Greg Doudna

Roger, is it certain Oswald (if he were innocent) would have known that he needed an alibi for being somewhere other than at a window shooting at the time of the shots? Would Oswald have known that a rifle had been found on the 6th floor, or that the shots came from there? Everyone else in the world knew that from TV news, but did Oswald have access to TV news? Or to other prisoners who did who would tell him? Nothing in the interrogation reports seems to verify him being told specifically of what was found on the 6th floor, or that a Mannlicher-Carcano was found there and traced to him. Lots of earwitnesses were not sure where the shots came from, some thought they came from the Grassy Knoll, others thought from the TSBD but few had any clear idea of where in the TSBD exactly. How would Oswald know what alibi in terms of location he needed, specifically?

Another question: when Oswald learned he was being charged with the assassination of Kennedy, is it certain he understand that to mean he was charged with shooting the rifle that killed JFK? There are charges that could be brought against persons or conspirators in the assassination who may not necessarily have been gunmen. Oswald would have known he was being suspected and accused of involvement in the assassination, and a reporter in the hall asked if he shot the president, but is it certain Oswald realized the police thought he had personally shot JFK? Unless he knew that, he might not not know of need or significance in establishing his precise location at the moment JFK was shot, or that that necessarily was an issue. 

Your questions re Oswald's establishing an alibi assume Oswald knew what it was he needed an alibi for, and while that has always been assumed, and may be so, just for the record how is that known as distinguished from assumed? 

Roger, yes. But there is another unknown in this: exactly what wording did Nichols of the Dallas Bar Association use in asking Oswald if he would like the Dallas Bar's assistance in obtaining counsel? There is no record, or testimony, as to exact wording. By Nichols' own account, the Dallas Bar came to Oswald with no concrete offer of legal assistance, only Nichols' inquiry whether Oswald would like the Dallas Bar to attempt to find him a lawyer. How long would that take? Nichols could very legitimately have said (we don't know) this could take a couple of days, I can ask but you understand there is no guarantee on how immediate this may be. Nichols certainly was not volunteering himself to be counsel for Oswald, and Nichols explicitly told reporters afterward that he could not speak for any other lawyer until he made Oswald's request known and some other lawyer expressed willingness.

If it were expressed in terms of non-immediacy, Oswald, who may have anticipated being in direct phone contact or via intermediary with Abt imminently, as in within hours, could have answered to Nichols that he would pursue his Abt preference first. Which could then be reported by Nichols as Oswald turning down Nichols' offer to immediately begin seeking an offer of a lawyer for Oswald.

There was also activity on the same day, Saturday Nov 23, on the part of Oswald's mother, Marguerite, to obtain a lawyer. Not only was that on Marguerite's mind according to her own account and told by Ruth Paine, but Police Chief Curry directly told reporters that he had information that Marguerite was attempting to find an attorney for Oswald that day. 

That corresponds to Monk Zeldon, New Orleans' premier criminal defense attorney, representing Dean Andrews at the time and stating directly with Dean Andrews standing beside him, that the inquiry to Dean Andrews for legal counsel for Oswald on Sat Nov 23 had come from Marguerite Oswald of Dallas. Nobody has believed that. Everybody has bought the Clay Shaw angle as if that was gospel truth, as if Clay Shaw would have an interest in secretly finding a lawyer for Oswald (why would he care?). But what Monk Zeldon said is the true story of the true inquiry that came to Dean Andrews--who already was Oswald's lawyer in New Orleans--on that. And it was not Dean Andrews being asked if he wanted to do so, as if he had a choice. No, Dean Andrews was told to do it. And the reason Dean Andrews would not reveal who specifically had called him (the intermediary relaying the inquiry from Marguerite), even perjuring himself in his answers, is because it came through Marguerite's old Mob family contacts in New Orleans, and Dean Andrews feared them more than he feared legal prosecution for perjury! 

And we have it from Dean Andrews' son, in his recent book, that Dean Andrews was under a mob contract out on his life at the time, which Marcello was protecting Dean Andrews from! (Think about that. What does that sound like? Could that possibly have played a role in Dean Andrews' refusal to give straight answers concerning the lawyer inquiry?)

But back to Oswald in Dallas. Was Oswald aware of Marguerite's reaching out to New Orleans for a lawyer for him? Probably not necessarily. It would be good to know further details on how that worked on that day though, on Sat Nov 23.

In reading CE 994 of Marina, these random observations...

Date of document: it refers to a time when Marina is in the care of the Secret Service and she says well treated by them, and a time when Americans are sending money to her, and it is before her later Warren Commission testimony, and there are differences in a number of small details with her later Warren Commission testimony. It looks like this document comes from "early", perhaps in the immediate aftermath of the Dallas ACLU/Ruth Paine letter suspecting and inquiring whether Marina was being held incommunicado against her will by the Secret Service.

Composition and editing of the document: its in the name and voice of Marina, yet it is readable in flawless, clear, grammatical English, so obviously has been cleaned up in editing, and probably ghostwritten for Marina on the basis of information provided by Marina. It can't stray too far from what Marina herself said, but the way it is expressed was done professionally on her behalf. 

Now for a few observations of differences, in this early document compared to her "later" Warren Commission testimony. In this earlier document...

-- she says Linnie Mae Randle is the one who found Lee's job opening at the TSBD. (Linnie Mae distanced herself from that in Linnie Mae's WC testimony.) The attribution to Linnie Mae and Buell as having found the job opening for Lee appears in early news reporting, and also receives late corroboration in Buell's 2021 book. Before the Monday morning Oct 14 coffee klatch, Linnie Mae knew of Lee's need for a job and had asked Buell to check at his workplace, TSBD, which Buell did (checked with Shelley who checked with Truly and Shelley told Buell to have him come in and apply, yes), and reported back to Linnie Mae that there was a green light to apply, or a job opening. That happened at the end of the previous week, and Monday morning Oct 14 was when Linnie Mae walked over to TELL Ruth and Marina of this development. Later the story came to be turned around to Ruth got Lee the job, when Ruth had little to do with causing that to happen. (Lee would have gotten the job whether or not Ruth called Truly herself--that was not a decisive variable.) 

