, which was done at the same time that it was known that at least two additional officers from other, distant patrol districts were acknowledged as being in Oak Cliff, while the regular patrol officer ate lunch at a cafeteria, agitated to the point of calling "numerous times" to headquarters and leaving his lunch unfinished when he finally rushed out the door when, ostensibly, he was completely unaware of the downtown shooting, much less that of his fellow officer? What about Harry "the cripple" and "Officer Everywhere" and their convoluted and unconvincing activities during that timeframe, the officer who was handcuffed in the middle of the scuffle of subduing Oswald, and the machinations that led to an apparent "switcheroo" of the revolver at police headquarters, all of which are detailed in the WC hearings and exhibits?

Tippit himself was sacrificed as a diversion; why is it so far-fetched to think that McDonald - or some other hapless patrolman - didn't also have to die to "cinch" the case by ensuring the death of the only suspect that there ever was? Don't you think it's telling, too, that from the time that Oswald was taken into custody (as would probably have also been the case if he'd been killed in the theater) that there were "no further relevent transmissions" relating to the "manhunt" for the President's killer(s), and that senior patrol officers were relieved of further duty - told they could leave the scene(s) of the crime(s) and go about their regular assignments - immediately thereafter?

All of this didn't happen simply because "Walker [was] in on it with McDonald."

The issue of the "snap" - dismissed by the Commission, as you pointed out, in the same way that the indented cartridge was, even despite being closely examined by no fewer than five veteran police officers - is ultimately eye candy. Something dented that cartridge that they saw (whether or not it was introduced into evidence), and "defective firing pin" or not (how was it supposed to have shot Tippit if that was the case? Another "isolation" incident), I still cannot credit a police officer palming off a cocked pistol, even on the off-chance that it "only just might" fire, but probably won't; I can, however, believe that another officer would introduce a cocked weapon aimed at another police officer into the equation, with the intent of that gun going off.

Wounding might have been sufficient, but the important thing is that the gun had to go off in order to cause officers who might not have been "in on" the scenario to "return fire" and kill the suspect. In fact, it would have been much better for some unsuspecting, uninvolved officers to have fired the killing rounds, not necessarily to "kill the suspect" or "silence the patsy," but simply from training that provided a "dead end" to the investigation because they knew nothing more; to have had a "clique" of officers all in close proximity and doing the shooting might've had a completely different outcome and have appeared contrived.

That's it; gotta go. Got a plane to catch.

I must say, you put together a great case - and one that may hold some water. However --

Let's address the main problems with it since they concern what you consider the "primary" reasons for your thesis: The alleged snap, and the alleged jammed digit/webbing.

If I left the impression that McDonald's injured hand was a "primary" reason for anything, I apologize. I realize I said that, but it was said in a hurry. It is actually secondary to the supposition inherent to the events described by several officers, in different ways, that the gun was cocked, the hammer drawn back to fire a bullet, which it didn't do for one or another reason. I did also say what that supposition was.

The revolver was single-action, meaning that pulling the trigger when the hammer was at rest did not draw back the hammer and then cause it to be released to strike the firing pin and fire the bullet; instead, the hammer had to be drawn back manually, and the trigger served only to release the hammer. This necessitates that McDonald, if it was he who was attempting to plant the gun on Oswald, would have had to have cocked the hammer before he attempted it to transfer it to Oswald's possession.

That is suicidal. At any point, the trigger could've snagged on something - someone's finger, for example - and fired the bullet into McDonald. As someone professionally familiar with pistols, who used one as a "tool of the trade," I cannot concede that he would have done that, even if he'd been the dumbest cop on the force. Who in their right mind would deliberately put themselves into that kind of danger, even considering that they might only get a flesh wound?

At least two or three officers testified to hearing the gun "snap," including McDonald, and even Bentley's later recollection was that it was his hand that had prevented the gun from firing. Whose hand it was, and whether or not McDonald's received any kind of "hammer wound," the consistent testimony is that it was ready to fire, meaning that it was already cocked before anyone attempted to put it into Oswald's possession. I have to rule out McDonald as being the person who cocked it, period.

(We'll not get into a discussion about whether or not there was actually an indentation on the primer of the bullet, as McDonald and others testified - and Bentley disputed - at this juncture, a tertiary argument at best.)

