Greg Doudna

I am reading Sean Fetter's two-volume argument for a solution to the JFK assassination. I am at this moment only two-thirds through volume 1 of 2, so will withhold comment until I complete both volumes. But one major "uh oh" moment (meaning, not good): he claims there was another person in Dealey Plaza shot in the head, apparently in the same fusillade which hit JFK and Connally, this other person also like JFK killed with a shot to the head with rear exit wound, and just like JFK, also brought to Parkland and entered Parkland about the same time JFK did.

Fetter then claims that man's dead body rather than JFK's was deceptively put in the ornate casket at Parkland that was supposed to be carrying the dead JFK, and that the actual JFK body left Parkland earlier, was secretly loaded on to the press plane at Love Field which was then flown to arrive in Maryland before the ornate casket on Air Force One arrived. That is Fetter's argument for an improvement over Lifton's argument, as to mechanism of conveyance of JFK's body to arrive earlier than what Fetter says was the decoy body of the other man in the ornate casket that everyone thought was JFK.

Fetter claims that when Jacqueline went in to Trauma Room No. 1 at Parkland to put her wedding ring on the finger of JFK, that when the sheet was pulled down so she could see the face of JFK she saw it was not JFK (but instead the face of the other man who had been shot and substituted for JFK there), and Jacqueline knew it was not her husband. However, Fetter explains, Jacqueline realizing she was surrounded by armed persons who had killed her husband and in fear for her life knew she dare not say what she knew, so pretended she did not notice (and left her wedding ring with the man she knew was not her husband) and apparently did not reveal that secret ("hey, that wasn't Jack!") into the public realm throughout the rest of her life. 

But that's not the "uh oh" reaction I mean. The "uh oh" reaction is the natural question, who is this second person shot and killed at Dealey Plaza distinct from JFK, arrived to and wheeled into Parkland distinct from JFK at close to the same time, then substituted for JFK's body?

Well ... drumroll ... after one pays $90 for the two volumes that are promised to deliver the full solution to the JFK assassination, author Fetter says he isn't going to say!

But trust him, he has devastating evidence and will reveal that identity in his NEXT book! 

For THIS book, he asks you to "trust him" that he will prove that in his next book, and then proceeds with the argument in THIS book as if that point is established (because he assures the reader it is proven beyond any shadow of doubt in his NEXT book).

I have no idea who Fetter has in mind for the identity of his second fatal shooting victim in Dealey Plaza at the time JFK was shot and killed (he does not mean Connally who was not killed). But he cites one particular claim of evidence for what he says was a switch in bodies coming out of Trauma Room No. 1 at Parkland, and that is what he says is a correct reading of the HSCA testimony of Otis Elevator employee Nathan Pool.

Fetter claims Nathan Pool, who was operating the elevator at Parkland, told HSCA that he had a good view of the hallway outside Trauma Room No. 1 through an open door, and saw JFK's body being wheeled on a stretcher with a "purple" covering on top, and that Nathan Pool did not see Jacqueline there when he saw this. Fetter argues that Jacqueline was not there because she was in another room having a cigarette, and that Pool was actually a witness to the switch in bodies, since by that time JFK was supposed to be in the ornate casket, not on a stretcher with a purple covering. The conventional story is that JFK, after last rites and being declared dead, was put into the ornate casket and then that was loaded on to Air Force One, etc.

OK, this is a critical claim of an on-the-record (documented HSCA interview) testimony from a witness (Nathan Pool) of something contradicting the official story. But, problem: I cannot find a transcript of that HSCA interview of Nathan Pool anywhere on the internet. 

Can anyone find a transcript of that HSCA interview? I wonder if Nathan Pool's testimony is being misinterpreted by Fetter. But I am unable to fact-check because I cannot locate the HSCA testimony of Nathan Pool on this point.

Thanks if anyone can assist in locating a transcript of Nathan Pool's HSCA interview! 

Ron E., see that stripe on the 1962 Thunderbird? If (if) the car seen by mechanic White was, say, the 1962 Thunderbird of Vaganov, that stripe would have been seen. The 1961 Ford Falcons have a similar stripe, as your photos show. 

But from a check on Google Images--the 1960 Ford Falcons, and the 1962 Ford Falcons, do not have that stripe (although 1963 Ford Falcons do).

Is it possible that stripe on a red 1962 Thunderbird could cause mechanic White to pick 1961 (and not 1960 or 1962) as the year of what he retrospectively thought may have been a red Ford Falcon?

(Or, maybe it was a red 1961 Ford Falcon.)

46 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

The first thing is confirmed by Joseph McBride's 1992 interview of Edgar Lee Tippit, who mentioned another officer was also assigned to hunt down Tippit. This is described in Into the Nightmare. If you don't have the book, McBride's essay, "Dale Myers, With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J. D. Tippit" at Kennedys & King, explains everything while trashing Myers' desperate attempt to torpedo the conclusion by attacking the old man's mental condition.

Section II follows. The other officer was Mentzel, disclosed in section III. No mere coincidence that just before 1PM they were located one block from each other when both made phone calls, after which Mentzel was sidelined by an automobile accident and Tippit hastened to his doom.

This is a genuine breakthrough that dispels much unfounded speculation.

Just to be clear, although I think Tippit was looking for Oswald, it is not because of the Edgar Lee Tippit statement, nor do I think the Dallas Police Department ordered Tippit to look for Oswald, nor do I believe the Dallas Police Department was engaged in an attempt to track down and murder Oswald, nor do I believe Mentzel was ordered to look for Oswald or was looking for Oswald different from the known general police response to the assassination. 

The Edgar Lee Tippit statement I believe was a simple misunderstanding in hearsay transmission. We were looking for the president's killer ... we were looking for Oswald ... easy to substitute one for the other when later describing what happened in retrospect, retelling that description, retransmitted hearsay twice. A secret covert Dallas Police Department plot to kill Oswald in advance of knowing he was the publicly accused assassin? No. And Mentzel covertly part of a secret Dallas Police order to track down Oswald and kill him, covered up--but he told it openly to Marie Tippit who told it openly to Edgar Lee who told it openly to McBride? 

