Jake Hammond

Sorry, maybe you know more ? I’m not familiar with the stabbing incident at all.

I read it through, most of which I think now is accepted as fact and most people know but there are a few things I would add. 1) To me, the most glaring smoking gun to a conspiracy is that officer Tippit was shot outside the home of his recent lover, a place he frequented often. This is not taken into account in this chronology and would be a HUGE coincidence. 2) This story also completely omits the fact that several witnesses saw a police car parked in the alley Tippit was effectively blocking, a man get out and say something to the shooter, then get back in and quickly reverse back down the alley. Again, the chances of stopping at the end of a narrow alley where there is a police car parked are slim. That the police car would then just drive off... really ? Put these two points together and you have an obvious conclusion; he met someone there because it was a known place to him, secluded and topographically advantageous in relation to the theatre and the rooming house. The article does however give a logical and reconciliatory account of why Tippit stopped Andrews' car and has enlightened me on the stabbing incident since I have not reached that far in ' into the nightmare'. The stabbing is also surely not just a coincidence ?! I can't take any more huge coincidences ! They do happen though and we have to remember that the truth is never what seems the least strange and unlikely, a trap many fall in to I believe, especially in cold case work. Returning to ' coincidences' ... I do find it entirely plausible that the two incidents are linked but are also coincidental . Possible theory - Tippit was going to meet someone at the alley way, someone he'd been trying to contact at the top ten, over the police radio, or had pre arranged to meet. En route he heard a report of a stabbing and was obviously now stressed because it may well be linked to what he knew of the plan that day, it may be that he was meeting Lee and suspected Lee had been stopped, or just that it was a coincidence but he could not ignore the call and decided to briefly search for the man in the car. Then he resumed his meet up. More needs to be deciphered from the stabbing incident, its just a huge coincidence that should be either linked to the wider event or dismissed as a coincidence.

Just re-read Baker's testimony and although it is highly suspicious in some regards and seems to change he quite clearly states that the man he stopped was wearing a light coloured jacket. It is interesting that he ducks his head out of the way quite aggressively to avoid eye contact with Oswald in the corridor at the station and more so that it looks like Oswald may then say something to him or pauses on approaching him. A time machine would be great !

Yes, the white jacket white shirt man seems to crop up on the sixth floor, the rambler, East 10th and killing tippit. And POSSIBLY most importantly in the balcony of the theatre minus a jacket, whilst a light jacket is found in a car park near by. I've always wondered if ' white jacket , white shirt ' was actually " light jacket ,white T-shirt". I have a good knowledge of mens vintage clothing and terminology having worked in the industry but were T-shirts often referred to as ' shirts' when worn under another item in 1960's Dallas ? , it seems trivia but these details can make a real difference. I have a feeling they were.

Can you summarise ?!

Hey, I'm on board with Harvey and Lee ! But maybe not the photographic analysis in all respects. The two faces are just too similar to be different people. December '57 , feb 57 hunting and the photo of Lee outside the barracks, in my opinion are not the guy arrested . Anyway ... Yes that jacket is very very similar to the hunting photo, but it was 6 years later so maybe not the same one exactly. My point about the brown shirt was a bad one.... I hadn't even realised that the main stream story is that he was wearing a light tan shirt but changed into a dark brown one. For me, the sighting a of a man running down from the elm extension who looked very similar to LHO, by four ( Craig , Robinson & Cooper , Helen Forest ?) witnesses is too strong to ignore but what he was wearing and what Harvey left the building wearing don't seem to be clear aS craigs testimony contradicts the others seeing a man in a white T shirt. Furthermore the light jacket people saw the killer of Tippit wearing could have been covering a dark shirt, open at the neck, with a t shirt under that. discarded by Harvey at some point. So I don't see concrete evidence that the the clothing can help. If we could say that the man who shot Tippit was not wearing anything other than a jacket and a white T-shirt then great. If we could say that Harvey was wearing a light tan shirt IN the TSBD then great also. The slight issue seems to be that the jacket was very light tan and lightweight cotton. As was the shirt harvey was 'supposed' to have left in. And, as above, the man entering the rambler has varying descriptions regarding his upper clothing. Did craig feel pressured to say a tan shirt at this point ?

Thank you, I really need to look at all the statements again though, I've been looking more at the Tippit scene so forgotten a lot of what people said about the station wagon man or 'Lee'. I hadn't realised that Craig had seen a man in a light tan shirt though, I'd always assumed it was the light shirt/ jacket, as in the article ' found' by Westbrook in the parking lot. Confusing .

