Greg Doudna

Thanks Bill.

Bill Simpich, the analysis you cited (from Thomas) on the interpretation of Givens is intriguing and would almost have me convinced except for one detail; maybe you could answer? In that interpretation that Givens was a real witness to a 6th floor shooter at the time of the shots, at 12:30 pm, how and when in that interpretation does Givens make his exit from the TSBD without anyone seeing him? At the point the building was sealed by officers minutes later Givens is not in the building. Thanks.

Do you think the Dallas Police were grasping at straws? Would you care to give your thoughts on why you suppose police lift prints at crime scenes? Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got to the scene? Mr. BARNES. The first thing that I did was to check the right side of Tippit's car for fingerprints. (. . .) Mr. BELIN. Why did you happen to check that particular portion of the vehicle for fingerprints? Mr. BARNES. I was told that the suspect which shot Tippit had come up to the right side of the car, and there was a possibility that he might have placed his hands on there. But your belief, based on Barnes to the Warren Commission in 1964, that none of the prints were capable of being matched to another print for a positive identification turned out to be probably not true, didn't it, with Lutz in 1994/1998 as reported by Myers. Lutz reported his opinion that a Tippit patrol car right fender fingerprint was from the same person who left another, unrelated fingerprint at another location in time and space, the passenger door of the Tippit patrol car. Barnes' claim that those bumper prints were too smeared to be capable of a positive match to another print falls into what studies found was wide variance and subjectivity in examiner claims of prints being inconclusive or unusable. That is why these studies have emphasized the importance of blindness and review, as best practices in fingerprint analyses going forward (the studies did find that review was effective in catching errors in examiners' findings, where errors exist). In the Barnes/Dallas Police case of the Tippit patrol car prints, there was not blindness. They were looking for a match to Oswald's fingerprints. They did not find such a match. They claimed—in keeping with so many subjective errors in this kind of claim found by studies-- that the right bumper fingerprint were unusable and not capable of being matched to any other fingerprint at all. Lutz also reported a conclusive negative finding, that the prints did not match to Oswald's prints. Barnes/DPD may have believed that no negative match was possible, since they did not report the negative exclusion of Oswald. If so, that Dallas Police error was found upon review (Lutz/Myers 1994/1998). If the Tippit right bumper fingerprint contained sufficient information for an examiner opinion of a match to the passenger door smeared prints (Lutz's opinion that it did), with likelihood that the match would be a conclusive positive identification if the passenger door prints were not so smeared, then there is enough information in that bumper fingerprint for an examiner positive match to a fingerprint on a fingerprint card, i.e. that Tippit patrol car bumper print is capable of positive identification to a named individual. Have you been mistaken in believing up to the present moment Barnes' 1964 report of impossibility of an examiner positive identification of the right bumper fingerprint, when Lutz 1994/1998 appears to have indicated differently? Here is Dale Myers’ account of the Lutz fingerprint analysis (I found this fascinating): “I was the person who arranged to have the fingerprints examined by a qualified fingerprint expert for my 1998 book With Malice. “In 1994, retired Crime Scene Technician, Wayne County Sheriff’s Department, Wayne Co., MI., Herbert W. Lutz, arrived at my home on the appointed day and I showed him photographic prints obtained from the Dallas Municipal Archives and Records Center (DMARC). “I asked Mr. Lutz if the photographs were sufficient to draw a reliable conclusion? He looked at the photographic prints and said that normally he would look at the originals, but he stated that the photographs were of good quality and felt that he could make a determination based on the photographs. “He had brought a crime scene kit with him and removed a loupe magnifier and began looking at the photographs. Just as he started looking at the photos, I told him that I would be willing to loan him the photographic prints so that he could take his time examining them, but he said, “That won’t be necessary.” “He picked up the photograph of Oswald’s fingerprints and added, “I don’t believe that the fingerprints taken from Tippit’s car are Oswald’s prints.” Within a minute he confirmed his previous pronouncement, saying, “No, these don’t match.” “Lutz used the photographic image of the fingerprints taken from the right-front fender of Tippit’s squad car (DMARC 91-001/326) to demonstrate to me how the prints were those of a right hand that had been placed on the car and then dragged away, causing a smear. “Lutz pointed out the right-middle index finger among the group and had me look through the loupe magnifier. Then, he had me view Oswald’s right-middle index fingerprint taken by the Dallas police on November 23, 1963 (DMARC 91-001/314). “Lutz told me to look at the difference in the spacing between ridges. The fingerprints taken from Tippit’s car showed furrows that were wide, while Oswald’s fingerprint furrows were much narrower. In addition, the number of ridges and location of the bifurcations – or “forks” in the patterns – were different. “In short,” Lutz stated, “the fingerprints found on the right fender of Tippit’s patrol car were not Oswald’s.” “Lutz looked at the other fingerprints lifted from Tippit’s squad car. The smears obtained from the top of the right-side passenger door (DMARC 91-001/200 and 91-001/286) were of less value, according to Lutz, although he felt that the ridges and furrows were consistent with fingerprints found on the right front fender. Lutz was of the opinion that one person was probably responsible for all of them.” (https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2022/07/lies-and-deception-in-tippit-murder.html) I agree that the prints could have been left by any person who was in proximity to both locations on the Tippit patrol car from where they were lifted. I think there is a good chance that person was the killer of Tippit. I'd like to see those prints identified to a named individual, and find out. Wouldn't you?