No, I don't buy that. 

Its not that anybody was lying. Its not that Edgar Lee Tippit was senile. Its just normal hearsay transmission error, not more complicated than that. Then erroneously interpreted and wrong conclusions drawn from it by McBride.

Mentzel, due to freak accident, thinking it could have been him instead of Tippit shot, like anyone wondering if he could have done something differently, wracked with grief, guilt conscience of the survivor, expressing remorse to Marie Tippit... and then those words of grief get all twisted out of its meaning in a conspiracy book.  

My reason for thinking Tippit was seeking out Oswald--not as certainty but looks like it--is Tippit acting on his own not Dallas Police orders in that search, the search itself based on the behavior reported of Tippit: of the gas station watching; the Top Ten Records stop hurried rush to make a phone call; the sighting of a patrol car honking in front of Oswald's rooming house by Earlene Roberts, blind in one eye and poor vision in the other, seeing the number of the patrol car as "107" as mistake for Tippit's patrol car's actual number, "10" and Tippit's patrol car being about the only patrol car that could be. 

I put that together with a hunch that Tippit and Oswald knew each other prior to the assassination, but not via any Dallas Police Department conspiracy. That from the witness of waitress Mary Dowling at the Dobbs House Restaurant near Oswald's rooming house saying not only that Oswald drank coffee there mornings but also that Tippit, whom she knew from before, was a regular for early morning coffee too, even though that location was way out of Tippit's way and makes little sense--was there some relationship to Oswald in that coincidence of location and timing? And I believe it was not simply Tippit who was premeditated slated for execution on Nov 22 but Oswald as well in the Texas Theatre--neither of those planned slayings planned or ordered by the Dallas Police Department (then successfully covered up all this time ever since), but both executions intended by killers who, if there were individual police officers involved that was rogue not Department sanctioned. I think the Dallas Police by arresting Oswald on Nov 22 saved Oswald's life from those who were intent on killing him that day, from the same killers of Tippit ("killers" plural even though only one gunman, because the gunman as a contract killer was not acting on his own).

And if there was advance intent to kill both Tippit and Oswald the same day by the same killers, the question as always is what was the motive to kill Tippit. And although I know of no evidence for an answer to that question, my default hypothesis is he must have had deadly knowledge of some kind, the same reason key witnesses are often killed, and one possible explanation could be prior interaction with Oswald which he had wittingly or unwittingly leaked or informed to the killers of JFK.

It doesn't matter whether this particular tentative take of mine is convincing ... that's not the point. The point is I do not buy into the interpretation McBride presents that you echo above. Just wanted to make that clear, that's all. 

Thoughts on Vaganov

One hypothetical possibility for identification of the red 1961 Falcon mechanic White said he saw could be Igor Vaganov's 1962 red Thunderbird mistaken by White for a red 1961 Ford Falcon. As has been noted by others, those two makes of cars are similar in appearance and one could imagine one being mistaken for the other.

Vaganov came to Dallas arriving about November 11, 1963 from Philadelphia for reasons not well explained. He and his new 18-year old bride whom he married en route on this trip found an apartment only several blocks from the Texas Theatre and the El Chico Restaurant; and on Nov 22, 1963 he left the apartment and was gone with the car from about 12:45 pm until about 2:20 pm, according to his wife who was there when he left and returned. Vaganov was a bit of a strange character, claimed he had mob connections, used aliases, had a criminal record (fraudulent checks). 

For those not up to speed on Vaganov, here, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16237#relPageId=13, and before that an Esquire article here: https://classic.esquire.com/article/1967/8/1/if-theyve-found-another-assassin-let-them-name-names-and-produce-their-evidence.

But there is nothing substantial, except for three possible things, to connect him to Ruby and/or Craford or the death of Tippit or anything else with the events of Nov 22. The first item that looks suspicious is that his longest time of employment while in Dallas was for two days on Nov 20 and Nov 21 when he said he worked at the Consumer Finance Company on Commerce Street. That happens, by coincidence, to have been located on the second floor of the same building where the Carousel Club was located on the third floor. The same building! His employment there is what he told his wife. Apparently the Consumer Finance Company later failed to confirm that he had worked there from records although that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. And all his other days from Nov 11 to Nov 22 were unaccounted for apart from he would leave in suit and tie at 7:30 am every morning and his wife did not know where he was during those days. Meaning, hypothetically, he could have spent more time in the building where suspected Tippit gunman Curtis Craford lived, than just two days. 

And the second item is that, just like Curtis Craford, Vaganov too left Dallas on the same morning of Sat Nov 23 to go to a different end of the country. Drove that red Thunderbird by himself straight through to Philadelphia where he parked and garaged it off the street, then bought another car in Philadelphia and drove that other car all the way back to Texas, after spending only ca. 24 hours in Philadelphia to accomplish that. A little odd? Well, he had his reasons when asked. He had a story. It basically hangs together. Jack Ruby had a story too as to why he accidentally without premeditation happened to be in the basement of the Dallas Police station with a gun in his pocket at the right moment to whack Oswald on Sun Nov 24. A lot of people think Jack Ruby's story hung together.

And the third item is a report that six months later (after Vaganov was gone from Dallas shortly after Nov 22), clothing of Vaganov was found by law enforcement in a phone booth in Dallas, no further information. 

Nobody's clothing is abandoned in a phone booth that doesn't call for questioning what that was about. And this is a guy who used aliases and claimed he had mob connections in Pennsylvania; arrived to Oak Cliff from Philadelphia eleven days before the assassination under unusual circumstances; found a place to live within a short walk of the scene of the Tippit killing and the Texas Theatre; hung out in the very building Craford lived in the days immediately prior; has no confirmed alibi between 12:45 and 2:20 pm for him and his red Thunderbird in Oak Cliff on the day in question; and left Dallas after the day of the assassination, after a grand total of eleven days of married life in the greater Dallas area (in Oak Cliff). And he had a red car that could be a candidate for the red car at the El Chico, and some people think he could easily look like Oswald if one had a brief look at him sitting at the driver's wheel of a car.  

