Jump to content
The Education Forum

Greg Doudna

Members
  • Posts

    255
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Greg Doudna's Achievements

  1. Micah, the point 5 on Tommy Rowe is completely bogus, fiction (I looked into that earlier). On the other points, I don't see Johnny Brewer having done anything wilfully wrong that day except make a mistaken ID of Oswald (and that is what I think it was, a mistake) as the man who entered the theatre past Julia Postal without paying. The two IBM friends in his store I don't think have anything to do with anything. I do not see Johnny Brewer as a conspirator that day. I think Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal's summoning of the police so quickly saved Oswald's life that day--the police presence preventing Oswald from being killed in that theatre by the killer of Tippit who was in the theatre.
  2. The saga of the finding of the killer's light gray jacket--a surprising back story (and another DPD evidence-handling irregularity) Dale Myers wrote a very interesting blog post on Nov. 12, 2020, with information from a previously-unreported witness, Doretha Dean, part of the husband-and-wife operators of Dean's Dairy Way at 409 E. Jefferson Blvd., told by way of surviving family members (daughters) (https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2020/11/warren-reynolds-and-oswalds-jacket.html). Dean's Dairy was a store next to Ballew's Texaco Station on the corner. The fleeing killer of Tippit was seen running between Ballew's Texaco and Dean's Dairy into a parking lot and alley area out back, and it was there that a light gray jacket was found by police abandoned by the fleeing killer, or so the story goes. There is no dispute here that that jacket was the killer's--I am sure it was, from the witnesses--or that it was abandoned by the killer in that general location. But Myers' article--and this is new since his book--brings out significant new information. For Doretha Dean had always told her daughters that she--Doretha Dean--had found that jacket, and not in the parking lot out back, but on a tire rack on the side of Ballew's Texaco in a narrow corridor between Ballew's Texaco and the west side of Dean's Dairy. According to Doretha Dean, she saw a man--the killer--walk by her front store windows tugging on his jacket as if starting to take it off. The man turned right (north), around the corner of her store and headed to the area in the rear of the stores. Mrs. Dean walked outside and followed and found the jacket on the tire rack. Mrs. Dean then picked up the jacket and took it back with her into her store and gave it to the police, was Mrs. Dean's story handed down in the family. Despite Myers finding the Mrs. Dean story as told by her daughters' story credible in just about every other way, he rejects the Mrs. Dean story of the jacket find, on the grounds that the long-reported version of its find by police under a car in the parking lot out back has too much evidence. Myers assumes that the two stories are contradictory and cannot both be correct, as premise. But from the information brought out by Myers' reporting of this account of Mrs. Dean, I see a different, better interpretation indicated, in which both accounts are true. First the jacket was found by Mrs. Dean. Then the jacket was reported by police found in the parking lot out back. With a glow of recognition so many previously anomalous details fall into place in this light. Why has it been such a long-held secret (seemingly) surrounding the simple fact of the name of the officer who first found the jacket under the car in the parking lot? Captain Westbrook--he called in the discovery of the jacket and when asked said an officer gave it to him but he did not know who it was. No other officer who was on the scene at the time would publicly identify the finder either, only that it was some unnamed officer. Motorcycle officer Hutson told the WC he was there and saw the jacket picked up by "another officer" whom he never identifies, that Westbrook was there, "but I don't know who had it in their hands. The only time I saw it was when the officer had it." The unnamed officer himself never came forward to identify himself, say in an interview or public appearance, "By the way, I am the one who found the jacket and gave it to Captain Westbrook who phoned it in". To this day though there is speculation, it has never been securely confirmed or verified who this mystery officer who supposedly found the jacket in the parking lot, was. What was going on with that? (The unusual withholding of a simple name of the officer who actually found the jacket? What was the big secret?) So there always was that oddity, prior to the Mrs. Dean story. Myers also objects (in addition to the argument that the police version refutes Mrs. Dean's version) that "there is nothing in the contemporary record that even remotely hints that Mrs. Dean recovered the discarded jacket". But there is something in the contemporary record which does support Mrs. Dean's story. In an FBI document of 8/24/64 referring to a statement of B.M. Patterson of Reynolds Motor Company of 11/23/63, Patterson, witness with Warren Reynolds who followed the killer west on Jefferson and saw him run north between Ballew's Texaco and Dean's Dairy, "did identify Oswald and also saw him discard his zipper jacket" (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62230#relPageId=109&search=hoover_shanklin patterson zipper jacket ). Myers accepts that of Patterson, assuming the reference must be to Patterson having seen the killer in the parking lot out back take off the jacket. Myers notes that upon reinterview Patterson did not back off from his claim to have seen the killer discard his jacket. But from the accounts of Patterson and Reynolds they followed the killer on Jefferson and kept a bit of distance behind (for safety), and it is just far more likely that Patterson's witnessing of the killer removing his jacket was from a vantage point of a location of Patterson on Jefferson. There is no vantage point from anywhere on Jefferson by which a person could be seen removing his jacket in the parking lot out back at the reported find site (due to no line of sight behind the buildings)--the only way would be if Patterson had also run back and was in that parking lot as well as the killer to have seen that, which is not likely where Patterson was. Patterson's story, in other words, appears by its most natural reading to be a contemporary claim in support of the much later Mrs. Dean story. In Mrs. Dean's story, she saw the killer "tugging at his jacket" as he passed in front of her store and turned north, and this would agree with Patterson, likely watching from the other side of Jefferson, saying he saw the killer discarding the jacket. In an FBI interview report of 1/23/64 the discarding of the jacket is included in an account of what Patterson saw, even though that FBI interview report editorially adds after mention of the jacket, "which was later recovered by the Dallas Police Department". The post of Myers contains much more in the way of reconstruction of timing and movements (some modifying and updating With Malice). Myers thinks Warren Reynolds ran to the scene of the crime on 10th St. and there met officer C.T. Walker who reported in at 1:22 p.m. a description of the killer and that he was last seen at the 300 block of E. Jefferson. I believe Myers' reconstruction errs on some of these details, and that Reynolds did not encounter Walker at 10th Street but at Jefferson in the area of the Texaco and Dean's Dairy. Walker in his WC testimony said when he drove to 10th Street he saw Tippit's car, but stopped at that location so briefly he did not even get out of his car. "Did you talk to any witnesses there?" Walker was asked. "No; I didn't get out", he answered. Walker does not say he encountered Reynolds there, which would have contradicted his denial to have talked to witnesses there. But, Myers reports that Walker did disclose to Myers in 1983 that Reynolds was Walker's witness source for the 1:22 physical description and "last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson". Myers cites the sound of police sirens in the background of Walker's recorded transmission as evidence of a 10th Street not Jefferson location of Walker, but there was so much police presence with sirens at that point likely heard at both locations this point seems insubstantial. Myers also cites Robert Brock, a mechanic at Ballew's Texaco, as saying Reynolds told them the running man they had seen had killed an officer, which Myers takes as evidence that Reynolds had to have gone to Tenth St. to have learned that; but a simpler explanation is that Brock was simply mistaken in conflating when Reynolds told them the fleeing man had killed an officer, with Reynolds telling them soon after Reynolds learned it (still at Jefferson) from "an unknown source" at Jefferson (FBI interview report, 1/22/64, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=111186#relPageId=109&search=Reynolds_unknown source). That "unknown source" I believe is likely to have been officer C.T. Walker. That Reynolds gave the information in Walker's 1:22 radio transmission, at Jefferson and not at 10th, I think is confirmed in a photo in With Malice on page 185, captioned "WFAA reporter Victor F. Robertson, Jr. listens as Warren Reynolds (sunglasses) tells a Dallas police officer that the gunman went into the rear of the used furniture store seen in the background". In that photo to the left is a profile figure of an officer with police cap and head bowed to hear better, with a cigarette in his mouth. That must be Walker! Filmed on location at Jefferson. Yet Walker never mentioned going to Jefferson in his Warren Commission testimony. Though it was Walker who phoned in the Jefferson block location of the last seen information of the killer, telling Myers in later years that his source (long a mystery) was Warren Reynolds, filmed at Jefferson telling Walker that by WFAA. So I think the notion of Reynolds running to 10th Street is incorrect. Another correction I would offer to Myers' 2020 updated construction in the light of Mrs. Dean's story concerns the detail of hearing the attempted forced entry into an abandoned building next door. Here is the daughters' retelling of their mother's story in the Myers blog post. Their mother, Mrs. Dean, inside Dean's Dairy, ". . . heard a loud banging on the door of the two-story house next door at 413 E. Jefferson Boulevard. She described it as someone 'shaking and banging on the door as if they were ripping off the hinges of the screen door trying to get in.' She said that the efforts she heard were 'hard, fierce, and determined.' "Immediately after hearing those sounds, she heard someone 'running down the rickety stairs that led down from the second floor' of the second-hand store. "This caused her to look up and out the front window in an easterly direction toward the second-hand store. Just as she did, a young man rounded the corner walking briskly in a westerly direction. As he broke into a run, he was tugging at his jacket, as if to take it off. In those days, the Dairy Way had an overhead door so it made the store fully open rather than windowed, and the cashier's counter was close to the sidewalk. Mrs. Dean got a good look at the man who passed her at less than ten feet and positively identified him as Lee Harvey Oswald. She stepped outside the store and peered around the corner at the area in between the store and the Texaco service station next door. She saw Oswald continue behind the service station and into the parking lot." Those parts of Mrs. Dean's story, which Myers accepts, are followed by the story of Mrs. Dean finding the jacket on the tire rack and taking it back into her store with her, which Myers rejects (the jacket-finding part of the story). But Myers believes the killer (he calls the killer, as Mrs. Dean and others thought: Oswald) ran up the stairs of the vacant building next door to try to break into a locked abandoned building. When that failed the killer raced down the stairs again and continued to run on the sidewalk west. That makes no sense as the movements of a fleeing killer. That was not the killer, but Mrs. Dean telling her daughters of hearing police who did exactly that, stormed up those stairs and beat on the door, shaking down that building because Reynolds had told them he thought the killer might have gone into that building from the back. In the retelling by Mrs. Dean's daughters that was simply told out of order, and two distinct things--Mrs. Dean seeing the killer go by her store (that happened first), and separately, hearing officers storming the abandoned building next door (that followed after that)--were mistakenly conflated and told out of order, mistakenly as if (so the daughters misunderstood) it had been the killer who did exactly what officers did minutes later, noisily storm up those stairs and bang and beat on the door and enter that building. So the killer did not decide to hide by turning off Jefferson to run up a flight of stairs of a random building to beat on a door noisily trying to break in, then when finding the door locked ran back down the stairs and