-
Posts
2,184 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Greg Doudna's Achievements
Veteran (13/14)
- Rare
Recent Badges
-
T.F. Bowley, A Wind-Up Wristwatch & 1:17
Greg Doudna replied to Bill Brown's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Ps Bill, if Jimmy Burt said he saw Tippit roll down the front passenger window (maybe partway?), I think Burt may have been only a car length away and therefore that witness claim is of interest. I would not automatically assume it was wrong. In that case I could imagine Tippit normally driving with that window up, lowering it partway to be able to hear what the man flagging him down wanted to tell or ask him, then rolling it back up the partway again before getting out of the vehicle on the drivers side. It would be plausible behavior it seems to me. I just was not aware until your mention that Jimmy Burt had claimed to witness that if what you say is right. -
T.F. Bowley, A Wind-Up Wristwatch & 1:17
Greg Doudna replied to Bill Brown's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
You are playing games, citing evidence inaccessible to anyone, and not lifting a finger to make it available and can’t be bothered even to make a civil private reply to my private inquiry. If you are going to cite evidence you keep hidden in your vest pocket that no one else is allowed to see, I am asking for an exact quote (with any sentence or so relevant surrounding context exact quote too). I am not saying you’ve misremembered or are paraphrasing wrong. I just like to verify fact claims I’ve never heard before. I check footnotes, and you’re not giving one that can be checked; why? Are you more interested in winning arguments by withholding access to secret evidence, than in discussion where both sides may learn something from one another? -
Oh man I apologize Kevin! I meant the question to Bertolino.
-
[]
-
[]
-
Kantor "worked for the murderers ... scheming and murdering before any of us were born... ?" That's a rather serious charge there Richard. Would you care to say why you think Kantor was involved in the assassination of Kennedy? Reasons for your belief?
-
Ruth said she voted for Kennedy. I don't remember where I read it but thats what she said. No evidence she ever voted for or supported Nixon. I doubt very many Quakers voted for Nixon, despite Nixon claiming to be one. Ruth Paine as a member of the ACLU, supporter of civil rights, etc., would be "liberal"/JFK aligned. When I knew Ruth in the St. Petersburg Friends Meeting nobody else there was voting Republican (Bush II years), I doubt Ruth was. My father who grew up in the most conservative branch of Friends in North America, the Conservative Friends of Ohio who wear black and white, speak "thee" and "thou" and only a few hundred are left today, said when he grew up those rural farming Friends always voted Republican. That was before WW2 and Franklin D. Roosevelt where a shift happened. But before WW2 the Republicans were the party of Lincoln who freed the slaves, staunch quaker loyalty for that. Also, Herbert Hoover was a Quaker who became president and he was Republican (and Herbert Hoover was well-regarded among Quakers, unlike Nixon). But from FDR on, there was a shift to voting more Democratic.
-
Not a speck of evidence I am aware of that Kantor was an FBI asset, nor do you cite any even though making the allegation. Kantor was telling his Parkland sighting of Ruby from the beginning, I believe documented written by Kantor starting from as early as the first weekend, whereas Applin's claim to have seen Ruby in the Texas Theatre only became known years later. You say "the FBI knew about [it]" early but you cite no evidence for that. And "probably from Ruby himself" has no basis. As for who Applin saw, it definitely was not Ruby, even if Applin mistakenly thought so, for this reason: In the Sixth Floor Museum oral history of Texas Theatre patron Jack Davis, which can be found on the Sixth Floor Museum site, Davis tells of an unnamed (by Jack Davis) patron sitting across the aisle from him in the exact, specific seat where Applin located his "Jack Ruby". Well, the identity of the patron to whom Jack Davis referred, sitting precisely in the very seat Applin located his "Jack Ruby", is no mystery. It was another theater patron that day named John Gibson, manager of the nearby Elko Camera store, 239 W. Jefferson. Here is Gibson's Warren Commission testimony, https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/gibson.htm). What is missing is a photo of John Gibson, which would be interesting to see, to see how Applin could see Ruby on TV and mistakenly think John Gibson looked like Jack Ruby on TV. Remember how FBI agent Odum showed Marguerite Oswald a photo of that heavyset man in the Mexico City surveillance photo who was not Oswald, and Marguerite claimed forever after that that was a photo of Jack Ruby (it was not)? Same principle. But John Gibson is who that was, that Applin saw. Not Jack Ruby. To which may be added: there were a lot of police officers in the Texas Theatre that day, and as is well known, half the police force (or whatever percentage it was) knew Jack Ruby, several officers of whom specifically are known to have known Ruby very well personally (e.g. Cunningham, Courson). If it really had been Jack Ruby there, somebody would have recognized him other than just Applin. Applin saw Ruby on TV and simply made a mistaken identification from memory of some physical accidental resemblance. There was nothing to the Applin Jack Ruby claim, nor does it have anything to do with why Kantor said he saw Jack Ruby at Parkland. Kantor said he saw Ruby at Parkland ... because he saw Ruby at Parkland. Seth Kantor was an honest reporter. Ruby was at Parkland. It is a puzzle why the Warren Commission chose to say otherwise, against the evidence of Seth Kantor's highly credible witness. What comes to mind to me is that Ruby was there for some non-innocent reason, and it would open a can of worms for the Warren Commission to try to explain why he was there. Therefore, in the drive to wrap the case up around a LN Oswald killed two days later by an unplanned crime-of-passion LN Ruby, it was preferred in that narrative that Ruby not have been there. Therefore, that is what they wrote. Maybe there is a better explanation but that is my best guess as to why.