I corrected you don’t know that Tippit opened the vent or the man talked through the vent, to just, you don’t know the man talked through the vent.

That is a possible point on the prints Kevin. Possibilities would be a non-professional killer (e.g. like Oswald although not Oswald since the prints are not from Oswald), or a hired killer who was only B or C team rated quality (e.g. Craford was not a mob member or "made man" in that sense, but did free-lance work for which he was paid, unlikely had professional assassin training). And there is the third possibility, that the prints might not be from a killer. But so far as I understand, it is not a point about the shell hulls at the Tippit crime scene though, which are not inconsistent with best practices of a professional assassin, for this reason: The shell hulls, assuming they had no fingerprints on them (apparently a good assumption even without taking precautions), would be traceable to the murder weapon but if the murder weapon is untraceable, and ditched so as not to be found on the person or in the property of the killer, then the killer is off scot-free. The lab can match those hulls to a found murder weapon to their heart's content and it will not identify the killer. Like in The Godfather, the mob hitman does the hit in broad daylight in public, then slowly walks away dropping the murder weapon (free of prints and with untraceable serial number) right there at the scene of the crime, and disappears into a crowd or the city. The reason to drop the murder weapon at the scene of the crime is so it could not be found on the hitman's person if searched which would identify him. The police easily find the murder weapon because the killer left it right there, but it does them no good. The murder weapon is matched to the murder, but not matched to the one who did the murder. This could be the same principle with the shell hulls at the Tippit crime scene. If so, the fact that the killer did not also leave the murder weapon too at the scene of the crime, but instead reloaded, could be because the desire to get rid of the murder weapon was overridden by a possible need, or planned need, to use it again. Scoggins' cab was parked where it was because Scoggins had been asked in advance by someone in Ruby's circle to be parked there at that time and place. This is not conjectured out of the air; this is the recent sober, serious, credible testimony of Scoggins' grandson that that is exactly what Scoggins told the grandson's father happened, in a Gavan McMahon recorded interview of the grandson. In my reconstruction of the case in light of this Scoggins' grandson information, Scoggins was not part of the killing, would not have known why he was there other than to be available to give someone a ride as needed. In fact he would have been set up to be there so he could be a getaway vehicle for the Tippit killer. However it did not work out that way, because streetsmart Scoggins upon seeing/hearing Tippit murdered, instantly bolted out of his cab precisely so he could not be carjacked, and by the time the Tippit killer rounded the corner, possibly to have Scoggins at gunpoint drive him away (the point of having him there in the first place), that was not possible since Scoggins was not in the cab. The killer had no choice but to continue on foot. In this scenario Tippit's killer ejecting the hulls instantly, right at the scene while walking still on 10th, would be so he could quickly reload. The reason for the need to reload so quickly is (this is hypothesized here) because he needed a loaded gun by the time he got to Scoggins' cab. Therefore there was no luxury, under this scenario, to run a block or two away first before ejecting and reloading. That cab of Scoggins was the controlling variable on that. (And I believe the Tippit murder weapon may have been abandoned by Curtis Craford in the early morning hours of Sat Nov 23 before Craford fled from Dallas that morning, the morning after the Tippit slaying, and that murder weapon is known in FBI Dallas documents which were brought to light in the 1990s, known as the paper-bag revolver found in downtown Dallas, a .38 Special revolver of the calibre that killed Tippit, found in a paper bag with an orange and an apple, that item of physical evidence known to both Dallas Police and the FBI the weekend of the assassination, but "lost" while in police custody, not disclosed to the press, not disclosed to the Warren Commission, never disclosed to anyone except in internal FBI documents.) An additional comment on the Tippit patrol car fingerprints... From reading studies of expert fingerprint identification accuracy, three conclusions emerged: first, expert positive identifications of a fingerprint match are hardly ever wrong, less than a tiny fraction of 1% error incidence. Second, negative identifications (exclusions) expressed with expert certainty are often wrong, wrong about 1 out of 13 times according to a landmark study on this question. This is where the Lutz 1994 (reported 1998, Myers) negative exclusion of Oswald as the source of the Tippit patrol car fingerprints come in. Lutz was expert, and Lutz was positive on his finding that Oswald was excluded. Neither of those statements is in question. But the data says 1 out of 13 times exactly this kind of expert finding is, in fact, not correct. Lutz's findings have never been refuted, and are the only information there is on the Tippit patrol car prints of this nature. So it is all we have. Because of Lutz's experience, and because 12 out of 13 times negative exclusions are correct, that finding of Lutz is probably correct. But we don't know that absolutely, in the absence of review, which of course there never has been. The same study found that in these cases where errors in either positive or negative identifications did happen, they would be found upon review by other experts, second opinions, so it is not that this is unanswerable. It just takes someone somewhere caring enough to have another expert or two look at those Tippit patrol car prints, which nobody has bothered to do going on 61 years now. But the third conclusion of the fingerprint accuracy studies is the most interesting one: that there was quite a bit of subjectivity involved in experts deciding whether a print was "usable" (could produce a positive or negative identification), or "unusable". Recall the early finding of the Dallas Police, unattributed, unsigned, unknown origin, unwritten, reported in hearsay form by officer Barnes in his Warren Commission testimony, that somebody somewhere in the Dallas Police Department had conclusively determined the Tippit patrol car prints were unusable. The astonishing data studied on this was this: there was the famous Brandon Mayfield case in Portland where the FBI made a false positive (one of those tiny fraction of 1% cases where that occurred, error found upon review by Spanish intelligence examiners and then confirmed upon further review by the FBI itself in America). In a study, expert fingerprint examiners were given two sets of prints and asked to use their professional expertise to determine whether there was a match, and they were told these were the Brandon Mayfield prints which had been wrongly matched to the international terrorist's prints, that well-known famous case. A certain significant percentage (I don't have the study in front of me, but significant percentage) of the examiners professionally answered that those prints were "inconclusive", no finding was possible to be obtained. (Just like the oral hearsay of the Dallas Police determination of the Tippit patrol car prints.) The punch line: those were not Brandon Mayfield prints (the testers had lied to the examiners). Those prints were the very own matches of those very examiners submitted in court in the past used to convict persons of crimes, on the basis of those examiners' fingerprint matches! The same prints those same examiners were now saying could NOT give any finding or information! The conclusions from these studies are the importance of blindness (the examiner does not know the identities of the prints they are examining), and also the importance of review ("second opinions", just like in medicine). Those are the two key things as I understand the outcome of these studies. The Tippit patrol car fingerprints information status is in the Dark Ages still, compared to what known best practices are today.