back to the sidewalk to continue west--that never happened. The killer went by Mrs. Dean's store without turning into the abandoned antique store building, then turned north around the corner of Mrs. Dean's store, shedding his jacket and on into the parking lot and alley behind, then proceeded west in that alley. Next I believe the killer emerged from the alley where Crawford crosses and he did not remain in the alley but turned northward to run in the street on Crawford while crossing Crawford at the same time, nearly getting run down by the ambulance from the Dudley Hughes Funeral Home going in the same direction on its way to Tippit. Although attendant William Kinsley located the encounter with the running man whom he thought looked like Oswald, on Jefferson--with the man running eastward on Jefferson which makes no sense as the location and direction of the killer (for that reason Myers suggests the running man was Warren Reynolds, not the killer, with Kinsley correct on the location but mistaken in the identification)--the other attendant with Kinsley in the ambulance, J.C. Butler who was driving from the SE corner of Crawford and Jefferson, said he did not turn east on Jefferson but went north on Crawford before turning east on 10th to get to Tippit. That--on Crawford--is where I believe the encounter with the running man, who was the killer, happened--midway on Crawford, both ambulance and killer in the street headed north, in agreement with Butler's memory of the route driven (see Myers, With Malice , 152-54). On the basis of that identification of the location of the running man--on Crawford--the killer would not have proceeded further west in the alley, but instead is last known appearing to be headed west on 10th again from Crawford (after that, the hot witness trail is gone until resumed at Brewer's shoe store and entrance into the Texas Theatre further west on Jefferson). Returning to Mrs. Dean, I think her story was right concerning finding the jacket in the tire rack and taking it back into her store and giving it to police. I think Mrs. Dean either called the police herself or immediately saw police activity, and the first thing she would do would be to turn over that jacket to an officer who would say, "what is this?" and she would explain it was from the killer abandoning it. The officer, horrified at the lack of chain of custody, then had it found on the ground at the reported find spot, or threw it down and picked it up again, or Mrs. Dean took the jacket herself out back to officers in the parking lot there, however it worked. In this way both stories are true of where the jacket was found, except that all identifiable officers referring to the finding of the jacket all say only that they were given it or saw it being turned in by another never-named officer, but that unnamed officer was never identified. The jacket's movements before Westbrook phoned in the find in the parking lot had a brief prehistory that was not disclosed by the DPD. This would represent a minor DPD coverup, nothing to do with framing anyone in this case, but rather--I assume--motivated to have a cleaner chain of custody of that physical evidence with an eye toward developing evidence usable in court. The key officer involved may have been C.T. Walker. He worked as an officer as his normal job in that neighborhood. Myers says he already knew Warren Reynolds, also that Mrs. Dean was friendly with local officers. Therefore Walker would very likely be known to Mrs. Dean. We know Walker was there at the Jefferson and Crawford area because of his encounter with Reynolds which was filmed. But Walker skips his presence there entirely in his Warren Commission testimony. He does not actually deny he was there (he was not asked), but in retelling his movements he simply fails to mention it. I think there is a good chance Walker knew Mrs. Dean was the true finder of that jacket. How the jacket exactly was conveyed from Mrs. Dean in her store to the reported find spot in the parking lot out back is unclear, but in default of better information I would assume Mrs. Dean carried it with her out back to go to police there to give them the jacket, and that is how an officer or officers (whether Walker or any other), upon realizing what that jacket was, immediately dropped it, picked it up again as if finding it, and the rest is history.
  3. Dallas Police Department improprieties in the handling of physical evidence: some context Before entering into the question of whether trust and faith in the integrity of DPD handling of the ballistics evidence in the Tippit case is warranted directly, some other examples of Dallas Police department improprieties concerning handling of physical evidence, for context. (1) Claim that identification of fingerprints from the Tippit cruiser’s passenger side which may have belonged to the killer were unreadable, instead of disclosure that those prints did not match to and could be excluded as belonging to Oswald. This refers to prints found on the Tippit cruiser in the positions where witnesses saw the killer leaning in to speak to Tippit and then move around the right front fender. Sergeant W. E. Barnes of the Dallas Crime Lab dusted and found several smear prints “just below the top of the door [on the right side], and also on the right front fender” (7H272), but, Barnes reported, “none of value”. That was the state of that evidence until new information was broken by Myers in With Malice (pp. 336-40 of the 2013 edition). Myers obtained the Dallas Crime Lab photos of those prints from Dallas police archives and had a latent fingerprint expert, Herbert Lutz, veteran crime scene technician for Wayne County, Michigan, examine the prints. Lutz found that one person was probably responsible for all of the prints taken by Barnes and that the fingerprints on the right front fender had enough information to conclusively exclude that they were Oswald’s. As Myers summarizes, “In short, the fingerprints taken from Tippit’s patrol car were not Oswald’s”. Myers does not regard this as exculpatory for Oswald since “there were plenty of opportunities for a number of people to have touched the police car [after the Tippit killing] before it was secured”. But those fingerprints likely are the killer’s prints (what other single person was likely to have placed his hands both near the window on the passenger side and on the right front fender, in agreement with the movements of the killer with respect to the cruiser?)--even if that point is not certain. Potentially even today those prints could still be matched to and identify the true killer of Tippit. There is the appearance that it was more convenient or suitable for the DPD Crime Lab to declare the prints had “no value” rather than disclose that a match with Oswald was excluded. The Dallas Police failed to disclose that which would have been counterproductive in building the case desired to prevail in court. (2) Untruthful representation to the FBI of having turned over all physical evidence to the FBI, while withholding three bullets taken from Tippit’s body. The DPD was mandated to turn over all physical evidence to the FBI, and on Nov 28, 1963 the DPD did so except for those three bullets. That the FBI especially wanted all bullets involved in the Tippit case is made clear from its request to the Secret Service to hand over two of six bullets taken from Oswald’s revolver which the DPD had given the Secret Service two days earlier on Nov. 26. But the DPD withheld the three remaining body bullets of Tippit which had been removed during the autopsy of Tippit and were in DPD possession, with DPD falsely claiming to FBI they had handed over everything. When the Warren Commission investigators learned of the existence of these three bullets they asked FBI to obtain and examine them. On March 17, 1964, the DPD turned over the remaining three bullets taken from Tippit’s body to the FBI (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11293#relPageId=293&search=tippit_autopsy%20bullets ). As Myers describes with references there, “In 1964, the Warren Commission noted that Tippit’s autopsy report showed he had been it by four bullets … the Commission asked the FBI on March 12, 1964, to contact the Dallas Police and recover the additional three bullets and subject them to FBI examination … At 4:45 p.m. on March 13, 1964, Captain Fritz advised FBI agent Drain that he had located the three slugs in his files and advised the FBI that they had been placed there by a detective who had not made a record of their location. Fritz apologized for having told the FBI earlier than only one slug (the one removed at Methodist Hospital) had been recovered” (With Malice, 770-771). It is difficult to attribute the DPD failure to turn over those Tippit bullets, and denial to FBI that there was anything missing in the physical evidence handed over, to innocent error. A specific motive for this particular impropriety is not clear but one possibility is if there had been DPD impropriety in substitutions of shells, the unknown results of FBI examination of the bullets in Tippit’s body could risk scrutiny or possible exposure. Alternatively and perhaps more simply, since the one bullet from Tippit’s body, examined by the FBI lab on the night of Nov 22-23, 1963, had failed to be conclusively identified as having come from Oswald’s revolver but was indeterminate, there could be a fear that one or more of the remaining bullets, upon examination, might prove actually exculpatory or otherwise introduce complications (as it happened, all of the three bullets were reported indeterminate by the FBI lab on the question of whether they came from Oswald’s revolver). (3) Apparent intentional disappearance of a critically important witness list of Theatre patrons. Previously discussed. While it is difficult to conclusively prove intentionality, there is a strong appearance of intentionality in this disappearance and consequent lack of followup interviewing of those witnesses whose names are now not even known, especially heartwrenching if one such was the true Tippit killer who had fled into the theatre. At best--and this seems a stretch--it is extreme incompetence, which by coincidence functioned to eliminate the simplest and easiest means of establishing an alibi and exculpation for Oswald if he was innocent of the Tippit killing, and by a further oversight oddly never resulted in any known departmental disciplinary sanction or accountability for an officer found to have lost such an important list of witnesses without making a photocopy. (4) Serious concern on the part of other investigative bodies that the Dallas Police Department Crime Lab was fabricating physical evidence. The investigative body which expressed this concern was the Warren Commission. From an FBI memo of record of Aug. 28, 1964: “Mr. Rankin [General Counsel, Warren Commission] advised that the members of the President’s Commission were rather anxious to try to resolve a question … Mr. Rankin advised several questions had been raised relative to the palm print found on the barrel of the assassination rifle … Mr. Rankin stated as he understood the matter the palm print located on the rifle barrel had been located by Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police Department and had been lifted from the rifle by Lieutenant Day. … On Sunday, November 24, District Attorney Henry Wade, when questioned before news media, made the statement that a palm print had been found. … Mr. Rankin advised because of the circumstances that now exist there was a serious question in the minds of the Commission as to whether or not the palm impression that has been obtained from the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent palm impression removed from the rifle barrel or whether it was obtained from some other source” (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59637#relPageId=6 ). Gerald Drain, the lead FBI agent involved in liaising with the DPD concerning physical evidence, believed the Dallas Police Department had fabricated that evidence, attributable to external pressure to build evidence in the case: “I just don’t believe there ever was a print … All I can figure is that it [Oswald’s print] was some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night. You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened” (Drain quoted in Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, [1985], 109). These allegations or suspicions that the Dallas Crime Lab had fabricated evidence on the part of other law enforcement are not proof in themselves that DPD did so, but it is the identities and standing of those who held such reservations concerning the integrity of DPD handling of physical evidence which is the newsworthy item here. There is more, but these items are noted as relatively straightforward factually without too much dispute. These establish a working context from which to approach the issue of faith and confidence in the handling of the ballistics evidence in the Tippit case in the Dallas Police Department. Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this busdriver and myself. We waited down there for probably 20 or 30 minutes. And Jim told us, "When I show you these guys, be sure, take your time, see if you can make a positive identification … We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." (3H355)