-
T.F. Bowley, A Wind-Up Wristwatch & 1:17
Greg Doudna replied to Bill Brown's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Where did Jimmy Burt say that? Reference, quote? Incidentally, I tried to message you privately on this site seeking access to the Jimmy Burt Chapman interview, you didn't reply. Did you get that? -
T.F. Bowley, A Wind-Up Wristwatch & 1:17
Greg Doudna replied to Bill Brown's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Nobody disputes the killer was leaning down in to speak to Tippit through that front vent window, sort of hard to do so without resting hands on the car. Try to replicate that, lean down to talk through a cracked-open passenger vent window so that the driver can hear clearly ... without resting against the car for balance, or positioning one's hands for balance as one puts one's face near the glass to speak through the vent. Two of the witnesses who observed the killer talking to Tippit that way directly said the killer's arms (Markham) or hands (Jimmy Burt) were on that front passenger door touching. Helen Markham said that in her same-day Nov 22, 1963 Dallas Police written signed affidavit, and Jimmy Burt said that to Al Chapman. And Jimmy Burt for reasons I have given elsewhere probably was not viewing from a block away, but from a few feet away sitting in his car next to Tippit's patrol car at the time, in other words, unless he was lying or fabricating about seeing the killer's hands on the car, he was in an extremely good position to have seen and know that. And the prints conclusively were found not to be Oswald's--in 1994, first publicly disclosed in 1998--by an examiner who said it was easy to see that, though the Dallas Police appear to have covered up that little detail at the time. To this day, nobody knows who in the Dallas Police crime lab did the print examination that concluded there was no information in those prints such as the 1994 negative identification (not-Oswald). Officer Barnes told the Warren Commission as hearsay that that had been such a Dallas Police finding that the prints were worthless, but did not say who, and no document tells who, nobody signed anything or admitted they decided that, re those Tippit patrol car passenger door and right front bumper prints at DPD. No record DPD sought or FBI sought FBI's assistance in examining those prints. If a Michigan examiner in 1994 could easily find a negative-identification (exclusion of) Oswald, surely the FBI in 1963 could have found that and maybe more. It looks like once both DPD and the FBI realized those prints couldn't be used to incriminate Oswald, all interest was gone in them, including, perhaps especially including, the threat that it might possibly lead to identification of some killer other than Oswald. If Oswald had gone to trial for the murder of officer Tippit, and a jury was presented with this, how could this alone not raise "reasonable doubt" that Oswald was certainly the killer. Jurors are instructed not to convict only because they think someone is probably guilty, but have "no reasonable doubt" that that is the case. If those prints were not Oswald's left where one would expect the killer to leave prints, where two crime scene witnesses said they directly saw physical contact of the killer's arms/hands on the car at that location, where prints were found, from someone who was not Oswald ... what should an honest juror think? Convict Oswald because "he could still be guilty" even so? What about in the eyes of history? No one lifts a finger to examine those prints further even today, which could still be done. Myers responded abusively to me when in the most polite manner possible I sought his assistance. Bill Brown has said at various times that he has not the least interest in having an examination done to find out who those fingerprints match to since he is certain they did not come from the killer (absurdly, he thinks he knows that). (I'm not totally negative on Myers--he got the prints' finding done by Lutz of 1994 and reported and published it, which was important and nobody else had gotten that done, and that is something and to be honored.) I don't know how to get a fingerprint examination for match to Curtis Craford done, but I would put $500 into it if someone else was capable of getting it done competently in a blind examination which would be guaranteed to be published no matter what the findings. I would put $250 into an examination that was not blind. I don't pretend that would necessarily underwrite the full costs of such, but I am offering to put some money where my mouth is to that extent. I see just now Tom Gram's above--very right. And Bill Brown trying to frame this as a question of whether the negative exclusion of Oswald from those prints is absolute proof of innocence, as distinguished from reasonable cause to question Oswald's guilt. -