Both vent windows were open, that may have been how Tippit liked to drive. You don't know that the man talked through the vent. You might as well ask yourself where's your witness to the man talking through the vent and why you are making up that scenario when no witness said they saw that. In my experience, when strangers approach the passenger side of a car wanting to speak, the most common response as a driver (if one does not ignore them altogether) is roll the window down a crack. Not roll down a lot (at least in urban America today) for safety reasons. Enough to enable hearing but not enough to allow an arm to come in. I don't know if a police officer in 1963 Oak Cliff would instinctively be as cautious as such habits today, but this has been my experience. I can imagine police officers being instinctively cautious in 1963 Dallas. Never know what any given person is going to be like, from an officer's point of view, I imagine. But I don't need a witness on rolling the window back up a crack if the witness (Jimmy Burt) saw Tippit reach over to roll down the window a crack or two. If the witness was correct on that, then the window WAS rolled back up, evidence being it was found rolled up, therefore it was rolled back up. This is not making stuff up. This is evidence-based if the witness statement is correct that the window was rolled down a crack or two or three. If so, it was rolled back up because it was found up, therefore it had been rolled back up. I don't drive around with my passenger window down, whether or not my driver's side window is down which can vary. I think of how I react when people occasionally flag me down or tap seeking to speak through the passenger window. Sometimes its panhandlers. Other times it might be someone asking a question of a location, or being helpful offering some information or advice, whatever. And if I roll down the window a crack to talk, find out what the person wants, when the person leaves I'm gonna roll it back up again. (Because as noted, I like the passenger window rolled up when I drive alone.) This strange, strange notion you keep repeating that if no witness such as Helen Markham or Jimmy Burt saw the killer do a hand movement it didn't happen (also if Helen Markham or Jimmy Burt did see a hand motion it also didn't happen), is no less arbitrary than what you characterize me as doing. Very simply: if the witness is correct that Tippit rolled down the passenger window a crack or partway, then he did roll it back up because the window was found up. That's all there is to it on that. And there's nothing that doesn't make sense about Tippit cracking the passenger window down partway for the man flagging him down, find out what he wants (unaware the man is about to kill him), the only issue is how far to roll the window down for personal security and safety reasons. Now maybe Tippit just sat there and looked and the man did awkwardly speak through the vent which he already found open, without Tippit making a move. Maybe it did happen that way. Maybe Jimmy Burt was just blowing smoke saying so very specifically and repeatedly that he witnessed Tippit reach over, and roll down the window. I don't know. Do you? You may think you know, but I know you don't. I will agree with you on one thing. If Jimmy Burt was a block away, I wonder how he could claim to see that precision of movement of Tippit inside the car. If it can be settled conclusively that Jimmy Burt was a block away (as distinguished from Wm Smith and Jimmy Burt saying they were a block away), then I would not pay much attention to it (and would still consider it open that Tippit could have cracked the passenger window, then raised it back up again, before being killed, in the absence of direct witness testimony). But if Jimmy Burt was inside his car where two witnesses claim to have seen his car next to Tippit's patrol car at the moment Tippit was killed, then its a different matter. In that case, Jimmy Burt could have seen it very clearly. If Jimmy Burt's claim to what he said he saw is true, that Tippit rolled down the window a crack or two, THEN Tippit did roll it back up, because the window was found up.