We would have to agree, I think, that Oswald simply possessing the weapon would most likely not cause the other officers to kill him then (although it very well might today): in order for his killing to be justified, the gun at least had to be fired, more preferably for the bullet to hit someone, and preferably a cop. While some people might suggest that McDonald would attempt to fire it without being hit is to attributed full control over the weapon to McDonald, a proposition fraught with potentially fatal consequences. If he wished any certainty, he'd have simply fired the gun and not put it into Oswald's belt.

On the other side of the coin, if it had been decided by someone that a cop "had to die" for Oswald to be killed while being apprehended, it is more likely that someone other than McDonald was holding that gun, who didn't care about it going off and firing a bullet because he wasn't in the line of fire! That said, the candidates would have been behind Oswsald - and the gun - so that they weren't in the line of fire, and wouldn't be injured or killed. Any of the three men behind Oswald and facing McDonald are candidates.

One of them, like McDonald, had been to the ALT, and the other one could have been. Neither was in a position to get hurt by it firing.

In his usual fashion, [McDonald] made himself the hero of the library debacle. ... No other officer however, placed McDonald at the library, let alone suggested he sorted out the situation.

There was no testimony, other than what the deponent himself may have testified to themselves having done, that placed very many of the officers present at the theater by name at all. Remember that there were at least sixty uniforms there, including 20 sheriff's deputies and possibly some constables. If none were named, does that mean that nobody was there? If only a few claimed that someone other than theirselves was there, does that mean they were the only ones there? I can't recall that anyone testified to anyone having "sorted out the situation," and most assuredly, it is not still going on!

Someone saying that McDonald was not there, or that he'd been somewhere else, might be creditable, but his simply not being singled out and named from among all of the other officers there is indicative of nothing. Someone "sorted out the situation," but was not named; does that mean that he "didn't" sort it out because he wasn't named? (I promise you that the library is not still surrounded!)

In his usual fashion, [McDonald] made himself the hero of the library debacle.

I parked the squad car, took my shotgun, and went to the west basement entrance to the public library.... Just as I got into the squad car, it was reported that a suspect was seen running into the Texas Theatre, 231 West Jefferson. ...

This fairly well eliminates the possibility that McDonald got the revolver from the ALT between the library call and the theater call anyway; you agree? He'd had to have it before going over to the libary, wouldn't he? If he had it at all, that is?

You note that "other cops were at the theatre ahead of McDonald, but none entered until his arrival;" would you substantiate that please? What was McD's arrival time relative to anyone or everyone else's?

Mr. McDONALD - Well, when I got to the front of the theater there was several police cars already at the scene, and I surmised that officers were already inside the theater.

So I decided to go to the rear, in the alley, and seal off the rear. I parked my squad car. I noticed there were three or four other officers standing outside with shotguns guarding the rear exits. There were three other officers at the rear door. I joined them. We walked into the rear exit door over the alley.

Despite what he alleges is his own surmising - no other officers had entered before him.

Can we credit the testimony of an officer who "in his usual fashion ... made himself the hero" a situation he cannot be substantiated as having anything to do with other than by his own word, by using his own words and (dubious?) surmises?

McDonald said that there were cars at the theater ahead of his arrival past the front; were there?

He "surmised" that the officers in those cars "were already inside the theater," but you say they weren't. If they were parked in front of the theater and not inside, where were they?

On what basis are you saying that they didn't go in the front door, but "waited" for McDonald to go in the back door (which they couldn't see)?

How was McDonald going to signal the other officers from inside the theater that it was okay for them to enter the theater from outside the theater?

If the other officers were, in fact, "waiting" for McDonald to enter, could that only have been because McDonald was bringing the gun in? Could it not equally have been that someone other than McDonald was keeping the other officers at bay so that they could bring the gun in and shoot McDonald (and not accidentally hit anyone else)?

In fact, isn't that more plausible? If, that is, that's even close to the way it all went down?

Ultimately, our points are the same, to wit that police brought the revolver into the theater and attempted to palm it off onto Oswald, somehow causing "the" suspect to die in a hail of gunfire before he could speak a word of protest.

Yup.

