Greg Doudna

David Von Pein--that is impressive you read the ca. 200 pages of Craford WC testimony. Two other sources of information on Craford essential if you are studying Craford. The first is Peter Whitmey's 1998 article, https://www.jfk-assassination.net/creatingapatsy.htm. It has some speculation you won't agree with (me either), just skip over those parts. What matters is Whitmey did what no one else did--he tracked down Craford in later years and Craford talked quite a bit and Whitmey reports that and it is important. No other article like it for further information on Craford. And the other, I think (modest bow) I discovered, as additional Craford information. It is the Odell Estes story. Once it is recognized that Odell Estes' "Oswald" he knew at the Carousel Club in July-Aug 1963 was Craford, information concerning Craford is expanded. You can see that discussion here: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29006-decipherment-of-the-james-odell-estes-story-carousel-club-july-aug-1963/. Happy reading, and merry Christmas to you too.

David I am quite certain Craford left on Saturday Nov 23, I am not sure where you are getting 24th. Saturday Nov 23 is the date Craford told the FBI, the Warren Commission, and at the Ruby trial where he appeared as a character witness, and it is the date told by Andy Armstrong. I know of nothing substantial in contradiction. Mr. HUBERT. As I understand it, you never saw Larry afterward [Fri Nov 22]? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Right. He left a key at the garage downstairs. Mr. HUBERT. When did you first find out about that? Mr. ARMSTRONG. About the---- Mr. HUBERT. About the key and Larry leaving it? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Oh, about 1 o'clock, I guess, I got down again about 1 o'clock. Mr. HUBERT. That was on Saturday? Mr. ARMSTRONG. On Saturday. Mr. HUBERT. All right. Mr. ARMSTRONG. I always stopped at the garage to see if there was any mail. Mr. HUBERT. Is that where the mail was delivered? Mr. ARMSTRONG. That's where the mail was delivered and Ben gave me the key. He said Larry had left it and left a note and just said thank Jack for everything, and that's all. Mr. HUBERT. You mean a written note? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Right. Mr. HUBERT. In other words, Ben, the man at the garage, told you that Larry had left? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes. Mr. HUBERT. Did he tell you what time he left? Mr. ARMSTRONG. He said "Early this morning," that's all he said. Mr. HUBERT. He didn't give you any time? Mr. ARMSTRONG. No. The paper-bag revolver--a modified .38 Special snub-nosed Smith & Wesson found in a paper bag with an orange and an apple--was found near a curb on a downtown Dallas street by a citizen at 7:30 am Sat Nov 23, compatible with Craford physically passing that intersection at about 6 am while in the back seat of Ruby's car with Ruby and George Senator up front, driven northwest by Ruby from the Carousel Club to get on the Stemmons Freeway in order to get to a location of a billboard Ruby had decided he wanted to photograph at that time of night involving waking up two other persons besides himself to do so. That revolver looked like it was tossed in that bag out a car window. For some reason Myers and Bill Brown have taken great exception to the idea of assuming a paper bag of litter found on a city street got there by being tossed from a car, on the grounds that no witness saw anyone toss it out of a car window at 6 am, but whatever. The timing and juxtaposition agrees with Craford, who had no car of his own, as an excellent source of that paper-bag revolver tossed out a back window of Ruby's car. If Craford wanted to toss that weapon out the car window without Ruby and Geoge Senator knowing about it, they would be none the wiser. He eats some fruit in the back seat, then tosses the bag of remaining uneaten fruit out the window (the paper bag also containing, unknown to anyone in the car seeing him toss the bag, a .38 Smith & Wesson he for some reason no longer was pleased to maintain in his possession). Then "early this morning", that morning, Saturday Nov 23 (according to Ben the garage man cited by Andy Armstrong above), Craford left Dallas for Michigan, the same morning that someone who may have been Craford ditched that .38 Smith & Wesson. It would be a natural police question to suspect that weapon was disposed of in that manner because it had been used in a crime and its owner did not want to risk having it found on his person or in his belongings or otherwise traced to him. Even if the weapon was found and traced to the crime, provided it was clean of fingerprints and was untraceable by serial number to any record or paper trail leading to the perpetrator, i.e. a gangland or mob hit weapon, the weapon would not be linked to the perpetrator. The find of the paper-bag revolver at 7:30 am Sat Nov 23 in downtown Dallas raises the question: was there a recent homicide in the Dallas area in which someone was killed with .38 Special bullets? Maybe that might be worth checking out, if there was--hypothetically-- some recent murder by handgun in the area fitting that description? There is no record Dallas Police ever investigated their list of recent homicides which occurred prior to 7:30 am Sat Nov 23 for a possible match of that paper-bag revolver to hulls or bullets from the crime scene. There is no evidence I have been able to find that the list of all recent handgun homicides in the Dallas area prior to Nov 23 consisted of more than one single entry: the Tippit killing of Nov 22. Not only did the Dallas Police make no known check of that weapon against its list of recent area handgun homicides (i.e. the list of one), by a most regrettable accident Dallas Police then lost that weapon. Right while it was in police custody. Disappeared without a trace. No one at DPD has the slightest idea what became of it, even though they are the last ones known to have had it, according to FBI documents brought to light in the 1990s (those FBI records had been released in an earlier document dump but had not been noticed and brought forward to researchers' focus until the 1990s). If that wasn't the Tippit murder weapon, what murder was it the weapon of? Is there a non-far-fetched innocent explanation for tossing a handgun in a paper bag of fruit on to a city street in the middle of the night? How does a weapon found like that disappear while in Dallas Police custody after it is found and turned in to police on Nov 23, 1963? And Craford bolts from Dallas immediately after he is the leading candidate for who ditched that weapon. The next morning Craford's boss, Ruby, using a different .38 snub-nosed, murdered Oswald.

Craford was his correct legal name. The spelling he used in Dallas, “Crafard”, was an alias. As for why Hubert and Griffin questioned Craford so extensively, I think that is pretty obvious: they were suspicious of him, especially his sudden no-notice decision to hitchhike to Michigan after the assassination with only $7 in his pocket (so he said), in order, he explained, to check that his sister there was OK (she was fine, as she would have told him over the phone if he had called). Judge Griffin’s recent book tells of Hubert’s and his suspicions of Craford, growing out of their assigned WC staff division of labor to deal with Ruby. However despite all that questioning they couldn’t come up with anything on him. And Hubert and Griffin were frozen out of the WC interview of Ruby, even though Ruby had been specifically assigned as their sphere. Griffin is the WC staff counsel I like best, and that’s not just because my Dad’s closest friend in his final years in Akron, Ohio, was a retired U.S. federal marshal who worked federal security in Cleveland and knew and spoke well of Judge Griffin.

Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. I like your website and good cheer and agree with you on a lot except where I don’t 🙂 , carry on.

That is Craford’s alibi, yes, Bill. The completely long-term Ruby loyal Andy Armstrong, trusted, reliable, prison record, knew everything and kept his mouth shut. Pretty smart behavior in light of shady mob killer types in Ruby’s circles. That’s Craford’s only alibi. I think Andy was asked to provide that alibi as a favor and did so as a favor. Simple as that. Lined up before Nov 22. Andy wouldn’t need to know nor would he want to know why. Andy was good at not asking the wrong kind of questions. The alibi wasn’t perfectly rehearsed. Craford said Andy came in around 9 or whenever (I’m going from memory) to stock beer. Andy said he arrived around 12:30 or so, big difference. It looks possibly like Ruby might have lined up a second alibi for Craford though I’m not sure on that: Joyce McDonald (Joy Dale). Her story is she was at Parkland Hospital the morning of Nov 22 (where a shot JFK and Ruby were separately shortly to arrive), and then went by bus to the Carousel Club at 3 pm. I don’t remember whether she claimed to have seen Craford. She did say Ruby was distraught over widowed Jackie and talking about violence to Oswald so she at least was helping support Ruby’s alibi. And on Sun Nov 24 Joyce identified herself in a Dallas radio interview as a friend of Craford and told how good Ruby had been in helping him out. But both Andy and Craford when interviewed said they knew of no dancers or any women who came to the Club the afternoon of Nov 22. A rather major discrepancy which I don’t think was ever resolved; both Andy and Joyce cannot be correct, one was being untruthful. Craford was witnessed about 2 or 3 am the night before with Ruby leaving with Ruby from the B and B restaurant by waitress Mary Lawrence (she thought it was Oswald with Ruby but it was certainly Craford). And the Tippit killing was within walking distance of Ruby’s apartment and the killer was seen walking to the place he killed Tippit in a direction in agreement with walking from Ruby’s apartment, and the killing of Tippit looked like someone was meeting Tippit and flagging down Tippit’s cruiser from the sidewalk and then a professional execution, which happened to be Craford’s confessed line of expertise. And there is a good likelihood the paper-bag revolver, which has never been otherwise explained, was a tossed murder weapon, and there is a very striking plausibility in terms of location, timing, motive and opportunity that that paper-bag revolver may have been tossed by Craford, just before he took off for Michigan the morning of Nov 23. Just saying.

David von Pein — you are raising a red herring and straw man in your final paragraph. Please stop that. I do not doubt Myers’ honesty and respect his obtaining and publication of the outstanding color photos of the hulls, his hand drawings of the writing, and his report of his eyes of reading the “GD” (for Doughty) scratched initials. The point is not that Myers or you or I identify initials as put there by Doughty. The issue is whether Doughty confirmed they were his, and were they his, as opposed to someone else’s clumsy attempts to imitate and replicate the officers’ marks on substituted hulls fired from Oswald’s revolver before submission to the FBI lab, or alternatively, put there by one of the officers himself on a substituted hull submitted, as the case may be. Again, no sworn or unsworn direct testimony from four of the five officers saying the marks seen in Myers’ photos of the hulls were theirs, and the fifth, Barnes, the only one who gave sworn WC testimony identifying his own marks, was rejected as to accuracy in his identifications of his marks. The question is why weren’t those officers able to or asked in their own firsthand testimony or authenticated statement to identify their marks, except for the one who did whose testimony was rejected—by the Warren Commission—as inaccurate when he did. The possibility is that absence of credible firsthand chain of custody testimony from a single one of those five on the record could be because something was amiss. Maybe some of those officers knew those marks were not THEIR marks, and in pre-interview said they would not swear to that, so were not asked to so state in any direct form, and the workarounds resulted in the form seen. You may or may not be aware there is a competing possibility for the Tippit murder weapon, the so-called paper-bag revolver found early morning Sat Nov 23 abandoned on a street in downtown Dallas, not otherwise explained, the handling and reporting of which involved an appearance of coverup. There is more in my paper but that’s the basic point. Please don’t lump me in with red herrings and straw men of others, guess at what I must be saying or meaning without checking my paper to see what I do say, or use the expression “like all CT theorists”. I can’t make you but am asking. Bill asked for the reference on Leavelle on Barnes. ”He /Leavelle/ scorned ‘Joe Poe, with his statements about markin’ them damn shells. And Pete Barnes. They didn’t mark the shells, the hulls. There wasn’t no need for them to. But they got to thinkin’ that when it gets to be a very important situation, they think, “God, did I screw up and not do something I should have done?” And so then they claim they marked ‘em but couldn’t recognize their mark. Actually, they never marked ‘em. There was no point to it. We don’t mark ‘em.’ ” (Joseph McBride quoting Leavelle, Into the Nightmare, 256-57, citing a 1992 interview of Leavelle with McBride)

Thanks for this David. I am working from the 2013 edition of With Malice and I sure cannot find that in the 2013 edition. I see what looks like a corresponding endnote #1087 to the earlier #800 that you cite, but in the form that endnote appears in 2013 there is no mention of a Myers' contact with Doughty. Nevertheless thanks.