  4. The disappearance of DPD records of the Texas Theatre names of staff and patrons witnesses It is difficult to see an innocent explanation for the Dallas Police department having no record of the names of the Theatre patrons. Beyond any question names and addresses were taken down by police. But those names, witnesses inside the theatre potentially important for the knowledge that they might have given if properly questioned, disappeared without explanation. Captain W. R. Westbrook, senior DPD officer in command at the time of Oswald's arrest, WC testimony, gave orders of the importance of taking down names but says he has no idea what happened to the names. (WR VII, 118) Mr. Westbrook: "I ordered all of them [officers] to be sure and take the names of everyone in the theatre at that time." Mr. Ball. We have asked for names of people in the theatre and we have only come up with the name of George Applin. Do you know of any others? Mr. Westbrook. He possibly might have been the only one [patron] in there at the time the rest of them might have been working there, because I'm sure at that time of day you would have more employees than you would have patrons. Mr. Ball. You didn't take the names of any of the patrons? Mr. Westbrook. No, Sir. Mr. Ely. Yes; I have one [question]. Captain, you mentioned that you had left orders for somebody to take the names of everybody in the theatre, and you also stated you did not have this list; do you know who has it? Mr. Westbrook: No; possibly Lieutenant Cunningham will know, but I don't know who has the list. The Warren Commission never took the indicated next step of asking Lieutenant Elmo Cunningham, or if there was a private inquiry made and the answer was not deemed useful it was never reported, one or the other. Cunningham himself in Sneed, No More Silence (1998), 266, confirms he had a list that day but says he had no idea what he did with the list, while explaining the missing list is of no consequence because none of those witnesses would have been of any interest to investigators anyway. "There were about a dozen patrons in the theater which had just opened on that Friday afternoon around 1:00 o'clock. The two other officers and myself asked people what information they had which was absolutely nothing ... After [Oswald] was taken out I didn't take any written statements from the dozen or so people in the theater; I just talked to them and took their names down. In fact, I don't recall whether I turned the list of names in or not. In any case, there was nothing there in light of useful information." Note Cunningham did not say he did not turn in names, or that he did. He says "I don't recall". But not to worry--he explains there was no useful information any investigator would find useful from any of those witnesses, so no harm done. "I don't recall" is a common way to avoid disclosing information. Is Cunningham's claim not to remember what he did with that list truthful? Detective John Toney, working with Cunningham that day, elaborates on the questioning of the theatre patrons that day none of whom according to Cunningham had anything useful to offer. Toney's account appears to be straightforward and accurate. Toney in Sneed, 309: "After the arrest [of Oswald], we sealed the theater to get a list of the witnesses, though there weren't many there (. . .) At that time, we didn't know what we had. We didn't know about Oswald; he was just a person with a gun. Since these people who were in the theater had not been advised of their rights at that time, and trying to be as legal as possible, we were merely getting names for the interrogators to be used later instead of interrogating them, per se, at the scene. This information was then handed over to the Homicide Division." In written statements of officers at the Theatre that day turned in to Dallas Police chief Curry, Cunningham's statement dated Dec 3, 1963 omits any mention of taking down names (which he later said in Sneed that he did), or of any list, let alone telling of turning in such a list (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10483#relPageId=393&search=Toney). Toney's written statement to Chief Curry, also dated Dec 3, 1963, has this (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10483#relPageId=409&search=Toney ). "Lt. Cunningham was in charge at the scene and requested that uniformed officers to keep the theatre closed for the purpose of interviewing the witnesses inside the theatre." The Warren Commission apparently accepted Captain Westbrook's inability to answer what became of the names as settling that matter without drilling down with further investigation on that point. On the basis of Toney's acccount, Lt. Cunningham's account not in contradiction to it, and expected police procedure, that list can be reconstructed as having been turned over to the Homicide Division that day. I am not aware of any information that relevant officers in the Homicide Division were ever questioned so as to confirm or deny they received that list and solve what became of that list in their custody. This is only one of several indicators that Dallas Police department handling of evidence in the Tippit case may have involved selective tampering or disappearance of evidence that did not assist in developing the case against Oswald but which could have been exculpatory with respect to the Tippit killing.
  5. When did Oswald enter the Texas Theatre? The issue is whether the man who ducked into the theatre about 1:40 pm without paying was the same man as Oswald in the theatre. What is the evidence that that was Oswald, and not the killer of Tippit bent on next killing Oswald already in the theatre? There is the nearby shoe store manager, Brewer's, witness identification--he got a look at the man outside his store--the killer of Tippit--who ran into the theatre, and Brewer said that man was Oswald seated in the theatre. But that is the only witness testimony at the theatre making that identification (I will return to Brewer in a moment). No staff or patron of the theatre was a witness to that identification. Julia Postal was not. She saw the man out of the corner of her eye duck in but never claimed to match his face to the arrested Oswald she saw taken out. (She did say to the WC she did not remember seeing Oswald as a theatre patron earlier: "Not that I know of, huh-uh". [Statement analysis might notice that wording might be less certain than a simple "no"; see further below.]) Her description or memory from a glance or peripheral vision was she thought the 1:40 pm ticket-skipper looked "ruddy" (WC testimony), a recurring witness description of the Tippit killer which does not describe Oswald but does describe recently hired Ruby handyman and rumored former hitman frequently confused in appearance with Oswald, Larry Crafard. There is nothing in terms of witness testimony at the theatre other than Brewer to identify the man who ran into the theatre at 1:40 with Oswald in the theatre. When did Oswald enter the theatre? A simple way to find out would have been to ask whoever sold tickets that day if they recognized Oswald as having been one of the ticket purchasers. There is no record that this elementary question was asked. The one who sold the tickets that day as the theatre opened was general manager John Callahan. (WC testimony of Julia Postal: "just about the time we opened, my employer [john A. Callahan] had stayed and took the tickets because we change pictures on Thursday...") Callahan probably could have given a very simple answer to that question if asked. However there is no record he was asked, or record of his answer if he was asked. There was no FBI interview of him nor was he called to testify by the WC. Theatre patron Jack Davis: "Davis told this author that on the day of the assassination, he went to the Texas Theater to see the war movies. The eighteen-year-old Davis found a seat in the right rear section of the theater and recalled seeing the opening credits of the first film, which occurred a few minutes past the 1 p.m. starting time for the feature movie. He said he was somewhat startled by a man who squeezed past him and sat down in the seat next to him. He found it odd that this man would choose the seat adjacent to him. He found it odd that this man would choose the seat adjacent to him n a nine-hundred-seat theater with fewer than twenty patrons in it. Davis said the man didn't say a word but quickly got up and walked into the theater's lobby. A few minutes later, Davis, whose attention had returned to the movie, vaguely remembered seeing the same man enter the center section of the theater rom the far side. Twenty minutes or so after this incident, according to Davis, the house lights came on and when he walked to the lobby to ask why, he saw policemen running in the door ... 'I heard some scuffling going on. A few minutes later the police brought out this same man who had sat down next to me.'" (Marrs, Crossfire [2013], 343, author's interview, fall 1988) Butch Burroughs, who operated the concession stand, said Oswald entered during the opening features prior to the start of the first movie, a few minutes after 1 pm (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p4AvezLnG0) "We were playing this movie called "War is Hell' with Audie Murphy, and 'Proud Battle" with Dan Heffley. And we started the movie at 1:00, and I was counting candy behind the candy case. And Lee Oswald slipped in around, between 1:00 and 1:07." Burroughs told Jim Douglass: "Burroughs was asked by the Warren Commission attorney the apparently straightforward question, 'Did you see [Oswald] come into the theater?' and answered honestly, 'No sir; I didn't.' What someone reading this testimony would not know is that Butch Burroughs was unable to see anyone enter the theater from where he was standing at his concession stand, unless that person came into the area where he was working. As he explained to me in an interview, there was a partition between his concession stand and the front door. Someone could enter the theater, go directly up a flight of stairs to the balcony, and not be seen from the concession stand. That, Burroughs said, is what Oswald apparently did. However, Burroughs still knew Oswald had come into the theater 'between 1:00 and 1:07 P.M.' because he saw him inside the theater soon after that. As he told me, he sold popcorn to Oswald at 1:15 P.M.--information that the Warren Commission did not solicit from him in his testimony. When Oswald bought his popcorn at 1:15 P.M., this was exactly the same time the Warren Report said Officer Tippit was being shot to death" (Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable [2008], 291) There was someone who dashed into the theatre around 1:40 pm without paying for a ticket, according to nearby store manager Brewer, looking like he was avoiding police and coming from the same direction as the Tippit killer was last seen headed. This was the Tippit killer who entered the theatre. He also went upstairs to the balcony, since Burroughs said he would have seen the 1:40 ticket-skipper if he had entered by the main section. An important point is that Burroughs' very clear claim to Oswald having been in the theatre early is not late to the story but is alluded to by Julia Postal in 1964 in her WC testimony, where Burroughs' story of seeing Oswald in the theatre earlier and selling popcorn to him is alluded to, misunderstood by Postal. Here is Julia Postal, WC: "Ah, he [Burroughs] said at first that he had seen him, and I says, 'Now, Butch, if you saw him come in--' says, 'Well, I saw him going out.' But he didn't really see him. So, he just summarized that he ran up in the balcony, because if he had come through the foyer, Butch would have seen him." The way I read this above, is: Burroughs said that he had seen Oswald earlier. Julia Postal keeps thinking of the ticket-skipper of 1:40, whom Burroughs had clearly said he did not see, followed by Julia Postal's phone call to the police. Julia Postal disagrees with Burroughs as if to say how could you possibly have seen the ticket-skipper? Burroughs refers to the popcorn-selling in which Oswald came out of the main seating area, bought popcorn--estimated by Brewer at about 1:15. Brewer was saying although he did not see Oswald earlier come in, he knew he was there earlier because he had seen him come out of the main theatre area when he bought popcorn around 1:15. That is the sensible meaning of the cut-off expression quoted from Burroughs, "I saw him going out." Then there is this, impossible to corroborate but in agreement with the other information developed here, concerning Julia Postal (compare the slightly circumlocutionary way in which she answered the same question when asked in her earlier WC testimony, quoted earlier): "Marrs referred me [Tom Wallace Lyons] to J. Harris, a long time assassination investigator, who told me he interviewed Julia Postal. This interview took place in the office of the Texas Theater manager. Postal told Harris she thought she had glmpsed a surreptitious entry out of the corner of her eye. Eventually Harris turned the