Although I admit a cognitive dissonance here on the fingerprints suggesting a left-handed killer, since my prime suspect, Craford, I have looked at his handwriting and it is how most right-handed writers rather than left-handed writers cross their “t”’s. That’s not absolute but it is something. Bill, on Jimmy Burt, how do you interpret the sighting of Burt-like car descriptions next to the Tippit patrol car from two witnesses, and Burt told the FBI he drove his car next to the Tippit patrol car though he said after the shooting, with plenty of understandable motive of Burt to distance his car’s presence next to Tippits at the crime scene at the moment Tippit was killed? The reason for asking is obviously it matters whether Burt was witnessing from a block away or only feet away when Tippit was murdered, in assessment of weight to what Burt says he saw or may have seen. I wrote the specifics of my case on that before and I don’t think you commented. If Burt did not drive his car to be in a position next to Tippits patrol car, why do you suppose he told the FBI in Dec 1963 that he did, and the two witnesses saw it there at the time Tippit was killed, after which Wright saw it take off in a hurry? Any thoughts?

Tom I believe Bill’s reasoning is since no witness said they saw the killer who was at the right front fender, physically touch that front fender inches from where he was standing next to that fender, logically that PROVES somebody ELSE who nobody saw touch it left those prints. Makes perfect sense. And since the same individual person left prints in two places on the Tippit patrol car, both places of which the killer was seen standing near to, but ONLY ONE of those two places—only ONE! Tom—did eyewitnesses of the Tippit killing directly see the killer with arms and hands touching there exactly where the prints were lifted twenty minutes later … that PROVES Bill’s point, does it not—PROVES that the killer did NOT leave prints in EITHER location! Is that clearer now Tom? Bill is citing absence of a witness seeing touching by the killer in one of those two locations as evidence that the prints were left by somebody who nobody saw touch it. Bills logic is an interesting line of logic: your honor my client cannot possibly have left these prints right next to where he was standing, definitive proof of that being no witness saw him touch. (But who put those prints there then?) Obviously, some one ELSE that was not seen to touch! How many times do I have to repeat this blindingly clear logic? Bill serious point here is you’re overstating your claim that lack of eg Helen Markham seeing the killer touch the right front fender, therefore you reason the killer conclusively did not, and therefore conclusively did not at the passenger door either (no matter what witnesses and common sense say). You fail to see your point, if true, rules out any human on earth from having left the right bumper prints since no one saw anyone touch there. since that is not true (that no one left prints which do exist), your assumed premise is mistaken. Namely, you should correct and admit that it is reasonable that a human with hands inches from and standing next to something at a crime scene may be the source of prints there even if not seen by somebody else doing so. Probably 98% of prints were left by people whom no one saw leave those prints. Maybe the Tippit killer was among that 98% of cases in the case of the right bumper prints, where no one saw the person leave the print. The positive argument that the Tippit killer did is because the killer was seen touching at the passenger door and the right bumper ones come from the same guy, plus the killer was there too. I do think if the killer left those prints from the same individual in both locations (even if the killer was seen doing so in only one of those), that the killer probably was left handed, gun in left hand, right bumper prints from a free right hand. And Oswald was right-handed. Plus, Oswald is excluded as source of those prints anyway. Plus, that exclusion was unconscionably covered up and went undisclosed for three decades.

Bill Brown has provided me with scans of the pages of a transcript of the Al Chapman interview of Jimmy Burt. I see now Bill Brown posted that transcript in full (11 scanned pages) on another forum for anyone interested, here: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3689.672.html Jimmy Burt on Tippit rolling down the passenger window so the man who killed him could talk to him "... we noticed the policeman pulled up to talk to this guy and well he pulled up and he rushed over to roll his window down." (...) "... a policeman pulled up and he rolled his window down and the guy walked over..." He rolled which window down? "The one on the opposite side." The opposite side from the driver? "Yes. And the guy walked over and put his hand on the window and bent down to where he could talk." He put his hands on the car? "Yes, he did. And bent down in the window so he could talk." I did a little checking on comments on a Quora question to police officers on driving with their windows up or down on patrol cars. I found officers answering who said although it was a matter of personal preference, many officers kept windows cracked or partly open as a rule in order to be able to hear outside, told of crimes solved by what an officer was able to hear, from having the car window cracked open. Some officers were so intent on that that they left windows cracked a little even in rainy weather. But the problem with driving with windows fully down was stinging insects can come in. Reading those comments I wondered if the ability to hear outside the car was why Tippit had the window vent on the passenger side open, as the way he normally drove his patrol car. It intuitively makes better sense to roll down the passenger door window partway if one wants to talk to someone on the passenger side outside the car. It doesn't have to be rolled down all the way, but enough to not have glass obstructing the person's face. I am persuaded on the basis of the combined testimony of Jimmy Burt and of Helen Markham who said she saw the same thing (that the window was rolled down), with no counter testimony, plus the logic of it, that Tippit probably rolled the window down partway, in fact unless there is any reason set forth why not, I will just assume it since it makes so much sense and is what the witnesses said they saw. The notion of the man talking through the vent does not sound right, not very convenient for talking or hearing. When Tippit was through talking with the man Tippit would have reached over and rolled that same window back up, as he preferred the window up, before he started to get out of his car on the driver's side. That will account for the window found rolled up after he was killed. If, on the other hand, Tippit had reached over to open a usually-closed passenger vent to allow the man to talk through the vent (with difficulty for the man to be understood, and Tippit to hear), Tippit would have closed that vent back up when the conversation was through, before Tippit got out of the car on the driver's side, to return the vent to his normal preferred "closed" condition. But the vent was found open (cracked) after Tippit was killed--not because he opened it to speak to the man, but because that was the normal way he was driving the car. It was the front door window that Tippit rolled down at least partway, then rolled back up again, during those words spoken at the passenger door window. Here is a photo of the Tippit patrol car at the crime scene showing the vent on the driver's side also open: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/lee-harvey-oswald--292452569559764005/ . It was not hot temperature at the time Tippit was driving that car at the time of his death. At 1 pm that day the temperature was measured 67 degrees F (Dallas Love Field). The vent on the passenger side was probably open for the same reason the vent on the driver's side was open, either to hear, or possibly for preference in cooling the car or for fresh air, or both or all three, in whatever case the same reason applicable to both vents, removing the assumption that the vent on one side, but not the other, had been cracked, and then left open that way without being closed again, for purposes of a very awkward conversation with struggling to be heard through the vent--against what any of the witnesses said they saw. I believe now the notion of talking through the vent has been a mistake.