Looks like enough to make him a person of interest. But it is well short of proof of anything.

And he did claim an alibi for that hour and a half he was gone from his apartment in Oak Cliff that day. He said he was getting two tires put on his Thunderbird at a gas station around the corner from his apartment, preparatory to what he had told his wife was his intention to drive to Philadelphia on Sat Nov 23. Vaganov claimed he paid for that tire repair with a Texaco credit card, gave his credit card number. The guy who worked at that gas station said he did remember working on some young man's tires that day but could not confirm who it was. Texaco said they were not willing to hunt through their records to check that credit card purchase claim. If he was having tires put on his car, it is a little difficult to connect him to involvement in Tippit or Oswald because how would he know how long it would take to have that work done, pay for it and leave? And would Vaganov have claimed a Texaco credit card purchase, and provided his Texaco credit card number, if there was no such charge on that credit card as claimed?

Another detail: author Berendt of the Esquire article said that Vaganov's Thunderbird was white over red, a two-tone. Berendt said this in passing when focusing on whether it could be the red Ford that Benavides said he saw at the Tippit crime scene. According to Berendt, Benavides said the Ford he saw was white over red, and Berendt said that those colors agreed with Vaganov's Thunderbird. Does that exclude Vaganov's Thunderbird from being the "red" car (no white mentioned) seen by mechanic White at the El Chico Restaurant? 

Probably not, in itself: first, Benavides also just said "red" as the color of the car he saw, in his Warren Commission testimony, indicating calling a white over red two-tone, "red", happened in that case, so could happen in another. And second, I found several errors of simple fact in Berendt's article on other matters, and there is no other claim or corroboration that Vaganov's car had a white top, so it is not entirely clear the Berendt story claim is certainly true. 

An exculpatory argument for Vaganov that has occurred to me is that nobody whacked Vaganov, which if Vaganov had really been involved in something to do with violence to Tippit or Oswald, almost would be half expected. This might be rendered equivocal however if, say, Vaganov was just sent to Dallas by some mobster in Pennsylvania as a favor to another mobster, without telling Vaganov much about what he would be doing but just to be available or something. When the planned hit of Oswald in the Texas Theatre was foiled (for the moment) by the police arrival and arrest of Oswald, whoever was the driver of the red car seen at the El Chico perhaps was not needed or used that day, and let go. If that red car at the El Chico was, say, Vaganov, not being knowledgeable of anything, there would be little necessity to whack him. And Vaganov agreed to accept money to accompany Berendt to Dallas and be the subject of the feature story in Esquire on the question of whether he was involved in the assassination of JFK or death of Tippit, which all else being equal, sounds more like the response of an innocent man rather than one actually guilty.

I don't know what to make of this. I'd say my gut sense at this moment is maybe 55% that he was the driver of the red car at the El Chico following a brief tire installation, and that although he had made contact with Ruby and Craford upon arrival, he, the driver of the red car at the El Chico, was not otherwise involved in the events in Oak Cliff on Nov 22, due to the hit on Oswald intended for that day did not happen. Some mobster back in Philadelphia probably paid him for his troubles anyway, but Vaganov didn't know anything material and nothing further came of it for Vaganov, until people like Fonzi and Salandria and Josiah Thompson in Philadelphia started suspecting he had been involved in the assassination and he became a story.

Which fizzled, from lack of evidence that he had done anything. And the part I love is where people who knew him told how he would tell people over to his apartment that he was the Grassy Knoll shooter and show the Esquire article about him as proof! 

Tom G. -- taking the license plate number as the unmistaken hard fact, either it was Mather's blue 1957 Plymouth and Mather there, or someone else in a red car with surreptitiously borrowed license plates from Mather's car singled out for that purpose. Either way cries out for explanation and calls into question the conventional narrative of Tippit and the Texas Theatre. 

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

https://digitalcollections-baylor.quartexcollections.com/Documents/Detail/lho-arrested-at-texas-theater-nov.-22-24-1963-wes-wise/688777?item=688782

Wise supposedly turned over that slip in his 5/11/78 HSCA interview, which isn’t online as far as I can tell. Is the “4-door” detail in the brochure? 

Its right there in that link you gave Tom. Look at the top right corner. There you see " '57 Plymouth " followed by some difficult to decipher lettering. Here is a possibly just slightly better image of the same, page 25 here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-Gig-Pi9TEQZWh8obarl2tM8s8mOuLjc/view. The lettering in question may read "Four doors" though the quality is so bad it is difficult to be certain. Take a look and see what you think. The line below is the name Carl Amos Mather and the line below that is Mather's street home address. 

Possibly in favor of the argument that you favor, that it was Mather's blue 1957 Plymouth check this, pp 33-34 at the same link, Moriarty 1978 HSCA interview of Wes Wise: "At this time, his best recollection is that [he] wrote down the tag number + the description of the car at the same time on the same piece of paper (his invitation to speak at the El Chico), but he can't be certain now. This is significant inasmuch as Wise's notes describe a '57 Plymouth---not a red Falcon as previously reported. A 1957 Plymouth is the type of car listed to the tags + was owned by Carl Amos Mather, a friend of J.D. Tippit's + employee of Collins Radio in Richardson, Texas ..."

Against that however, apart from Wes Wise's uncertainty on the point, is that if it were written by Wes Wise from mechanic White's description there should have been a color. But you can look at the sheet of Wes Wise's handwriting (either link above) and there is no color of car there. We know Wes Wise was told verbally that it was a red car. But the lack of written color of car indicates--to me--that the "'57 Plymouth Four door" followed by name and address of the registered owner was Wise copying registration information told him over the phone which did not include color of the car. 

But was "four door" part of what would be included in registration information and not color? I don't know. If not, then that would argue in favor of your 1957 Plymouth coming from mechanic White to Wise that day, notwithstanding that that goes against Wise saying they told him the car was red, and mechanic White himself told the FBI it was a red Ford Falcon.

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

It also seems odd that Wise would not report accurately what he heard to the FBI. He mentioned the call to the license bureau separately from the information received from White. It’s definitely possible he made a mistake though. 

