Greg Doudna

No.

Right Tom, I couldn’t say it better. And it’s not only the fingerprints. There are other basic things suggesting Oswald’s actual innocence re Tippit. Why would Oswald have gone from his rooming house to Tenth and Patton in the first place? It makes no sense, has never been well explained. Whereas if the killer was a professional carrying out a contract execution that anomaly is removed. And if it was Oswald randomly walking there (despite no sensible reason why he would be there), and Tippit stops him because he looks suspicious, especially in light of the president’s assassination and a police radio reported killer at large, it makes no sense that Tippit would not call in that stop to the dispatcher. What makes sense is that the killer on the sidewalk flagged Tippit down to speak to him, not vice versa, that it was not Tippit checking out a suspicious person. Then the killer spoke to Tippit through that open vent window, we don’t know what he said, but he said something which lured Tippit out of the car, which was so that the killer could shoot him dead as a contract execution. But he had to get Tippit out of the car first. Perhaps the reason Tippit didn’t radio it in was because it was not a stop of a suspicious person from Tippit’s point of view. It could even be the killer was someone Tippit recognized and trusted, the way mob hits sometimes worked. And the killer’s back and forth in different directions on that sidewalk seen by the witnesses: Myers went to a lot of work to argue that was a person changing directions when seeing a police car. Then, that theory goes per Myers’ argument, Tippit noticed that, and that is why Tippit became suspicious and decided to check him out. But that doesn’t explain the lack of radioing in that he was making a stop of a potentially armed and dangerous person who conceivably could have assassinated the president. A better interpretation is the killer from the sidewalk flagged down Tippit and not vice versa. As the killer saw Tippit’s car approaching and slowing, the killer on the sidewalk changed walking directions to go to the slowing patrol car until it stopped. That accounts for the witnesses’ differences on movements and directions of the killer as Tippit’s patrol car arrived and stopped. All of this happened only a couple of blocks from Ruby’s apartment, where a confessed hitman employee of Ruby could have slept there, then walked to the Tippit crime scene, after having been last seen the night before in the company of Ruby at about 2 or 3 am with Ruby driving him home. And the killer of Tippit got to the crime scene by walking there, seen walking west there on Tenth Street, as if he had started from Ruby’s apartment that couple of blocks east of the Tippit crime scene. Oswald meanwhile was witnessed in the main level of the Texas Theatre at the time Tippit was killed, Oswald sitting down in seats directly next to individuals sitting alone in that theater because he was looking for an expected person he was meeting there. That behavior of Oswald in a practically empty theater, witnessed by theater patron Jack Davis who told of Oswald sitting briefly in a seat directly next to him and then another person before moving again, is difficult to interpret otherwise. Rather than Oswald being the killer of Tippit, Oswald like Tippit was slated for death that day by the same killers. (“Killers” in plural because the gunman did not act on his own even though he was the only gunman.) When the intent to kill Oswald in the Theatre failed on Friday due to the rapid police arrival and arrest of Oswald, the same interests had Oswald killed while in police custody on Sunday morning. There was overwhelming police motivation to pin Tippit on Oswald, close that case right there, even before Oswald was dead but even more so after he was dead. But there are grounds for calling into question that he did it.

Thanks Gary for this projection. I will be looking forward to reading it when you do present it. Sixty years of research, wow. Best wishes and good health.

Not comical Bill. Inconsistent would be if Markham ever denied the killer's hands touched after saying they did touch. She did not. You are claiming inconsistency improperly. And yet you never enlightened me when I was struggling to go to a lot of work to show Helen Markham's other testimony was sounding like the killer touched even if Helen Markham did not say so directly. You knew all along she said so directly here. Why did you not say so and save me that energy? You never mentioned it before. Of course it really doesn't matter much whether she did or didn't say she saw hands in contact. Either way, she saw the killer leaning over onto the car when talking through what we know was the vent window. A killer leaning over onto the top of a car door is prima facie an obvious candidate for who left fingerprints lifted from the top of that car door twenty minutes later. And Helen Markham from where she was standing was in excellent position to see the killer leaning over onto the car door as she described in a manner that would have left prints. She wasn't making that up. She did not get that wrong. That happened. And the reason we know that happened (apart from Helen Markham looking right at it has directly told us that happened)? Because of that vent window being the only way one could talk through to the officer inside. The killer had to lean down to talk through that vent, which Tippit inside the car may have reached over to crack open to make that possible. Think it through--how easy is it to lean down to talk through a cracked right front vent window to a police officer sitting inside that car, without resting one's hands on the patrol car for balance? Wouldn't that be awkward and almost painful after only a few seconds to be leaned down like that without resting hands on the car door? And after all that, I'm not as persuaded as you that Helen Markham could not have seen hands on the car as she said, even if it did involve seeing through glass windows through the cabin of the patrol car at 150 feet. Are you sure that's impossible?