If that was the goal, then it seems there are better ways to attain it than having McDonald bring in the gun to palm it off on the unsuspecting suspect in such a way that McDonald himself could have become the victim of his own gun-planting? Wouldn't it be a more direct approach to have someone else bring the gun in and shoot McDonald with it, than having McDonald plant it so he could get shot himself or somehow cause someone else to get shot with it? And how exactly was he going to accomplish the latter when everyone else was outside waiting for his signal to come in? And who was going to shoot Oswald if not McDonald?

These are some of the gaps that need to be filled in your hypothesis. As I said, I think you're better off looking at the folks behind Oswald in the theater than anyone in front of him.

I'm getting ready to go on a trip for the next week, so won't be able to respond regularly or have a lot of to add today, but thought I'd field some thoughts while I've got a little while.

Greg, we've discussed this at length, including the notion of the revolver being placed in Oswald's hand as well as by whom (I've tended to believe that it was someone behind him rather than in front of him). Your observations about McDonald are interesting, with the sole exception being that he appears to be a bumbler. Looks can be deceiving, however.

It is interesting to note that it was McDonald who'd proposed, via radio, to "send squad over here to Tenth and Crawford to check out this church basement" at 1:33 (almost 1:34). Dispatch took this to mean "a squad," singular, and broadcast that they "need a squad at Tenth and Crawford," which was acknowledged by Ptl F.S. Williams from District 66, which is immediately to the east of District 78 where Tippit was killed. He apparently wasn't entirely familiar with the area inasmuch as he sought clarification that Crawford was north of Jefferson:

95: Send squad over here to Tenth and Crawford to check out this church basement.

DIS: Need a squad at Tenth and Crawford.

66: 66 en route.

DIS: 10-4.

66(?): Crawford north of Jefferson?

DIS: Tenth and Jefferson.

I've thought about that, and I think he had already obtained the gun, and the suspect had left. Radioing in after that to request a search of the basement would be a good way of covering your butt. The call that should have got a better response was Hill's since he mentions a witness seeing someone enter.

First, a quick note on Unit #66, Williams. If you've seen the radio map, this is directly east of the district where Tippit was killed, separated by the Trinity River and accessible by two viaducts north and south of the latter. According to Russ Shearer's transcript (which is more detailed than Sawyer/Bowles' and apparently accurate enough to be used on John McAdams' site):

• 66 first indicated that he was "clear" - ready for assignment, presumably in his district - at 12:18
  
• He responded to the "Code 3, Elm & Houston" call ("66 en route") at about 12:44
  
• He did not indicate via radio that he was going to Oak Cliff after the Signal 19 (shooting) call at 1:16
  
• 66 responded to McDonald's ALT call at 1:33
  
• Between 2:00 and 2:02, he calls from the Texas Theater requesting dispatch to contact Unit #79 (Billy Anglin) to ask him to return to the theater; dispatch attempts to raise 79, but there is no response
  
• Between 2:05 and 2:08, he again calls to request contact with 79 "again" to inform him that "we've got his shotgun;" 79 does not respond
  

Anglin, of course, was a close friend and neighbor of Tippit, and as I recall he'd gone to Methodist Hospital (Beckley, north of the cross with Zangs) to check on Tippit's condition or to gather his effects. Don't hold me to that, but I mention it simply to note that /a/ it's not "odd" that he didn't respond to these two calls, and parenthetically, that /b/ "there were no shotguns at the theater."

The Abundant Life Temple calls (Part I - McDonald). The idea of McDonald's being a "CYA" call is not preposterous, but seems unlikely given both that a fairly large number of officers were nearby and might have noticed McDonald "slipping into" the ALT, and that because of their proximity, several might well be expected to respond to McDonald's call. What might've happened if several went in and someone already inside wanted to know "what's up" when the cops came in again after McDonald's "search?" A bad CYA, I'd think: if he'd gotten into and out of the ALT without being seen, best to just move on and not mention the place to anyone.

What is not generally known is that there was a very large number of respondents to the "Signal 19" call, including - as I remember the count I'd made - some 40 DPD officers and 20 sheriff's deputies (see DCSO and DPS transcripts prepared by FBI). In addition, the county constable's office was - and is - located at 12th & Beckley. Hill had radioed in having been there, and it is not therefore unlikely that several sworn officers from that department might have joined in the manhunt (I've not been able to find any records of this as yet, but haven't looked very hard either) either as a result of monitoring DPD channels and/or Hill's alerting them. None of the constabulary were interviewed by the WC, and none of their stories have surfaced that I'm aware of. There were, in any case, "swarms" of police in the area as a result of the shooting.