-- on the night of Oct 4 when Lee showed up unexpectedly in Irving and called from the Irving bus station, Marina says Lee hitchhiked from there to Ruth's house because Ruth's car was broken down and being repaired, is why Ruth could not come to pick him up. Later in WC testimony, no mention of Ruth's car being repaired and the explanation for lack of pickup of Lee at the bus station is given as Marina refusing to Lee to ask Ruth to come pick her up, explaining that Ruth had given blood that day and was tired.

-- Marina dates her previous sighting of the "rifle in the blanket" in the garage to "three weeks" before the assassination, which agrees with her earliest statements of ca. 2-3 weeks earlier, in rough agreement in timing with her actual unadmitted assistance to Lee on Nov 11 of retrieving the rifle from the garage and taking it to a shop in Irving to have the scope base mount repaired (https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Irving-Sport-Shop-109-pdf.pdf). In her later versions Marina changes the timing of her "garage rifle sighting" way back to as early as possible, early in October soon after arrival from New Orleans, claiming she never saw the rifle again after that early Oct time.

-- she says Lee unusually did not eat anything or drink coffee either on the morning of Nov 21 before he left for work. I believe it was Ruth (or Marina too?) who later testified that Lee did not eat breakfast (which Marina said was normal?), but DID drink coffee (only) that morning before he left.

-- on Lee wanting to buy Marina a washing machine, here Marina says they were thinking a cheaper used washing machine, not an expensive new one.

-- here, Marina says she was the one urging Lee to learn to drive and get a car, whereas Lee was indifferent (but did go along with learning from Ruth's driving tutoring of him). The later testimony from Michael Paine is that he and Ruth were urging or trying to help Lee get his drivers license and be able to get an affordable used car.

-- Marina says she was denied access to Lee on Friday night Nov 22.

-- when Marina did get to see Lee on Saturday it is almost surreal her description of what Lee said to her: "I talked with Lee, he asked about the children, soothed me, and told me not to worry. Everything would be all right, and all would be cleared up." As if this was all only a very unfortunate misunderstanding, and would quickly be cleared up! Sounds more like someone working for the govt anticipating intervention and release, than someone who actually assassinated a president?

-- Marina's interpretation of Lee being killed on Sunday morning: "... and then I learned that my husband had died. It was a great sorrow for me to be left with two little babies, not knowing English, and without any money. But I thought that if my husband actually did this deed, God judged correctly. After all, it is easier to die unexpectedly than on the electric chair under present laws." THAT reads to me as bullshit crafted for her, although Marina may have accepted that framing in the writeup. Or maybe Marina did have that interpretation or rationalization of what happened, though I don't recall any repetition of Marina of that line of reasoning after this and I just doubt it. (Marina clearly wanted her husband to be innocent if it were possible, and the normal reaction of a family member who loves a family member accused of a serious crime is to want to see them have a trial and a good legal defense, even if they fear he did do it, not be murdered prior to trial.) (It shows up in Ruth's later Redbook interview, and I don't remember, thought I remember seeing that line of reasoning one or two other places too. But in checking Priscilla McMillan's Marina and Lee just now I do not see Marina talking like that in that book.)

-- The wording in which Marina in this document says she is "99%" convinced (against her will) of Lee's guilt, sounds like a clash between Marina's true feelings (not sure, I know it looks bad from all the evidence they're telling me, but I hope he's innocent) and the professionals managing her public image who want her to endorse his guilt and come to personal and public closure on that. The compromise was to have Marina say she was "99%" convinced, framing a wording that would obtain Marina's agreement. Compromise wording: "Although 99 percent of the evidence was against my husband I nonetheless thought that he had not done it; I did not want to believe this fearful truth." She never DOES overtly say in this document that she "believes" he did it! (Notice the later conditional, with reference to when Lee was killed by Ruby: "if my husband actually did this deed, God judged correctly.") That is how a professional writer finessed that.   

-- ends on a negative note toward the FBI (compare Secret Service rivalry with FBI, and Marina writing this while in the custody of the Secret Service). Interesting wording, speaking of the FBI: "I think that they should not count on my practically becoming their agent if I desire to stay and live in the United States." That is what Marina believed Hosty's earlier visit to her in Irving was about.

-- Marina in this document speaks only favorably and well of Ruth Paine. Yet in fact at the same time with no explanation to Ruth resolutely refuses any contact with Ruth, despite Ruth's efforts.

-- Finally this: "I am very, very grateful to the Secret Service agents who treated me so well and took such good care of me. Although some of the letters which I received accused these wonderful people of preventing me from seeing others, I am free to do anything I want." That is a direct reference to the Dallas ACLU/Ruth Paine letter sent to her at a time when ACLU/Ruth suspected Marina could be being held incommunicado against her will. It relates directly to Marina's account of the Secret Service's reaction that that very letter in Marina's New Orleans Grand Jury testimony when Marina misspoke "CIA" for "ACLU", that the Secret Service objected to her about Ruth Paine, recommending that Marina remain severed from Ruth Paine. Marina directly referred, in her New Orleans Grand Jury testimony, to Ruth and the "CIA" "writing letters over there". That was Secret Service's objection--to Ruth and the ACLU "writing letters over there" questioning whether the Secret Service custody of Marina was on the up-and-up. 

37 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said:

I don't know. But LBJ, according to Connally, was advocating hard for JFK to come to Texas in fall, 1963.

But I do know this; the lure to get JFK to Texas was the Houston dinner for Cong. Albert Thomas, who happened to be a college roommate of GEORGE BROWN of Brown and Root (by 1962 Halliburton had bought out Brown & Root). George Brown and Hermann Brown were the crooked sugar daddies of Lyndon Johnson since he was elected congressman in 1937 in Texas' 10th Congressional District.