Bill I know you can't be bothered to read my longer argument on this specific topic, but I will try to summarize. How do you know Captain Doughty said any such thing? No, seriously. Says who? You are getting that from an FBI document issued under Dallas FBI letterhead, anonymous authorship and signed by no one, which reports that an FBI agent who later denied he conducted some of the interviews that document says he did, interviewed Doughty who told that FBI agent that. CE 2011 is the FBI document. Odum is the FBI agent which the unsigned document claims conducted some of the interviews reported in CE 2011 some of which Odum in later years denied he conducted. Odum is the FBI agent said by the anonymous author of CE 2011 to have interviewed Captain Doughty, and to have reported that Doughty confirmed his mark on hull #3. Two layers of hearsay. Not a problem, I hear you saying? Just check the underlying 302 reports written up for every FBI interview? Well, there aren't any in this case. Not for these local office letterhead reports issued to the Warren Commission in answer to WC's questions, at the instruction of FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. No paperwork at all supporting any of the interviews of CE 2011, some of which Odum himself said he never did even though the anonymous author of CE 2011 wrote that Odum did. How do you know Odum interviewed Doughty? Did Odum ever confirm he did? No. Did Doughty ever confirm it? No. Is there evidence Doughty was even aware at the time of what CE 2011 reported Odum said he had reported? No. Did Doughty ever make that hearsay-reported hull identification under oath himself? No. In a written report signed by him? No. Is there record that the Warren Commission phoned him, read him what was reported by CE 2011 of what an FBI agent for whom there is no paper record of that interview and who later denied he did some interviews credited to him in that document said Doughty said, to ask Doughty to confirm accuracy? (Like big-city newspapers do to verify quotes before going into print.) No. Is there a book or article by Doughty with Doughty saying that in his own name? No. Did you ever hear Doughty in a live talk, or a talk that was taped, or in a personal conversation to you, say that? I doubt it. Did Myers ever interview Doughty? No record of any Myers interview of Doughty I can see. Do you know of anyone who interviewed Doughty who reported corroborating that detail? I doubt it. Is there anywhere else you can find Doughty's identification of his mark in hull #3 than in that double-hearsay, unverified CE 2011 form? Not to my knowledge. How about to your knowledge? This is not to say CE 2011 is known to not be accurately reporting interviews, no matter what Mr. Odum may have later claimed about not having conducted some of them. (I frankly assume Odum did conduct the interviews attributed to him in CE 2011, and suspect Odum for whatever reason was being wittingly untruthful in denying to Aguilar and Thompson that he did some of those interviews, though others have different interpretations of Odum's denial.) I also think most of what CE 2011 reports as to the contents of those interviews is probably correct, just as the majority of content of most good-quality hearsay is probably correct where there is no intent or motive to lie about it. As twice-removed hearsay goes, an unsigned FBI Dallas letterhead report of hearsay twice removed is probably as good as any, all else being equal, the "all else being equal" meaning assuming no intent or motive to prevaricate. The problem then isn't that that form of reporting is necessarily untruthful. It is that there is no way on God's earth that anyone can know for sure on any specific detail, such as whether Doughty confirmed his identification of hull #3 in the way CE 2011 says an FBI agent says he said he did. I discuss this in my paper on the Tippit crime scene shell hulls. Please be clear: I am not claiming any specific thing in CE 2011 re Doughty is known wrong in itself, or must be wrong, in terms of CE 2011 considered in isolation, or any of the ways you are at high risk of misrepresenting. The issue is: there is a lack of basis for assurance that it is accurate. There is no way to know the CE 2011 report of Captain Doughty is accurate without something from Captain Doughty verifying that, and therefore CE 2011 is not satisfactory positive evidence in a case such as this that shell hull #3 found by the FBI lab to match to Oswald's revolver was the same hull Doughty received at the Tippit crime scene. Because there is no non-hearsay statement in existence from Doughty saying so, and it does not inspire confidence in this hearsay statement that does exist that the author of the document telling of the hearsay is anonymous, and the cited source internal to the document for the hearsay denies reporting some of the other hearsay claims attributed to him in that document, and there is no underlying paperwork for any of the hearsays reported in CE 2011. If there was something amiss in any of those hearsays in the form of FBI reporting to the Warren Commission utilized in CE 2011, it is presented in such a way that it could probably never be discovered, and if it ever were discovered there would be no ability to discover, unless FBI were willing to say so, who was to be held accountable. That is the system of reporting the FBI was using in the reporting of these interviews which includes Captain Doughty on hull #3. If a man's life hinged on hull #3 alone, and CE 2011 was entirely and only what you had as evidence, and the man was swearing up and down that he had not killed Tippit, would you vote to send him to the electric chair or equivalent based on the unverified double hearsay report of Doughty's #3 hull identification written anonymously in CE 2011? (Straight answer requested please.) "Were the Tippit crime scene shell hulls fired from the revolver of Lee Harvey Oswald?" https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/T-BALLISTICS-108-1.pdf.

And you know that, without the FBI or any other known check to find out? Says who? How do you know that? Is there a paper report from the crime lab in late 1963 or early 1964 signed by someone qualified stating that on the basis of firsthand examination? Whose authority underlies your statement that the prints were of "no value in determining who they belonged to"? Lots of partial prints have enough information to identify. How do you know these don't? You're getting that from the WC testimony of Barnes, low-level crime lab person, telling that as hearsay, without even naming who was the source or authority for that alleged finding of fact. No one knows Barnes' source for that claim. No document tells, and WC didn't ask. Then no one takes another look at those fingerprints, so far as is known, until Myers in 1994 has the fingerprint expert from Michigan, Lutz, take a look. The way Myers describes it, Lutz found easily within minutes three informative things that Barnes' hearsay of no one known whom you rely upon from 30 years earlier ... missed. Lutz finds that the prints from the two locations lifted were (a) from the same person; (b) only one person; (c) who was not Oswald. Myers publishes that in 1998. Apart from those three things, Lutz in those few minutes did not report any new information of what you call "value in determining who they belonged to". Apart from those three details that the unidentified source of Barnes' 1964 hearsay upon which you rely either never found or did not report. And neither Lutz nor Myers reported any further attempt or investigation undertaken, than what Myers reported of Lutz' few minutes look at them in 1994. FBI never brought into the picture. I am not as confident as you that FBI would not have not found what Lutz found a lot earlier than 1994, and a good chance FBI might have found more than Lutz did in his few minutes at it, if FBI had tried. But we will never know will we (even though you think you do), since that never happened.

On that last item you mention, the tuft of fibers found in the metal butt plate of the stock of the rifle found on the sixth floor, CE 139, matching to the brown shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest in the Texas Theatre, CE 150: The problem is, Oswald did not start wearing that CE 150 brown shirt that day until after changing into it at his rooming house at 1:00 pm. Before that, he was wearing a light maroon-colored button-down dress shirt, CE 151, which he wore to Irving Thursday and again back to work Friday morning Nov 22. Therefore that tuft of fibers on the rifle stock did not get there from anyone firing that rifle on Nov 22. Either the fibers were already there from some long-ago prior firing of that rifle by Oswald wearing the brown CE 150 shirt, or ... how does one put this, they arrived in that location through irregular means while in law enforcement custody. Pat Speer has done the work on this, on establishing the CE 151 maroon shirt as worn by Oswald that morning. The identification of CE 151 as what Oswald wore that morning is sound and solid. https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence. I take that up in my jackets article as well. Pat Speer obtained and posted on his website the first color photo of CE 151. Because of the case for irregularity in the case of the fibers on CE 139, the rifle, it should not be surprising if the possibility has occurred that a claim of the same kind of fibers, in agreement with fibers from the same shirt, found in the Tippit killer's jacket, CE 162, could be questioned as well.