The search for the cop-killer had only just begun. Moving from 10th & Patton, police had begun a search of two houses used for furniture company storage that were situated in the area immediately across the alleyway behind the ALT. During this time is when an unidentified officer also indicated having found a white jacket under one of the cars behind Bellew's Texaco (Crawford & Jefferson, immediately behind ALT), and also one of the gunman's pursuers - can't recall which one - having reported last seeing the shooter running west or northwest behind the Texaco. There were, in short, too many cops with too much of an interest in that immediate area for McDonald to have been successfully surreptitious about getting the killer's weapon, and probably well enough for someone to have noticed him entering and exiting the ALT. Not impossible, just harder.

On the other hand, consider Walker's broadcast in another light, i.e., as a diversion:

McDonald makes the radio call for a squad or squads to check out the ALT; someone (66) responds reasonably quickly. Immediately thereafter, an urgent call is made from the library requesting immediate backup because "he's in the library. I'm going in around the back. Get somebody in front. Get them in fast." The response was immediate: dispatch had barely said "any unit near Marsalis and Jefferson at the library" when squads began to report being en route. How many went the few short blocks without calling in - one wouldn't expect it was necessary under the circumstances - is difficult to ascertain except that the library was "surrounded" and lots of cops either said they were there or were described as being there (e.g., "cops were everywhere ...").

No sooner, in other words, had one cop called attention to the ALT than another called attention away from it, and surprisingly, in the opposite direction from that the shooter had last been seen running. Apparently, the cops on site were convinced enough of this sighting being "the real thing" that acting shift lieutenant Sgt Cal Owens broadcast, "they've got him holed up, it looks like, in this building over here at the corner." If Walker's urgent call to "get somebody in front [of the library, and] get them in fast" wasn't enough to arrest everyone's attention and get them running, what else could have been?

That it could have been a diversion from police attention focusing on the ALT, what such a diversion may have accomplished is an open question I'll address later, when I've got more time (as if I haven't already spent enough on this!). Next, however - a littler later tonight, maybe, or tomorrow - the question of McDonald's being at the library and/or "first" into the theater....

Does anyone know how the assassination of JFK is dealt with in US school textbooks?

Briefly, John. Very briefly.

My step-daughter graduated high school a couple of years ago; her history teacher had a personal interest in the case, and even still only spent a short amount of time on it (generally, I gather, to warn students against paranoid conspiracy theories).

The actual assassination was essentially a footnote, given all of the attention that a weekend-long event in any context might be expected to garner, but important enough to include.

After all, they've got to cover everything from the Alamo to present day in a single book, and leave room for the Pilgrims and John Smith too (but not Joseph!).

People then and now get confused about the floor numbering system in the TSBD because the ground floor is not the first floor.

The "domino room" was on the GROUND floor. From the entrance into the original TSBD, as I recall, one comes to a landing where there was a passenger elevator and stairway to the OFFICES portion of the building; there was a stairway down to the ground floor (as I recall, the Hertz roof sign was stored there). Freight elevators were at the rear.

People going up the front steps MAY have been confused about whether they were on the first or second floor.

Maybe this graphic of the original building will help.

Jack, I do not think Occhus Campbell was confused about what floor he was talking about when he told the reporter "Shortly after the shooting we raced back into the building. We saw Oswald in a small storage room on the ground floor."

Likewise Roy Truly, who Fritz admitted "I asked him what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor. Mr. Truly had told me that one of the police officers had stopped this man mmediately after the shooting somewhere near the back stairway..." Kent Biffle listened in on that conversation between Truly and Fritz, and he reported it in DMN, that it was "near a small storage room" on the first floor.

To quote from my article - which apears to be the reason for your post here:

"The comment that the encounter was "near the back stairway" fits in with the Campbell quote of Oswald being in a "small store room" on the ground floor when Baker came in. Why? Because there is indeed, a small store-room on the first floor near the back stairway- and it was used to store the text-books Oswald mainly collected. "Are you suggesting that they both meant "lunch room on the second floor" when they said, "storage room on the first"? If so, you are free to defend the WC version, as would I... if it had any merit...

The things people will come up with!