Robert (or Vince Palamara) -- do you know if, in April 1963 when the press reported LBJ indicating a visit from JFK to Texas and Dallas may happen "late summer" ... was there, or could there have been, knowledge AT THAT TIME (April, that early), that the JFK visit would be occurring in November, as opposed to some other time in 1963 non-November?

(Because if it was not fixed or known to be in November already by April 1963, then LBJ's April 1963 "pilot over the Atlantic" image words, about critics who don't like the pilot should "shoot him down ... next November" would be less readable as a possible real-time double-entendre, but an accident. Reason for asking.)

5 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

And who in the motorcade was in “street dress” armed with guns? Why, that would be the plainclothes Secret Service agents! Including George Hickey with the AR-15 rifle. When Mary Moorman told Jean Hill, “Get down. They’re shooting!” The “they” was Secret Service men, not someone hidden in a sewer or behind the fence, but SSA’s (especially Hickey) preparing to shoot back.

You may be right Mary Moorman’s reference to thinking she saw a Secret Service (in the motorcade) in plain clothes (“street dress”) shooting at someone running up the Grassy Knoll, would be Hickey with his gun partly standing up whom she would have seen. And the fact she thought that, could argue for her hearing from sound a shot seemingly from the street, which she assumed came from the man she saw with the gun, Hickey. 

Moorman’s impression of that would also be consistent however with seeing Hickey, combined with hearing a shot from the street vicinity, such as the storm drain (without seeing anything other than Hickey with his gun), the sound of a shot on the other side of the presidential limousine being associated by Moorman with Hickey visually. 

The positive argument for a storm drain shot at ca Z325 consists of (a) argument for the jfk throat wound being an entrance, (b) testimony of smell of gunsmoke near the street and presidential limousine; (c) Moorman’s thinking from sound that a shot sounded in the vicinity of the presidential limousine; (d) no counter evidence excluding a person was in and shot from the storm drain (no record any officer looked or checked); (e) plausibility of if an assassination was being planned at that location, as that being a good location to put a sniper in position; (f) newsman Pate claimed he saw gunsmoke coming out of the storm drain. 

All of these factors are amenable to other explanations I realize, but as the saying goes, “just sayin’”. 

Although reading DiEugenio's substack, there is a decent case there on Angleton having knowledge because he knew what was going on in his own room. My point was not to exculpate Angleton, only accuracy in being clear what was claimed and not claimed on the video. The below in the opening post is the inaccuracy. That's all.

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Carlson replied with, you mean me saying something like that is more important than finding out who killed Kennedy?

And if you listen closely, its Angleton who evidently Pompeo said was complicit.

The video does not say Angleton confessed he was involved in or complicit in the assassination. The video says a claim that Angleton in a document had knowledge that the CIA was involved.

At 1:40f, Carlson speaking of his source who he says saw the documents two years ago: "I got one fact out of him, which was, yes, the CIA was involved ... James Jesus Angleton ... had knowledge of this"

Doesn't claim Angleton had pre-Nov 22 knowledge, doesn't claim Angleton was complicit in it or was part of it. Only that he had knowledge that the CIA was involved in the assassination, which could be in one of the other rooms in the CIA mansion than Angleton's, could be after-the-fact knowledge ... and that's if the hearsay got transmitted accurately to Carlson as to what the document said. If the source of the hearsay was Trump (as until established otherwise, is the leading suspect), Trump does not have the best reputation for accuracy in exegeting and transmitting nuanced meanings of texts. Furthermore, if it was Trump, then it could be, notwithstanding Trump told Carlson he saw a document, he may really have been just briefed orally by Pompeo, told by Pompeo the documents say xyz and Trump told Carlson he saw "y" when he was actually told "y" (not sure how much Trump actually reads), the point being if so now there are two hearsays, not just one, between text and Carlson's report, one of whom should be assumed unless shown otherwise to be someone with a less than stellar track record for nuance and accuracy.

I do wish Congress would subpoena and attempt to compel testimony from Tucker Carlson on naming his source--so that that source could in turn be subpoenaed and attempted to compel testimony to what the source saw and knew of that specific claim in a document. Carlson would probably refuse to reveal his source citing precedents of journalists and sources, but I wish there was a way to turn up the heat on this in the interests of the utter importance to history and America's interest in knowing the truth, to attempt to run this thing down, rather than this circus of Tucker Carlson throwing that out into the air and people going bananas over something which is at present in the genre of unverified anonymous gossip.

1 hour ago, Pete Mellor said:

Yet LBJ & Connally were at Kennedy for months to tour Texas.  Connally was a major player in the tour organisation, selecting the Trade Mart against S.S. security concerns, leading to the Elm St., dogleg.  LBJ & Connally's feud with Yarborough caused press reports in Texas of Democratic party disunity, forcing JFK to tour with all three men.  Always been suspicious to me.

And Lyndon Johnson visited Dallas in April 1963 and was reported in a Dallas newspaper saying (as metaphor) to be loyal to the President (Kennedy), likening Kennedy (whom he privately hates) to the pilot of an aircraft flying over ocean waters upon whom the passengers depend, and therefore  "don't shoot him down until November".

Well, which November did he mean. November 1964 in the election. But he is speaking to Democrats (not the public) concerning criticism of the President, so is he recommending to critics inside the Democratic Party to stop their criticism, support the President, and if they don't like JFK undertake a primary challenge to deny JFK the nomination in 1964? Or does he mean all Americans regardless of party should support the president, then vote him out (by electing the other party) in 1964 if they disagree with him? The latter seems the right reading of that. But it is not quite clear. 

Or is it a double-entendre, "wait until November to shoot him down"?

Or was it a Freudian slip?

Or was it some kind of code or signal in a speech like JFK was alleged to give in a speech in Miami that Cubela would hear, in which someone in the netherworld of assassination plotting wanted to hear something from LBJ himself to assure that they were not being set up by false representations of top-level approval on something?