discussion to the moment the police brought Oswald out of the Texas Theater. Harris asked Postal whether, upon seeing Oswald, she had had any sense that she had sold him a ticket. Postal immediately burst into tears. Harris walked out of the office, then reinterviewed Postal in an attempt to calm her with less troubling questions. But she burst into tears again when asked whether she might have sold Oswald a ticket." (Lyons, "The Ruddy Link Between the Tippit Murder and the Texas Theater", Fourth Decade 4 no. 5, July 1997, pp. 3-9 at 6, accessible on the Mary Ferrell site) Julia Postal, both in her phone call to the police and then out front in person to officers as they arrived, told arriving officers that the ticket-skipper was in the balcony. Several officers reported questioning of an individual at the top of the steps to the balcony. This man, in the exact position where Julia Postal said the culprit (the Tippit killer) had gone, was let go by officers without any record of his name; officers saw this man and questioned him but there is no record of his name--a man in the exact position where Julia Postal knew and said the suspect had gone. Detective William Courson of the Sheriff's Department refers to this same man, probably the killer of Tippit, when he later said he thought that person was Oswald that he had let walk by: "I started up the stairs of the balcony because that is where the call said that he was hiding. I'm reasonably satisfied in my own mind that I met Oswald coming down. I was looking for a man in a white or light colored jacket because at that time I hadn't been told that he had discarded the jacket and that it had been found. So there were two reasons why I didn't stop him. I'm looking for a man in the balcony, not coming down walking casually, and the description didn't fit because he was wearing a kind of plaid or checkered patterned shirt, not the light colored jacket. But I'm reasonably sure that it was Oswald." (Courson, in Sneed, No More Silence, 485). But that was not Oswald that Courson, one of the law enforcement responders converging on the Theatre, had let walk by him coming down the stairs from the balcony as he charged up the stairs to the balcony looking for the Tippit killer in the balcony--for Oswald was at that moment seated in the main section below and within seconds of being arrested in a scuffle there. Courson's "Oswald" in the balcony was a mistaken identification--a man where Julia Postal said the killer was, but not Oswald who was being arrested elsewhere in the theatre. After Courson went past this man coming from the balcony evidently other officers behind Courson did stop and question that man before they too let him go without record of his name, despite multiple police testimony claims that orders were given to take down names and addresses of all patrons and staff in the theatre. So nobody in the theatre, whether staff or patron, was capable of matching the killer of Tippit who went into the balcony of the Theatre at about 1:40--no staff or patron in the theatre could match that man to Oswald in the main section who was soon arrested. The only ones inside the theatre who have given information concerning the timing of Oswald's arrival, in the two instances cited, quite specifically say Oswald was there early, along with the other paying customers. There is no statement from the ticket seller that day that Oswald was not recognized as having been one of the earlier ticket purchasing patrons. The only basis In terms of eyewitness at the theatre for matching the killer who went into the balcony area without paying, to Oswald, was nearby store manager Brewer. How secure was Brewer's identification? Brewer saw a man acting suspiciously, then going into the Texas Theatre--that was the killer of Tippit. Brewer then met arriving officers at the back entrance of the theatre, saw Oswald standing up from his seat and then sitting down again on the main floor and picked him out to officers as their man--an identification from a distance based on suspicious movement and he thought it looked like him. Brewer subsequently gave a firm ID that the arrested Oswald was the man he had seen outside of his store windows. It has long been suggested that Oswald was in that Theatre to meet someone. If so, others than Oswald knew he would be there. As to how Oswald got to the Theatre, perhaps by bus south on Beckley after the stop at his rooming house.
  6. That's a good point Benjamin, I need to think about that.
  7. Based on this Ed Barker CBS interview of Gerald Hill which seems to be from Nov. 22, 1963 (?), http://www.aarclibrary.org/notices/SGTHILL1.pdf, Hill says Poe's two shells were already in the cigarette package held by Poe when he came on the scene and that Hill never took the shells out or handled them. Therefore Hill could not have read the 38 AUTO marking on the bottom of the shell, as his source of information for saying they were automatic. Since the bullet taken from Tippit's body and tested by the FBI that night showed it was .38 Special (as did the three later ones examined months later), Hill's statement (in keeping with other howlers of Hill on matters of fact, not all sinister) seems a very inadequate basis upon which to assume there were automatic bullets fired by the Tippit gunman. Hill's statement that an automatic was used "from the shells" seems well explained not as based upon holding the shells and looking at a marking 38 AUTO underneath (which never happened), but rather from a misunderstanding based on reasoning from the shells having been ejected at all, and/or Callaway authoritatively saying the "pistol up" position observed of the gunman had looked from a distance like a reloading of an automatic. The automatic seems to be a red herring, founded on nothing substantial. I think the evidence shells came from Oswald's revolver but the bullets in Tippit's body came from a different .38 Special which produced the four shells originally found. Those shells originally found were marked by Poe, also by Barnes, and turned in, but substitutions of shells fired from Oswald's revolver occurred sometime between Sat Nov 23 and Wed Nov 27, with imitation attempts of replacement officers' markings, not perfectly done. The FBI lab accurately found what it found based on what was submitted to them by the Dallas Crime Lab. Later Poe could not find his marks not because he did not mark but because the marks which he did write he could not find on the evidence shells. Barnes also marked originally and could not recognize his own marks for sure and guessed. Neither Dhority nor Doughty testified under oath to the WC identifying their marks to specific shells that they marked either. Somehow the shells that went from the officers, with their markings, into the Dallas Police department Crime Lab on Fri Nov 22 were not the same shells that were submitted from that Crime Lab on Thu Nov 28 to the FBI for forensic examination. It has also been noted how odd it is, under the common narrative, that Oswald would eject shells at the scene openly which could easily be traced to his revolver, then not ditch the revolver but have it found on his person at the Texas Theatre. But disidentifying the killer of Tippit from Oswald renders this sensible at both ends. The killer manually ejected shells (necessary in order to reload to prepare for the next killing) close to the scene because it did not matter that the shells would be found; they could be traced to the firearm not to him, and he did not plan to remain in Dallas or keep the firearm in his possession after his work was done. He executed Tippit, first mission accomplished, then reloaded and headed to the Texas Theatre to execute Oswald, after which the murder weapon, untraceable via serial number to him and wiped clean of prints, would have been abandoned the moment its purpose had been fulfilled. The second execution, of Oswald--with that vehicle with engine running out back of the Texas Theatre with no identifiable driver in sight noticed by police when they arrived--did not happen however due to the accident of the Brewer and Postal phone call and rapid police response, though that failure on Friday was remedied on Sunday.
  8. (Part 3 of 3) If the above is sound so far, THEN there remain TWO hard-evidence arguments FOR incrimination of Oswald which derive from ONE class of physical evidence, in opposition to the five lines of argument for exculpation. 1. The ejected shells from the killer's gun at the scene were fired from Oswald's revolver, to the exclusion of all other weapons, according to the FBI lab. This is considered the rock-solid linchpin establishing LHO's guilt, outweighing any and all other considerations. 2. Same kind of mixture of the same two brands of bullets between the bullets taken from Tippit's body which killed Tippit, the shells ejected from the killer's revolver as he fled the scene of the crime, and the bullets found in Oswald’s revolver and on his person having the same mixing of the same two kinds of brands of bullets, Winchesters and Remingtons. The argument for incrimination is that for both the killer of Tippit and LHO to each have the same mixture of the same two brands of bullets, is sufficiently striking as to be less likely explicable as coincidence and weighs in favor of incrimination, in agreement with #1 which is considered stand-alone decisive. * * * * * RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENT FOR INCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF THE MATCH OF THE SHELLS TO OSWALD'S REVOLVER To recapitulate: There are FIVE lines of argument for exculpation, each of significant strength There are TWO lines of argument for incrimination, one of stand-alone decisive strength and the other of significant strength All seven of these lines of argument cannot simultaneously be correct. Either the five exculpatory are correct and the two for incrimination have other explanations, or the two incriminating are correct and the five for exculpation have other explanations. This is a case of "what is the truth?” when there is a conflict in evidence or apparent conflict in evidence. It will be observed (if the analysis is followed and sound to this point) that the two arguments for incrimination involve only ONE class of evidence: the shells. Not two or three or four, but ONE class of evidence, upon which ultimately the real argument for Oswald's guilt in the Tippit killing turns. Here is introduced the sensitive issue of police department handling of physical evidence. The argument for incrimination from ONE class of physical evidence essentially is a trust and confidence issue, trust and confidence that the DPD handled the shells evidence honestly and did not cook the evidence in this case. It is not that there are multiple lines of redundant evidence establishing Oswald's guilt other than this one class of physical evidence handled by the DPD (if the present analysis has been sound to this point). It is the shells, it is this specific shells evidence handled and preserved by the DPD, which hangs Oswald for the Tippit killing, in the eyes of history. The focus here will be on the DPD handling of evidence rather than the FBI lab. A case will be made that the DPD cooked the evidence concerning the shells. This case is not made capriciously or arbitrarily but on the basis of specific and arguably ultimately compelling argument, though the argument is also ultimately circumstantial without direct evidence or confession. But it is in keeping with known behavior of some police departments as a general statement; it is in keeping with behavior of the DPD in other instances than the shells as a general statement; the DPD had means, motive, and opportunity to do such in this case; and there are positive indications that such happened in this instance as a specific statement. There is no claim here that members of DPD intended in advance to frame Oswald. There is also no contesting that members of the DPD, almost to a man, just as the world at large, thought Oswald was the killer of Tippit--but that is not contradictory to police misconduct in handling evidence for the purpose of assisting in securing convictions of persons they believe are guilty. The positive argument for DPD evidence-tampering starts with the strength of the lines of argument for exculpation which raises the question of how secure is the ONE class of physical evidence from which derive the only two substantial lines of argument for LHO's incrimination. It will be argued that there is significant reason to suppose, not only in terms of means, motive, and opportunity, but in specific indicators going beyond means, motive, and opportunity, that there was DPD cooking of evidence in the case of the shells, that trust and confidence in the integrity of the DPD handling of the evidence shells is impeached. With this sole class of evidence from which derive the two substantial arguments in favor of Oswald's incrimination collapsed, the way is clear to dismiss the two significant arguments for incrimination and accept the five significant lines of exculpatory argument leading to a realization--against seemingly impossible odds at the outset--that Oswald was innocent of and is exonerated from the killing of Tippit.