Didn't BW Frazier not also say that he ate his lunch in the "basement?" He was not the only one to refer to such a location, which surely - even in Texas, where basements are few and farther between - a "basement" is beneath a "ground floor."

The only people who'd confuse what floor they were on - "first" or ground, "second" or first/ground - would be those more influenced by European than American floor-counting.

WC counsel was apparently "confused" about these floors, too, as were at least some TSBD employees. Witness this exchange between David Belin and Troy West (emphases added):

Why not "down to the domino room" if it was in the basement (which is even what folks from California called it!)? Where did anybody get the idea that the domino room was in the basement? Or that a building level whose floor was below the ground level would be called the "ground floor?!?"

Jeepers creepers.

Duke Lane created a fantastic list on the people that left the TSBD. He has not put it on his new website, but he posts here and you can ask him for the list, and his sources.

Probably because it's such a xxxxty little website! In fact, I called it just that for a while, as I recall.

Actually, I'd thought I'd put it there. If you say I haven't, you're probably right.

I can email the spreadsheet I put together from CE1381 to anyone requesting it. It's an at-a-glance compendium of what people said about themselves and what they did in the CE1381 pages. Remember that these are all affidavits taken by FBI agents who were present during the WC's downtown investigation and re-creation of around March 20, 1964, and contains very little "editorial" beyond answers to specific questions they wanted answers to.

The spreadsheet lists things like their gender and race (might many muster mischievous misses, or merely malcontent males?), as well as whether they claimed to have ever left the building, if they tried to get in, if they were successful in getting in, or whether they'd found the doors locked or themselves in any other way barred from re-entry.

It's very rudimentary, but the net effect is to show that there were a lot of people, white and black, male and female, who were not inside the building in the shooting's aftermath to have been roll-called.

Maybe one of these days I'll actually do something with the website (dukelane.com). Not many breaths should be held waiting, however.

I find their [TUM and DCM's] actions to be extremely suspicious. In the aftermath, these two are the picture of cool amidst what is otherwise chaos. They are either completely clueless, indifferent, or consumate professionals. ...

Something that's always intrigued me is how and why anyone could conceive of the notion that they could talk on a walkie-talkie at a murder scene swarming with cops and go unnoticed, how they'd explain their actions if they were observed and challenged, and what would happen if a cop got ahold of the w-t and started broadcasting over it: might the broadcast not be overheard by someone else, like maybe another cop who might investigate it?

Nobody uses a w-t without the expectation that there's someone else on the other end of it somewhere. While one might be confused with a transistor radio, the reverse is true as well, so there can't have been any guarantee that it would go unnoticed, or if noticed, uninvestigated.

Even more intriguing is the question why, when persons unknown gathered and doctored so many photos and films (as some have theorized), adding people in and taking others out, such apparently potentially incriminating, certainly curious if not exactly suspicious, activities were left intact.

A concerted, coordinated effort that supposedly left nothing to chance sure was chancy! And these two guys, if not completely clueless or indifferent, don't seem to be "consummate professionals," but rather just ballsy or reckless, not who you'd think to be part of such a concerted, coordinated effort of any sort!

I recieved an email from Gary Mack suggesting I consider that this man had a transistor radio under his jacket and not a walkie-talkie. Gary, 'ya gotta be kidding!...this guy was operational and not listening to the baseball game!....and no transistor radio was that big or that square!

I found this on ebay - a transistor radio from 1963:

This auction is for a vintage General Electric two band AM/SW transistor radio. Model P925. Was made in 1963. This is the First GE transistorized shortwave portable. Dimensions: 9" X 5.5" X3".

... And then there's this interview with one of the designers of that radio, with a link to its successor. Note its size compared to the deck of cards.

Is it either "that big" or "that square?"

Thanks to Gary Mack for the following:

The original Towner slides and movie film are at The Sixth Floor Museum, although she still owns them. Several years ago I did a very high-res scan of DCM and the "antenna" is, in fact, part of the picture - it is not an artifact. I can see the grain of the film and the silver highlight is not a scratch or any other defect.

To me, it looks like DCM might be bringing a transistor radio up to his ear. I suspect that if there were any pictures of him before the motorcade arrived, they would show he was listening to the live KRLD coverage of the motorcade on Main Street.

Gary Mack

ROFLMAO!

How in good gracious' name does a photo "show" what someone was listening to?!?