I'll have a look at those graphics, I have an idea but there isn't one map or graphic that does everything so it will have to be done in two or there sections.

Another Q.... Who was it that stated that Oswald was wearing a brown shirt before leaving the TSBD ? Or did no one ? Thats kind of an important one . I can't see it in Bakers testimony, unless i'm reading the wrong one !

Thank you, I'll have a look.

Thanks Paul, 1,2) it would make sense that Lee had to leave the scene alone, so wouldn't have gotten in the car with Westbrook, or whoever the car had in. He would leave the scene and then give the wallet, jacket and revolver to the conspirators, so not to get caught red handed. But beyond doubt 'Lee' was in the theatre so he went there for a reason. I don't see the issue as regards time, Westbrook had plenty of time to meet him after the killing of Tippit and take him to the theatre or close to. You are right though, he perhaps didn't need to. 3) Could it not be the case that there is some truth to Tommy Rowe ? He may actually have seen someone ? I'm not sure thats off the table. But either way 'Lee' had to run in without buying a ticket, this incriminates Oswald and also gives the impression that he is running away and hiding, which Harvey really wasn't at all and wouldn't fit the main stream narrative, which we now have. The whole theatre drama was a bodge job and didn't go to plan BUT the basics did work. My theory is that Lee was supposed to run in , be seen by someone ( he actually wasn't, perhaps because the manager was on break, or perhaps Postal did see him but was scared to say she'd seen two men) and then either kick up a fuss and buy a ticket OR simply leave via the back door. I think Macdonald turning up , Johny B watching the rear exit and the fact no one came to find Lee after he ran in, i.e Burroughs or the manager messed up the whole thing. Rowe may have coaxed Brewer into calling but after that he couldn't for example say, " hey Johny, don't watch the back door or look for the guy I told you about, Its all a big plan " etc...

Thank you JIm, there are so many questions but these few are where I'm at now. 1) Great info, I confess I haven't read ' with Mailce' despite it been well rated, maybe because of some conflicting views I have, I'll get it on kindle if its available. That statement ' after he shed his jacket' could be inserted into a genuine witness of him moving north or just fabricated completely. 2) I think the credibility of Holan is key, its a strange thing to make up or imagine you saw. There is another you're right, I must go back and write his name down . 3) Do you know more specifics on anyone else who knew of his extra marital activities ? I've heard a few but nothing that really cements it in. 4) I'm reading 'into the nightmare' presently after reading it last year but not taking notes. I think 'mutual exclusivity in actual statements ( not their inferred meaning) and peoples recollections have a big part to play. Often people statements on face value seem to conflict but can be reconciled if you look at their exclusivity. E.g, two men at the scene, two men fleeing the scene, a man who 'looked like' Oswald, a man matching Oswalds description, one man shooting Tippit and running off discarding cartridges ... none of these conflict at all ! There seem to be a few too many who saw two men though for it to be imagined. Its a real mess when you get into it ! My aim is to make a time elapse 3d type map of peoples movements after the assassination, focusing on the oakcliff area. Make that into a youtube video and interject any key actions or possibly scenarios. Its a bigger project than it sounds because some details just aren't there and in some cases you have strongly argued points of contention. Like who was in the car that pulled up at the rooming house and if Olsen was involved etc...

After some time off I'm back interested in the case and have decided to focus right in and create something for other researchers to use as a visual tool, relating to the events after the assassination, up to Oswalds arrest. I've been listening a lot to john Armstrong talk on black op Radio on these events and have cross referenced some key points but wanted to ask a few questions , essentially to tap into the vast knowledge on here and avoid false assumptions. So.... 1) Is there any contrary evidence to the theory that Westbrook was the only one who mentioned a witness who saw the jacket discarded ? Its a really key point in the timeline post assassination. 2) Is there anything to contradict the police car in the alley way at the Tippit scene ? I mean a witness who says categorically that there wasn't one ? 3) Where did his mistress live ? at 410 next to the alley ? ( JA emphasises two witnesses that highlight that 'he' lived there) but then there seems to be another train of thought that it was down the road ( sorry can't recall the exact address) . Were there more than one ? 4) Has anyone come up with a sound reconciliation for the varying statements of the ' witnesses ' to the Tippit killing ? I have a feeling that there are lots of factors involved and have my own thoughts here but it is a minefield ! Apologies for my lack of knowledge here but those with more knowledge please understand that not everyone can know everything and my intentions are to learn more and produce something valid. I have searched the site but there are 200 pages and the top results when I searched weren't quite right.