Has this last previously been raised or considered? I think it deserves to be. The whole pilot flying the aircraft across the Atlantic, and "don't shoot him down until November" seems so contrived, it is as if that image was invented for the purpose of being able to have a plausible pretext for a line in there "shoot him down in November". 

At best its an eery coincidence in light of what did happen in the same city, in November, in which LBJ was reported in the press personally speaking that phrase. But I'm not sure it was coincidence.

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

437 to me really reads street DRESS(ing), referring to a non-uniformd person (more often one would say  plain-clothes officers...) 

Absolutely right Jean-Paul, it reads "street dress", false alarm. (Not "drain".)

I see Denis M's photos now at the links at his opening post are clear as a bell on that reading, replacing the photos originally posted which were less clear and the word was blurred.

Thanks!!!!

It is curious what the meaning is of both Mary Moorman and Jean Hill saying they saw a plain-clothed man shooting at someone else running up the Grassy Knoll. Anyway, glad to get that cleared up.

DISREGARD WHAT ORIGINALLY WAS HERE--IT IS OBSOLETE. CLEARER PHOTOS CLEARLY SHOW THE READING IS "STREET DRESS" (as pointed out below by Jean-Paul Ceulemans and confirmed by the clear photos now provided by Denis Morissette).

According to one of the members of the Warren Commission, Sen. Russell, a majority--four out of the seven--of the Warren Commission privately disagreed with their own unanimous conclusion that Oswald acted alone, and would have found differently if it had been up to them.

("I have never believed that Oswald planned that altogether by himself ... I'm not completely satisfied in my own mind that he did plan and commit this act altogether on his own, without consultation with anyone else. And that's what a majority of the Commission wanted to find", Sen. Russell [https://archive.org/details/senator-richard-russell-and-the-great-american-murder-mystery.)

That's like if there was a Supreme Court decision 9-0, which 5 of the Justices say they personally believed was unconstitutional and would have found differently if it had been up to them.

I don’t mind paying the nominal, reasonable, annual charge to the MFF to have full access to all the riches there, the go-to site above all others for documents and resources. And MFF does not restrict any content from free access reading online although if you use up your quota of free access at one day or time you may have to wait a few hours but you can still see it. 

(Compare that to the atrocious world of academic publishing where—I am not making this up—electronic downloads of scholarly published articles of 2-20 pages are typically now costing $30-$40 per download apiece. And the author who did the hard work of the research and writing it up does not get any of that, it all goes to the middleman, the toll-gate collector for profit, the academic publishing house. And approximately 100% of scholarly authors write in order to have readers able to read what they write, ie open access, would prefer readers were not prevented from accessing the published fruits of their research by these outrageous costs to access for any not conveniently located in proximity to and have privileges at one of the major university research libraries. Of course the academic publishers feel boxed in with no other way to recover their costs and make a profit than by toll-gate collecting off the research/creative work of the producers of these scholarly articles which (some of them anyway) advance the world’s knowledge.) 

By contrast, the Mary Ferrell Foundation nominal annual fee is a complete bargain, a no-brainer, worth it many times over. 

52 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

The AR-15 accident also explains why LBJ didn’t want too many “trigger happy” (LBJ’s description) SS agents surrounding him. I keep coming back to how shocked LBJ was immediately after the shooting, when he was brought into Parkland Hospital.

If that AR-15 had gone off by accident there is not 1 chance in 200 that it would have blown off JFK's head as if picture-perfect assassination aimed, as opposed to the shot going somewhere wild elsewhere.

Therefore, if the AR-15 was the cause of the JFK head shot, it can only have been done intentionally, i.e. an allegation that the wielder of the AR-15 in the car behind JFK intentionally murdered JFK. 

But none of the AR-15 major advocates argue that to my knowledge. You can't have it both ways. Its either one or the other. I don't think intentional murder by the AR-15 is the explanation. Among other reasons it would require the AR-15 to have been aimed before firing, and no witnesses saw aiming. 

Bill S., if Mexico City was the planned and approved joint CIA/FBI dirty trick op to plant negative discrediting information re the FPCC, would it not be simpler to assume a competent witting Oswald as the operative working for the US side of that, than an impersonator with Oswald either ignorant of or suborned to pretend to go along with some different impersonator?

Have you been aware of and considered the strange story of George Demerle, FBI informant of troubled, poor background who worked both left and right radical groups (communist organizations and Minutemen both, gaining confidence of BOTH that he was “really” on their side) … as a possible parallel to Oswald in terms of realism in working both left and right? In Demerle’s case FBI documents show he was a maverick and his own person, not entirely trusted by but found useful to the FBI, cp Oswald?

19 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

Greg Doudna wrote:  "In that interpretation that Givens was a real witness to a 6th floor shooter at the time of the shots, at 12:30 pm, how and when in that interpretation does Givens make his exit from the TSBD without anyone seeing him? At the point the building was sealed by officers minutes later Givens is not in the building."

Greg, look at TSBD employee Edward Shields' testimony to the Warren Commission:   "Did you see the motorcade?"  "I sure did."  "Where were you when you saw it?"  "I was just standing right around there at Mullendorf's Cafe."  "At what address?"  "At Record and Main."  "Who was with you?"  "Givens".  "Did you hear the shots?"  "Yes, I heard the shots."

Shields said that Givens had been there with him since about noon time that day.  Givens' story matched with Shields.

Thanks Bill.

Bill Simpich, the analysis you cited (from Thomas) on the interpretation of Givens is intriguing and would almost have me convinced except for one detail; maybe you could answer? In that interpretation that Givens was a real witness to a 6th floor shooter at the time of the shots, at 12:30 pm, how and when in that interpretation does Givens make his exit from the TSBD without anyone seeing him? At the point the building was sealed by officers minutes later Givens is not in the building. Thanks. 