Thanks to Tom Gram, James Keane, and Bill Brown, you are all right on "fat(?)" not being what Helen Markham said. The quality of the recording is too poor for me to know whether James Keane's or Bill Brown's exact wording is correct between the two but the meaning is the same in either case and there is no "fat". Not much of a stretch I wouldn't think Tom, in the hands of a competent attorney.

THANK YOU TOM!! There it is -- Crafard Exhibit 5212 with Craford in several of those photos self-identified by Craford in his testimony and recognizable compared with his FBI photos. Alas I don't see Craford from the back in any of the 5212 photos to confirm or disconfirm a block-cut rear hairline (to confirm or disconfirm agreement with Benavides' block-cut rear hairline of the Tippit killer, which is in disagreement with Oswald's tapered rear hairline). I wonder if Craford is in any of the other photos in that archive. At least with the verified Craford ones in 5212 there is a better idea of what to look for. He sure has a full head of hair, compare "bushy" descriptions of the killer's hair at the Tippit crime scene. In that middle photo on the right is that top front teeth missing in Craford's smile? Anyway, the 5212 photos are FOUND, "tusind tak" Tom as they say in Denmark!

UPDATE on fingerprints Helen Markham said she saw the killer's hands ON--TOUCHING--the Tippit patrol car at the right front door, moments before she saw him shoot and kill Tippit ... one of the two locations from the car from which fingerprints from one single individual were lifted from two locations corresponding to the two locations where the killer was seen standing at that car. Those fingerprints appear to have been left by that killer. The Dallas Police did not disclose what is now known, that those fingerprints left at the precise spot of the killer's hands in witnessed direct contact with the car, were not--repeat NOT--a match to Oswald. That is an uncontested finding of fact first reported in 1998. This suggests that although that killer may have looked similar enough to Oswald to be mistakenly confused with Oswald by witnesses, that killer may not have been Oswald. At 0:45 in the video below Helen Markham graphically illustrates, accompanying her words, what the killer's hands and arms looked like and his posture as she saw him lean onto the Tippit patrol car's right front door moments before killing officer Tippit. It was not a posture of arms crossed leaning into and onto the door at the right front window (as I had supposed in the absence of knowledge of this testimony). It was a posture of elbows outstretched and hands clasped, with the clasped BARE HANDS ON the top of the car door with body weight resting on those outstretched arms and hands exactly--EXACTLY--where the fingerprints were lifted. (See the photo of Sergeant Barnes dusting for those prints at the top of the right front door of the Tippit patrol car on page 210 of Myers, With Malice, 2013 edn.) The exclusion of Oswald as a non-match to those fingerprints was unconscionably not disclosed by Dallas Police. The FBI, Warren Commission, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations all failed to discover and/or disclose that factual finding which is not in dispute today. I did not know that Helen Markham's description of what she saw was that explicit in this video interview--of telling of having witnessed direct contact of the killer's hands with the patrol car where the prints were lifted--until today. Maybe Bill knew it was there all along but I did not. The video interview is below following my transcription of the first part. Note the specificity in detail. Note also Helen Markham's physical description of the killer as "short, kind of short". Oswald at 5'9" and lean was average height. 5'9" for a man is not considered "short". Oswald was not called "short". (Curtis Craford was shorter and heavier than Oswald. Craford was called "short".) "Well this man was walking along the sidewalk on Tenth Street. This police car was driving very slow down Tenth Street. And what happened? Well the man kept walking, just like I say with his hands down and his head. He had no intent in mind, he didn't care. And this police car kept coming on, coming on, and finally he stopped. And the man stopped. And whether the man, the policeman say come over to the car, talk to him, I don't know but he went. Was he on the driver's side or on the other side? On the other side. And did he stick his head in the window? Yes sir, he folded his hands like this [here Mrs. Markham raises her arms with outstretched elbows horizontally with hands joined clasping each other]. He put them in through the window--up on the window, and he leaned over like this [here Mrs. Markham leans forward as if resting her weight on her hands and arms on the top of a car door]. "What do you remember about this man? Was he a big man? Or a small man? No, he wasn't a very big man. He was short, kind of short, <as far as I can remember>. Well now was he still standing there when Officer Tippit got out of the police car? Well, he got up, you know had taken out--had got out of the window, put his hands back down to his side and stepped back up two steps. The policeman calmly opened the door, he calmly climbed out. And uh me, I didn't pay no attention because I was, you know--talked, friendly--and he, the policeman walked to, got to even to the front wheel on the driver's side. And this man shot him in the wink of the eye, just bang, bang, bang."