Wise's information came from owner Mack Pate and that seems basically a story of a suspicious red car with a driver his mechanic said looked like Oswald. The mechanic is reluctant to talk but shows Wise the written license plate number. Wise then leaves, makes a phone call and checks the license plate number and learns what car is registered to that license plate and its owner, combines that with the "red" he has been told, reports to the FBI that mechanic White's suspicious car was a red 1957 Plymouth. It was a completely natural and even unconscious conclusion since it probably did not even occur to Wise (as it sounds outlandish to most people) that there could be switching of license plates involved.

It does seem puzzling that neither Mack Pate nor mechanic White would mention to Wise the car was a Ford Falcon in addition to being red, or that Wise would not have asked and tried to find out. And yet Wise reports no memory of being told by them that the car was a Ford Falcon or any particular make of car, but does have memory that he was told by at least Mack Pate that the car was "red". 

Either way--it was either Mather himself with his blue 1957 Plymouth, or a different, non-Mather driver with a red car bearing Mather's license plates--it is just bizarre, and yet if there was no mistake with the license plate number, which there was not, one of those two oddities is correct (and the other incorrect). If the license plate number is correct, what cannot be done is reject both of those alternatives on the grounds that both sound odd. It was one of the two. 

1 hour ago, Donald Willis said:

That explanation is complicated by the fact that the dispatcher ordered two cops to the area.

I don't know if the conjecture is right, but the point you name here would not oppose it, because suppose Tippit did ask his friend Murray Jackson the dispatcher to assign him to Oak Cliff as a favor, for whatever personal reason. Dispatcher Jackson might combine the instruction to Tippit with some other officer. He would include Tippit in otherwise routine dispatching movements. Your point about the 12:46 being left out of the early Sawyer exhibits because it had a bad look sounds plausible--if Jackson had done so as a personal favor that might not have been wanted to look into too closely if Tippit's reason for the request had not been job-related or was otherwise considered personal or sensitive. Is it possible the 12:46 was missed in the Sawyer transcription for some mundane reason such as the sound quality wasn't clear to the transcriber or something?

The two things that look to me like "apparent facts" (meaning looks to be that way) are that Tippit was looking for Oswald in Oak Cliff before it was otherwise known Oswald was in Oak Cliff, and I believe when Tippit went to Tenth and Patton where he was killed it was to meet someone at a certain time in front of a certain address, and he was flagged down upon arrival, lured out of his car and killed, having gone into a trap. 

Both of those almost necessarily assume it was not random accident that Tippit was assigned to Oak Cliff in the 12:46 assuming the 12:46 is legitimate. Then the question becomes what mechanism accounts for that non-random assignment of Tippit, and the simplest and most economical, that is least complicated, mechanism I see is Tippit asked Murray Jackson to do that. We know Murray Jackson and Tippit went back with history and friendship (Murray Jackson said he became an officer because of Tippit personally) so it is easy to imagine Jackson would do that favor if asked, done in such a way folded into routine police activity (hence naming two officers not just Tippit in that 12:46).

Is it technically easily feasible for that 12:46 to have been secondarily dubbed in, an after-the-fact forgery of the dispatcher's instruction, retroactively legitimizing Tippit's presence in Oak Cliff? But whose voice would be used (Jackson's himself witting to the forgery?), and how would it be done in a way that would escape detection? 

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I don’t know man. Wes Wise’s original notes from the El Chico on the information he received from “Pate and the mechanic” supposedly just had the Mather license number and “1957 Plymouth 4-Door”. No further description. That’s a heck of a coincidence on the car for it to have been a different car. Someone would’ve had to take the plates off of Mather’s ‘57 Plymouth and put them on another ‘57 Plymouth.

White noticed the make and model of the car - an exact match for Mather’s car - and he got the license plate correct. The “red” detail first pops up in the FBI interviews. If Wise’s notes are authentic, it seems to imply that White and possibly Pate noticed the car model and license number but were paying less attention to the color at the time. 

Wise sure seems to have suspected it was Mather driving the car. His story about Mather basically having a panic attack at dinner seems credible; and Mather’s excuse for his “nervousness” seems like total bs. Wise definitely had the impression that Mather was lying…

Tom I know that is one line of interpretation that has been argued, by William Kelly a long time (but see the 2008 update from Kelly noted below), that the "red" was falsely introduced by the FBI secondarily into the FBI's reporting, not from mechanic White. But a number of reasons argue that does not work. First, the "red" is in the original FBI interview writeups of both Wes Wise and mechanic White. Wes Wise must have known of those FBI interview reports because he followed the case for decades after but never claimed that had been added or wrongly attributed to him, and there are multiple reports of Wise in later interviews confirming "red" was what he had been told originally. Wise's position always was that mechanic White had gotten the red color wrong of the car he saw and Wise even speculated maybe mechanic White had been colorblind as the explanation (in a 1992 interview of Wes Wise by William Kelly, https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2019/04/case-study-no-wes-wise.html).

And second, Wes Wise's program brochure has handwritten on one side the license plate, which he recopied from mechanic White's written note. The "1957 Plymouth" and Carl Mather's address below it are handwritten together by Wise on the other side, and the best interpretation, based on where it is written on that program brochure, is that that was from Wes Wise's notes from his phone call to find the registered owner.

That is, the "1957 Plymouth" written on Wes Wise's brochure was from the phone call Wise made to the Texas public records agency to identify the registration information of the license plate number, the same source of Carl Mather's name and home address written with "1957 Plymouth". The "1957 Plymouth" did not originate from mechanic White or Mack Pate of the garage. It entered the story from the license plate being checked by Wise. 