Thanks Gil.

You're saying National Enquirer was getting that solely from the Al Chapman interview transcript (which I have as well)? And misrepresented what Jimmy Burt said? I had assumed that Jimmy Burt quote was something from some additional phone interview. It is represented as an exact quote (which is not in the Al Chapman transcript that you and I have). Thanks for clearing up that point, that there is minimally at least a question about its accuracy, not helped by the venue in which it is reported. I respect and like your knowledge of accurate details of the case. Thanks!

You're right Bill. I've edited the wording of that. Mr. BALL. What did the man do? Mrs. MARKHAM. The man, he just walked calmly, fooling with his gun. Mr. BALL. Toward what direction did he walk? Mrs. MARKHAM. Come back towards me, turned around, and went back. Mr. BALL. Toward Patton? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; towards Patton. He didn't run. It just didn't scare him to death. He didn't run. When he saw me he looked at me, stared at me. I put my hands over my face like this, closed my eyes. I gradually opened my fingers like this, and 1 opened my eyes, and when I did he started off in kind of a little trot. Mr. BALL. Which way? Mrs. MARKHAM. Sir? Mr. BALL. Which way? Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way. Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time? Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him. Mr. BALL. Did you yell at him? Mrs. MARKHAM. When I pulled my fingers down where I could see, I got my hand down, he began to trot off, and then I ran to the policeman. Mr. BALL. Before you put your hands over your eyes, before you put your hand over your eyes, did you see the man walk towards the corner? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes. Mr. BALL. What did he do? Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, he stared at me. Mr. BALL. What did you do? Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't do anything. I couldn't. Mr. BALL. Didn't you say something? Mrs. MARKHAM. No, I couldn't. Mr. BALL. Or yell or scream? Mrs. MARKHAM. I could not. I could not say nothing. Mr. BALL. You looked at him? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes. Mr. BALL. You looked at him Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. He looked wild. I mean, well, he did to me. Mr. BALL. And you say you saw him fooling with his gun? Mrs. MARKHAM. He had it in his hands. Mr. BALL. Did you see what he was doing with it? Mrs. MARKHAM. He was just fooling with it. I didn't know what he was doing. I was afraid he was fixing to kill me. Mr. BALL. How far away from the police car do you think you were on the corner when you saw the shooting? Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, I wasn't too far. Mr. BALL. Can you estimate it in feet? Don't guess. Mrs. MARKHAM. I would just be afraid to say how many feet because I am a bad judgment on that. Mr. BALL. When you looked at the man, though, when he came toward the corner, you were standing on one corner, were you? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir Mr. BALL. Where was he standing with reference to the other corner? Mrs. MARKHAM. After he had shot-- Mr. BALL. When he looked at you. Mrs. MARKHAM. After he had shot the policeman? Mr. BALL. Yes. Mrs. MARKHAM. He was standing almost even to that curb, not very far from the curb, from the sidewalk. Mr. BALL. Across the street from you? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Did he look at you? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. And did you look at him? Mrs. MARKHAM. I sure did. Mr. BALL. That was before you put your hands over your eyes? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; and he kept fooling with his gun, and I slapped my hands up to my face like this. Mr. BALL. And then you ran to the policeman? Mrs. MARKHAM. After he ran off. Mr. BALL. In what hand did he have his gun, do you know, when he fired the shots? Mrs. MARKHAM. Sir, I believe it was his right. I am not positive because I was scared. Mr. BALL. When he came down the street towards you, in what hand did he have his gun? Mrs. MARKHAM. He had it in both of them. Mr. BALL. He had it in both of them? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. When he went towards Jefferson you say he went at sort of a trot? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Did he cross Patton? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. DULLES. Were there many other, or other people in the block at that time, or were you there with Officer Tippit almost alone? Mrs. MARKHAM. I was out there, I didn't see anybody. I was there alone by myself. Mr. DULLES. I see. You didn't see anybody else in the immediate neighborhood? Mrs. MARKHAM. No; not until everything was over--I never seen anybody until I was at Mr. Tippit's side. I tried to save his life, which was I didn't know at that time I couldn't do something for him. Mr. DULLES. Mr. Tippit, Officer Tippit, didn't say anything to you? Mrs. MARKHAM. He tried to. Mr. DULLES. He tried to? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. DULLES. But he didn't succeed? Mrs. MARKHAM. No, I couldn't understand. I was screaming and hollering and I was trying to help him all I could, and I would have. I was with him until they put him in the ambulance. Mr. BALL. Did you make an estimate of how far you were from this man with the gun when he came--after the shooting, and when he came down to the corner, did you make an estimate of that? Mrs. MARKHAM. No. To anyone-- Mr. BALL. We measured it the other day. We were out there, weren't we? Mrs. MARKHAM. Now I couldn't tell you how many feet or nothing because I have never had no occasions to measure that. Mr. DULLES. Was it further than this table, the length of this table? Mrs. MARKHAM. It was across the street. Mr. DULLES. Across the street. It was two or three times the length of this table? Mrs. MARKHAM. Across from the street. That was too close.

Bill, try to represent accurately and not straw men. I know you can if you try. I never said, and do not for a moment believe, that "all suspects are wrongly convicted". Sheesh! Please stop that. That was not the point. The point was to impeach your tone of certainty that those 9 witness identifications of Oswald were probative. No, those 9 are not necessarily, for reasons detailed.

