Greg Doudna

[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. 

6 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Shouldn't researchers consider this Burroughs young man and his Oswald theater recollection with at least some reservation considering his admitted army rejection limitations in the mental capacity department?

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.

On 12/14/2023 at 7:43 AM, Bill Brown said:

Except that there is nothing which makes it "likely" that the partial prints belong to the killer.

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? 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Cites please.

Oswald denied ever being in Mexico City in his interrogations.

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.

13 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

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.

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Except that there is nothing which makes it "likely" that the partial prints belong to the killer.

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.

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What Chris Newton showed was that Ruth lied about moving the furniture in her livingroom. And my hypothesis was really a summary of the point he was trying to make. (I had to ask him because it wasn't clear to me what his point was.) Anyway, Jim D. has wanted Chris to write this up for his K&K website, but Chris hasn't been able to, for personal reasons I guess.

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. 

2 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Greg, read your comment. If you want to rephrase, please do; otherwise I can only conclude you stand by it. 

You showed information that convinced me Albarelli's June Cobb and Renee Lafitte were who they said they were, and because those two are, I accept Phen Lafitte is as well. I retracted and deleted the post to which you refer in which I questioned that they were who they said they were. No I do not stand by that now, that is what I meant when I said I retracted it. You've convinced me, they are real people by their true names. No I do not wish to rephrase what I retracted and have deleted. I speculated on the basis of the information I had, you showed it wrong with information, I accept the correction, retracted the error and deleted the post. 

28 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Better still, you can review your relevant comment on this thread and clarify your meaning. Perhaps I misinterpreted.

 What do you want clarified about it specifically? 

46 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

We don't merely cherry pick witnesses like your KGB three to be frauds. We think they are frauds because 1) there are some legitimate reasons not to believe them, and 2) their statements conflict with making sense of other evidence. 

Could you apply your criteria to the Soviet embassy letter of Oswald written over the weekend of Nov 9-11 and what evidence or reason causes you to conclude Oswald never wrote it even though not a single expert has ever questioned the handwriting authentication as Oswald’s handwriting. 

Could you explain why you suppose both Ruth and Marina perjured under oath in saying they saw Lee writing that letter. Who do you think put both of them up to perjuring in that way and why? 

Michael Paine was also there and testified under oath that he saw the letter. Who do you think put Michael Paine up to perjury about that and why?

The relevance of these questions of course is that Lee wrote in that letter about his trip to Mexico City and visit to the Cuban consulate. 

2 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Greg Doudna the apology should be directed to Hank Albarelli and his family and professional colleagues, Greg. 

Leslie please be specific in how you feel I have wronged Albarelli, his family and colleagues, or you. I want to know specifically what you are charging me with to avoid guessing and misunderstanding. 

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

Whether you two like it or not, it's foolish to attempt to build a case that the prints must belong to the killer when it is not absolute that the prints belong to the killer.

Misrepresentation and straw man Bill. “likely” belong to the killer as prior odds, not “must”.

43 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

 

@Greg Doudna Would you please retract your defamatory innuendo now? Many thanks in advance.

 

O bituary - T e le grap h, T he (Nashua, NH) - June 22, 20 0 0

June 22, 2000 | Teleg raph, The (Nashua, NH)

Reneé (Chag not) Martin, 95, of Goffstown, died Wednesday, June 21, 2000, at the Villa Crest

Retirement Community in Manchester.

Mrs. Martin was born Nov., 24, 1904 in Seloncour, France, to the late Emile and Eugenie (Guetal)

Chagnot. She later moved to New York state.

She was the widow of Jean Pierre Martin.

Mrs. Martin worked as a model in New York City. She also owned a restaurant, "Couret's" with her

first husband.

She graduated from Hunter College with an associate's degree.

Survivors include two sons, Michel E. Couret of Goffstown and Pierre X. Lafitte of Littleton; 11

grandchildren; nine great-grandchildren; and several nieces, nephews and cousins.

T he French & Rising Funeral Home in Goffstown is in charge of arrangements.

CIT AT ION (AGLC S T YLE)

'Obituary', Teleg raph, The (online), 22 Jun 2000 ‹https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?

p=AMNEWS&docref=news/1070E0F132C65F77›

Copyrig ht 2000, 2004 The Teleg raph, Nashua, N.H. All Rig hts Reserved

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I retract it.

No mention of a daughter of Renee in the obituary, maybe Phen is a granddaughter, doesnt matter, I retract. 