  9. (Part 2 o 3) There are THREE classes of evidence commonly believed to implicate LHO which, per argument, are inverted or reversed to add weight in favor of exculpation of LHO. The arguments in these three cases are removed as incriminating arguments against LHO. 1. Witnesses => examination of cases, both of witnesses who identified the killer as LHO and those who did not; assessment. It is argued that those witnesses who identified the killer as Oswald erred in those identifications and that some credible witness testimony may be exculpatory. Too much to even outline here, but suffice it to say there have been many wrongful convictions in which DNA has established actual innocence, of persons who wrongly served many years in prison on the basis of eyewitnesses. It is an unfortunate and sad fact that there is a long history of eyewitnesses being fallible, for many reasons including desire to assist law enforcement in convicting people believed to be guilty, and so on. 2. Jacket abandoned by fleeing killer => argument for exculpation The argument here is that of LHO's two jackets (light and dark blue), he wore his light jacket to work that morning from Irving, based on credible testimony of Wesley Buell Frazier, also Marina (who said he arrived in his light jacket in Irving the evening before; she was sleeping and did not see what he was wearing the next morning when he left). He left the TSBD with that light jacket on (based on arguably being seen with it on a bus and in a cab), but ditched that jacket at some point before he went into his rooming house on N. Beckley. There at Beckley, as Earlene Roberts told, he entered in shirt-sleeves and left zipping up a dark jacket, this being his dark blue and warmer one. He went to the Texas Theatre with his dark blue jacket, took off the jacket inside the theatre due to the warmth inside the theatre. When he was arrested he was not wearing the blue jacket. The blue jacket would have been left behind in the Theatre probably on some seat. That dark blue jacket, securely identified as Oswald’s on the basis of hair analysis, was reported found a few days later at the TSBD and eventually turned in to the FBI. One possibility is it was found at the Theatre and turned in to police (or found by police directly in the search that continued after Oswald was arrested and driven away), who, realizing it was Oswald's, arranged for it to be reported found a few days later at TSBD. Oswald's actual wearing of his light jacket to work that morning combined with not having that light jacket on when he entered his rooming house in shirt sleeves, and then leaving zipping up a dark jacket differs from Oswald being the killer who wore and then abandoned in flight a light jacket, exculpatory. Also, the killer's jacket had a dry cleaning slip which could not be matched, despite investigative effort, to any dry cleaning establishment in Dallas or New Orleans, suggesting it had been dry cleaned outside of Dallas or New Orleans. If so, that is also exculpatory. Also, the killer's jacket was size M whereas LHO always wore size S according to Marina, and that is consistent with witnesses thinking the Tippit killer, while about the same height as Oswald, was a bit heavier. 3. Location of Oswald at time of arrest in the Theatre in Oak Cliff => alternative narrative explanation The existing narrative is that LHO was arrested in the Theatre in the direction in which the killer was last seen headed before disappearing, then seen going into that very building, because the killer was Oswald. The alternative narrative accounts for the same facts in an arguably credible alternative way, namely, that the killer of Tippit, after carrying out a professional hit or execution of Tippit, reloaded and went next to the Theatre with intent to kill Oswald there, with intent to do then what his employer did do two days later. * * * * * There are THREE classes of claimed argument for LHO incrimination which are removed as weight in favor of incrimination, without positive weight in favor of innocence. 1. Paraffin test on hands => weak or no positive weight in favor of incrimination. A paraffin test found nitrates on Oswald's hands consistent with gunpowder residue and recent firing of a handgun. But the nitrates are also consistent with non-incriminating explanations such that this is indecisive, so much so that a weight argument is not substantial, let alone proof. 2. Two fibers found in killer's jacket armpits were of the same kind and color as LHO shirt => weak or no positive weight in favor of incrimination Dark colored shirts are so common that this agreement from fiber color gives little positive weight in favor of incrimination. There never was a lab claim of an exclusive match of those fibers to an item of clothing of Oswald's. The Tippit killer was arguably wearing a dark-colored shirt which would be a source of similar color of fibers. 3. Resistance of arrest => indeterminate LHO apparently punched an officer, there was a scuffle and a struggle over his gun, he was alleged to have attempted to shoot the revolver (that is contestable). The argument is that if he had not shot Tippit he would not have resisted arrest but would have surrendered without resistance. This is a subjective assessment and is judged here insubstantial, since innocent people have also resisted arrest.
  10. (Part 1 of 3) An argument for actual innocence of Oswald in the Tippit case "The Innocence Project, founded in 1992 by Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck at Cardoza School of Law, exonerates the wrongly convicted through DNA testing and reforms the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. The Innocence Project's mission is to free the staggering number of innocent people who remain incarcerated, and to bring reform to the system responsible for their unjust imprisonment." (from the Innocence Project website, https://innocenceproject.org) It looks so airtight that Oswald (LHO) killed Tippit. LHO was arrested with the same kind of weapon as used by the killer, at a location in the direction the killer was last seen headed and who was seen going into that very location immediately prior to LHO's arrest in that theatre. Multiple witnesses identified Oswald out of lineups as the gunman at the Tippit crime scene. Shells ejected by the gunman at the scene were matched to the revolver found on Oswald's person at his arrest to the exclusion of all other weapons, according to the FBI lab. Nevertheless, as in cases taken up by the Innocence Project, I intend to argue for Oswald's actual innocence. I request assistance from readers in fact-checking, in identifying logical flaws and/or possible improvements or oversights on my part. This is draft material subject to editing and change as this writing project develops, hopefully with contributions of some more knowledgeable than me in specific areas, ultimately perhaps to be posted on the Mary Ferrell site if the Mary Ferrel site is willing and if it survives cross-examination here. I particularly invite Steve Roe, so knowledgeable in JFK assassination details, and Tracy Parnell, if they are so inclined, to offer critical cross-examination of the case as I develop it (because their cross-examination, if so, will be high-quality). This is my schematic outline of the case (it is not the full argument on any specific point, nor are references given or developed here). There are five lines of exculpatory evidence for LHO: 1) Alibi => innocence Oswald was present in the Texas Theatre, some distance from the scene of the Tippit killing, at the time Tippit was killed in Oak Cliff. This is based on testimony of four out of four staff and patrons of the Theatre who gave information concerning time of arrival of LHO to the theatre, that is, one hundred percent of the witnesses among the staff and patrons of the theatre that day who have given information concerning knowledge of the time of Oswald's arrival. No staff or patron in the theatre who gave information on this question has not said LHO was in the Theatre significantly earlier than supposed, at a time incompatible with having been at the scene of the shooting of Tippit, either in firsthand testimony (two cases) or credibly reported secondhand (in the other two cases). A non-staff, non-patron of the theatre, a manager of a nearby store, said he saw LHO entering the theatre at a later time consistent in timing with having killed Tippit, but that will be argued to have been that witness's sighting of the killer, not Oswald, entering the theatre, and his identification of Oswald a mistaken identification. 2) Timing implausible => innocence Disputed and controversial, this is an argument from "weight" of evidence falling short of certainty due to unknowns. This is different from the argument of #1 (alibi) since this argument requires no establishment that LHO was anywhere else specifically, only that it is implausible that LHO could have been present at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime in the time frame required. This actually is two distinct arguments. The first is the timing itself, assuming LHO was on foot. However, nobody saw him walking in the direction of the Tippit crime scene, which weighs in favor of either conveyance by car or exculpation. But there is no evidence he was conveyed in a car. The other, distinct argument is that there is no known reason why LHO would want to have been at the Tippit crime scene, though this is not itself of great weight since explanation of why he may have been there is not essential to the issue of guilt or innocence. But the absence of anyone from Oak Cliff coming forward who saw Oswald walking is a rather strong dog-that-did-not-bark argument that Oswald did not walk to the Tippit killing scene (yet witnesses at the scene saw the killer appearing to be on foot). To quote Asst. District Attorney Bill Alexander in Sneed: "The timing: He would have had to have run to get where he was on foot. A running person at that time of day in Oak Cliff would have excited somebody's attention, especially at that time ... I just have no idea how he got out there with nobody seeing him, and that's an intelligent I don't know". 3) Lack of report of DPD and FBI of evidence that LHO revolver had been fired since its last cleaning => innocence This is a dog-that-did-not-bark argument. Failure of the Dallas Police department (DPD) or FBI to report any check or test establishing that Oswald’s revolver had been fired since its last cleaning—fouled cylinder, smell, etc.—cannot credibly be attributed to no such test or check having been conducted of this most basic utterly elementary point, in light of all of the other detailed forensic studies done. It can simply be assumed with approximately 100 percent confidence that such examination was done, but then the question arises why results of such examination were never reported. If examination showed the revolver had been fired since its last cleaning, that surely would have been reported and broadcast. Since that was not done, there is stronger-than-trivial grounds for supposing such examination showed Oswald's revolver had not have been fired since its last cleaning, i.e. exculpatory for Oswald. That would be the obvious explanation for the otherwise-inexplicable failure of DPD to announce the findings of such examination. In other words, there is no good explanation for such a non-report of test of this nature than that it was done and it exculpated Oswald. 