Well I'm about 400 miles away, not sure when I'll be down that way next, but if I have the chance I might ask the local police if they have any fingerprints from what I believe was at least one arrest of Craford post-1963. I have no experience in this nor do I have police contacts apart from an 80-year old retired federal marshal friend of my father in Ohio. I have just assumed police would not give out fingerprints to me but I don't know. Paging @Gil Jesus--you have been a police officer, could you possibly be of help in obtaining fingerprints of Craford, or if such were obtained, in getting them run through whatever national database now exists to attempt to identify who left those prints on the Tippit patrol car? I believe it was Stuart Wexler at the recent Lancer conference who made a public appeal in his talk for anyone in a law enforcement position with access to a fingerprints national database, or anyone who knew someone who was, to run the Tippit patrol car fingerprints (among maybe a half dozen similar evidence items Wexler listed). It is ironic, pangs of regret in retrospect, but I lived in and spent much time in Oregon--Ashland, Eugene, Portland--in the late 1970s through the early 1990s. All that time Craford was in Dallas, Oregon. If I knew then what I know now, I could easily have gone to Dallas, Oregon and tried to find him. A college roommate when I was in east Texas had grown up in Dallas, Oregon (the location stuck with me because memorable name). From what I can see online, although Craford had a daughter, there are no living descendants of Craford today. I don't know about nephews or nieces or if any extended family relatives alive today knew him well. I wonder if Craford ever wrote private memoirs--who knows. And to think he was easy to find in the late 1970s, his location right there in published Warren Commission testimony, and HSCA claimed they couldn't locate him. Maybe they thought there was nothing new to ask him that his lengthy WC questioning had not covered? HSCA had no clue to even the existence of the paper-bag revolver found and turned in to Dallas Police Nov 23, 1963. There is no sign it occurred to HSCA to try to have the Tippit patrol car fingerprints identified. FBI, which has some of the best expertise in the nation on fingerprints, never bothered with, no record ever was asked, to run the Tippit patrol car fingerprints. To paraphrase the supposed LBJ phone call Fritz is alleged to have said privately he received, "You have your man", in the murder of Tippit they had their man, who conveniently was dead and could not dispute the point, a satisfactory closure to the case, no further evidence needed or wanted.

Bill you will admit that witnesses post-Nov 22 who had seen Craford were saying "that was Oswald" in a number of instances unrelated to the Tippit case. The only issue is whether that known phenomenon is applicable in this case. The reason the 9 who said the killer was Oswald and not Craford is not determinative is because Craford was never offered to those witnesses's awareness as a choice between Oswald or Craford. Craford was not in those lineups. Craford's photo was not, to my knowledge, shown to any of those witnesses (do you know differently on that?). Oswald in those lineups stood among others who did not look like him or Craford. Picking Oswald would be an easy mistake for a witness to make in that context, because we know witnesses did make exactly that identification mistake. Innocence Project exonerations in which persons convicted by juries of serious crimes such as murder, subsequently proven innocent by DNA testing, sometimes decades later, involve positive eyewitness identifications as part of the evidence which wrongly convicted those innocent persons in over half the cases. The sad fact is eyewitness identifications are not infallible, and not all eyewitness identifications are created equal. In the Tippit case there is the illusion of strength in those identifications because of their number. But they are all the same in kind, and therefore piling on a few more more weak or dicey identifications to an original set of weak or dicey identifications is not changing much. Lets go down the line. Helen Markham was a mess (even though she is one of the most important witnesses). Her identification is questionable credibility. She saw Callaway and Scoggins take Tippit's revolver and drive away and her first claim, to Croy, was that one of those was the gunman. You yourself have just got through saying she is not credible in claiming what she saw of the killer on the other side of the patrol car. She said she covered her face with her hands part of the time when the killer left the patrol car and went west in her direction. She said she "picked" Oswald out of the lineup a few hours later because of all the men in the lineup he gave her cold chills looking at him. According to her memory (not that this is necessarily what happened literally) police kept asking her "which one is it?" "which one is it?" of the ones in the lineup until she "picked" Oswald among what she thought were her choices, which she did guided by her cold-chills reaction basis. Scoggins identified Oswald out of a lineup. But when he was shown photos by police he said he picked the "wrong" police photo. (Bill, do you know whose photo Scoggins picked who he got "wrong", ie other than Oswald?) Callaway claimed total certainty from fifty feet away of his Oswald lineup identification. He also testified that Leavelle told him prior to the lineup that they wanted to wrap up Oswald real tight on Tippit since they believed he had killed the president too which might be a tougher case to prove. Callaway was gungho to help police nail the bastard that shot Tippit. Virginia and Barbara Davis seeing the gunman out their front door on the sidewalk go by, not much to go on there. One said she was going by a glance of a side view only. Another thought her "Oswald" was wearing a black coat (!) (Is it certain she was even identifying the gunman?) But its easy to express confidence months later to the Warren Commission when everyone else is saying a suspect "is the one". Warren Reynolds wasn't willing to express certainty the man he saw running was Oswald until he got shot in the head and almost killed. He was reported to privately say afterward that he wanted to live, which is why he was expressing certainty in his identification of Oswald in agreement with what he believed was wanted. Guinyard, the African American in 1963 Dallas, deep south before there was a Civil Rights Act, said it was Oswald who went by him on Patton, though there is some discrepancy on which side of the street, but again, there is no way of knowing Guinyard is different from witnesses who saw Craford and said "that was Oswald". And so on. And yes, I include Brewer too. He viewed the man in front of his store (which I stipulate with you was the same killer of Tippit seen by the earlier Tenth and Patton witnesses headed in that direction), not directly but through a glass door, not lengthy period of time, not up close. Then Oswald in the partly-darkened theatre got Brewer's attention by standing up in the back, and Brewer told police "that's him!" Then police arrested Oswald who it turns everyone was saying had killed JFK. Brewer sold shoes to Oswald at some earlier time, not extremely recent, those shoes have been verified. But his identification of the man in front of his store is not infallible, compared to Craford having been the man momentarily acting suspiciously standing in front of his store's front glass window door. As the narrative solidified within hours, of Oswald implicated for both JFK and Tippit, every witness who identified Oswald as the Tippit killer was reinforced by the news and by knowledge of the other witnesses' similar identifications, a possible groupthink phenomenon reinforcement effect. The question is basic: if it was not for other information such as the shell hulls match to Oswald's revolver, would the eyewitnesses alone be sufficient to know that was no mistaken identification of Oswald, instead of Craford, as the actual gunman those witnesses saw? And we know honest witnesses (witnesses attempting and believing they were telling the truth) all over Dallas were repeatedly making this specific mistake, having seen Craford with Ruby and telling family and friends post-assassination, "I saw Oswald! I recognize him!", etc. And this happened with others than Craford, but Craford is the highest incidence of all, I believe, simply in numbers for mistaken Oswald identifications. It is not very relevant that you or I may say we don't think the photos look alike. The fact is witnesses who did not know either of these before were confusing these two, even though there are several real differences in physical description (height, hair, complexion). Your citing nine is quantitative. Lets turn to the more important qualitative, because not all witness identifications are equal. The single most credible and strongest witness qualitatively to an identification of the killer was Benavides because he was the closest, only ca. 15 feet away, and said he got a very good look at the back of the killer's head. Nobody equals Benavides for quality and credibility of his witness of the killer. He described a block cut hairline in the back of the killer's head. I know you dispute this and parse him differently but he just did, described a block cut. That was not Oswald who had a taper cut. And Benavides said the killer was not light-skinned like Oswald and stereotypical white people; he said the killer was a little darker in complexion than that, which is in agreement with the FBI description of Craford as "medium", not light, complexion. And perhaps evocative of Helen Markham, and Julia Postal, who each separately said the killer's skin color looked "ruddy". Yes Benavides in later years said he assumed the killer was Oswald, because that is what smart people had concluded, he never is known to have taken any position against that. But he did take a hard position on that block cut rear hairline description, and he was the single best witness of the gunman, and what he saw and what he reported is not consistent with Oswald. It is not unreasonable, in qualitative terms, that one Benavides could be stronger than nine Virginia Davises or Callaways. Minor point, you err in saying none of the witnesses said the gunman was not Oswald. Jimmy Burt said so emphatically several years later in a tabloid. And Acquila Clemons, who was a witness of the killer as much as the others, can fairly be said to appear to be describing someone who does not sound quite like Oswald. Acquila's description in fact is similar to the earliest description given by Helen Markham which differs from Oswald in the direction of Craford who was an inch or two shorter and maybe 10-20 pounds heavier than Oswald, darker complexion than Oswald, darker hair than Oswald, and fuller head of hair than Oswald. Helen Markham: the gunman had "bushy" hair (reported by newsmen who heard her telling police that within minutes at the crime scene). Oswald's hair was not "bushy". Craford however had a full head of hair that could prompt such a description. The killer had a jacket which was off-white light tan in color and which was not the gray jacket of Oswald known to Buell Frazier and Oswald's other coworkers at the TSBD where Oswald wore his gray jacket to work. (The only reason for thinking so is Marina said so for the first and only time under questionable circumstances in her Warren Commission testimony.) In fact Oswald wore his gray jacket to Irving Thursday night (even Marina indicated that), seen by Frazier worn by Oswald Fri morning Nov 22, and that means the jacket Oswald newly put on and left going out the door of the rooming house at 1 pm seen by Earlene Roberts was his other jacket, his heavier blue one, as color-blind Earlene said, it was "dark" in color. It was not the off-white light tan jacket of the killer, CE 162. The Tippit killer's jacket was off-white light tan, seen by the witnesses, found at Ballew's Texaco, today in the National Archives, C162, exact color and similar kind of jacket worn by Craford about a week later in Michigan in the FBI photographs of him after they tracked him down and found him. I think Craford post-Nov 22 intentionally bought another jacket as closely similar to the one he abandoned in Oak Cliff as he could find, in order to distance suspicion from himself as having left C162 in that parking lot of Ballew's Texaco after killing Tippit. I make my arguments on the jackets, which you have probably never read, at https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/T-Jackets-112.pdf (117 pages).