Do the photos of Warren Commission Crafard Exhibit 5212 exist today? Crafard Exhibit 5212 of the Warren Commission had several photographs showing Curtis Craford in a suit seated at the Carousel Club among other patrons. These photographs were catalogued and discussed in Warren Commission testimony. Nevertheless, the Warren Commission did not publish Exhibit 5212 in its 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. The Warren Commission explained its lack of publication of Crafard Exhibit 5212 as follows: "Crafard Exhibits Nos. 5210-5220 are not reproduced because of their questionable taste and negligible relevance". https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=12. No photos of Curtis Craford at the Carousel Club, or anywhere else other than several FBI interview posed photos, are known to exist of him whether in Dallas or at any other time in his entire life. Does anyone know if Warren Commission Crafard Exhibit 5212 exists today? Is anyone able to find or locate those photos? Want to check if any of those photos shows a hairline at the back of his head that is tapered or block cut. 🙂 Mr. GRIFFIN. I am going to show you what I have marked in the same fashion Exhibit 5212, which is also a series of photographs. Do you recognize any of the people in those pictures? Mr. CRAFARD. The stripper is Little Lynn. Mr. GRIFFIN. In all of the pictures? Mr. CRAFARD. Yes. Mr. GRIFFIN. How about the patrons? Do you recognize any of the patrons? Mr. CRAFARD. Only myself. Mr. GRIFFIN. Where are you? Mr. CRAFARD. This doesn't look like me. Mr. GRIFFIN. Is that you? Mr. CRAFARD. No; it is not me at all. Mr. GRIFFIN. Is that you right there? You have indicated to me that your photograph appears in a number of these pictures. Mr. CRAFARD. Yes. Mr. GRIFFIN. And let me indicate that you are in the photograph in the upper right-hand corner, and you are the man in a black suit who is seated second from the left along the runway. Mr. CRAFARD. Yes. Mr. GRIFFIN. And in the picture immediately below that you occupy the same position? Mr. CRAFARD. Yes. Mr. GRIFFIN. The picture immediately below that which is the third from the top, on the right-hand side you occupy the same position? Mr. CRAFARD. Yes. Mr. GRIFFIN. And the stripper is Little Lynn? Mr. CRAFARD. Yes. Mr. GRIFFIN. Then moving into the center set of pictures you appear in the same position third from the bottom? Mr. CRAFARD. Yes. Mr. GRIFFIN. And the same position at the bottom? Mr. CRAFARD. Yes. Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, is this suit and dress that you show here, is that the way you were normally dressed at the Carousel Club? Mr. CRAFARD. Yes. These pictures were taken as a photographic stunt, also.