On 4/19/2024 at 3:44 PM, Bill Brown said:

Using the prints to try to determine who the killer was is simply a non-starter.

Some of you seem to enjoy grasping at straws.

Do you think the Dallas Police were grasping at straws? Would you care to give your thoughts on why you suppose police lift prints at crime scenes?

Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got to the scene? 
Mr. BARNES. The first thing that I did was to check the right side of Tippit's car for fingerprints. 

(. . .)  

Mr. BELIN. Why did you happen to check that particular portion of the vehicle for fingerprints? 
Mr. BARNES. I was told that the suspect which shot Tippit had come up to the right side of the car, and there was a possibility that he might have placed his hands on there. 

On 4/19/2024 at 3:44 PM, Bill Brown said:

Pete Barnes of the crime lab said the prints lifted were of no value.  They were partial.  He stated that no legible prints were found.

But your belief, based on Barnes to the Warren Commission in 1964, that none of the prints were capable of being matched to another print for a positive identification turned out to be probably not true, didn't it, with Lutz in 1994/1998 as reported by Myers. 

Lutz reported his opinion that a Tippit patrol car right fender fingerprint was from the same person who left another, unrelated fingerprint at another location in time and space, the passenger door of the Tippit patrol car. 

Barnes' claim that those bumper prints were too smeared to be capable of a positive match to another print falls into what studies found was wide variance and subjectivity in examiner claims of prints being inconclusive or unusable. That is why these studies have emphasized the importance of blindness and review, as best practices in fingerprint analyses going forward (the studies did find that review was effective in catching errors in examiners' findings, where errors exist).

In the Barnes/Dallas Police case of the Tippit patrol car prints, there was not blindness. They were looking for a match to Oswald's fingerprints. They did not find such a match. They claimed—in keeping with so many subjective errors in this kind of claim found by studies-- that the right bumper fingerprint were unusable and not capable of being matched to any other fingerprint at all. 

Lutz also reported a conclusive negative finding, that the prints did not match to Oswald's prints. Barnes/DPD may have believed that no negative match was possible, since they did not report the negative exclusion of Oswald. If so, that Dallas Police error was found upon review (Lutz/Myers 1994/1998).

If the Tippit right bumper fingerprint contained sufficient information for an examiner opinion of a match to the passenger door smeared prints (Lutz's opinion that it did), with likelihood that the match would be a conclusive positive identification if the passenger door prints were not so smeared, then there is enough information in that bumper fingerprint for an examiner positive match to a fingerprint on a fingerprint card, i.e. that Tippit patrol car bumper print is capable of positive identification to a named individual. 

Have you been mistaken in believing up to the present moment Barnes' 1964 report of impossibility of an examiner positive identification of the right bumper fingerprint, when Lutz 1994/1998 appears to have indicated differently?

Here is Dale Myers’ account of the Lutz fingerprint analysis (I found this fascinating):

“I was the person who arranged to have the fingerprints examined by a qualified fingerprint expert for my 1998 book With Malice.

“In 1994, retired Crime Scene Technician, Wayne County Sheriff’s Department, Wayne Co., MI., Herbert W. Lutz, arrived at my home on the appointed day and I showed him photographic prints obtained from the Dallas Municipal Archives and Records Center (DMARC).

“I asked Mr. Lutz if the photographs were sufficient to draw a reliable conclusion? He looked at the photographic prints and said that normally he would look at the originals, but he stated that the photographs were of good quality and felt that he could make a determination based on the photographs.

“He had brought a crime scene kit with him and removed a loupe magnifier and began looking at the photographs. Just as he started looking at the photos, I told him that I would be willing to loan him the photographic prints so that he could take his time examining them, but he said, “That won’t be necessary.”

“He picked up the photograph of Oswald’s fingerprints and added, “I don’t believe that the fingerprints taken from Tippit’s car are Oswald’s prints.” Within a minute he confirmed his previous pronouncement, saying, “No, these don’t match.”

“Lutz used the photographic image of the fingerprints taken from the right-front fender of Tippit’s squad car (DMARC 91-001/326) to demonstrate to me how the prints were those of a right hand that had been placed on the car and then dragged away, causing a smear.

“Lutz pointed out the right-middle index finger among the group and had me look through the loupe magnifier. Then, he had me view Oswald’s right-middle index fingerprint taken by the Dallas police on November 23, 1963 (DMARC 91-001/314).

“Lutz told me to look at the difference in the spacing between ridges. The fingerprints taken from Tippit’s car showed furrows that were wide, while Oswald’s fingerprint furrows were much narrower. In addition, the number of ridges and location of the bifurcations – or “forks” in the patterns – were different. “In short,” Lutz stated, “the fingerprints found on the right fender of Tippit’s patrol car were not Oswald’s.”

“Lutz looked at the other fingerprints lifted from Tippit’s squad car. The smears obtained from the top of the right-side passenger door (DMARC 91-001/200 and 91-001/286) were of less value, according to Lutz, although he felt that the ridges and furrows were consistent with fingerprints found on the right front fender. Lutz was of the opinion that one person was probably responsible for all of them.” (https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2022/07/lies-and-deception-in-tippit-murder.html)

I agree that the prints could have been left by any person who was in proximity to both locations on the Tippit patrol car from where they were lifted. 

I think there is a good chance that person was the killer of Tippit.

I'd like to see those prints identified to a named individual, and find out. Wouldn't you?

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

You guys are completely unbelievable.  I never said Tippit opened the vent window to talk to the guy.

I corrected you don’t know that Tippit opened the vent or the man talked through the vent, to just, you don’t know the man talked through the vent. 

2 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

If the Tippit killing was a pre-planned deliberate hit, it would make sense for the killer not to leave any fingerprints. But then it would not make sense to leave the shells at the scene.

The killer was so intent to quickly reload that he didn’t care about the shells. Further, he had his pistol ready to quickly fire again (the raised pistol position noted by Callaway). To me, that suggests he anticipated the possibility of soon encountering someone else with a firearm. Either other armed Texans or cops looking for him.