In this photo, you can clearly hear the sound of gunfire...(!).

Thanks, Kathy. Good answer.

This comparison of Willis 5 and Moorman leave NO DOUBT that they depict different anomalous images.

Jack

So far nobody has addressed what is shown by this study...mostly just attacks on me for not explaining HOW it was done. Good grief! I do not know how it was done; I am just showing that it WAS done...but certain people prefer to kill the messenger.

I think people are just trying to determine why you think it's a valid message.

Speaking only for myself, I'd simply asked if you could show that it was possible, that Willis lost or gave up possession of his originals and - to accomodate Kathy's defense of your question - he kept no copies to compare the "doctored" version against.

I've not asked you to explain how it was done, but rather if it was possible.

If not, and all of the others did, then I'd suggest that your point should be that all of the other images were doctored, and Willis's is the proof.

If you want to tell me that the dog ate your homework, at least show me a doggie dish!

Men claiming they were Secret Service or FBI asked for the films and photographs, which would be given back. Most, probably, came back; but when they did, the pictures were retouched and most likely, the photographers didn't realize it, because they hadn't seen them yet.

I can appreciate that aspect, but can you provide a single documented instance of that actually happening?

The key word here is "documented." By that I mean not just claims by various people that this occurred, but something that legitimizes that claim, even to the extent of a letter written or complaint lodged with any agency, anywhere, that this took place? A statement under oath saying "I had my camera and was taking pictures, but a police officer took the film from me" would suffice, even if it was never followed up, or a letter to, say, the ARRB stating that the writer had taken pictures or films and wanted them returned?

In this particular instance, is there any indication whatsoever that anyone other than Phil Willis and the person who developed his slides ever had possession of his film, even for an hour, prior to his first seeing the developed product? Possession, it seems, would be a prerequisite to any doctoring of any sort, wouldn't you agree? If possession can't be even hinted at, much less proved, how then can there be any suggestion of "doctoring" unless it's accompanied by the charge that Phil Willis did it himself.

... And if he did, wouldn't it have been much simpler to just never have taken the picture rather than to go through the bother of altering it?

If, as Jack said, every other photo and film that depicts this area shows three men while Willis only shows two, and IF absolutely nobody had possession of his negatives other than himself, does this not suggest instead that every other film and photo was altered if Phil's couldn't have been?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

A good friend of mine, in explaining the difference between assassination researchers and assassination "buffs," said that the first attempts to answer questions while the latter merely raises them. Is it an "research" when someone says "I see something that doesn't make sense to me" and asks someone else to try to explain it to his satisfaction? What explanation is "good enough" if it can be dismissed by simply saying that someone lied or that the presumed "explanation" might not have taken some nebulous factor into consideration?

Here, Jack could have at least shown the possibility that Phil Willis's photo could have been doctored by showing that Phil had surrendered the undeveloped film to someone, or given any original, developed prints or slides he might ever have had - that is, something that he had seen and may have retained copies of to refer back to.

Jack is very specific that Willis's image was retouched, implicitly discounting the possibility that all of the other images had been. After all, whoever did all of this alteration of every available image was really, really good and amazingly thorough; why is that not possible? Is it easier to believe that Willis's film could have been taken, altered and returned without his knowledge - like the Tooth Fairy plucking a child's tooth from beneath his pillow and leaving a quarter - even despite there being no evidence that any such thing even could have happened?

Again, some documented proof of anything like this happening to anyone would be useful, and I'm not referring to people who simply get in front of a camera 20 or 30 years later to spout something that sounds nefariously suspicious. Someone who was concerned enough about it to bring it to official attention. And preferably without claims of such complaints having "mysteriously disappeared" rendered as "proof" that they'd actually made one.

It's like the claim, years ago, that arrest records of someone in custody in Fort Worth on the assassination afternoon "don't exist" and that the - or "a" - photograph taken of him had "mysteriously disappeared" from the archives of the newspaper that didn't even take the picture!

That being the case, how do we know which of the two is incorrect, or whether it is neither or both that is (or are) incorrect?

More to the point, how was any of this done without the knowledge and/or cooperation of the photographer(s)?

Were Phil's negatives modified and then returned to him? If so, what other changes were made to the other images? If none, why not?

A Polaroid Land camera did not, of course, have any negatives. Is that, together with early publication, a reason to eliminate Moorman from being an alteration candidate?