4) Credible case for possible identification of an alternative murder weapon used in the Tippit killing other than LHO's revolver => innocence There was an unexplained find by a citizen of Dallas on Saturday morning, Nov 23, 1963, of a .38 snub-nosed Smith & Wesson revolver in a paper bag abandoned on a street in Dallas. The circumstances of that abandonment strongly suggests a weapon abandoned following a homicide, as there is no other obvious explanation for an abandonment of a handgun in a paper bag on a street. There was only one homicide by handgun in the Dallas area known on Friday, Nov 22, and that was officer Tippit, killed with .38 Special bullets. Since the circumstances of abandonment of that paper-bag .38 strongly suggest its use in a crime sometime before the early morning hours of Nov 23, and since the only murder by handgun known in Dallas of the previous 24 hours was Tippit, and since no report of investigation by DPD has ever been disclosed or known to exist explaining the history of this weapon, there is the serious possibility that this .38, rather than LHO's .38, could be the murder weapon of the Tippit killing (if that is not excluded on the grounds of other evidence). There are no records of DPD or any other investigative agency investigating that firearm beyond a cursory check of its serial number which was not further pursued,nor are the present whereabouts of that item of Dallas police evidence known. This behavior of DPD with respect to records of whereabouts and investigation of this item of evidence in itself heightens the focus of interest on this .38 found in such odd circumstances hours after the Tippit killing. This paper-bag .38 snub-nosed S & W was not found in Oak Cliff but was instead found quite a ways away. It was found not far from the last known location in Dallas before his unexplained flight the next day from Dallas of the alternative candidate for identity of the actual killer to be argued: it was found several blocks from the Carousel Lounge in downtown Dallas. If that .38 was the murder weapon, then LHO's revolver was not and LHO is exculpated. (According to the DPD record of its finding, the paper-bag .38 is not identified as a Special, a detail of some interest here, but from my research it appears most snub-nosed .38 Smith & Wesson's at the time were Specials, just as LHO's snub-nosed .38 Smith & Wesson had been rechambered to be a Special. The assumption here is that the paper-bag .38 snub-nose likely was a Special, since that was so common, even though that is not confirmed by the DPD description. As noted, there are no records of any analysis or investigation concerning that firearm carried out by DPD or other agency, and the present whereabouts of that handgun is unknown. Whether the disappearance of records and the item of evidence itself was because no DPD investigation was ever undertaken, or because investigation was undertaken but never reported or preserved, is unknown.) 5. Argument for identity of the gunman other than Oswald => innocence An arguable credible case for an alternative narrative of the case and identity of the gunman, if substantial, is exculpatory of Oswald. This alternative candidate for the Tippit gunman is uncontroversially known to have been mistakenly identified by witnesses as Oswald on occasions unrelated to the Tippit case; had hitman background; bore a distinctive physical feature noted by multiple witnesses of the Tippit killer which Oswald did not bear; fled Dallas the day after the Tippit killing for no known reason; and was in the employ of the man who shot and killed Oswald two days later. In the alternative narrative the killer of Tippit proceeded to the Theatre with intent next to kill Oswald, but that intent was interrupted by the call to the police of Brewer and Postal and rapid police response. Due to the rapid police response the killing of Oswald did not happen at that time (Oswald's life saved by the police). Two days later, the Tippit killer's employer, Jack Ruby, did kill Oswald, accomplishing what his employee had failed to accomplish two days earlier in the Texas Theatre. An important implication of this is that the Tippit killer was inside the theatre at the time of massive law enforcement convergence on the Theatre and would have been seen inside the theatre by numerous law enforcement persons and no doubt questioned. It is likely that police officers would have taken down a name and address from him among other patrons, though no records of the names and addresses taken by police that day of theatre patrons are known today. The killer of Tippit inside the theatre was not arrested, but like the other theatre patrons was free to go and left the theatre. The Dallas police failed to preserve or disclose records of names taken of theatre patrons that day. Oswald was arrested and taken out front. Another theatre patron, Applin, was taken out back by officers to go downtown to give a witness statement. But the killer of Tippit in that theatre walked away unidentified, through dozens of law enforcement officers. To the extent this argument for identity of the gunman is plausible it establishes reasonable doubt re Oswald. To the extent it is convincing it is exculpatory.
  11. Interesting Gil. Strong points of locals theory: --Jimmy Burt's car is placed at the scene of the crime within ca. 0-4 minutes of the Tippit killing (Jimmy Burt orig. FBI statement; Frank Wright), or at the time of the Tippit killing itself (woman witness on 10th St. hearsay). (Since Frank Wright, high quality witness, saw Jimmy Burt's car drive off quickly, within a small number of minutes or seconds after Tippit was shot, this would be well before Barnes arrived around 1:40 and photos taken at that time. The "45 minutes" of William Smith cannot refer to the length of time Jimmy Burt's car was there.) -- Jimmy Burt's car's unusual way of being stopped on the same side as the Tippit cruiser, south side of 10th, but facing in the wrong direction (Frank Wright; Jimmy Burt), and the 10th St. woman witness's positioning of the Jimmy Burt car stopped on the east of Tippit's car (not west as Frank Wright thought) suggests the possibility that Jimmy Burt car could be what prompted Tippit's stop in the first place. Witnesses however said the shooter was a person already on foot. Was Jimmy Burt connected to the shooter, someone he knew? Weaker points: -- not clear why either Jimmy Burt, William Smith, or James Markham et al of the neighborhood would impulsively kill a police officer simply for being stopped and questioned. If evasion of arrest was the issue, would not simply running away instead of talking through the window to Tippit have been simpler, not to mention more rational, than the utter seriousness of killing a police officer dead in broad daylight with people around? Looks more like Tippit went into an ambush and it was a professional hit, an execution. But with Jimmy Burt's car and Jimmy Burt there, and the possible reason for the stop, the obvious question is whether Jimmy Burt had something to do with it. Questions, questions... -- although coincidence in the timing is remotely possible, it is a stretch to most people to consider the Tippit killing, with the killer seen running in the direction of where several blocks in that same direction the most person of interest in the JFK assassination was arrested minutes later, at a location far from the scene of the JFK assassination--to be unrelated to the JFK assassination which occurred less than sixty minutes earlier. (Note Gil, the Acquila Clemons witness account is a total red herring here, she was not describing what she saw on 10th Street at Tippit's cruiser but rather from a vantage point standing at the northwest corner of 10th and Patton looking at the fleeing gunman running south on Patton, describing an interaction she saw between Callaway and the gunman. Callaway shouting loudly across the street, "Hey man, what's GOING ON?" Acquila saw this and described seeing and hearing a tall man, who was Callaway, saying to the killer, "GO ON!" She was hearing Callaway when Callaway shouted "hey man, what's GOING ON?". But that was on Patton, not 10th, nothing to do with the location of Tippit on 10th. See my opening one on the Acquila Clemons thread.)
  12. I think I can propose a name for the officer who left the scene in a cruiser in the moments following the killing of Tippit. This is new, a name that has not previously been proposed or considered. The irony is that this officer's story giving the basis for the identification has been available in print for over two decades but has been missed. This is an officer hardly known at all. A search on the Mary Ferrell site turns up practically nothing on him. He has never been the subject of an article or discussion in a book that I have ever seen, except for his story in Sneed, No More Silence (1998), 481-506. William Courson, Detective, Criminal Investigation, Dallas County Sheriff's Department. From his story in Sneed, he tells of how he was present in Oak Cliff, not his normal territory, following the killing--of how he had gone to Oak Cliff after checking in to service that day on his own decision, without being directed to go to Oak Cliff or informing by radio that he was going there, an unusual destination decision decided by him, as he tells it, minutes BEFORE the killing of Tippit happened. He tells of allegedly having driven from his home far to the south of Oak Cliff in his cruiser, in plain clothes, to report into service on his way to downtown Dallas. Just before he gets to Oak Cliff (on his way to downtown Dallas), after checking in but without direction to do so, he decided on his own to turn left which passed through Oak Cliff on his way to somewhere else (he gives an explanation). That is how, he explains, he happened to be right there in Oak Cliff when police radio called for units to converge on the library at Marsalis following the Tippit killing. As he told it, at his home to the south of Oak Cliff, with no one else at home than him (his wife was at work), he claimed that upon being awakened by a phone call from his wife telling of the JFK assassination, he left immediately to report into duty in order to assist and headed downtown. But oddly and somewhat inexplicably, he put on his old clothes from the day before. In other words, he tells of being at the scene of the Tippit killing that day, at the Texas Theatre when Oswald was arrested et al, in Oak Cliff, wearing his clothes from the day before. He was in street clothes, plain clothes, was not uniformed in his job, but did drive a cruiser. How many people at home, getting dressed to go to work for a shift, put on their same day-old clothes including same shirt? But wearing yesterday's clothes would be consistent with someone who had stayed overnight somewhere else, then found himself unexpectedly suddenly needing to report to work without opportunity to get home to change in between. He tells of being at the Marsalis library call, and at the Texas Theatre when Oswald is arrested, and at the scene of Tippit's cruiser on Tenth Street at about 1:30-1:40. (Yet Courson is not identified in any photo at the crime scene in Myers or anywhere else, turned in no known written report, was not called as a witness or record of being interviewed in any of the investigations, his name does not much come up.) Of course his story could be as he tells it--his decision on his own to drive to Oak Cliff immediately before Tippit was killed for the unrelated reason given; his wearing all-yesterday's clothes when dressing for work at home due to being in such shock over the JFK assassination and hurry (not a second to waste to get a fresh shirt off a hanger). But we already have, for reasons noted above independently of Courson's story, reason to suppose an officer with a cruiser was at the scene at the time of Tippit's killing other than Tippit, said to be having an affair, witnessed leaving in his cruiser immediately after the shots, who never came forward or has otherwise been identified as someone else. Here, we have an officer in plain clothes with a cruiser who is in Oak Cliff consistent with the right time, nothing to do with his normal location for work, without having been instructed to go there, who claims he decided on his own to go to Oak Cliff minutes before Tippit was killed, wearing yesterday's clothes. This is why I think Courson is the person of interest, a candidate for identity of the officer who drove away from the Tippit scene in a cruiser, who did not come forward to tell what he may have seen or known of the circumstances of the killing of Tippit. The alternative narrative to the one Courson tells in Sneed, might run something like this: he is inside a house on Tenth Street, off duty, cruiser parked somewhere out back. Upon hearing the shots, Courson in his plain clothes--yesterday's plain clothes to be specific--knowing the place will momentarily be crawling with police and seeing his life and career ahead flash before his eyes--leaves immediately in his cruiser, not wanting to be there when the police arrive. He drives south just far enough outside of Oak Cliff to be consistent with looking like he had driven north from his own home to be able to report in, then reports in to service work via radio on his way to the downtown area. But instead of turning right to go downtown he turns left, returning to Oak Cliff (if he had left at all). Now checked in to service and in Oak Cliff, he answers the call at the Marsalis library--wearing his clothes from yesterday because he had been overnight on Tenth Street in Oak Cliff, not at his own home. Courson: "It was a shock! [news of JFK assassination] At first, I just couldn't believe it and that it had happened in Dallas. So I dressed, put on the old rumpled clothes that I had worn the night before, and within five minutes, since the squad car was at the house, I was on the way to downtown Dallas and checked into service about halfway between DeSoto and Oak Cliff ... I just listened to the radio until I was about halfway into Oak Cliff. I didn't try to break in and check in sooner because of the [radio] traffic ... I had a suspect in mind out in Grand Praire ... he had made a statement, which had gotten to me, that 'He hoped Kennedy got his damn head blown off while he was in Dallas'. This had been just a week or two prior to the