That is a possible point on the prints Kevin.

Possibilities would be a non-professional killer (e.g. like Oswald although not Oswald since the prints are not from Oswald), or a hired killer who was only B or C team rated quality (e.g. Craford was not a mob member or "made man" in that sense, but did free-lance work for which he was paid, unlikely had professional assassin training). And there is the third possibility, that the prints might not be from a killer.

But so far as I understand, it is not a point about the shell hulls at the Tippit crime scene though, which are not inconsistent with best practices of a professional assassin, for this reason: The shell hulls, assuming they had no fingerprints on them (apparently a good assumption even without taking precautions), would be traceable to the murder weapon but if the murder weapon is untraceable, and ditched so as not to be found on the person or in the property of the killer, then the killer is off scot-free. The lab can match those hulls to a found murder weapon to their heart's content and it will not identify the killer. 

Like in The Godfather, the mob hitman does the hit in broad daylight in public, then slowly walks away dropping the murder weapon (free of prints and with untraceable serial number) right there at the scene of the crime, and disappears into a crowd or the city. The reason to drop the murder weapon at the scene of the crime is so it could not be found on the hitman's person if searched which would identify him. The police easily find the murder weapon because the killer left it right there, but it does them no good. The murder weapon is matched to the murder, but not matched to the one who did the murder. This could be the same principle with the shell hulls at the Tippit crime scene. If so, the fact that the killer did not also leave the murder weapon too at the scene of the crime, but instead reloaded, could be because the desire to get rid of the murder weapon was overridden by a possible need, or planned need, to use it again.

Scoggins' cab was parked where it was because Scoggins had been asked in advance by someone in Ruby's circle to be parked there at that time and place. This is not conjectured out of the air; this is the recent sober, serious, credible testimony of Scoggins' grandson that that is exactly what Scoggins told the grandson's father happened, in a Gavan McMahon recorded interview of the grandson. 

In my reconstruction of the case in light of this Scoggins' grandson information, Scoggins was not part of the killing, would not have known why he was there other than to be available to give someone a ride as needed. In fact he would have been set up to be there so he could be a getaway vehicle for the Tippit killer.

However it did not work out that way, because streetsmart Scoggins upon seeing/hearing Tippit murdered, instantly bolted out of his cab precisely so he could not be carjacked, and by the time the Tippit killer rounded the corner, possibly to have Scoggins at gunpoint drive him away (the point of having him there in the first place), that was not possible since Scoggins was not in the cab. The killer had no choice but to continue on foot.

In this scenario Tippit's killer ejecting the hulls instantly, right at the scene while walking still on 10th, would be so he could quickly reload. The reason for the need to reload so quickly is (this is hypothesized here) because he needed a loaded gun by the time he got to Scoggins' cab. Therefore there was no luxury, under this scenario, to run a block or two away first before ejecting and reloading. That cab of Scoggins was the controlling variable on that.

(And I believe the Tippit murder weapon may have been abandoned by Curtis Craford in the early morning hours of Sat Nov 23 before Craford fled from Dallas that morning, the morning after the Tippit slaying, and that murder weapon is known in FBI Dallas documents which were brought to light in the 1990s, known as the paper-bag revolver found in downtown Dallas, a .38 Special revolver of the calibre that killed Tippit, found in a paper bag with an orange and an apple, that item of physical evidence known to both Dallas Police and the FBI the weekend of the assassination, but "lost" while in police custody, not disclosed to the press, not disclosed to the Warren Commission, never disclosed to anyone except in internal FBI documents.)  

An additional comment on the Tippit patrol car fingerprints...

From reading studies of expert fingerprint identification accuracy, three conclusions emerged: first, expert positive identifications of a fingerprint match are hardly ever wrong, less than a tiny fraction of 1% error incidence. Second, negative identifications (exclusions) expressed with expert certainty are often wrong, wrong about 1 out of 13 times according to a landmark study on this question. 

This is where the Lutz 1994 (reported 1998, Myers) negative exclusion of Oswald as the source of the Tippit patrol car fingerprints come in. Lutz was expert, and Lutz was positive on his finding that Oswald was excluded. Neither of those statements is in question. But the data says 1 out of 13 times exactly this kind of expert finding is, in fact, not correct. Lutz's findings have never been refuted, and are the only information there is on the Tippit patrol car prints of this nature. So it is all we have. Because of Lutz's experience, and because 12 out of 13 times negative exclusions are correct, that finding of Lutz is probably correct. But we don't know that absolutely, in the absence of review, which of course there never has been. The same study found that in these cases where errors in either positive or negative identifications did happen, they would be found upon review by other experts, second opinions, so it is not that this is unanswerable. It just takes someone somewhere caring enough to have another expert or two look at those Tippit patrol car prints, which nobody has bothered to do going on 61 years now. 

But the third conclusion of the fingerprint accuracy studies is the most interesting one: that there was quite a bit of subjectivity involved in experts deciding whether a print was "usable" (could produce a positive or negative identification), or "unusable". Recall the early finding of the Dallas Police, unattributed, unsigned, unknown origin, unwritten, reported in hearsay form by officer Barnes in his Warren Commission testimony, that somebody somewhere in the Dallas Police Department had conclusively determined the Tippit patrol car prints were unusable. 

The astonishing data studied on this was this: there was the famous Brandon Mayfield case in Portland where the FBI made a false positive (one of those tiny fraction of 1% cases where that occurred, error found upon review by Spanish intelligence examiners and then confirmed upon further review by the FBI itself in America). 

In a study, expert fingerprint examiners were given two sets of prints and asked to use their professional expertise to determine whether there was a match, and they were told these were the Brandon Mayfield prints which had been wrongly matched to the international terrorist's prints, that well-known famous case. 