Mechanic White in his FBI interview was not inconsistent but continued to tell the FBI, just as he had told his boss Mack Pate and reporter Wise, that the car was red, elaborating to the FBI that he thought it may have been a red 1961 Ford Falcon. There has never been a report of Wes Wise or anyone else protesting that mechanic White never told the FBI that or never claimed it was red. Wes Wise confirmed the sequence was: he gave his talk at the El Chico Restaurant; Mack Pate in the audience told after his talk about his mechanic's sighting of a suspicious red car; Pate introduced reporter Wise to mechanic White; mechanic White told of the suspicious car and showed the written license plate number which Wes Wise hand recopied onto his program brochure; Wes Wise made a phone call (auto license registrations were public records according to Wes Wise, anyone could call and get that information) and found out both the car to which that license number was registered (1957 Plymouth) and the name and address of the owner (Carl Mather, street address in Garland), both of which Wes Wise wrote together on his program brochure separately from where he had written the license plate number; Wes Wise notified the FBI, all the same day.

At James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable (2008), p. 461 n. 464 appears this footnote: "Mack Pate identified the vehicle T.F. White had spotted in the El Chico parking lot as a 1961 red Falcon in his October 10, 1989, interview with Gary Shaw and Bill Pulte."

All primary and interview accounts have Mack Pate also, not just mechanic White, having said and believing it was a red car and it seems Mack Pate saw the car himself. The language in James Douglass's own 2005 interview of Wes Wise (pp. 294-95), of Pate returning to his garage after lunch, White telling him about the suspicious red car across the street, Pate telling White to keep an eye on it, then White walking across to get the license plate, sounds like Mack Pate also saw the car, which Mack Pate told reporter Wes Wise had been a red car.

In 2012 William Kelly changed from his former interpretation that the "red" originated with an FBi alteration of the story. Kelly replaced it with a reconstruction that the red 1961 Falcon idea was still mistaken but had originated from the garage after all, from owner Mack Pate--because Mack Pate told that when he was told of the suspicious car by his mechanic when he returned from lunch, he, Mack Pate, had immediately thought of a news report he had heard within the previous day of a suspicious red Falcon sighted in Houston in connection with JFK's stop in Houston the previous day (here: https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/03/red-1961-ford-falcon.html).

Kelly continued to believe the red was in error and that the car was really the blue 1957 Plymouth of Mather. Kelly does not explain in his update how he interprets the mechanic White FBI interview in which White said the car was red and he thought it was a Ford Falcon, not a blue Plymouth. 

Also, Kelly states or assumes that Mack Pate never saw the car himself (he has to assume that to have the car be a blue Plymouth), but that does not agree with the sequence related by Wes Wise from Mack Pate in which the car was across the street when Mack Pate returned from lunch and mechanic White told him of it. Owner Pate would have looked himself and there is nothing that says he did not.

Finally by Mack Pate's own account it makes sense that the reason he thought of a suspicious red Falcon in Houston is because the suspicious car across the street was red, not a blue Plymouth. If it was a blue Plymouth, why would Pate mentally associate it with a red Falcon in Houston?

Kelly relies on Wes Wise's story, as told to the FBI that day according to his interview report (and by Wes Wise thereafter), that Mack Pate told him of his employee having seen a red 1957 Plymouth. I interpret that as Wes Wise had his story slightly mixed up on that, mixing the two things, the red color of the car told to him by Mack Pate (and probably by mechanic White), and the "1957 Plymouth" he obtained not from them but from the phone call to trace the license plate.

There never was any "red 1957 Plymouth" claim from Mack Pate's garage. There was no "1957 Plymouth" claim from Mack Pate's garage.

When reporter Wise was told the license plates went to Carl Mather's 1957 Plymouth, he did not learn the car color because that was not part of the information he received. Since Wise had been told by Pate and White of the garage that the suspicious car with those plates had been "red", Wise concluded (mistakenly) that the suspicious car he had been told by Mack Pate and mechanic White had been a red 1957 Plymouth. 

But that was erroneous. It was red but not a Plymouth of which mechanic White and Mack Pate of the garage spoke. Mechanic White said so in his FBI interview; it is a fact that the 1957 Plymouth was blue not red; and all parties were consistent from day one through all the decades to follow that the claim at the Mack Pate garage was of a red car, which because of that color was not Carl Mather's car, even though it bore Carl Mather's license plates.

The car was either the red 1961 Ford Falcon mechanic White thought it was or some red car similar in appearance to that model and make, but it was red because both Pate and White said it was unwaveringly, never said otherwise. I do not think the FBI materially fabricated elements in their interviews of Wes Wise or mechanic White. The "red" is established independent of those FBI interviews and it does not make sense that the FBI was doing other than reporting on the "red" and make and model from mechanic White. 

Suppose the red car was a "hot" (stolen) "mob" car and was slated for some use in either the Tippit killing or an intended Oswald killing in the Texas Theatre that day, on a day when Tippit's (and Oswald's) killers had learned Mather was scheduled to meet Oswald in the Theatre at say 3 pm. Suppose a killing of Oswald in that theater had gone forward and a red getaway car was seen and its license plate reported. Mather would have become a false suspect in the Oswald killing (which did not succeed that day). 

Switching license plates, then switching them back after Nov 22, is not so hard to do, even if illegal: just follow the car until it parks and the driver is gone from the car for some errand. All it takes is a few minutes, switch the plates, the driver returns to the car and drives away, never notices. 

Its either mechanic White and his boss Pate wrongly thought a blue 1957 Plymouth was a red 1961 Ford Falcon; there was a mistake in the copying of the license plate number; or the plates were switched. 

44 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh come now. The woman's voice in the background (which I too have heard) is indeed there on the tape, and it might indeed be Markham speaking. But she's certainly not in the car speaking right into the radio microphone. She's merely being overheard in the background while Bowley controls the mike. So why, under those conditions, would Markham assume "They heard ME" ? That's ridiculous. She wasn't using the radio, Bowley was.

Well i agree Bowley was on the radio, am not disputing that.

2 hours ago, Donald Willis said:

That "why" is answered by comparing two sets of DPD radio-log transcriptions.  Sawyer Exh. B duly records a 12:54 exchange between the dispatcher and Tippit:

Disp:   You are in the Oak Cliff area, are you not?

Tippit:  At Lancaster & 8th.

Disp:   You will be at large for any emergency that comes in.