Concerning the color of the CE 162 jacket, the majority of Tippit crime scene witnesses spoke of "warm" light-tan tones of an off-white color of the Tippit killer's jacket, most NOT describing it as gray, even though the Warren Commission was insistent on always calling and labeling CE 162 "gray". The reason? Because Oswald actually did have an honest-to god gray jacket in color. Buell Frazier testified as clearly as could be that Oswald frequently wore a gray jacket to work at the TSBD. Marina told the FBI Lee had a gray jacket in the Soviet Union that he returned to America with. Marina said that to the FBI who, however, did not show CE 162 to Marina when she said that, or any other time. Marina was shown CE 162 for the very first time in her Warren Commission testimony in 1964 at which time she identified it as gray and as Oswald's, and said Oswald wore it to Irving the night of Nov 21. The Warren Commission rejected Marina's testimony on when she said she saw Oswald wearing CE 162. The Warren Commission concluded Lee wore his blue jacket CE 163 to Irving Nov 21 and back to Dallas on Nov 22, and dismissed Marina's testimony that she saw Lee wear CE 162 the night of Nov 21. Marina never testified to having seen Lee wear CE 162 on any other specific occasion than the night of Nov 21. The only specific occasion Marina testified to having seen Lee wear CE 162, the Warren Commission concluded never happened. Ruth Paine never testified to having ever seen Oswald wear CE 162. Buell Frazier never did. The only time Marina ever claimed to have seen Oswald wear CE 162, the Warren Commission blew that off, decided Marina didn't know what she was talking about on that. Nobody in Irving ever said they saw Oswald wear CE 162, except Marina whom the Warren Commission dismissed as unbelievable on the one time Marina claimed she had seen the phantom CE 162 on Lee. Nobody in the TSBD ever said they saw Oswald wear CE 162. Nobody at Oswald's rooming house on N. Beckley ever said they saw Oswald wear CE 162. Nobody prior to the Tippit killing ever spoke of Oswald having a light-tan off-white jacket of the color of the Tippit killer's light-tan off-white CE 162. Oswald did have a gray jacket, however. It just had nothing to do with CE 162. A photo of Oswald in a group photo of coworkers in Minsk has Lee in a jacket, not otherwise identified, whose color cannot be verified due to the photo being in black-and-white. As can be seen, the jacket Oswald is wearing in that photo is NOT--is NOT-- CE 162 (nor is it CE 163). But that jacket Oswald is wearing in Minsk DOES EXACTLY match the "flannel, wool-looking" description of Buell Frazier of the real Oswald's "gray" jacket which Frazier saw Oswald frequently wear--sitting next to him in the car--to work to the TSBD, a gray jacket frequently worn by Oswald which Frazier said unequivocally was NOT--was NOT--CE 162. The Warren Commission was dead-set on having the off-white light-tan CE 162, the jacket of the Tippit killer, identified as the real gray jacket of Oswald. That is why they consistently labeled CE 162 gray when it was not gray but off-white light tan. That is why. That is why. That is why. And just about all the major books and discussions in the decades since, more or less, have perpetuated that labeling--continuing to call CE 162, the jacket abandoned by the killer of Tippit, a "gray" jacket, even though it never was gray, except to people challenged with color-recognition issues, or under indoor fluorescent lighting which washes out warm colors in interior lighting. The Warren Commission called CE 162 a "gray" jacket. And therefore it became a "gray" jacket in the annals of journalism and history writing. That is how powerful a labeling is. The Tippit killer's light-tan off-white jacket CE 162 was not the color of the real Oswald's gray jacket, because it was not Oswald's gray jacket, which was gray. From the Warren Commission testimony of Buell Frazier: Mr. BALL - On that day [Nov 22, 1963] you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket? Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning. Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types. Mr. BALL - It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown? [CE 162 and CE 163] Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. (. . .) Mr. BALL - You are not able to tell us then anything or are you able to tell us, describe any of the clothing he had on that day, except this gray jacket? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - That is the only thing you can remember? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - I have here a paper sack which is Commission's Exhibit 364. That gray jacket you mentioned, did it have any design in it? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Mr. BALL - Was it light or dark gray? Mr. FRAZIER - It was light gray. Mr. BALL - You mentioned it was woolen. Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Long sleeves? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Buttoned sleeves at the wrist, or do you remember? Mr. FRAZIER - To be frank with you, I didn't notice that much about the jacket, but I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before. Mr. BALL - You say it had a zipper on it? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Buell Frazier was describing the jacket Oswald was wearing in the Minsk photo, not CE 162.