A certain significant percentage (I don't have the study in front of me, but significant percentage) of the examiners professionally answered that those prints were "inconclusive", no finding was possible to be obtained. (Just like the oral hearsay of the Dallas Police determination of the Tippit patrol car prints.)

The punch line: those were not Brandon Mayfield prints (the testers had lied to the examiners). Those prints were the very own matches of those very examiners submitted in court in the past used to convict persons of crimes, on the basis of those examiners' fingerprint matches! The same prints those same examiners were now saying could NOT give any finding or information!

The conclusions from these studies are the importance of blindness (the examiner does not know the identities of the prints they are examining), and also the importance of review ("second opinions", just like in medicine). Those are the two key things as I understand the outcome of these studies. 

The Tippit patrol car fingerprints information status is in the Dark Ages still, compared to what known best practices are today.

On 4/17/2024 at 8:26 PM, Bill Brown said:

Please list the witness who stated that Tippit rolled the window back up after rolling it down to talk to the guy who was walking.  Greg, this is what you do.  You literally make up scenarios in your head and try to insert them into reality with no evidence backing yourself up, only supposition.

Crime scene photos show the passenger door window up and the VENT WINDOW OPENED.

Tippit didn't reach over to roll the window down.  Burt and Markham were wrong about this.  If they're wrong about that (they were), then they could also be wrong about the killer touching the car with his hands.

Both vent windows were open, that may have been how Tippit liked to drive. You don't know that the man talked through the vent. You might as well ask yourself where's your witness to the man talking through the vent and why you are making up that scenario when no witness said they saw that.

In my experience, when strangers approach the passenger side of a car wanting to speak, the most common response as a driver (if one does not ignore them altogether) is roll the window down a crack. Not roll down a lot (at least in urban America today) for safety reasons. Enough to enable hearing but not enough to allow an arm to come in.

I don't know if a police officer in 1963 Oak Cliff would instinctively be as cautious as such habits today, but this has been my experience. I can imagine police officers being instinctively cautious in 1963 Dallas. Never know what any given person is going to be like, from an officer's point of view, I imagine.  

But I don't need a witness on rolling the window back up a crack if the witness (Jimmy Burt) saw Tippit reach over to roll down the window a crack or two.

If the witness was correct on that, then the window WAS rolled back up, evidence being it was found rolled up, therefore it was rolled back up.

This is not making stuff up. This is evidence-based if the witness statement is correct that the window was rolled down a crack or two or three. If so, it was rolled back up because it was found up, therefore it had been rolled back up.

I don't drive around with my passenger window down, whether or not my driver's side window is down which can vary. I think of how I react when people occasionally flag me down or tap seeking to speak through the passenger window. Sometimes its panhandlers. Other times it might be someone asking a question of a location, or being helpful offering some information or advice, whatever. 

And if I roll down the window a crack to talk, find out what the person wants, when the person leaves I'm gonna roll it back up again. (Because as noted, I like the passenger window rolled up when I drive alone.) 

This strange, strange notion you keep repeating that if no witness such as Helen Markham or Jimmy Burt saw the killer do a hand movement it didn't happen (also if Helen Markham or Jimmy Burt did see a hand motion it also didn't happen), is no less arbitrary than what you characterize me as doing. 

Very simply: if the witness is correct that Tippit rolled down the passenger window a crack or partway, then he did roll it back up because the window was found up. That's all there is to it on that. 

And there's nothing that doesn't make sense about Tippit cracking the passenger window down partway for the man flagging him down, find out what he wants (unaware the man is about to kill him), the only issue is how far to roll the window down for personal security and safety reasons. 

Now maybe Tippit just sat there and looked and the man did awkwardly speak through the vent which he already found open, without Tippit making a move. Maybe it did happen that way. Maybe Jimmy Burt was just blowing smoke saying so very specifically and repeatedly that he witnessed Tippit reach over, and roll down the window. I don't know. Do you? 

You may think you know, but I know you don't. 

I will agree with you on one thing. If Jimmy Burt was a block away, I wonder how he could claim to see that precision of movement of Tippit inside the car. If it can be settled conclusively that Jimmy Burt was a block away (as distinguished from Wm Smith and Jimmy Burt saying they were a block away), then I would not pay much attention to it (and would still consider it open that Tippit could have cracked the passenger window, then raised it back up again, before being killed, in the absence of direct witness testimony). 

But if Jimmy Burt was inside his car where two witnesses claim to have seen his car next to Tippit's patrol car at the moment Tippit was killed, then its a different matter. In that case, Jimmy Burt could have seen it very clearly.

If Jimmy Burt's claim to what he said he saw is true, that Tippit rolled down the window a crack or two, THEN Tippit did roll it back up, because the window was found up. 

Although I admit a cognitive dissonance here on the fingerprints suggesting a left-handed killer, since my prime suspect, Craford, I have looked at his handwriting and it is how most right-handed writers rather than left-handed writers cross their “t”’s. That’s not absolute but it is something. 

Bill, on Jimmy Burt, how do you interpret the sighting of Burt-like car descriptions next to the Tippit patrol car from two witnesses, and Burt told the FBI he drove his car next to the Tippit patrol car though he said after the shooting, with plenty of understandable motive of Burt to distance his car’s presence next to Tippits at the crime scene at the moment Tippit was killed? 

The reason for asking is obviously it matters whether Burt was witnessing from a block away or only feet away when Tippit was murdered, in assessment of weight to what Burt says he saw or may have seen. 

I wrote the specifics of my case on that before and I don’t think you commented.

If Burt did not drive his car to be in a position next to Tippits patrol car, why do you suppose he told the FBI in Dec 1963 that he did, and the two witnesses saw it there at the time Tippit was killed, after which Wright saw it take off in a hurry? Any thoughts?

Tom I believe Bill’s reasoning is since no witness said they saw the killer who was at the right front fender, physically touch that front fender inches from where he was standing next to that fender, logically that PROVES somebody ELSE who nobody saw touch it left those prints. 