Good quote

I challenged him on the ‘ evidence ‘ ( as I see it ) of people running up the hill after the shooting and he said that witnesses who reported shots from that area were crackpots. He may have inferred that the people running were crackpots also but that’s not a quote. My point is, that he takes the high road about only using ‘ evidence’ yet does ignore some stuff which does at least seem to be evidence. Rather than reconcile that evidence into a timeline, which is what I try to do. More annoyingly, when someone makes a suggestion about reconciliation he ridicules it.

Lance, explain to me these two issues. 1- if the ‘ carcano bullet ‘can pass through 36” of wood and not even get a scratch , then what happened to the headshot when up entering a human skull it fragmented ( one fragment of which must have caused the dent in the chrome if there were three shots). Also there were fragments both in the car and in the head. If the fragments were fake or planted then you’re a CTer, if they aren’t we have two weapons. 2- Please explain the two closely bunched final shots. Most witnesses describe the two shots as being too close than is physically possible with the Carcano . But it gets better....the final shot was a ( difficult) perfect headshot so he would have had to aim , acquire the target and track the head . Alternatively, he saw the head explode then decided to reload and fire at James Tague. In all honestly ..... explain this and I’ll take you seriously.

A - we do , there is an expulsion of matter rearwards at 316 and a deformity at the rear of the head tallying with the parkland doctors. b - it’s not an ‘ explosion ‘ because the pressure and blood was gone by 316. its hard to prove this but also Jackie’s reactions, she suddenly looks rearward and dives over the trunk , well after 313 . Bob Harris, who I know you are fond of, points this out. Im not 100% on this myself but it would reconcile the evidence.

No, that was Lance, I apologise.

Lance, everything is a ‘pissing contest He doth protesteth too much ‘. Everything is a pissing contest, You seem to think you’re above it whilst simultaneously doing a massive piss. And please stop talking to us as though we are all the same and all inferior, Godh it’s tedious. If you used to believe in conspiracy theories like us idiots then why the arrogance ? Why the ridicule ? It doesn’t add up . A nice friendly bit of banter occasionally would suffice. A guiding hand and a few links with a ‘ I used to think that ...’ would do. Also, we don’t all believe in Aliens and ‘ Oswald in the doorway’ . Finally, this is not a court of Law. This is not a violent assault case or a marital court. This is the assassination of the president with , at the minimum, a cover up of the link between LHO and the alphabet agencies. Finally finally - it’s not just about who dunnit, it’s about the social history, the context, the implications, the mood, the conversations that were had, the relationship, the human situation, the soul of man. I find that much more interesting personally than who pulled the trigger. Dont tell us we can’t research because you said so. However, I do get your point. I myself once believed in many theories tegarding JFK that turned out to be baloney , and it was just as you described. A propensity to err on the side of the alternative and the unknown is all too tempting. Equally tempting to a different group however is the propensity to believe in what is most comfortable and what they’re told. Which many people are trying to rebel against.

Have you tried reconciling the evidence instead of writing them all of as crackpots ? Genuine question . I always understood the truth to be a law unto itself. Not ‘ the most likely’ , ‘ most common sense’ or most logical. If half of the doctors or more specifically describe something, which is also shown in the autopsy , would you not be best advised to reconcile rather than reject. ?

Thanks . What I’m saying is, if I get specific you ridicule and call the evidence fake or crackpot. So I’m asking you what was incorrect about the investigation. Don’t call it silly , don’t call it a game, if you’re not a fundamentalist then talk to us about those hundred things , deviate from the MSM narrative .....

Weren’t bullet fragments also taken from Connally though ? Can’t have both .

T

Turn the table on them if you are going to engage. Ask them what is imperfect about the investigations, what potentially could be minutely flawed with their timelines. Put the ball in their court and stop responding to the , ‘ yeah but in this tiny specific situation I will ridicule you and say that I and only I use common sense and you wear a tin hat ‘ .

You dodged that one lance . You know what I’m saying. I’m asking you what , in hindsight, with 20/20 vision, could potentially be a more beautiful and immaculate investigation ? I’m turning the tables again and putting the ball in your court and again you are dodging . I raised the issue of 399 because it is the single most obvious situation of the DPD or FBI planting evidence. I raised Tippit because there was no investigation. Also.... are you comfortable with your view being EXACTLY the same as that if the MSM ?