This is belated—because it took until now to read it—but THANK YOU Gary Murr for making available this chapter of your detailed research on Connally history. Could you be persuaded to make available your chapter that deals with when in Zapruder Connally was hit with his bullet and all that? 😊

And while waiting for your answer to the two questions re the witnesses, in anticipation of the shell hulls discussion, to save time I stipulate that the four shell hulls submitted by the Dallas Police, identified as found at the Tenth and Patton crime scene, to the Dallas FBI on Thu Nov 28, and received in Washington, D.C. a day later by the FBI lab at headquarters, were conclusively identified by the FBI lab as fired from Oswald's revolver, and that that conclusion is correct. It will save further time if you will stipulate that although there are markings on the inside lips of each of those four shell hulls submitted by the Dallas Police giving the appearance of, minimally, two officers apiece marking each of those shell hulls either at the crime scene or at the time of same-day conveyance to the DPD crime lab--there exists no firsthand testimony or statement, either sworn or unsworn, from any of the five officers reported to have marked those hulls at the crime scene, establishing identification of any of those marks on the hulls examined by the FBI lab as their marks. With my stipulation of the first, and if you are willing to stipulate the second, time can be saved to proceed to contested issues. My stipulation of the first is however not linked to your willingness to stipulate the second--it will save time if you stipulate that but I cannot compel you to do that. Apart from settling these preliminary stipulation issues if so, I propose wrapping up the witnesses issue question before getting into the contested issues with the shell hulls.

Understood but that’s not an answer to the question asked. That is what I meant by asking for a straight answer—answering the question. I will engage the shell casings with you momentarily, but I want to stick to and wrap up this on the witnesses first. You have been citing the crime scene witness identifications of Oswald as establishing Oswald’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Would you answer the question (actually two related questions).

If you are questioning that a .38 Smith & Wesson in a paper bag tossed into a street at night is a suspected murder weapon disposal from a gangland or contract murder, I can hardly believe you are serious. Its a murder weapon disposal hours after the Tippit murder, of the type of weapon which fired the bullets which killed Tippit hours earlier. The most plausible candidate for who tossed that paper-bag revolver, from timing and route logistics, by coincidence is none other than the leading non-Oswald suspect for the Tippit murder. The tossing into a city street near the Carousel Club is consistent with that suspect having no car of his own and being a passenger sitting in the back seat of Ruby's car driving from the Carousel Club at ca 5 am Nov 23 toward the Stemmons Freeway. A few hours later that morning that suspect, Curtis Craford, hightailed it out of Dallas for Michigan. Of course none of them were shown Craford live or in photos beside Oswald for comparison but instead persons who did not look like Oswald. Also, case by case the security of those witness identifications is equivocal, none gold-standard quality. And I don't think your claim is accurate, if the truth were known, that no witnesses said it was not Oswald. And as for the number of equivocal-quality witness identifications, consider this: on a certain day in early November 1963 Jack Ruby and Curtis Craford went into the Contract Electronics store in Dallas. We know, even if they did not, with certainty that it was Craford and not Oswald in the store with Ruby that day. Three out of three of the employees in that store--that is 100 percent of the witnesses there--believed it had been Oswald. Not a single witness in the store on that occasion said the man was not Oswald. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=307. If you were on a jury judging someone charged with a capital crime, would you vote the electric chair for Oswald based alone on the Tenth and Patton witnesses in the case of the murder of Tippit? Would you vote the electric chair for Oswald if the man with Ruby in the Contract Electronics store had committed a capital crime in that store, based alone on those witness identifications of Oswald? I would like a straight answer from you to this last question above, with explanation as to why in your answer.

In other words Bill it is too high of a bar to require either that someone irrefutably witnessed the hands of either the killer or some person other than the killer (as you assert) literally touching the car for either of those to be possible. As for the killer, we know of only four known claimed witnesses to the gunman at the car at the time of the killing: Benavides, Markham, Tatum, and Burt (and that is about how I rank them in terms of credibility relative to each other). Benavides said nothing either way regarding hands touching and it is not clear he would have been in a position to see with his ducking down etc. Markham gives strong indication that the killer was right up against the glass of that right front passenger door leaning in, difficult to do without arms or hand contact. Tatum drove by and first telling fifteen years later (weakening though not removing entirely credibility) says he saw the killers hands in his jacket pocket and that would be not leaning against the car. That would correspond to when Markham said she saw the killer step back from the car window, pull out a gun and shoot Tippit. Tatum would have gotten his glance as he drove by as the killer had stepped back and was reaching for his revolver before pulling it out. And finally Burt the witness farthest away and arguably most dicey in credibility of the four, says he directly saw the killer’s bare hands touching the patrol car. The case for either the killer or as you insist, somebody else, having left those prints is not founded in either case on an unimpeachable witness testimony of literal hand contact, for no known witnesses were in a position to either confirm or deny that specifically, deliver that level of precision of information, in either case. But all of these witnesses’ testimony, equivocal on various grounds as each one’s is, are consistent with the actual and uncontested foundation for the argument, that the killer was there, at BOTH locations where the prints were lifted, and by definition becomes the obvious candidate for the one single individual who left them. The apparent support from two of those four witnesses to body or hands in actual contact with the car (from Markham, strong credibility on that point; and Burt, lesser) is only gravy or supplemental support. The argument exists if neither Markham or Burt gave those testimonies. Compare that with your zero positive evidence or witness of any kind for your assumption of some phantom other single unknown and unidentified individual having left those prints by coincidence where the killer was in both locations, which is to be distinguished from saying that is not possible. The point is it is not proper method to rule out a person, in this case the killer, from leaving fingerprints in two locations where he was and his hands known within inches with opportunity, simply because no unimpeachable witness literally saw hands or body actually touching, apart from the one or two witnesses who actually did say that. Under the conditions of the Tippit killing and its witnesses that is an unreasonable condition you are placing.