Say Denis M., while on the subject of Marina audio recordings, and you being the expert as much as anyone on such resources, can you possibly advise or locate or come up with the audio of Marina's New Orleans Grand Jury testimony? There's a place where Marina said "ACLU" with some ellipses around it in the written transcript, and if more words could be deciphered from the audio it could shed light on whether Marina in fact did mean ACLU as the objectionable organization in which the Secret Service told Marina Ruth Paine was mixed up and the Secret Service told Marina as a negative thing that Ruth and that organization were "writing letters over there" (at a time when ACLU/Ruth had written a letter inquiring formally whether Marina was being held under duress, an inquiry not appreciated by the Secret Service). But in the one explicit mention in the transcript in that section in which Marina said "ACLU" there are those ellipses, so as not to know what Marina said ABOUT the "ACLU" in that section of testimony. Any idea if there is a way to access the audio of that that does not involve flying to New Orleans? Thanks!

Ps Bill, if Jimmy Burt said he saw Tippit roll down the front passenger window (maybe partway?), I think Burt may have been only a car length away and therefore that witness claim is of interest. I would not automatically assume it was wrong. In that case I could imagine Tippit normally driving with that window up, lowering it partway to be able to hear what the man flagging him down wanted to tell or ask him, then rolling it back up the partway again before getting out of the vehicle on the drivers side. It would be plausible behavior it seems to me. I just was not aware until your mention that Jimmy Burt had claimed to witness that if what you say is right.

You are playing games, citing evidence inaccessible to anyone, and not lifting a finger to make it available and can’t be bothered even to make a civil private reply to my private inquiry. If you are going to cite evidence you keep hidden in your vest pocket that no one else is allowed to see, I am asking for an exact quote (with any sentence or so relevant surrounding context exact quote too). I am not saying you’ve misremembered or are paraphrasing wrong. I just like to verify fact claims I’ve never heard before. I check footnotes, and you’re not giving one that can be checked; why? Are you more interested in winning arguments by withholding access to secret evidence, than in discussion where both sides may learn something from one another?

Oh man I apologize Kevin! I meant the question to Bertolino.

[]

[]

Kantor "worked for the murderers ... scheming and murdering before any of us were born... ?" That's a rather serious charge there Richard. Would you care to say why you think Kantor was involved in the assassination of Kennedy? Reasons for your belief?

Ruth said she voted for Kennedy. I don't remember where I read it but thats what she said. No evidence she ever voted for or supported Nixon. I doubt very many Quakers voted for Nixon, despite Nixon claiming to be one. Ruth Paine as a member of the ACLU, supporter of civil rights, etc., would be "liberal"/JFK aligned. When I knew Ruth in the St. Petersburg Friends Meeting nobody else there was voting Republican (Bush II years), I doubt Ruth was. My father who grew up in the most conservative branch of Friends in North America, the Conservative Friends of Ohio who wear black and white, speak "thee" and "thou" and only a few hundred are left today, said when he grew up those rural farming Friends always voted Republican. That was before WW2 and Franklin D. Roosevelt where a shift happened. But before WW2 the Republicans were the party of Lincoln who freed the slaves, staunch quaker loyalty for that. Also, Herbert Hoover was a Quaker who became president and he was Republican (and Herbert Hoover was well-regarded among Quakers, unlike Nixon). But from FDR on, there was a shift to voting more Democratic.