This makes it sound as if Tippit just happened to be in the area, about 8 blocks from 10th & Patton.  But only because the Sawyer Exhibit omitted an earlier order from the dispatcher.  From the later, more complete FBI transcription:

12:46:  Disp:  87 & 78 (Nelson & Tippit), move into Central Oak Cliff area.

(There are two later, inconclusive exchanges between the dispatcher and Nelson.)

The Sawyer Exhibit makes it difficult to determine the omission of the 12:46 order.  The pertinent pages of Sawyer Exhibit A & B are  swapped--the A page is inserted into Exhibit B, and vice versa.  A ends at 12:45 and picks up at 12:48.  B also ends at 12:45 and picks up at... 12:48.  A suspicious person might find this convenient.  THERE ARE NO ENTRIES FOR 12:46 in either A or B.  

The Sawyer Exhibit, most unfortunately, was the transcription used for almost all Commission questioning of DPD officers.  Therefore, this omission was never brought up, to my knowledge, at the hearings.  The 12:46 transmission and its omission from the Sawyer Exhibit almost make it sound as if Tippit was being set up.  Sins of transmission and sins of omission...

The basic possibilities I see for that 12:46 transmission ordering Tippit into the Oak Cliff area are (less likely) it was retroactively fabricated and dubbed in, for motive of justifying Tippit's presence there so as to preserve the good name of both the DPD and Tippit (and possibly preserve Mrs. Tippit's right to a pension). Or (more likely), Tippit has asked his friend, the dispatcher, to assign him to Oak Cliff that day for some personal reason of Tippit's own, and the dispatcher complies, favor to a friend (doesn't need to know why and doesn't ask why). 

Of course there is a third possibility, that the dispatcher gave that 12:46 transmission for routine reasons of having Oak Cliff covered. 

Is it possible the witnessed visit of Tippit to the Top Ten Records store from where he made phone calls, said to be around 1 pm, occurred just before 12:46 and the 12:46 transmission was responsive to Tippit's request in that phone call?

UPDATE

How the article was wrong

I have removed the article from my website. Although there was no mistake on the license plate number, and there is no mistake that that license plate was registered to Carl Mather of Collins Radio Co., friend of Tippit murdered that day, I believe I got wrong other key points in that paper. Specifically: 

• Got the car wrong. The paper argued the car was the blue 1957 Plymouth of Carl Mather's to which the license plate was registered, and argued that that overrode mechanic White's reporting that the car was a red car of a different make (1961 Ford Falcon). In fact the car was a red car, had to be. Mechanic White said it was and would hardly have gotten that wrong. Furthermore, reporter and later Dallas mayor Wes Wise confirmed he was told from the outset that the car was red by Mack Pate, the owner of the garage and mechanic White's employer, and it is implied that Mack Pate also had personally seen and confirmed the car was red. Therefore, there was no mistake on either the license plate number or the difference in color and make of the car. Both are facts. The car was not the car legally attached to that license plate. The license plate went to Carl Mather, but the car was not Carl Mather's. 
• Got the timing wrong. In the paper I accepted 2:00 pm based on that time estimate from mechanic White plus linkage to the time of arrest of Oswald causing a missed meeting with Oswald in the Texas Theatre. But a criticism from a commentator named "NoTrueFlags" hit home to me. He said the timing of my article was wrong because of the linkage of the suspicious car's activity to police sirens, which were active in the ca. 1:20 to 1:40 pm range, whereas there is no reason there would be sirens at 2:00. I believe that criticism is correct. Both mechanic White and Mack Pate told of police sirens, and the suspicious car's actions as in response to those sirens. Also, I noticed from later interviews of Wes Wise by William Kelly and James Douglass that mechanic White told his boss, Mack Pate, about the suspicious car when Pate returned from lunch, which was before mechanic White crossed the street and got the license plate number. The detail of Mack Pate's return from lunch is not time-stamped, but 2:00 sounds a little later than most people have lunch, 1:30 not so much. 
• Probably got the purpose of the car being there wrong. In the paper I linked Oswald inside the theater looking to meet someone, with Mather in the car waiting or "killing time" in a nearby parking lot for a scheduled time of a meeting in the theater with Oswald. That Oswald inside the theater was there to meet someone is not changed (the witness of Jack Davis), but the suspicious car at the El Chico Restaurant as the other half of that expected meeting no longer makes good sense. The accounts of Wise, Pate, and White are of police sirens and a red car at high speed which went past the El Chico Restaurant on Davis, then returned and pulled in to the El Chico, but did not park normally but unusually behind a billboard or sign looking like the driver and car were hiding. A leisurely waiting for a scheduled meeting still an hour or so away would not involve driving at high speed or parking suddenly and abnormally. 
• And finally, may have gotten the driver of the car wrong. With the first point establishing that the car was not Carl Mather's (even though the license plate was), the timing being earlier than Oswald's arrest, and the behavior of the car being strange--these severely call into question that the driver was Carl Mather. The one detail about the driver is mechanic White thought it was Oswald from a look at his face, which since it was not Oswald means it was someone who looked enough like Oswald to be mistaken for Oswald. I thought the photo of Carl Mather qualified as satisfying that description, but the weak point is there are other possibilities for mistaken identifications of Oswald, so the driver's identity is indecisive, and is not assuredly Mather. It is difficult to imagine why, if it was Carl Mather, he would intentionally switch a license plate from his own car to someone else's borrowed car, then drive that borrowed car with his license plate on it which would trace back to him if it were seen (not to mention it being illegal to do so). The conclusion is the driver was probably someone other than Mather and that the bewilderment of Carl and Barbara Mather may be genuine. It does remain however to explain why their license plate was on a different car in Oak Cliff on the day their friend Tippit was murdered.     

REVISED ARGUMENT

The sighting of Carl Mather's license plate in Oak Cliff on Nov 22, 1963 as evidence of a criminal conspiracy in the murder of Officer Tippit

The license plate number seen by mechanic White was no mistake and is overlooked evidence of the existence of a criminal conspiracy in the death of officer Tippit and likely intent to kill of Oswald the same day in the Texas Theatre.