To be clear--the argument that the killer left those prints is that they came from one single individual who was at two specific distinct locations where the killer was witnessed standing at the patrol car--the one location he leaned into or against the car; the other he had his hands active and moving in a high-action sequence--not whether there exists videotape showing his fingers touching. Burt said he saw the killer's hands touching but Burt is not the argument. Here is what is strong: the first-day interview of witness Helen Markham by FBI agent Barrett, in which Helen Markham says she saw the killer of Tippit with his face right up to the glass of the Tippit patrol car right where the unidentified fingerprints were lifted twenty minutes after Helen Markham saw this, and told this the same afternoon "She saw a young man walk from the sidewalk to the squad car and put his face up to the right front window on the right-hand side of the car which was next to the curb and engage the officer in a brief conversation about ten seconds." (FBI, Helen Markham, Nov 22, 1963, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95614#relPageId=89 Elsewhere Helen Markham repeatedly said she saw the killer's arms raised and crossed as he leaned in to talk to Tippit with what she says here was "his face up to the right front window". The killer's arms raised and crossed as he leaned in is testimony that the killer's hands were seen by this witness exactly at the position of, and likely understood by Markham to be forearms resting on, with exposed hands and fingers, the top of the right front door. Twenty minutes later, after officer Tippit was shot dead by that man, a Dallas Police officer lifted fingerprints from the top of that right front door. Neither the Dallas Police nor the Warren Report disclosed that Lee Harvey Oswald was excluded as the one who left those fingerprints which give every appearance of having been left by the killer in the absence of evidence showing otherwise. Oswald's exoneration from being the one who left those fingerprints was disclosed in 1998. Reasonable doubt that Oswald was the killer of Tippit, if a jury or the public had been allowed to know that in 1963 or 1964. Especially if that jury or that public were also allowed to know of the paper-bag revolver, the disposal of a murder weapon of the kind used to kill Tippit, found the morning of Nov 23, 1963 tossed in a paper bag on to a street in downtown Dallas and not matched to any other murder, also not disclosed by the Dallas Police or the Warren Commission. And that there exists an alternative, named viable suspect who was repeatedly mistakenly identified by witnesses who thought they had seen Oswald when they had actually seen him. Reasonable doubt. That Oswald did that one.

I don’t know. On present information, not unequivocally, even though what he says he saw sounds plausible. You’re not going to discuss Acquilla further? It is now dawning on me why you consistently attacked my known Callaway/gunman interaction exchange episode as what Acquilla was describing having witnessed, while resolutely refusing to say your own alternative interpretation of what she saw. It’s because you don’t think she saw the gunman at all? That she made it up? Is that correct?