-
T.F. Bowley, A Wind-Up Wristwatch & 1:17
Greg Doudna replied to Bill Brown's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
I can't speak for others but here is my take on this. Burroughs' time memory of 1:00 to 1:07 for Oswald in the theater is from decades later and as you note, not too plausible that Oswald could have gotten there on foot in that time. Something like 1:15-1:20 entry into the theater arriving either by bus south on Beckley or on foot would be more realistic. The major problems with Oswald at the Tippit crime scene at ca. 1:15 (or whenever) are: why would Oswald walk there? And the encounter of Tippit with his killer has all the appearance of an ambush and a professional killing, not a spontaneous spooked impulse shooting as supposed of Oswald. The issues are complicated involving witnesses and the FBI report of a revolver match to shell hulls incriminating Oswald, but the question of why would Oswald choose to walk there (Tenth and Patton) remains ... along with its not Oswald's fingerprints, but may be the killer's fingerprints, on the passenger car door where Helen Markham directly said on Nov 22 she saw the killer lean down and put his arms against the patrol car before he got Tippit out of the car and shot him dead... and the earliest witness descriptions of the Tippit killer had the killer with wavy black hair and the closest witness to the killer from only ca. 15 feet away said the killer had a block cut rear hairline, neither of which agree with Oswald ... and another credible suspect exists who does match the facts and physical descriptions of the killer, a recent hire of Ruby who had hitman experience and expertise (and who was misidentified as Oswald on other known occasions) ... The only explanation I have seen that attempts to make sense of why Oswald would be at Tenth and Patton is that of Burt Griffin's recent book, and it is possible Myers also said something like this somewhere: that Oswald was on his way to a Marsallis bus stop, where he would use his transfer and get to a Greyhound bus station by city bus, from where he might then take a bus to Mexico which he could afford with the $11.20 or whatever it was he had in his pocket. (If this was an escape, it was not a very well-planned one.) The alternative is Oswald was found in the Texas Theatre because that is where he went from his rooming house and entered, wearing his blue jacket upon entry to the theater, as a paying customer, for the purpose of meeting someone there (https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/T-Jackets-112.pdf). -
I appreciate this on this detail Kevin, thanks. It may not actually disagree with what I said, technically speaking. The Tippit autopsy bullets confirmed the fact that the W's and R's two manufactures of bullets were used in the killing, however as you note that could not have been a source of knowledge of that fact learned on the weekend of Nov 22-24, 1963. The source for that information would necessarily--from the very fact you bring out--be the four shell hulls recovered from the Tippit crime scene on Nov 22. In the scenario in which there were substitutions of those hulls: (a) the R's plus W's mix used by the Tippit killer was learned Nov 22 from the real hulls abandoned by the Tippit killer on Fri Nov 22 (2+2 R's and W's). (b) at some point prior to the FBI lab's receipt of shell hulls a week later, other R's and W's were fired from Oswald's revolver, replications of the officers' markings were made on the substituted hulls, and the substituted R and W hulls were submitted to the FBI lab which matched them to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of any other weapon. If there were substituted hulls, and if hypothetically that were to be established as distinguished from speculated, the question would arise whether the original (now missing) real hulls of the Tippit killer were indeed R's and W's mixed. However, the Tippit autopsy body bullets independently verify that, in fact, that was the case. That is the sequence of the logic I see. (On discussion of the chain of custody of the Tippit crime scene shell hulls received by the FBI lab raising the possibility of substitutions, my piece, "Were the Tippit crime scene shell hulls fired from the revolver of Lee Harvey Oswald?", https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/T-BALLISTICS-108-1.pdf .)
-
Pat Speer Chats with Francois Carlier
Greg Doudna replied to Pat Speer's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
OK I’m corrected, thanks Pat. It just sounds wacky that autopsists could be claimed to err on a description of a location of a wound of that magnitude. -
Pat Speer Chats with Francois Carlier
Greg Doudna replied to Pat Speer's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
From my experience in the world of contested interpretations of archaeological and radiocarbon dating data Dr. Wecht’s explanation makes sense. A subtle point though. I wonder if it is quite precise to say the Clark and HSCA panels “moved the entrance wound higher” as if it was an issue of correct position of the same wound under discussion. Idiomatically the wording may be sorta OK but I wonder if that is exactly what was going on. As I read it, they were not talking about a dispute over the location of the same autopsists’ EOP wound. They were rather claiming to have discovered a new wound (at the cowlick), missed by the autopsists. And, separate issue, they were claiming the autopsists’ EOP wound did not exist. Two distinct issues. It was not a claim that the autopsists saw the cowlick wound, then the autopsists mislocated that cowlick wound by mistake near the EOP. Pat do you think that is an accurate or inaccurate clarified reading of what the Clark and HSCA panels were saying?