The logic is this. The license plate number is no mistake. The plates go to a blue 1957 Plymouth belonging to Carl Mather of Collins Radio. Yet the red car seen by mechanic White was not Carl Mather’s car. Someone surreptitiously took the license plates from Carl Mather’s blue 1957 Plymouth, replaced them with some other plates on that 1957 Plymouth such that the Mathers did not notice, and put Mather’s plates on a different red car, the car that was seen in Oak Cliff by mechanic White. 

There is no rational reason why Mather would do that himself, if he were the driver of the red car. Therefore Mather was not the driver and was unwitting to the use of his license plates in that manner.

The red car with Mather’s license plates then was used for some purpose in Oak Cliff on Nov 22, 1963. 

At some point between Nov 22 and Dec 4, 1963, the license plates registered to Carl Mather's car were surreptitiously replaced back on Mather’s blue 1957 Plymouth, to be seen correctly on that car by the FBI on Dec 4. Whatever the purpose of having those plates on the red car on Nov 22 was no longer operable after Nov 22 or soon after Nov 22.

The choice to surreptitiously appropriate use of license plates from a car of Carl Mather was made in advance of Nov 22. From this it may be concluded that the ones who appropriated those license plates knew of the Mather connection with Tippit, knew that Tippit was slated to be killed, and were party to the killing of Tippit. That is why the Mather connection to Tippit revealed by that license plate number on the day Tippit was killed is not coincidence.

Oswald went to the Texas Theatre to meet someone there. The identity of the person he was to meet is not known. There is no reason to suppose Carl Mather was in Oak Cliff that day until he and Barbara and their children drove to the home of Mrs. Tippit late that afternoon to console her following her husband’s murder.

It is possible to conjecture a three-way nexus between Carl Mather of Collins Radio, officer Tippit, and Oswald. The Mather-Tippit connection is clear. Oswald may be speculated to have a possible Collins Radio connection as a possible outgrowth of his earlier contact with retired Navy admiral and Collins vice-president Bruton, and more recently Oswald’s anticipation of possible employment at Collins Radio. Three things may suggest a relationship of Tippit and Oswald: first, they both patronized the same restaurant for coffee on workday mornings, the Dobbs House near Oswald’s rooming house but abnormally out of the way for Tippit; second, it may have been Tippit's patrol car which honked its horn in front of Oswald's rooming house at 1:00 pm Nov 22 looking for him; and third, both Tippit and Oswald were arguably slated to be killed by the same people on Nov 22.

A notebook carried on the person of Ruby employee Craford—the suspected gunman in the Tippit killing--had written on one page two items. The first was: “Mr. Miller Friday 15 people Collins Radio Co.” That may be speculated to be a cryptic reference to Oswald’s planned meeting in the Texas Theatre on Nov 22: Mr. Mather, Fri Nov 22, 15 o’clock/3 pm, Collins Radio.

The second item on that page reads in full: “Cody—City Hall”. That reference would be to Dallas Police officer Joe Cody, who according to his account in Sneed’s No More Silence was up to his ears with Ruby. The very gun that Ruby used to kill Oswald on Sunday morning Nov 24 did not belong to Ruby but was registered to Joe Cody who had bought it and given it to Ruby. (What are police friends for?) Cody was scheduled to be a character witness for Ruby in Ruby’s trial for the murder of Oswald.  

It is tempting to speculate that both of those references in Craford’s personal notepad, carried on his person wherever he went, could be information relevant to the killers in Oak Cliff of Nov 22.

The killing of Tippit may have been carried out by Craford. The killing of Oswald may have been intended to be carried out also by Craford if that intention had not been interrupted by Oswald’s arrest. Craford fled Dallas the next day, and the day after that Craford’s boss, Ruby, killed Oswald.

The killers of Tippit who also intended to kill Oswald had the use of a red car of unknown origin and unidentified purpose, and there was an unidentified driver of it, seen in the El Chico Restaurant parking lot by mechanic White perhaps in the ca. 1:30 to 1:45 pm time range on Nov 22. 

The identity of the driver of that red car is not known. Mechanic White thought he looked like Oswald but that could be true of a number of men.

Although identifications of the red car and its driver—and knowledge of its intended purpose that day—are unknown, the non-innocent and non-mistaken presence on that red car of the license plates of Carl Mather, friend of officer Tippit killed the same hour that red car was seen, is evidence of the existence of a criminal conspiracy underlying the killing of Tippit and likely intended of Oswald that day, and that that car and its driver were involved.

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

FYI / FWIW.....

Linked below is my copy of Helen Markham's 1964 interview with CBS News. It's a little longer than the other version posted in this thread.

What I find interesting in this video is the part where Markham actually claims that she herself used the radio in Tippit's patrol car. There's a snippet in the interview (right after the DPD radio call excerpt is played) when Markham says "And they heard me". Which implies, of course, that she herself had called in the shooting on Tippit's car radio.

There is, of course, nothing in the Dallas Police transcripts or the DPD audio recordings that would indicate that Mrs. Markham ever talked to the DPD over the police radio. (Unless we're to believe that Markham had the same trouble Domingo Benavides had when attempting to operate Tippit's car radio, and that she just simply could not get through to the dispatcher, but she thought she had.)

Thanks David for this fuller form of the CBS interview, appreciated.

I have listened to that radio call with Bowley at the mike after Benavides' attempt, and I remember hearing a couple of voices in the background, who must have been standing right next to Bowley, including what sounded to me like a woman's voice. I have wondered if that was Helen Markham. In which case that would be true, "they heard me". 

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

Markham saw a movement from Tippit which, because of her position in relation to the patrol car and Tippit, she assumed he did one thing when the reality is he did another.

Just to be accurate, it is not clear that Helen Markham claimed or thought she had actually SEEN Tippit roll down the window. She claimed that Tippit had done so but said she thought Tippit must have done so on the basis of reasoning—he must have because she saw the killer talking to Tippit through that window. In fact the killer was speaking through the open vent window with the main window rolled up. 

By contrast, she did claim to have SEEN the killer with his arms up and hands clasped and on the patrol car as he leaned in to talk there. 