Not a speck of evidence I am aware of that Kantor was an FBI asset, nor do you cite any even though making the allegation. Kantor was telling his Parkland sighting of Ruby from the beginning, I believe documented written by Kantor starting from as early as the first weekend, whereas Applin's claim to have seen Ruby in the Texas Theatre only became known years later. You say "the FBI knew about [it]" early but you cite no evidence for that. And "probably from Ruby himself" has no basis. As for who Applin saw, it definitely was not Ruby, even if Applin mistakenly thought so, for this reason: In the Sixth Floor Museum oral history of Texas Theatre patron Jack Davis, which can be found on the Sixth Floor Museum site, Davis tells of an unnamed (by Jack Davis) patron sitting across the aisle from him in the exact, specific seat where Applin located his "Jack Ruby". Well, the identity of the patron to whom Jack Davis referred, sitting precisely in the very seat Applin located his "Jack Ruby", is no mystery. It was another theater patron that day named John Gibson, manager of the nearby Elko Camera store, 239 W. Jefferson. Here is Gibson's Warren Commission testimony, https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/gibson.htm). What is missing is a photo of John Gibson, which would be interesting to see, to see how Applin could see Ruby on TV and mistakenly think John Gibson looked like Jack Ruby on TV. Remember how FBI agent Odum showed Marguerite Oswald a photo of that heavyset man in the Mexico City surveillance photo who was not Oswald, and Marguerite claimed forever after that that was a photo of Jack Ruby (it was not)? Same principle. But John Gibson is who that was, that Applin saw. Not Jack Ruby. To which may be added: there were a lot of police officers in the Texas Theatre that day, and as is well known, half the police force (or whatever percentage it was) knew Jack Ruby, several officers of whom specifically are known to have known Ruby very well personally (e.g. Cunningham, Courson). If it really had been Jack Ruby there, somebody would have recognized him other than just Applin. Applin saw Ruby on TV and simply made a mistaken identification from memory of some physical accidental resemblance. There was nothing to the Applin Jack Ruby claim, nor does it have anything to do with why Kantor said he saw Jack Ruby at Parkland. Kantor said he saw Ruby at Parkland ... because he saw Ruby at Parkland. Seth Kantor was an honest reporter. Ruby was at Parkland. It is a puzzle why the Warren Commission chose to say otherwise, against the evidence of Seth Kantor's highly credible witness. What comes to mind to me is that Ruby was there for some non-innocent reason, and it would open a can of worms for the Warren Commission to try to explain why he was there. Therefore, in the drive to wrap the case up around a LN Oswald killed two days later by an unplanned crime-of-passion LN Ruby, it was preferred in that narrative that Ruby not have been there. Therefore, that is what they wrote. Maybe there is a better explanation but that is my best guess as to why.

Where did Jimmy Burt say that? Reference, quote? Incidentally, I tried to message you privately on this site seeking access to the Jimmy Burt Chapman interview, you didn't reply. Did you get that?

Nobody disputes the killer was leaning down in to speak to Tippit through that front vent window, sort of hard to do so without resting hands on the car. Try to replicate that, lean down to talk through a cracked-open passenger vent window so that the driver can hear clearly ... without resting against the car for balance, or positioning one's hands for balance as one puts one's face near the glass to speak through the vent. Two of the witnesses who observed the killer talking to Tippit that way directly said the killer's arms (Markham) or hands (Jimmy Burt) were on that front passenger door touching. Helen Markham said that in her same-day Nov 22, 1963 Dallas Police written signed affidavit, and Jimmy Burt said that to Al Chapman. And Jimmy Burt for reasons I have given elsewhere probably was not viewing from a block away, but from a few feet away sitting in his car next to Tippit's patrol car at the time, in other words, unless he was lying or fabricating about seeing the killer's hands on the car, he was in an extremely good position to have seen and know that. And the prints conclusively were found not to be Oswald's--in 1994, first publicly disclosed in 1998--by an examiner who said it was easy to see that, though the Dallas Police appear to have covered up that little detail at the time. To this day, nobody knows who in the Dallas Police crime lab did the print examination that concluded there was no information in those prints such as the 1994 negative identification (not-Oswald). Officer Barnes told the Warren Commission as hearsay that that had been such a Dallas Police finding that the prints were worthless, but did not say who, and no document tells who, nobody signed anything or admitted they decided that, re those Tippit patrol car passenger door and right front bumper prints at DPD. No record DPD sought or FBI sought FBI's assistance in examining those prints. If a Michigan examiner in 1994 could easily find a negative-identification (exclusion of) Oswald, surely the FBI in 1963 could have found that and maybe more. It looks like once both DPD and the FBI realized those prints couldn't be used to incriminate Oswald, all interest was gone in them, including, perhaps especially including, the threat that it might possibly lead to identification of some killer other than Oswald. If Oswald had gone to trial for the murder of officer Tippit, and a jury was presented with this, how could this alone not raise "reasonable doubt" that Oswald was certainly the killer. Jurors are instructed not to convict only because they think someone is probably guilty, but have "no reasonable doubt" that that is the case. If those prints were not Oswald's left where one would expect the killer to leave prints, where two crime scene witnesses said they directly saw physical contact of the killer's arms/hands on the car at that location, where prints were found, from someone who was not Oswald ... what should an honest juror think? Convict Oswald because "he could still be guilty" even so? What about in the eyes of history? No one lifts a finger to examine those prints further even today, which could still be done. Myers responded abusively to me when in the most polite manner possible I sought his assistance. Bill Brown has said at various times that he has not the least interest in having an examination done to find out who those fingerprints match to since he is certain they did not come from the killer (absurdly, he thinks he knows that). (I'm not totally negative on Myers--he got the prints' finding done by Lutz of 1994 and reported and published it, which was important and nobody else had gotten that done, and that is something and to be honored.) I don't know how to get a fingerprint examination for match to Curtis Craford done, but I would put $500 into it if someone else was capable of getting it done competently in a blind examination which would be guaranteed to be published no matter what the findings. I would put $250 into an examination that was not blind. I don't pretend that would necessarily underwrite the full costs of such, but I am offering to put some money where my mouth is to that extent. I see just now Tom Gram's above--very right. And Bill Brown trying to frame this as a question of whether the negative exclusion of Oswald from those prints is absolute proof of innocence, as distinguished from reasonable cause to question Oswald's guilt.