time Kennedy came to Dallas. So I thought that if there's that many officers downtown there's no use in my going there, so I thought I'd go out Jefferson Boulevard to Grand Prairie and bring in the suspect ... I hadn't gotten up to Jefferson and Zang around Twelfth Street when I received a call that a suspect had been seen running into the library at Marsalis and Jefferson. In the meantime, I had also gotten a call that a Dallas police officer had been shot near that location. As I was coming up Jefferson, running fast with red lights and siren ... As I stepped out of the car [at the library], a uniformed officer who had seen the red lights and realized that it was an official car, even though I was in the rumpled plain clothes that I had worn the night before, hollered at me and said that it was a false alarm ... So I left there and went to the location where the officer, Tippit, had been shot." His telling of going to the actual Tippit crime scene and being there about 1:30-1:40 pm (assuming he did) has the benefit of offering an alibi explanation to any stories that might be circulating putting him or his cruiser at the Tippit crime scene. His alibi would be that he was there, the witnesses just were mistaken as to when. Courson may even have intentionally given in his Sneed story a version of the odd "move forward, then backward" of the cruiser of the Mrs. Holan story--the odd picture of a cruiser moving backward to the east the entire length of the alley backing out onto Denver which is how Mrs. Holan's description can read. One wonders whether Courson's 1998 Sneed may even have been prompted by the Mrs. Holan story, however garbled that story was--the officer who was there that day, if so, becoming aware that there was street talk, that his cruiser may have been seen backing out of that alley on to Denver that day, from where he would then have driven forward on Denver to turn on to Jefferson. Here is Courson, giving what I think could well be an alibi version to any witness claim that his cruiser had been seen backing out of the alley on to Denver.: "Tippit's car was on the right hand side of the street facing east while I was on the right side facing west. As I pulled up alongside the car, there was another uniformed officer at the location who was evidently waiting for the wrecker to come and get Tippit's car. I don't recall whether I had heard that he was dead, but I believe I did. As I stepped out of the car, the call came in on Tippit's radio, which was still on, that "The suspect, wearing a white or light colored jacket, has been seen running into the balcony of the Texas Theater." We were only a few blocks from the theater, but I had to back up and turn to get back onto Jefferson. Another officer was headed the same way, so he and I ran a race, my going backwards and his going forward to see who could make that turn to get onto Jefferson first. He was in front of me and went on around to the back of the theater. I'm inclined to believe this was McDonald, the one who eventually captured Oswald, but I'm not sure." (p. 484) In sum, I think there was an officer who left in a cruiser following the shots that killed Tippit, and I think he may have been William Courson. Courson's story, so to speak, almost fits like a glove, of an otherwise extremely baffling identification which has eluded solution. If this identification solution is convincing, then it itself becomes a sixth line of testimony for the fact of an officer in a cruiser present at the scene of the Tippit killing at the time of the Tippit killing--in that although Courson does not directly put himself at the scene at that time, his story (if the identification is convincing and correct) arguably confirms the story other than by means of direct confession. William Courson was the brother of Dallas Police motorcycle officer James Courson. William Courson's job under Sheriff Decker was Detective, Criminal Investigation. His job was to fraternize with and keep tabs on known criminals, involving working at night, visiting night clubs and gangland circles. He tells of knowing Ruby well as part of his job. He tells a story which although he does not call it such, essentially is of receiving a bribe from Ruby for favorable law enforcement treatment during an arrest (pp. 491-92). He had "probably been in [Ruby's] club two or three times maybe a week or two prior to the assassination" (p. 496). All of this information on William Courson is solely from the chapter in Sneed. So little is available or known of William Courson. I cannot see that he ever gave a written statement concerning that day to any law enforcement or investigative agency, unlike so many other officers.
  13. There is not even a claim in the hearsay version of Mrs. Holan's story that any person got out of the moving cruiser that she said she saw in the moments following the shooting. In her story, she saw a big 200-plus pound man wearing a blue coat walking on the same "driveway" I say read "alley", who can be identified as suit-wearing 200-plus pound Callaway who would have had nothing to do with the cruiser or its movements. The movements of the cruiser are consistent with an officer present in the 404/406 house--visiting a married lady there not his wife according to the source cited by Myers--who decided to leave in a hurry and vanish rather than identify himself as a witness.
  14. Here is an aerial photo. The true address of Mrs. Holan, as brought out in Myers' study, was not where it is marked below but was instead the second storey of the northwest corner unit of the big apartment building seen at the left edge of the photo below, at the lower left of the white rectangular tag "Scoggins", the building on the corner of the alley on the west side of Patton (https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2020/11/doris-e-holan-and-tippit-murder.html). There is the alley, with view from the second-storey window of Mrs. Holan's apartment not blocked by buildings--she could see a vehicle in that alley coming toward her (toward Patton), then reversing. She could see Callaway whose place of business is just off to the left of this photo, and who came out to Patton. She could see the shouting of Callaway to the Tippit killer right out of her Patton Ave. window, the same interaction told by Acquila Clemons (he said to him, "GO ON!") and told by Callaway ("I shouted to him, 'what's GOING ON?'"). The spot marked "Markham" is where Acquila Clemons was placed by witness Mary Austin (https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2020/11/emory-austin-his-daughter-mary-and.html), with direct line of sight to the Callaway/gunman interaction on Patton. The red arrow on the photo marked "police car backed up path", reconstructed from the Mrs. Holan story, is in error, based on an erroneous placement of Mrs. Holan as living across the street from the Tippit cruiser, which was not where she was living in Nov. 1963). That red arrow should be resituated on the alley running east-west, instead of on the driveway running between the houses. (Alternatively, since the actual words of Mrs. Holan's story are not known, known only via hearsay, she would also have been in a line-of-sight position to have seen a car going forward, then backward, in the back yard of 404/406 E. 10th and the driveway there, though Myers questions whether a vehicle parked behind that house or in that driveway would have had ability or access to get to the alley based on it being blocked at the south end by a garage or structure of some kind (visible at the end of the red arrow below), but it does not seem entirely clear whether someone leaving the house for a car parked out back and wanting to leave in a hurry might find a way through to the alley by going around that building structure visible. (Myers cites Lad Holan who says that back yard was fenced, which if total [fenced without any gaps] could mean a car in the driveway could not exit via the alley, but the exact fencing situation does not seem known with certainty.)
  15. The argument that there was another officer at the scene of the Tippit killing, at the time of the Tippit killing That there was an officer present at the Tippit scene, other than Tippit, is presented by Myers in With Malice from a source that Myers appears to assess as high quality in terms of credibility, even though the source is not identified. Italics emphasis is from Myers. "Recently, it was learned that there was a Dallas police officer who had frequented the Tenth and Patton area and, in fact, was there at the time of Tippit's murder. According to sources a Dallas police officer was involved in a tryst with a married woman on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, in a house that overlooked the Tippit murder scene. At the sound of the shots, the officer looked out a window and observed the killer fleeing the scene. Reportedly, the officer positively identified the gunman as Lee Harvey Oswald; however, the story never crept beyond a handful of lawmen for fear of unintentionally exposing the relationship. The story was confirmed in 1996 by a high ranking Dallas official who stated that the 'information received was sufficient to cause belief.'" "'This person's credibility level was high,' the official remarked, 'because after all is said and done, you're not going to get yourself any favorable publicity from it. There's not motive for saying it if it weren't true.' Only a handful of people were aware of the story and as far as the official knew it was never made available to officers investigating Tippit's death." (Myers, Without Malice, 374). The endnotes: "Author interview of Dallas official. The exact address of the encounter was not determined" (n 1124), and, "Jim Leavelle, the former homicide detective who led the investigation into Tippit's death, reported in 1996 that he was unaware of the story" (n. 1125). There already were two prior independent statements of witnesses consistent with an officer having an affair at that location. The first is Scoggins, the cab driver parked on Patton near the corner of Tenth, who said he usually ate lunch in his car at that location and was familiar with a cruiser also commonly there when he was (lunch time). Myers I think is right that that would not have been Tippit, that Tippit conducting an affair or otherwise being regularly at that location during working hours in agreement with Scoggins' description is not too likely on practical grounds. Scoggins had no idea who the officer of the cruiser was that was often there at the same time he was and his natural first thought was that it was Tippit, but that could easily be simply erroneous conclusion. In fact Myers suggests Scoggins' police officer frequenting that location regularly more likely would be this officer of the affair noted above, rather than Tippit (p. 374). The second was Virginia Davis of the corner of Tenth and Patton, who--incredibly--told the Warren Commission in her testimony that Tippit's car "was parked between the hedge that marks the apartment house where he lives in and the house next door." Virginia Davis herself told Myers in 1997 that she did not know at the time where Tippit lived or had any idea who Tippit was, and that the WC statement of her published testimony was not what she meant, and she doubted she had said that. However, Virginia Davis's odd attributed statement in 1964 and clarification in 1997 do not necessarily contradict the possibility that she was referring to the same thing Scoggins may have been referring: an officer who was not Tippit seen frequenting that particular house, and therefore mistakenly assumed by Virginia Davis to have been living there, two houses away from Virginia Davis. The Doris Holan story A third reported witness claim, this one of directly witnessing a police cruiser in the vicinity of the east-west alley behind the houses on the north side of Tenth St, Doris Holan, reported via Brownlow and Pulte (no direct written or taped statement) just before she died of cancer in 2000, was the subject of a seven-month investigation by Myers which brought out significant new information (https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2020/11/doris-e-holan-and-tippit-murder.html). Myers found Doris's son, Lad Holan, and did other interviews and digging for facts, and devastatingly refuted that Doris Holan was living on Tenth Street in November 1963; she could not have been in a position to see what was claimed since she was not living at the location claimed. The Holan family--Doris Holan and three children--had lived at the claimed Tenth Street location in 1962, but in November 1963 Mrs. Holan and her children were living in an apartment on the corner of Patton and the east-west alley between Patton and Jefferson. That address where they were living the day Tippit was killed is what Lad told Myers, and Myers verified it from city directory information. Myers concluded