She claimed to have seen that within minutes to officers who responded to the scene, and never wavered on that claim. She was filmed on WFAA-TV at 1:35 pm telling and gesturing to officers what she had seen of that. 

I am amazed at your claim, not simply phrased as a conjectured possibility, but of possession of actual knowledge as if you know, that Helen Markham did not see what she said she saw, even though fingerprints were found in agreement with what Helen Markham said she saw:

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

Markham saw a movement from the killer which, because of her position in relation to the patrol car and the killer, she assumed he did one thing when the reality is he did another.

Oswald simply had his hands in his jacket pockets (per Jack Tatum, who had a much better look than Markham ever did), walked over to the passenger side of the car and leaned forward to speak through the vent window.

Such certainty in expressing your claim to knowledge of the opposite of what Helen Markham said she saw on that point, Bill! 

What is your reason for certainty of that negative? 

Isn’t it true your reason is because you believe on other grounds that Oswald was the killer, and therefore (by reasoning) you have concluded it is certain he did not leave the fingerprints which since 1998 are known not to have been left by Oswald? 

It’s no crime to say so if that is your reason.

Or is it something else? Would you say your basis for your certainty? 

15 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Do you believe Tippit leaned over and rolled down the passenger's side window of the patrol car?

No.

9 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Bill is blowing smoke. I’m sure we’ll get a condescending “explanation” why this isn’t accurate, but I encourage anyone to look at CE525 and say with a straight face that you couldn’t tell if someone was leaning forward and resting their hands on the car to talk through the passenger window: 

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0128b.htm

Bill’s acting like 150 feet is 150 miles. It was broad daylight. Markham said she saw the killer put his “arms” on the car that same day. She clarified what she meant in her WC testimony and CBS interview. Not rocket science. 

On the window being open, Bill is perfectly content coming up with imaginable scenarios with zero supporting evidence for the fingerprints involving gas station attendants, unidentified witnesses, etc. Anyone but the Tippit killer: the only person for whom there is actual, credible evidence connecting them to the prints.

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.

23 hours ago, Gary Murr said:

Hello Greg... and thank you for taking the time to read the chapter I previously posted. Regarding your question concerning when I might make available my thoughts/writings regarding when, in/on specific frames of the Zapruder film, John Connally was struck and thereafter wounded, I can say the following. I intend to return specifically to this subject matter later this year. I am in the throes of finishing volume 2 of "Forgotten", which I hope to have completed by late spring/early summer. Once that is finished, I intend to complete a paper I have roughed out that deals only with the wounding of Connally and the Zapruder film, which is, to state the obvious, absolutely necessary to any understanding of the mechanics just when the Governor was struck. If I can work the timing correctly, I may release this paper in conjunction with a potential JFK Assassination Conference in November of this year - 2024 - if I get any invitations to participate.

As it stands right now, this will probably be the last writing I do on the events of November 22, 1963. I have been "at this" since my first contact with Harold Weisberg in 1966 so it is probably time to retire. And on a final note, I will admit that I have changed my mind on the timing of the Connally wounding from what I have written in the past.

FWIW

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.

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

"Markham seems to have been very consistent in stating that she observed the killer’s hands ON the patrol car. Her affidavit says arms but..."

I find this comical.  Claim Markham was consistent about how the killer touched the car and then provide an example of her inconsistency.

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.

5 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

This interview with Markham was for the Sept. 27, 1964 broadcast of "November 22, 1963: The Warren Report" (CBS).  Yes, it has been there all along, nothing new here.

 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".

11 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Is it too much of a stretch to say that Markham’s testimony combined with the prints would’ve got Oswald acquitted in any court in America? Bring in Markham, Barnes/Bentley, then the fingerprint expert and that’s enough for reasonable doubt right there. Heck I wonder if Markham’s statement at the scene is why they dusted the window in the first place. 

Not much of a stretch I wouldn't think Tom, in the hands of a competent attorney. 

3 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Greg, check this out. It’s a folder of the Eddie Rocco photographs with tons of images from the Carousel Club. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11118#relPageId=37

Lots of naked strippers… Don’t see that everyday on MFF haha. 

EDIT: And here’s Crafard Exhibit 5212 from the same folder: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11118#relPageId=51

The other Crafard exhibits are in there too. 

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.  

On 1/1/2024 at 1:21 PM, Gary Murr said:

I am attaching herein a link to Chapter 35, from Volume 3, of my unpublished work on the wounding of John Connally. Those not interested in the exchanges to date in this thread, in particular the role[s] played by TIME/LIFE, Holland McCombs, John Connally et al in various "secret" post WR release investigations of the assassination will probably find this a bit of a slog. The chapter, which took several months to research and write, is long - 180 pages - and does contain 788 footnotes, not for the faint of heart as it were. I cannot remember precisely when I wrote this, but it was finished, as attached warts and all, at least five or six years ago. If you are interested in John and Nellie Connally's efforts to "control the past" you might discover some details not previously known to you. The first dozen or so pages deal with John Connally in the immediate aftermath of his arrival at Parkland Hospital, but give it chance and read on for the bulk of the chapter really is all about John and Nellie and their writings, published and secretly discussed, in the years after the assassination. 

FWIW

Link:  https://www.transferbigfiles.com/6cf3ca5d-8028-4660-889e-21aef4e3382b/pWQUgeSCOckz0pusCGTnrA2 

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.

32 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

"I would like a straight answer from you to this last question above, with explanation as to why in your answer."

If I were on the jury, I would vote Oswald guilty based on the eyewitness positive identifications along with the ballistic evidence linking the shells found at the scene to the revolver taken from Oswald when he was arrested.

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).

6 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Help me understand how this "paper bag revolver" has now been upgraded to the class of "murder weapon".  Thanks

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.

6 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Thirteen witnesses saw the man either shoot Tippit or run from the scene with a gun in his hands.  Nine of these witnesses said the man was Lee Oswald.  Four of the witnesses weren't sure one way or the other.  Zero out of the thirteen said the man was not Oswald.

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.