[deleted]

If Craford was the gunman, all of the witness identifications of the gunman as Oswald go out the window as being determinative, in light of how known that particular identification confusion was to witnesses who did not know either individual well from prior knowledge. We have Oswald not a match to the fingerprints from a right hand on the right front bumper, and right front passenger door. (Correct, fingerprints, not a palm print, on the bumper, the person was not putting weight on that hand while touching, perhaps more like resting fingers for balance.) On Tatum driving by and seeing the killer standing with hands in pockets, that could well be true until after Tatum drove by and missed seeing the killer lean into the side of the car to speak through that open vent window. Tatum would not see that since he was facing forward looking where he is driving. Also, Helen Markham insisted and was very clear she saw the killer’s arms raised, both of them, as he leaned into and talked through the patrol car window. She would have been able to see that through the glass of the patrol car. You might say she imagined the arms raised, and that is possible. But that’s what she said, and she said it consistently and immediately starting within minutes of the crime to police (Tatum over a decade later). On the shell hulls match to Oswald’s revolver, the issue is the chain of custody. As I showed in my paper on this matter (linked earlier above in this thread), of the five DPD officers who marked one or more of the shell hulls at the scene, four of those five never stated any identification firsthand in their own signature or direct sworn or unsworn testimony, and the fifth who did so testified under oath to a shell hull identification of his own mark which was rejected by the Warren Commission as correct and laughed at by Leavelle who didn’t believe it. Do you accept Barnes’ sworn WC testimony to his own shell hull mark identification that the Warren Commission rejected and Leavelle too with mockery? (Straight answer to this question requested please.) (And bear in mind that Barnes’ rejected and dismissed ID in his WC testimony is the only one of those five who swore to a chain of custody identification of any of those four hulls.) But back to Craford, if he was the gunman then the murder weapon becomes the paper-bag revolver which Craford had means, motive and opportunity to have ditched out the rear window of a car driven by Ruby a few hours later, ca 6 am the next morning, before Craford took flight from Dallas for Michigan. And as shown on the other thread, the testimony from witnesses inside the theater, three out of three who gave information on this point, put Oswald in that main seating area on the ground level in the 1:15-1:20 pm time frame, meaning Oswald was not the man who ran into the balcony at 1:35, and means Oswald could not have been the killer of Tippit at Tenth and Patton at 1:15 pm since he was in the theater at that time. And the WC testimony of one of those three witnesses to Oswald’s alibi, Burroughs, who, in answer to WC counsel questioning, sounded like Burroughs identified the balcony man as Oswald, even though Burroughs insisted later that is not what he meant and that is not what happened, becomes explained by the reason brought out by Joe Bauer: Burroughs had failed a mental test in the Army and was no match for experienced WC counsel manipulative questioning. But Burroughs in his own voice later told that Oswald was in that theater before the movie started, as a paid-ticket customer. Even the claim of an “Oswald ID” wallet found somewhere at or close by the crime scene may need revisiting if Craford is a suspect. For Craford appears to have at times falsely claimed he was Oswald. The WFAA-TV wallet is a puzzle. I have thought it was Callaway’s but what if it was a wallet left behind by Craford who independently had occasionally impersonated Oswald. I have accepted Myers’ argument that the Barrett story of that wallet was mistaken and that may still be right, but if a gunman suspect is independently established to have elsewhere impersonated Oswald that is a bit of a coincidence.