Concerning the color of the CE 162 jacket, the majority of Tippit crime scene witnesses spoke of "warm" light-tan tones of an off-white color of the Tippit killer's jacket, most NOT describing it as gray, even though the Warren Commission was insistent on always calling and labeling CE 162 "gray". The reason? Because Oswald actually did have an honest-to god gray jacket in color. Buell Frazier testified as clearly as could be that Oswald frequently wore a gray jacket to work at the TSBD. Marina told the FBI Lee had a gray jacket in the Soviet Union that he returned to America with. Marina said that to the FBI who, however, did not show CE 162 to Marina when she said that, or any other time. Marina was shown CE 162 for the very first time in her Warren Commission testimony in 1964 at which time she identified it as gray and as Oswald's, and said Oswald wore it to Irving the night of Nov 21. The Warren Commission rejected Marina's testimony on when she said she saw Oswald wearing CE 162. The Warren Commission concluded Lee wore his blue jacket CE 163 to Irving Nov 21 and back to Dallas on Nov 22, and dismissed Marina's testimony that she saw Lee wear CE 162 the night of Nov 21. Marina never testified to having seen Lee wear CE 162 on any other specific occasion than the night of Nov 21. The only specific occasion Marina testified to having seen Lee wear CE 162, the Warren Commission concluded never happened. Ruth Paine never testified to having ever seen Oswald wear CE 162. Buell Frazier never did. The only time Marina ever claimed to have seen Oswald wear CE 162, the Warren Commission blew that off, decided Marina didn't know what she was talking about on that. Nobody in Irving ever said they saw Oswald wear CE 162, except Marina whom the Warren Commission dismissed as unbelievable on the one time Marina claimed she had seen the phantom CE 162 on Lee. Nobody in the TSBD ever said they saw Oswald wear CE 162. Nobody at Oswald's rooming house on N. Beckley ever said they saw Oswald wear CE 162. Nobody prior to the Tippit killing ever spoke of Oswald having a light-tan off-white jacket of the color of the Tippit killer's light-tan off-white CE 162. Oswald did have a gray jacket, however. It just had nothing to do with CE 162. A photo of Oswald in a group photo of coworkers in Minsk has Lee in a jacket, not otherwise identified, whose color cannot be verified due to the photo being in black-and-white. As can be seen, the jacket Oswald is wearing in that photo is NOT--is NOT-- CE 162 (nor is it CE 163). But that jacket Oswald is wearing in Minsk DOES EXACTLY match the "flannel, wool-looking" description of Buell Frazier of the real Oswald's "gray" jacket which Frazier saw Oswald frequently wear--sitting next to him in the car--to work to the TSBD, a gray jacket frequently worn by Oswald which Frazier said unequivocally was NOT--was NOT--CE 162. The Warren Commission was dead-set on having the off-white light-tan CE 162, the jacket of the Tippit killer, identified as the real gray jacket of Oswald. That is why they consistently labeled CE 162 gray when it was not gray but off-white light tan. That is why. That is why. That is why. And just about all the major books and discussions in the decades since, more or less, have perpetuated that labeling--continuing to call CE 162, the jacket abandoned by the killer of Tippit, a "gray" jacket, even though it never was gray, except to people challenged with color-recognition issues, or under indoor fluorescent lighting which washes out warm colors in interior lighting. The Warren Commission called CE 162 a "gray" jacket. And therefore it became a "gray" jacket in the annals of journalism and history writing. That is how powerful a labeling is. The Tippit killer's light-tan off-white jacket CE 162 was not the color of the real Oswald's gray jacket, because it was not Oswald's gray jacket, which was gray. From the Warren Commission testimony of Buell Frazier: Mr. BALL - On that day [Nov 22, 1963] you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket? Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning. Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types. Mr. BALL - It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown? [CE 162 and CE 163] Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. (. . .) Mr. BALL - You are not able to tell us then anything or are you able to tell us, describe any of the clothing he had on that day, except this gray jacket? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - That is the only thing you can remember? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - I have here a paper sack which is Commission's Exhibit 364. That gray jacket you mentioned, did it have any design in it? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Mr. BALL - Was it light or dark gray? Mr. FRAZIER - It was light gray. Mr. BALL - You mentioned it was woolen. Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Long sleeves? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Buttoned sleeves at the wrist, or do you remember? Mr. FRAZIER - To be frank with you, I didn't notice that much about the jacket, but I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before. Mr. BALL - You say it had a zipper on it? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Buell Frazier was describing the jacket Oswald was wearing in the Minsk photo, not CE 162.