Well you're wrong Leslie. Andrej Stancak quite correctly showed the word in the photo was (misspelled) "buiding" for intended "building". The photograph does not show correctly-spelled "building" as you again now wrongly assert. Anyone can go to page 585 of Coup in Dallas, look at the photo for the Nov 20 page, and see for themselves. And if and when you publish that correction in transcription, you must credit Andrej Stancak and respectfully, for having brought that to your attention. I can sympathize with the publishing pressures, the covid, etc. that you describe. I have been through publishing deadlines too and have some sympathy for what you describe. I would be more sympathetic if you took proper steps to remedy what you acknowledge was a less than ideal publication of the photos and transcription. You refuse to post good quality photos on a website or donate good copies to the Mary Ferrell Foundation which would be even better since that is the go-to site for all researchers, and they do a truly outstanding job of archiving with a user-friendly website with good search capabilities, under the excellent stewardship of Rex Bradford. You refuse to allow competent readers with good eyes to prepare and make publicly available good-quality transcriptions from the good photos which you possess but will not make freely accessible to researchers, by which I mean free of your NDAs. First you denied there were transcription inaccuracies that I said your transcriptions had, and you aggressively demanded I show or retract. I judged that particular demand a legitimate one and spent an evening of labor preparing the report I gave responsive to that demand. You responded with the equivalent of snarling and changing of subjects, as if I had committed some affront in complying responsively to your demand. Instead you should have thanked me. You note that the majority of the transcription sloppiness does not affect meaning, as if that was the point not the accuracy in the transcription, and you then attempt to shift the subject still again by criticizing me for not taking greater interest in the content of the text being transcribed. Well, I was talking about transcription, the subject of your demand of me, is why. And as for why I do not have greater interest in the content, its because I think its forged is why, so why should I. And if you don't think accurate transcription of handwriting including spelling and punctuation of original texts matters, even when meaning is not affected, in an editio princeps (Coup in Dallas; the publication that everyone in the future will quote and cite as the authoritative first publication), that is tabloid-level, not how it is done in the scholarly world where accuracy matters. Again, you could be forgiven for not being up to speed on scholarly standards, and with the pressures of publication deadlines and covid et al which I do not doubt were real ... if (the real point) you were not preventing real scholars (and a whole lot of intelligent lay readers) from making accurate transcriptions of what you represent as a critically important primary text find from 1963 in the study of the JFK assassination. Finally, your bringing up Jeffrey Sundberg is shameful. It has no relevance to anything under discussion here. He had nothing to do with my research on the transcription errors. You did a very bad thing earlier to him, you tried to damage his standing with his university employer by filing a complaint about him which was frivolous but could have had real damage or loss of job (universities' first priority is settling conflicts, over justice, when push comes to shove, I have seen). That was low and unconscionable. Fortunately his university investigated your vindictive complaint and cleared him. That had nothing to do with the topic of anything under discussion here and it is objectionable that you would introduce an attack on Jeffrey Sundberg, who is not a member of this forum to defend himself, as deflection from what is under discussion here. Are you willing to say that you are committed to discovery of the truth of whether the Lafitte datebook writing is authentic [from 1963] or forged, whichever the truth is, irrespective of any financial interest you may have in the outcome of that question? Are you willing to commit to disclosure of the existence of financial interest in the outcome of that question, if such exists?

A point someone made earlier I agree with: in the current Gaza situation, Israel is not so much intent on extermination but is intent on a Palestinian-free (emptied) Gaza Strip, with conditions so intolerable in the Gaza Strip that all that remains is for some countries to take in 1.8 million refugees once somewhere to go opens up citing humanitarian reasons, with no right of return. Then settlement and ultimately the biblical land title actualized. I believe the objective of emptying the Gaza Strip of most of its Palestinian inhabitants is even more fundamental than the stated reason of destroying Hamas, in what is going on there now. I have been a Biden supporter and voter but I’m with Bernie on this one: this is unacceptable to ship arms to a state in the active process of large-scale ethnic cleansing and collective punishment. I want to see Hamas out of power and its leaders who ordered atrocities brought to justice too. It seems a majority of Israelis believe ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip is necessary for Israel’s security, the Benny Morris logic in his famous interview. Even if every last Hamas militant is killed in the current operation, how many new militants tomorrow are created by the hundreds of thousands of children traumatized and seeing their family members killed in the bombings today. Thus the calculus that ethnic cleansing, removal, emptying the land of all Palestinians if possible, is believed necessary, the only solution, for Israel’s physical security. And war with Iran awaits. And all parties acting according to their rational calculus as the slide into the abyss takes momentum. May the voices of “Living Together” in Israel receive worldwide acknowledgement and support toward a vision, seemingly impossible today, of a viable two-state solution of good neighbors in a cooperative long term healing of horribly deep scars. God bless the Palestinian children and the Israeli children and may the day come when, as MLK put it in the “I Have A Dream” speech, little children of different colors will play together and not grow up with hate or occasion to hate. And the juggernaut rolls on…