Yes but that cuts both ways. It could be argued Burroughs was not up to catching how manipulative the questioning was to him in his WC testimony that makes it sound like he was identifying the man who went into the balcony, without him noticing, was Oswald. Burroughs forever after said that’s not what he meant, and that was not what happened. But, he failed an Army mental test, so what would Burroughs know about saying later what he meant. Burroughs said Oswald, as distinguished from the man who went into the balcony, was in the theatre earlier, during the time of the opening credits. The movie itself didn’t start until about 1:20. If Oswald was there during the opening credits that’s Oswald’s alibi, he couldn’t have shot Tippit. But why believe Burroughs in what he later kept insisting about that? He wasn’t the sharpest pencil in the drawer according to the Army. Well, how about this. Jack Davis who is credible and is a sharp pencil also said the same thing about the timing of Oswald there. He said Oswald sat down next to him during the opening credits before sitting next to Gibson and then out into the popcorn concession area where the WC version is Burroughs never saw him there as Burroughs later claimed. And no other of the theater witnesses inside the theater that day said otherwise as to seeing Oswald, as distinguished from the man who ran into the balcony, arrive later. Because nobody bothered to ask the other theater staff or patrons that, or if they did, did not report what was answered. Except there was one more asked, theater patron Applin. Reporter Earl Golz had among his papers an unpublished interview with Applin. According to that, a draft of an article Golz had prepared no record ever published, Applin described to Golz seeing Oswald already there when Applin arrived into the main level seating area, and Applin was there during the opening credits. There’s Oswald’s alibi again, a third witness to it. Three out of three of the only three inside the theater who gave information concerning Oswald’s time of arrival into the main seating area on the ground level. But apart from that, nothing to see there. Because Burroughs wasn’t too bright. And because Brewer (outside the theater) identified Oswald as the man he saw through the glass of the door of his store who then went into the theater balcony around 1:35, fresh from killing Tippit at around 1:15. Just like deputy sheriff Courson later said he thought a young man who walked by him coming down from the balcony at around 1:40 pm, after police had arrived, had been Oswald (even though that cannot be correct). Did Brewer and Courson get their identifications of Oswald right without being mistaken? Or were the 100 percent of the theater staff and patrons inside the theater correct who when asked gave information, and all said Oswald was there before 1:20, and therefore a different person than the man who ran into the balcony at 1:35? Maybe Burroughs wasn’t bright enough to be a match for experienced WC counsel questioning him, tricking Burroughs into indirectly (if parsing his syllables and syntax literally according to the published stenographic record) identifying the balcony man as Oswald, the identification the skilled WC counsel wanted from him. If everything was on the up and up, is it not a little odd that others inside that theater, staff and patrons, were not asked what they saw bearing on the Oswald alibi question? Apart from the two others who with the later Burroughs were asked, and all three did support, the exculpatory alibi. Apart from them I mean. That is how it stands in terms of the Theatre witnesses, about 18 total that day (14 patron tickets sold that afternoon at the window plus 4 staff, Callahan, Postal, Burroughs, and the projectionist, estimated 18 total persons). But one of those three (out of three who gave information all of whom supported Oswald’s alibi) failed his Army Intelligence test. He was smart enough under early trick questioning to indirectly implicate Oswald accurately—that can be relied upon—but he was not smart enough when later speaking in his own voice to be believed when he said differently, just as the other two who had nothing wrong with their intelligence. The three theater witnesses who claimed that alibi timing for Oswald in that theater became known only years later. Their testimony can be interpreted as mistaken and dismissed for that reason. That is not to be denied. But just saying what the situation is, in terms of known information from the 18 inside the theater that day. *** References, pages 2-20, 107-110 at https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/T-Jackets-112.pdf .

I appreciate Miles’ comment, that a notation that the bill was torn signifies more than a minor or seemingly accidental small tear. Someone noticed that bill was “torn” in some way notable, and had “300” written on it. “Torn” could mean anything, a portion torn off, or a particularly deep or unusual looking tear in a whole dollar bill. What can be concluded is that though that could be nothing and therefore is no positive evidence or indication in itself that it’s use was for Oswald to meet someone, at the same time if Oswald were meeting someone unknown to him that is an extremely plausible mechanism for how it would be done in a theater (matching tear and number on a dollar bill). And the independent positive grounds suggesting Oswald could be meeting someone are his behavior in sitting in the seat immediately next to Davis, then getting up after a few moments and moving to repeat the same with another patron again, then getting up after a few moments and going out into the popcorn concession area, told by Davis who witnessed that. Can’t take the evidence beyond that I don’t think.

You are saying it is LIKELY that the prints, belonging to one single person lifted from the two specific locations matching to where the killer was witnessed in a scene of high action and physical movements of hands, came from someone OTHER than that killer. Now it is perfectly obvious why one would think that if one knows the killer was Oswald. Because it has been found to be fact (easily discovered but only first publicly disclosed in 1998, a mere 35 years after the case was deemed solved) that those prints did not come from Oswald. If those prints HAD been left by the killer, that is exculpatory to Oswald, and would mean, astonishingly to many people, that it wasn’t him after all. But as you know as well as anyone, the case against Oswald as the killer of Tippit, if it had come to trial then, with all the information known today, and all information is stipulated admissible, was strong, many consider so strong as to be airtight. Assuming a competent prosecutor, the case would fairly be said to be a tough one for a defense counsel to beat. Principally referring to the witnesses’ identifications of Oswald and the shell hulls at the scene exclusively matched to Oswald’s revolver on him at the time of his arrest. Defense counsel would attempt to show flawed chain of custody on the shell hulls (leaving open the possibility of police malfeasance in the handling of physical evidence), argue for witness errors in the identifications, and argue that a better suspect for the killer was mob- and Ruby-connected confessed contract killer Curtis Craford, known to have a history not only of witnesses mistakenly identifying him as Oswald, but reports that he personally at times had falsely represented himself to be Lee Oswald, including with wallet identification, which defense counsel would suggest could be related to the killer leaving a wallet with Oswald identification while leaving the crime scene, like disposing of a murder weapon no longer needed so as not to be found on one’s person if arrested and searched. If you know it was Oswald however, then the chances that those fingerprints lifted from the patrol car could have come from the killer is indeed low, as in zero, for that reason. Even though the original reason police lifted those prints in the first place was because those two locations were where the killer had been seen, and at least one crime lab officer was reported as believing those were the killer’s prints (in the O’Toole book). Is your belief or knowledge, or however you want to put it, that Oswald was the killer, or is that not, entering into your statements that it is more likely someone other than the killer would have left those prints? You have consistently refused to give a straight answer to this question when asked. Why not answer the question?