Quite a family and best wishes to any reading this, and I promise to never question the existence of your grandmother again! 

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

The “300” pencil notation on Oswald’s torn bill is kind of interesting though. It could be nothing - like some cashier just wrote it on a random bill Oswald picked up at a gas station or something - but if Oswald wrote the “300” on his torn bill for whatever reason that could be noteworthy.

Tom yes lots of bills have writing on them, nothing says Oswald wrote the “300”. But then it’s a little unclear why anyone would. I hadn’t paid attention to that until your mention, but I wonder if that could mean 3:00 pm. 

3 pm Friday is the time I separately previously fixed on as speculated Oswald’s intended time to meet someone in the Theatre. That was my hunch that there was possible code meaning in a telephone message someone phoned in to the Carousel Club which was written down by and in the handwriting of Curtis Craford: (from memory) Mr. Miller, Friday, 15 people, Collins Radio. 

It is undated. No phone number attached. No known Collins Radio company event at the Carousel fitting that description or Collins Radio patronage of the Carousel Club any known time to my knowledge. 

This could be hallucinating, but here is a possible decoding. It is some kind of information on a meeting related to Fri Nov 22 that may be related to Oswald.

”Friday” is Fri Nov 22.

”15 persons” is military time 1500 hours or 3:00 pm.

”Collins Radio” has something to do with Carl Mather of Collins Radio, friend of Tippit, spotted in a car bearing his license plate but a different car than he owned, seen at ca 2:00 pm Fri Nov 22, parked on Beckley halfway between Oswald’s rooming house and the Texas Theatre, doing nothing there but that. 

Mather drove all the way from Collins Radio, where he was at work that morning up to about the time of news of the assassination, far away to Oak Cliff on Beckley; was parked in a restaurant parking lot remaining seated inside his parked car there for some minutes; then drove away from there without having done anything except sit there parked for some minutes; drove the long way back and was seen by his wife arriving home in his right car of his license plate; then with his wife and children drove back to Oak Cliff in a different car to the home of the bereaved Mrs. Tippit who had just lost her husband; consoled Mrs. Tippit for a couple of hours; then drove the long way home again. As absolutely bizarre as that sounds, every single detail just named happened and is verified. Only the interpretation is at issue (and where theories are likely to founder).

Moving from those facts to attempt interpretation, I have thought Mather’s waiting in that parking lot could have something to do with waiting for the time of a planned meeting, say at the nearby Texas Theatre with Oswald who had been seen at a restaurant at the same time as Tippit was there in recent days (the Dobbs House near Oswald’s rooming house). And I believe it was Tippit, patrol car 10, looking for Oswald at his rooming house ca 1 pm seen by half-blind housekeeper Earlene Roberts who thought the car number had maybe been “107”. 

The behavior of Mather (waiting in the car) agrees with waiting to appear at a certain time somewhere after arriving to a destination proximity early. The lack of a meeting happening agrees with the meeting aborted because of Oswald’s arrest. The time of his driving away (ca 2 pm per mechanic White) would correspond to hearing news on the radio of Oswald’s arrest. (It is also conceivable Mather could have been there to meet Tippit, unrelated to Oswald or the Texas Theatre, and drove away unable to have that meeting because Tippit had been killed, perhaps Mather parking his car and sitting there just to think. There are two or three ways the interpretation of Mather’s movements could go.)

But I connected Mather there in Oak Cliff at 2 pm with the Carousel Club phone message note re Collins Radio “15 persons” as a possible 3:00 pm meeting of Mather with Oswald.

And I also saw plausibility in that time as about the most logical timing for a planned afternoon meeting with Oswald after the presidential parade when he was at the TSBD.

So Tom, your attention to Oswald carrying a dollar bill in his pocket in the Theatre with handwritten “300” … well, what? Oswald writing a note to himself? (Or handed to him with the time?) Is there a photo of that written 300? Probably too little data to verify Oswald wrote it if so, but possibly enough to show Oswald didn’t write it if so. 