there was nothing to the Doris Holan story of witnessing a cruiser going forward, then backing up in the driveway back to the alley behind the houses on Tenth. Myers also discovered and proved, surprisingly against the claim of son Lad, that Doris was home that day at the time the Tippit killing occurred. (Lad had said his mother was not home, but photos of Doris's car parked there on Patton immediately in front of her apartment and then gone later that afternoon established that.) Both of these points brought forth by Myers--the true location where Doris Holan lived on Nov 22, 1963, and that Doris Holan was home during the hours of the Tippit killing--are rock-solid from the evidence Myers shows, and neither of these facts (so important to what is to follow, from my point of view), would have become known--perhaps ever--if not for Myers. With this preamble in praise of Myers' unexcelled production of solid research and establishment of facts with respect to the Tippit killing, here on this point I will go in a different direction than Myers in assessment of or interpretation of those facts that nobody would have known if Myers had not brought to light and established them. For Myers concludes that if Doris Holan did not live on Tenth Street, that is the death of the Doris Holan story, full stop. But step back for a moment and think about the implications of what Myers has shown, the true location of where Doris Holan lived: Doris Holan's apartment, on the second storey of a building on Patton most here have seen many times in photos, looks directly out over Patton. Myers established that Doris Holan was home. She worked at night, would come home and sleep. If she was home, which she was, and heard the shots, which she would have, it would be surprising if she had not gone to her window and looked out, right on to Patton where Callaway and the killer had their interaction. With all of the work put into correctly establishing that Doris Holan's apartment did not overlook the Tippit cruiser scene, it has not been considered what Doris Holan would have seen from her true vantage point overlooking Patton--looking eastward directly into the east-west alley between Tenth and Jefferson behind the houses where the Tippit cruiser was. Therefore what I think most likely happened is Doris Holan did hear the shots, did go to her front window, and did see something on Patton and in the alley across the street which would have been in her line of sight. She told her story to Brownlee and Pulte who did not tape record or have her write a written statement of her words, but re-told what she told them, and they did so in the belief that she was speaking from the wrong vantage point, of the E. 10th address. The suggestion here is that Doris Holan's story is garbled and embellished by this second-hand hearsay retelling--as told by interviewers who were thinking of a vantage point of view that was wrong--but that, contra Myers, there is something to Doris Holan's story if read with this in mind, that it is garbled and that Doris Holan was living on Patton not on Tenth. I think Doris Holman, who had line of sight to the alley and backyards of the Tenth Street houses, saw a cruiser in that alley, in the process of leaving the scene, in the moments after the shots that killed Tippit. The man walking that she saw was not connected to the cruiser but was Callaway, even though both the cruiser and Callaway on foot were in the same alley. She saw the cruiser moving toward Patton, while she saw Callaway on foot moving toward Patton as well, without those two being connected. Then Doris Holan gives a version of the same Callaway/killer interaction that Acquila Clemons and Callaway described--of Callaway waving "go on" as Acquila saw it, with Callaway saying he had waved and said, "Hey man, what's going on?" Doris Holan told of this same thing from her vantage point from where she actually was that afternoon, on Patton. A second man walked down the driveway in a dark blue jacket. Mrs. Holan claimed the second man was about the same height as the man in the white jacket but much heavier--weighing well over two hundred pounds. The "man in the white jacket" is the killer on Patton. The "second man ... much heavier, weighing well over two hundred pounds" is Callaway, 200-plus pounds. Callaway said he was wearing a suit that day; the "dark blue jacket" would be Callaway's suit jacket. Immediately following the shots Callaway ran from his place of business across the street from Mrs. Holan in the direction of Patton which is approximately the path of the alley. I believe when Brownlee and Pulte report Mrs. Holan saying "driveway" that was influenced by Brownlee's and Pulte's mistaken understanding of where Mrs. Holan lived, and that Mrs. Holan actually said or meant "the alley", the east-west alley. The backyard of the house where the Tippit cruiser was parked would also have been visible to Mrs. Holan's line of sight from her Patton apartment--(I believe so, from looking at the 1964 FBI aerial photo)--so it is a little unclear the exact movements of the car Mrs. Holan saw which had "the cherry on top"--a cruiser. But I believe Doris Holan witnessed someone in a cruiser leaving the scene immediately after hearing the shots--consistent with the story that an officer had been there of the affair. Of that cruiser behind the house, Doris Holan saw some going forward, then backing up the other way. Those movements as viewed from a distance could be someone getting a parked car maneuvred out of a parked position to leave, or it could be (as I surmise) the car was moving forward westward (in Mrs. Holan's direction) in the alley with intent to leave, but then saw action of Callaway and the killer on Patton and decided, "maybe better to reverse direction and leave by the other end", and backed up in the alley (backing up because no room to turn around easily in the alley) until able to turn around and exit at the other end. Three versions of the same Callaway/fleeing gunman exchange This is the secondhand telling of Doris Holan's story which I think is another version of the Ted Callaway and Acquila Clemons stories of Callaway's interaction with the fleeing killer, on Patton. Mrs. Holan told Brownlow that the heavy-set man in the blue jacket turned down the driveway and walked out into the middle of the street . . . and then he turned to the man in the white jacket, Brownlow said, "and began to do this (gesturing with his arm as if to say 'Go on')--like telling him to leave, get out of there." Here is Ted Callaway: "'I heard shots coming from the direction behind the lot there,' Callaway said. 'Well, I come running of the side of the porch and toward the sidewalk that runs along Patton. Before I got to the sidewalk, I could see this taxi cab parked down on Patton. I saw the cabdriver [Scoggins] beside his cab, and I saw this man [the Tippit killer] run through this hedge up there on the corner [corner 10th and Patton, the Davis sisters-in-law apartments]. He runs from the yard--jumped the little hedge--and at the time he had a gun in his right hand (...) The man then cut from one side of the street to the other. That would be the east side of Patton over to the west side of Patton. I went the remaining distance, probably fifty feet in all, to the sidewalk on Patton Street, and watched the man come south on Patton toward me. The man was not in a dead run, but rather a good trot (...) I hollered out to him, 'Hey man, what the hell's going on?' That's exactly what I was wondering. At first, I thought he was a plain clothes officer. That's the first thing that entered my mind, that maybe he was after somebody. That's why I hollered at him. If I'd thought he had just killed somebody, I certainly would not have done that. So, he slowed his pace--almost halted for a minute--and turned and looked at me. He appeared to be very pale, but not excited. He said something to me, which I could not understand, and shrugged his shoulders as if to say he did not know what was happening. Then, he slowed down and started walking." (Myers, With Malice, 130-132) Here is Acquila Clemons in the 1960s interview by Mark Lane on Utube. Acquila, standing and crying, was placed by another witness at the northwest corner of Patton and Tenth, with a clear line of sight of Patton where she saw the gunman and Callaway. "Yes there was one on the other side of the street. All I know is he told him to go on. (waves hand outward) He told him to go on. (motions outward) He said, 'go on' (waves outward) (...) They weren't together, they went this way from each other. (extends both arms in opposite directions) The one that did the shooting went this way (extends one arm one way). The other one went straight down past the street that way (extends other arm the other way)." Following Callaway's exchange with the gunman on Patton in which Callaway had called out, then watched the gunman go around to the west on Jefferson, Callaway turned around, returned to the sidewalk (if he had gone beyond it into the street), and walked north on the sidewalk of Patten to Tenth, then east to the site of the Tippit cruiser. But as it would appear to an observer looking out the window of Mrs. Holan's second-storey apartment on the corner of Patton and that alley, Callaway would have looked at first like he was headed back "up the alley", as he turned around and started to walk back the way he came. By this reconstruction, that would be the last Mrs. Holan saw of Callaway from that window, for at that point--in Mrs. Holan's story as told secondhand--she then left the window and got dressed so she could go outside and went to the scene on Tenth. But in her final moments at the window I think Mrs. Holan saw Callaway turn around--after the killer had continued north on Patton--and leaving the window before seeing Callaway walk north on the sidewalk, interpreted what she saw, as Callaway going back up the alley, even though Callaway actually turned north on the Patton sidewalk toward Tenth. But Mrs. Holan did not see that because she had left the window and was now getting dressed. It will never be known for sure how much of the Doris Holan story is garbled and/or embellished, or mixed up with things told out of order, through Brownlow's mediation and the assumption on the part of the mediators doing the retelling that Mrs. Holan was speaking from a Tenth Street location line of sight. There is no tape or written statement by which to know Mrs. Holan's exact words, what she actually said. But I do not think her story is fabricated out of whole cloth. Again, we would not know what her true vantage point was (on Patton), or that she was home that day in a position to see, if it were not for Myers' own research itself. While showing the Brownlee and Pulte version of Doris Holan's story had numerous problems and incongruities and was based on the wrong address assumption, what was missed after that deconstructive work was focus on what Doris Holan would have seen and credibly did see from her actual vantage point. If she was there and was home that day, which she was, it would be extraordinary if she would not go to the window to look out after hearing the shots. And if she did do what any normal person would do upon hearing those shots, look out the window, it would be extraordinary if she did not witness, did not see Callaway out there on Patton, and probably the killer too on Patton, and their interaction. Which is what is there in Mrs. Holan's story if one sorts through the garbling in the secondhand versions by which the story comes to us. And consider that if she is giving a version of seeing the Callaway/killer shouting interaction, that was not possible for Mrs. Holan to have witnessed from the vantage point of the Tenth Street address mistakenly assumed by Brownlow and Pulte and all who have relied upon that version of Doris Holan's story. It becomes explicable--starts to make sense--only after Myers' work in establishing where Mrs. Holan actually was living at the time Tippit was killed. And so this is a roundabout way, after making this argument for rehabilitation of the Mrs. Holan story with a different interpretation, to say that Doris Holan becomes a witness to, testimony of, a police cruiser not Tippit's in the immediate vicinity of the Tippit killing, at the time of the Tippit killing, in agreement with the three other sources suggesting the same of above. A fifth possible testimony to the same, Guinyard who allegedly told Brownlow in 1970 that he saw a police car in the alley, unfortunately cannot be verified at all. On the one hand, who knows if he told Brownlow that, maybe he did, maybe he didn't. On the other hand, given these other lines pointing to the same thing, it is plausible that he did. An objection that Guinyard did not volunteer that detail to FBI or the Warren Commission when being questioned I do not think has much weight in itself.
×
×
  • Create New...