Greg Doudna

11 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Let's concentrate for a moment on shell #3.  The FBI visited Captain Doughty in June of '64 and presented him with all four shell casings.  He looked them over, found his mark on one of them and identified that shell casing that he handled that day.  So we have a shell casing found at the scene linked through ballistic testing to the revolver taken from Oswald when he was arrested inside the theater, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.  Since all four shell casings were fired from the same weapon, then all four shell casings were fired from Oswald's revolver (even if we cannot establish a chain of custody for the other three shells, which we can indeed, in my opinion).  Just the one shell casing (shell #3) would be enough to send Oswald to death row for killing a cop.

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.  

29 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

"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."

The prints lifted by Barnes were only partial prints.  Because of this, they were of no value in determining who they belonged to.

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. 

7 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

"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."

So then you believe that Crafard was also wearing a shirt in which the shirt fibers were an exact match with test fibers removed from Oswald's arrest shirt?

For those who may be unaware, microscopic fibers were found inside one of the sleeves of the jacket found underneath one of the care behind the Texaco station.  Test fibers were removed from the shirt Oswald was wearing when he was arrested inside the theater.

When comparing fibers forensically, one does so using three fiber characteristics... Color, shade and twist.  The fibers found inside the sleeve of the jacket (CE-162) were a match to the test fibers removed from Oswald's arrest shirt, i.e. the exact same color, the exact same shade and the exact same twist.

Incidentally, a tuft of fibers were also found in a crevice between the metal butt plate and the wooden stock of the rifle (CE-139) found up on the sixth floor.  These rifle fibers were also compared to the test fibers removed from Oswald's arrest shirt.  Yep.  Exact same color, shade and twist.

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.

5 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

It's been amost 50 years since I was a cop. The guys I worked with are all either dead or retired. Likewise, any connections I had with the FBI, SS or State Police are long gone. My advice would be to connect with someone who is currently in law enforcement and see if they could find any record of the fingerprints. I'm pretty sure that a national database of fingerprints did not exist in 1963. If this Craford was fingerprinted, his prints may be on file with the FBI or the local police where he was arrested. If they are found, then you would have to have the fingerprints taken from the cruiser and his compared by an expert.

Thanks Gil.

1 minute ago, Bill Brown said:

"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."

No Sir.  I did not err at all.

I have both the transcripts and the audio of the 1968 Al Chapman interview with Jimmy Burt for the National Enquirer.  Although Chapman claims in his article that Burt said the man was not Oswald, the fact is that Burt didn't say it at all.

Chapman did not include the transcripts in the article.  I wonder why...  Not really.

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!  

2 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

"She herself said she covered her face with her hands and did not look when the killer left the patrol car and came west in what looked like her direction."

No.  Markham describes covering her eyes momentarily.  Then, she spread apart her fingers and looked at the killer and he looked at her.  This is almost a direct quote, Greg.

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.  

1 minute ago, Bill Brown said:

So because sometimes a suspect can be wrongly convicted means all suspects are wrongly convicted?  Come on, now.

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. 

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Greg, Crafard joined the military and entered in Salem, Oregon.  You're out that way.  Why not make an attempt to locate Crafard's fingerprints?  They'll show that the prints lifted by Barnes will not be a match to Crafard's prints and then you'll have to cease with this Crafard stuff.

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.  

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

If Crafard was the gunman?  No.  Crafard was not the gunman; Oswald was.  How do we know this?  Easy.  Of the 13 REAL witnesses, 9 said the man was Oswald and 4 chose to not say one way or the other.  Zero said the man was not Oswald.  Also, Crafard was not the owner of the revolver which was linked (through ballistic testing) to the shell casings found at the scene.  How is Crafard the shooter when nine different witnesses said the man was Oswald? 

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. 

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.