Dallas Police Detective L.C. Graves, WC, under oath US Post Office Inspector Holmes, same Ruth Paine, Oswald writing letter, same Marina Oswald, same, HSCA, memoirs Lee and Marina Michael Paine, saw letter of Oswald weekend written, WC testimony Letter, handwritten Oswald, authenticated as Oswald’s handwriting Conflicting reports on how Oswald answered Hosty’s Mexico City question Nov 22. All reports agree the question was asked, Oswald’s answer was interrupted, and there was no follow-up to the question after the interruption. And of course there is no tape or verbatim stenographers transcription of what Oswald said. Against reports that Oswald denied, Hosty’s sworn Church Committee testimony said Oswald did not answer the question. Other reports say Oswald’s reaction or answer was to the effect of, “How did you find that out?” The lack of follow-up to the question certainly calls into doubt that there was any interest in confirming a “yes” answer. more like a hot potato question and maybe coverup attempt of Oswald having been there.

A highly credible US FBI informant highly placed in the U.S. Communist Party, Childs, reported to his handlers (in this case he actually had documented FBI handlers) that he had met with Castro in Cuba and Castro told him he had been informed of Oswald’s visit to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. Sounds like Castro and Castro’s sources in Mexico City believed it was Oswald there. Either it was a pretty good impersonation of Oswald or maybe it was Oswald. And Oswald back in Dallas told of being in Mexico City according to multiple witnesses, it’s in his address book, no evidence Oswald was somewhere else in the days in question, against interest for US agencies/handlers post-Nov 22 to suborn perjury to have Oswald there. Surely the lack of produced photo surveillance of Oswald in agreement with post-Nov 22 US interest not to have public evidence of Oswald Cuban/Soviet contacts, is amenable to some other explanation than that Oswald never was there.

Are you influenced in saying that by your knowledge that Lutz found those prints do not match to Oswald? Because like judges tell juries to disregard having heard certain statements, Bayesian prior judgements of expectations going into a problem are not retroactively shaped or influenced by later information. The Bayesian question is if you did not know, what would your life experience and judgment suggest as rough odds for the lead (good lead, smoking good lead, far-fetched, nonstarter, etc) before running it down and finding out. I don’t think I have heard you either deny or confirm that the non-Oswald identity knowledge enters into your judgment stated above. Would you confirm or deny that? In the interests of transparency as to your epistemology? Incidentally, there is absolutely nothing amiss with saying a lead that looked good or likely as a judgment based on experience, high Bayesian prior odds, when checked and investigated was falsified or different from expected, for other reasons and evidence learned xyz. That happens all the time (truth turns out differing from expectations). So it would be perfectly legitimate to have high Bayesian prior odds on, say, fingerprints on the Tippit cruiser, or a palm print on a box at the sixth floor sniper’s window TSBD, turn out on the basis of subsequent hard information to be unrelated to the gunman at those two locations. But I am asking you to say up or down in good faith whether you believe your statement quoted above is INFLUENCED by your knowledge that one particular person is known excluded as the Tippit patrol car prints’ source? Thanks.

Sandy I realize this is only one detail in your larger argument, but on this business that Ruth lied in saying she moved her sofa on Nov 10, 1963, did you read my post in that thread on that? I showed Ruth's sofa-moving, far from being a sinister plot, was done twice a year based on the changing time of sunset putting the setting sun in the west directly through that picture window on the south wall into the eyes of anyone sitting on the sofa against the east wall. The east wall was the preferred position of the sofa because it was private, even with the picture window draperies open because off to one side of the room and not on fishbowl display visible from the street as people were when the sofa was against the north wall. However, that preferred east wall sofa location worked only in the winter months when the sun set earlier. In the spring, summer, and fall months the sun in the eyes in the 6-8 pm time made the sofa on the east wall uncomfortable, so Ruth moved the sofa to the north wall those months. To not have the setting sun direct in the eyes when watching television in the evening. Nov 10, 1963 was when Ruth had the sofa moved from the north to the east wall, and the sofa was moved again back to the north wall sometime before March 23 as the time of sunset came to be later in the day again. Ruth in her Warren Commission testimony in March 1963 simply was mistaken in memory which wall her sofa was against in November 1963. Her testimony was in error but it was a mistake, not part of an elaborate plot to commit perjury in intentionally for nefarious purposes giving the wrong location of her sofa in Nov 1963 (which could easily be falsified from photographs). Alas, my humble post appearing belatedly in that thread with my simple mundane explanation received no attention, changed no one's mind. DiEugenio--and you (as continuing here to present moment)--and everyone just merrily continued with the elaborate Ruth Perjury Over Sofa Moving Plot--because why accept a simple explanation that clears Ruth Paine from a fresh allegation when a vastly complex scenario that makes her guilty of perjury can be had? On the rest of what you write, you did answer the question so I hand that to you, but I sure do not see this notion of your ubiquitous handlers suborning many witnesses like marionettes to perjury, wholesale and flagrantly and massively, as you do, all done so skillfully that not a single one ever talked or told of such marionette-stringing of handlers of witnesses to perjure in the rest of their entire lives. I won't press this, except that the ones you've got marionette-stringed perjuring in this instance is only the tip of the iceberg, there are many more. For example, how do you interpret Dallas Police Detective L.C. Graves who testified under oath that he personally heard Oswald telling Secret Service Kelley, semi-privately after interrogation was completed on Nov 24, Oswald telling about his Mexico City trip? Graves' handler had him do that? Of course, guess I didn't even need to ask that, right? No, I don't think of myself as an apologist for the Warren Commission. But that doesn't mean I have to buy every theory that makes no sense.