How do chains of custody figure into any of this? What do other images of this area show? At least one point in this brief study (the bushes) can be attributed to perspective; would need a clearer image to determine if the shade issue is another.

I should write his dust jacket for him ...

You can't do that without first putting in a blurb about yourself and another book, so allow me to suggest a template:

Blair Dobson, recognized as the world's leading authority on [enter authorities here], has this to say about Flip-Flop [enter review here]. It is the best book on the Kennedy assassination ever printed other than [enter alternate book title here].

You can also provide a PayPal address so that the authors of each book can make easy payment. Beats working for a living, don't you think?

I just find it remarkable that ... (I) can't find a single reference as to whether he's pro or anti conspiracy ... (and therefore?) whether any of them are worth reading ....

With a few notable exceptions, most books on this subject are "worth reading," even if you might disagree with their outlook or conclusions.

(Who knows: you might find an argument in one that will turn your world upside down. If it can happen to Vince Palamara - twice in as many years! - then it can happen to you, too ... no matter which side of the argument you may be on!)

I find it difficult to be on the winning side of an argument when I don't even know what the subject matter is, and hard to disagree with something (other than ideologically) when I don't know what the proposition is.

Here's another photo of the Temple:

I think a reasonable case can be made for this being where the real perp was hiding out. Less certain, but still possible is Nick McDonald obtaining the pistol from the perp here and then rushing off to the TT to try and plant it on Oswald before killing him. His movements prior to the TT (as far as they can be ascertained) as well as what can be pieced together of the arrest, do not preclude, and may even suggest this scenario.

You've got some good points here, but some difficulties with the screenplay, as I see it.

The temple was first mentioned after Sgt. Cal Owens 1:33 report that they were "shaking down these old houses" located behind Ballew's Texaco, which the perp had last been seen running behind some 20-25 minutes before. This report was followed by a request to "send [a] squad over here to Tenth and Crawford to check out this church basement," the church being the Abundant Life Temple. A Patrolman F.S. Williams, with call sign #66, responded.

About 30 seconds later came the call that a "suspect" had been seen entering the library over at Marsalis, several blocks away. According to the testimony given about this later, it generated a significant response from those DPD units - some 40 of them, not counting nearly 20 sheriff's deputies and an unknown number of constables, whose office was (and is) at 12th & Beckley - who were in Oak Cliff, including McDonald.

McDonald's receipt of the gun could be supported by the contention that he did not, in fact, respond to the library call despite his testimony to the contrary, but instead remained behind at the temple. The primary difficulty with that scenario, however, is that it was McDonald who made the call requestion a squad "to check out this church basement."

A further contention could be that McDonald was letting C.T. Walker (who made the call about "the suspect" being in the library) that he was in place at the temple, and that Walker should make the diversionary call to get patrols away from the church. This might get more traction, however, if McDonald had simply reported that he was going to check out the church himself, rather than to have called for backup.

While we might reasonably agree that a call that the suspect was actually seen somewhere would cause most of the cops in the area to abort fruitless searches for a cop-killer in favor of his presumed capture - as it did, incidentally - there is no guarantee that some officers wouldn't have remained behind to continue the search.

There were, after all, nearly 40 DPD units in Oak Cliff at that point, along with another 15-20 sheriff's deputies and an untold number of county constables, whose headquarters was (and is) just blocks away at 12th & Beckley. With 60-plus uniforms concentrated in central Oak Cliff, it's not unreasonable to think that at least some of them would have (and possibly may have) decided that there were more than enough other officers available to respond to the library call while they pursued other potentially promising leads.

McDonald's call for assistance fairly well exonerates him from at least this role in the "frame up" since, if he'd remained behind and Williams among others had responded to his request, he'd have been either stymied or caught in his attempt to take possession of the gun during the library diversion. A call that he was going to check out the basement could have initiated the same diversion without alerting other officers.

McDonald's passing off the gun during his altercation with Oswald in the theater would have been clumsy at best, especially in terms of his getting the webbing of his fingers caught in the breech, and potentially lethal at worst if he'd attempted to palm it off while cocked (thus getting his hand caught).

The same is not true, however, if another officer had attempted to make it appear as if Oswald had the gun in his hand and had shot McDonald during the struggle. There are at least two other viable candidates for such an enterprise.