I can't speak for others but here is my take on this. Burroughs' time memory of 1:00 to 1:07 for Oswald in the theater is from decades later and as you note, not too plausible that Oswald could have gotten there on foot in that time. Something like 1:15-1:20 entry into the theater arriving either by bus south on Beckley or on foot would be more realistic. The major problems with Oswald at the Tippit crime scene at ca. 1:15 (or whenever) are: why would Oswald walk there? And the encounter of Tippit with his killer has all the appearance of an ambush and a professional killing, not a spontaneous spooked impulse shooting as supposed of Oswald. The issues are complicated involving witnesses and the FBI report of a revolver match to shell hulls incriminating Oswald, but the question of why would Oswald choose to walk there (Tenth and Patton) remains ... along with its not Oswald's fingerprints, but may be the killer's fingerprints, on the passenger car door where Helen Markham directly said on Nov 22 she saw the killer lean down and put his arms against the patrol car before he got Tippit out of the car and shot him dead... and the earliest witness descriptions of the Tippit killer had the killer with wavy black hair and the closest witness to the killer from only ca. 15 feet away said the killer had a block cut rear hairline, neither of which agree with Oswald ... and another credible suspect exists who does match the facts and physical descriptions of the killer, a recent hire of Ruby who had hitman experience and expertise (and who was misidentified as Oswald on other known occasions) ... The only explanation I have seen that attempts to make sense of why Oswald would be at Tenth and Patton is that of Burt Griffin's recent book, and it is possible Myers also said something like this somewhere: that Oswald was on his way to a Marsallis bus stop, where he would use his transfer and get to a Greyhound bus station by city bus, from where he might then take a bus to Mexico which he could afford with the $11.20 or whatever it was he had in his pocket. (If this was an escape, it was not a very well-planned one.) The alternative is Oswald was found in the Texas Theatre because that is where he went from his rooming house and entered, wearing his blue jacket upon entry to the theater, as a paying customer, for the purpose of meeting someone there (https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/T-Jackets-112.pdf).

I appreciate this on this detail Kevin, thanks. It may not actually disagree with what I said, technically speaking. The Tippit autopsy bullets confirmed the fact that the W's and R's two manufactures of bullets were used in the killing, however as you note that could not have been a source of knowledge of that fact learned on the weekend of Nov 22-24, 1963. The source for that information would necessarily--from the very fact you bring out--be the four shell hulls recovered from the Tippit crime scene on Nov 22. In the scenario in which there were substitutions of those hulls: (a) the R's plus W's mix used by the Tippit killer was learned Nov 22 from the real hulls abandoned by the Tippit killer on Fri Nov 22 (2+2 R's and W's). (b) at some point prior to the FBI lab's receipt of shell hulls a week later, other R's and W's were fired from Oswald's revolver, replications of the officers' markings were made on the substituted hulls, and the substituted R and W hulls were submitted to the FBI lab which matched them to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of any other weapon. If there were substituted hulls, and if hypothetically that were to be established as distinguished from speculated, the question would arise whether the original (now missing) real hulls of the Tippit killer were indeed R's and W's mixed. However, the Tippit autopsy body bullets independently verify that, in fact, that was the case. That is the sequence of the logic I see. (On discussion of the chain of custody of the Tippit crime scene shell hulls received by the FBI lab raising the possibility of substitutions, my piece, "Were the Tippit crime scene shell hulls fired from the revolver of Lee Harvey Oswald?", https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/T-BALLISTICS-108-1.pdf .)

OK I’m corrected, thanks Pat. It just sounds wacky that autopsists could be claimed to err on a description of a location of a wound of that magnitude.

From my experience in the world of contested interpretations of archaeological and radiocarbon dating data Dr. Wecht’s explanation makes sense. A subtle point though. I wonder if it is quite precise to say the Clark and HSCA panels “moved the entrance wound higher” as if it was an issue of correct position of the same wound under discussion. Idiomatically the wording may be sorta OK but I wonder if that is exactly what was going on. As I read it, they were not talking about a dispute over the location of the same autopsists’ EOP wound. They were rather claiming to have discovered a new wound (at the cowlick), missed by the autopsists. And, separate issue, they were claiming the autopsists’ EOP wound did not exist. Two distinct issues. It was not a claim that the autopsists saw the cowlick wound, then the autopsists mislocated that cowlick wound by mistake near the EOP. Pat do you think that is an accurate or inaccurate clarified reading of what the Clark and HSCA panels were saying?