The “Mr. Miller” of the Craford/Carousel Collins Radio note, by this cryptic reading, would be a use of the name Miller parallel or possibly related to a different cryptic use of the same last name Miller in this way: I have earlier established to my satisfaction (with the help of a couple others in conversation) that the name “Leona Miller” (the name of a real woman known to Ruby at his synagogue but who had nothing to do with this use of her name) was used by agreement suggested by Craford or Ruby in communication with one of the Davis sisters-in-law at the corner of Tenth and Patton where the Tippit killing happened; the younger Davis girl, age 16, her and her husband’s home phone number is in Ruby’s notebook written there as the number of “Leona Miller” even though Leona Miller never had that phone number and never lived there. How that is accounted for is one of the Davis sisters-in-law had phoned to the Carousel Club to inquire of employment but did not want her husband to know of the inquiry or at least not yet. By agreement, suggested at Carousel’s end for just this kind of situation, that could be how Ruby or someone from the Carousel Club could call to speak to one of the Davis sisters-in-law without the husband knowing who was calling: ask for Leona Miller. If the husband answered it would be a wrong number call. 

“Leona Miller” cryptic in Ruby’s notebook. “Mr. Miller” in the Collins Radio Friday 15 persons phone call note cryptic as well?

There are loose ends not explained in the above and it may be Rorschach Inkblotting or seeing patterns in clouds in the sky. 

But the “300” on that dollar bill in Oswald’s pocket called that to mind.

3 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Do you see the note that says “(Above bears pencil notation “300” - bill torn)” ?

It does seem like we should be able to compare the DPD bill photo with these serial numbers. Either way it looks like Oswald did have one torn bill on him. 

OK, got it. But no photos to tell how much torn or what the tear looked like? Doesn’t advance information much. 

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Well said. I’m guessing that Bill’s only “logic” in rating a low probability on this is that the prints are not Oswald’s. 

Don’t tell Bill I said so Tom, but I suspect you’re right! 😊

4 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

As Micah Millet pointed out in another thread there is evidence of a torn $ bill.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24479-lee-harvey-oswalds-possessions/

 

Bill am I missing something, how is this evidence of a torn dollar bill? It’s evidence of dollar bills on Oswald that I can see, not a torn one. Also, didn’t the torn dollar bill DPD photo give serial numbers? I bet those serial numbers differ from the ones on this document. 

5 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

There is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald had a torn half of a dollar bill.  This is nothing more than a factoid, foolishly invented by John Armstrong.  Upon arrest, an inventory of Oswald's possessions mentions nothing about half of a dollar bill.  Armstrong found a notation on a piece of paper inside the Dallas Police archives that mentioned a torn half of a dollar bill, but even this particular piece of paper has nothing on it which even hints to it being anything assassination-related.

Bill I agree with you on this which is why I worded it the way I did. I challenged that a while ago in some thread on this forum on exactly these grounds but someone did come back at me and showed somehow the unidentified provenance torn dollar bill DPD photo of some evidence item was physically among evidence items which were Oswald’s, at the DPD filing or storage end of things. How did that happen? But I agree it’s not confirmed Oswald’s. 

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

"That’s possible Bill. I wondered that too. But against, is he kept moving to different persons, three or four times."

Jack Davis, who you agree is credible, has Oswald sitting beside (or almost sitting beside) only TWO people.

There was Davis himself and Gibson to his right at the corner of the theater, that’s two, and was there something about a man to Davis’s left on the other side of the aisle from Davis? I don’t remember for sure. Maybe it was just those two from Davis. 

Then there is one more from Burroughs, Oswald sitting next to a pregnant woman after Oswald reentered the theater on the other side from Davis after being in the concession area where Burroughs had the popcorn. That makes three, 2 from Davis, 1 from Burroughs. 

The stories of Burroughs and Davis agree on the behavior of Oswald sitting next to strangers, Oswald in the concession area where Burroughs was selling popcorn, and at the time of the opening credits. Did Burroughs remember Oswald in the concession area and embellished that saying he sold him popcorn? Who knows. But that’s what Burroughs said, and Davis has Oswald walking out the rear of the theater into the concession area during the opening credits time the same time Burroughs says. 

2 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Greg Doudna please acknowledge that you have seen the photo I've parked momentarily on my FB page; and retract your defamatory accusation that Hank Albarelli lied about his source.

Renee Chagnot

b. Nov 24, 1904  -- Selancour FR

d. June 21, 2000 -- US

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2126475874356938&id=100009836370242&mibextid=Nif5oz

I get a broken link and “page not available” from your link so saw no photo on your Facebook. But I see the photo of ca 85-yr old June Cobb and one of her brothers you posted here; thanks for posting that photo.

I never accused Albarelli of lying about his source, at least I don’t remember doing so. I thought Albarelli may have been deceived, different thing. 