Fair enough Michael, he’s out and about on his lot, sees the same cabbie at the place across the street, it’s plausible Callaway would recognize Scoggins by sight (though not necessarily vice versa). But you cited Callaway to the FBI on 2/26/64 as of that date, “He said that he never learned the identity of the cab driver”. Callaway says he didn’t know his name, didn’t know who he was either before or after Nov 22 (as of Feb 26). He could have seen and recognized him but had no idea what his name was, who he was other than some cabbie. Why would you expect Callaway to know his name? Quick question for you: do you know the name of your mail carrier? Some do, maybe you’re one, but a lot of people see someone every day with no idea of their name and identity. Isn’t that what Callaway was telling the FBI on Feb 26?

Sandy could you say what you mean by “cherry picking”? Your definition?

Just for the record Sandy nothing in Miles comment that I saw took a position on where the wound was. He made a claim that it was the rest of the hand, not the thumb, that was indicating where the wounds was. He did not claim where that wound was. The claim of cherry picking to serve an agenda is invalid since you have no idea what agenda was there since he did not say. As for cherry picking, if you mean the decision to comment on one particular point under discussion instead of every topic at the same time, that is what every commenter does. The sole issue with his post should be whether you agree or disagree with Miles’ specific interpretation that the hand minus the thumb was doing the pointing or gesture-illustrating, not the thumb. You have not even said you think he was in error or correct on that. Why not express your opinion on that specific point (which was his only stated point) and discuss it with him?

Was Callaway a domino player across the street from his workplace? He was owner or manager of it, right? And a family man with wife and kid(s). I know the type—hardworking family man owner of a small business. They work long hours and unless they have a particular liking for dominos are unlikely to spend their time during business hours hanging out playing dominos. That’s for retirees, men on the dole … or cabbies taking a break. 🙂

Sorry—you’re right! That could cut time from my estimate of the Vicki timing if they did not for whatever reason delay to try the freight elevators, lessening the timing difference which is probably within margin of error of agreement.

Not necessarily Gerry. Was she specifically asked at the time or WC time and denied it? I doubt it. The strongest argument they tried the SE front elevator first is it is simply common sense logical they would, whether or not they were in heels which makes navigating stairs even more difficult. Why on earth would women on the fourth floor wanting to descend not attempt to take the elevator? Plus, Sandra says they did (try). To me that just about settles it, they tried that front elevator, and only because they could not take that elevator did they descend by the less preferable means of going down four flights of stairs.

Interesting David, you’re right, the SE elevator would be the closest to them. I don’t know why I was thinking they would be starting from the NW end to get to the SE elevator (in Sandra’s telling). Duh! This only heightens the logical common-sense that they would try that SE elevator first. But moving them to near that elevator to begin with removes the timing argument against the Vicki/Pat version, doesn’t it? Allow 20-30 seconds to think and go to that elevator, find it inoperable; another 30 seconds at fast walk to cross to the NW end (for the purpose of taking one of the NW freight elevators down; otherwise they would have descended by the front SE stairway?); add ca 20 seconds to determine neither of the NW elevators is an option, then start heading down, 70-90(?) seconds descent four floors, 140-170 seconds rough estimate to ground floor for the early descent of Vicki. That’s a little more than estimates for Baker and Truly starting up which, under that scenario, would mean margin of error in one or both of the timing estimates, or (as I believe you once elsewhere suggested) the passing Truly and Baker at the second floor without either pair seeing the other due to being in the lunchroom at that moment. So it seems Sandra’s SE elevator is not after all a decisive counter- argument on timing grounds against Vicki (and Pat)?

Thanks for your solid reply Pat. You make a case, and you’re right Vicki’s has the advantage of being early testimony rather than Sandra’s decades later. One detail: could you give the quotation, in its context if possible (and link or reference if possible) of Lovelady telling HSCA he SAW Truly and Baker run up the stairs AFTER he got back inside the building? Is that true Lovelady said that? That’s rather stunning if true. I don’t recall that detail.