From your photo however, I retract the idea that Albarelli’s June Cobb, the godmother of his grandson, was not the real June Cobb from Ponca City OK.

I still don’t know how someone as famous as June Cobb could die with no known newspaper notice or obituary, but maybe that is less unusual than I supposed, probably happens all the time (a lot) dependent on the accident of whether a family member proactively makes an announcement happen. But what a story June Cobb—the CIA femme fatale in her heyday—would have to tell!! I hope her story via Albarelli may see the light of day. 

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Davis seems credible?  Okay.

When does Davis say he saw popcorn in Oswald's hands?

Davis never said he saw popcorn in Oswald’s hands. The sitting next to Davis was before Oswald moved to sit next to Gibson and then went out the rear to the concession area. The popcorn purchase would happen after Oswald left sitting next to Davis. 

Who would have seen popcorn in his hands would be the pregnant lady that Burroughs says Oswald next sat next to in the theater (she got up and didn’t return to that seat). Then Oswald at some point moved again to where he was when arrested.

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

Re: Jack Davis and Oswald sitting beside himself and another guy, consider the possibility that Oswald wanted to appear to be part of a small group of patrons versus a man sitting by himself.  Just sayin'.

That’s possible Bill. I wondered that too. But against, is he kept moving to different persons, three or four times. And he was sitting directly next to lone strangers in a nearly empty theater, not two or three seats away, and directly next in a nearly empty theater is definite invasion of personal space.

(But suppose he feared someone might find him and shoot at him right there in the theater. Sitting immediately next to someone might deter someone from shooting from a distance, gaining time for Oswald (who was armed) to react?)

John Martino whom Larry Hancock argues had knowledge of the assassination plot in Dallas said Oswald was meeting someone in the theater who unknown to Oswald was going to kill Oswald but the Tippit killing messed things up. The seating directly next to each person, then quick leaving, then repeating the same with another patron several times, in a theater of only 14 tickets in all sold by Julia Postal that day, do seem to weigh in favor that Oswald was looking for a contact. Plus some think a torn dollar bill in DPD inventory with other Oswald materials suggests that was on Oswald in the theater in keeping with a known practice in theaters for meeting contacts. 

6 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"The partial prints lifted from the patrol car REASONABLY APPEAR LIKELY..."

No.  This is not true at all.  A possibility?  Of course.  Likely?  Nope.  There is no reason at all to claim that it is likely that the killer ever touched the patrol car, much less the front hood/fender/quarter panel.

The first fact is that some one person put those prints there in both places, one of which is decidedly unusual (right palm print on the right front bumper low to the ground). .

The second fact is that however unlikely you suppose it would be for the Tippit killer, known to have been at both locations with hands inches away, or in the case of the right front passenger door witnessed leaning onto the car with arms or hands directly touching, to have left those prints …

… it is some magnitude still less likely that any other person would, for the same reasons you think it unlikely from the man known at those two locations of the car in live and dramatic action involving hands and motion. 

Just be real. At one of the two print locations, the top of the right front passenger door, one witness, Helen Markham, said she saw the killer leaning right on the car there with his arms crossed, hands right there at the top of that car door exactly where prints were lifted twenty minutes later.

And another witness, Jimmy Burt, claimed he saw the killer’s hands directly on the car, in physical contact with the car, at exactly that location (where prints were lifted twenty minutes later).

You can handwave however you like about this, it speaks for itself.

It is short of certainty yes. But I’d say realistically and conservatively it is in the maybe ca 70-95% range of Bayesian prior odds (odds based on known experience and information prior to discovery of the actual solution, a quantification of expectations prior to learning the truth of a matter). 

You agree it is possible a man seen standing at a car in two specific places with his hands witnessed near the car at both and witnessed touching the car at one might conceivably be the mystery person who left those prints.

I am puzzled at why you judge a very low Bayesian prior probability, as if there are higher-prior-odds possibilities elsewhere (remember, single individual only, both places). Are you supposing, say, one of the Tenth Street onlookers, or one of the ambulance attendants or a police officer, or a gas station attendant or whatever, is more likely to be that individual than the Tippit killer? 

Why not be consistent and argue no human is likely to have left those prints, for the same reasons you claim the Tippit killer is unlikely to have done so? (Just being consistent in carrying out what seems to be your logic.)

I think some human at those two locations did leave those prints, I suspect the killer of Tippit.