Makes perfect sense.

And since the same individual person left prints in two places on the Tippit patrol car, both places of which the killer was seen standing near to, but ONLY ONE of those two places—only ONE! Tom—did eyewitnesses of the Tippit killing directly see the killer with arms and hands touching there exactly where the prints were lifted twenty minutes later … that PROVES Bill’s point, does it not—PROVES that the killer did NOT leave prints in EITHER location!

Is that clearer now Tom? 

Bill is citing absence of a witness seeing touching by the killer in one of those two locations as evidence that the prints were left by somebody who nobody saw touch it. 

Bills logic is an interesting line of logic: your honor my client cannot possibly have left these prints right next to where he was standing, definitive proof of that being no witness saw him touch. 

(But who put those prints there then?)

Obviously, some one ELSE that was not seen to touch! How many times do I have to repeat this blindingly clear logic? 

Bill serious point here is you’re overstating your claim that lack of eg Helen Markham seeing the killer touch the right front fender, therefore you reason the killer conclusively did not, and therefore conclusively did not at the passenger door either (no matter what witnesses and common sense say).

You fail to see your point, if true, rules out any human on earth from having left the right bumper prints since no one saw anyone touch there.

since that is not true (that no one left prints which do exist), your assumed premise is mistaken. 

Namely, you should correct and admit that it is reasonable that a human with hands inches from and standing next to something at a crime scene may be the source of prints there even if not seen by somebody else doing so. Probably 98% of prints were left by people whom no one saw leave those prints. 

Maybe the Tippit killer was among that 98% of cases in the case of the right bumper prints, where no one saw the person leave the print.

The positive argument that the Tippit killer did is because the killer was seen touching at the passenger door and the right bumper ones come from the same guy, plus the killer was there too. 

I do think if the killer left those prints from the same individual in both locations (even if the killer was seen doing so in only one of those), that the killer probably was left handed, gun in left hand, right bumper prints from a free right hand. 

And Oswald was right-handed. Plus, Oswald is excluded as source of those prints anyway. Plus, that exclusion was unconscionably covered up and went undisclosed for three decades. 

Bill Brown has provided me with scans of the pages of a transcript of the Al Chapman interview of Jimmy Burt. I see now Bill Brown posted that transcript in full (11 scanned pages) on another forum for anyone interested, here:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3689.672.html 

Jimmy Burt on Tippit rolling down the passenger window so the man who killed him could talk to him

"... we noticed the policeman pulled up to talk to this guy and well he pulled up and he rushed over to roll his window down."

(...)

"... a policeman pulled up and he rolled his window down and the guy walked over..."

He rolled which window down?

"The one on the opposite side."

The opposite side from the driver?

"Yes. And the guy walked over and put his hand on the window and bent down to where he could talk."

He put his hands on the car?

"Yes, he did. And bent down in the window so he could talk."

I did a little checking on comments on a Quora question to police officers on driving with their windows up or down on patrol cars. I found officers answering who said although it was a matter of personal preference, many officers kept windows cracked or partly open as a rule in order to be able to hear outside, told of crimes solved by what an officer was able to hear, from having the car window cracked open. Some officers were so intent on that that they left windows cracked a little even in rainy weather. But the problem with driving with windows fully down was stinging insects can come in.

Reading those comments I wondered if the ability to hear outside the car was why Tippit had the window vent on the passenger side open, as the way he normally drove his patrol car. 

It intuitively makes better sense to roll down the passenger door window partway if one wants to talk to someone on the passenger side outside the car. It doesn't have to be rolled down all the way, but enough to not have glass obstructing the person's face. I am persuaded on the basis of the combined testimony of Jimmy Burt and of Helen Markham who said she saw the same thing (that the window was rolled down), with no counter testimony, plus the logic of it, that Tippit probably rolled the window down partway, in fact unless there is any reason set forth why not, I will just assume it since it makes so much sense and is what the witnesses said they saw. The notion of the man talking through the vent does not sound right, not very convenient for talking or hearing. 

When Tippit was through talking with the man Tippit would have reached over and rolled that same window back up, as he preferred the window up, before he started to get out of his car on the driver's side. That will account for the window found rolled up after he was killed.

If, on the other hand, Tippit had reached over to open a usually-closed passenger vent to allow the man to talk through the vent (with difficulty for the man to be understood, and Tippit to hear), Tippit would have closed that vent back up when the conversation was through, before Tippit got out of the car on the driver's side, to return the vent to his normal preferred "closed" condition. But the vent was found open (cracked) after Tippit was killed--not because he opened it to speak to the man, but because that was the normal way he was driving the car. It was the front door window that Tippit rolled down at least partway, then rolled back up again, during those words spoken at the passenger door window.

Here is a photo of the Tippit patrol car at the crime scene showing the vent on the driver's side also open: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/lee-harvey-oswald--292452569559764005/ . 

It was not hot temperature at the time Tippit was driving that car at the time of his death. At 1 pm that day the temperature was measured 67 degrees F (Dallas Love Field).

The vent on the passenger side was probably open for the same reason the vent on the driver's side was open, either to hear, or possibly for preference in cooling the car or for fresh air, or both or all three, in whatever case the same reason applicable to both vents, removing the assumption that the vent on one side, but not the other, had been cracked, and then left open that way without being closed again, for purposes of a very awkward conversation with struggling to be heard through the vent--against what any of the witnesses said they saw.

I believe now the notion of talking through the vent has been a mistake.

Say Denis M., while on the subject of Marina audio recordings, and you being the expert as much as anyone on such resources, can you possibly advise or locate or come up with the audio of Marina's New Orleans Grand Jury testimony? There's a place where Marina said "ACLU" with some ellipses around it in the written transcript, and if more words could be deciphered from the audio it could shed light on whether Marina in fact did mean ACLU as the objectionable organization in which the Secret Service told Marina Ruth Paine was mixed up and the Secret Service told Marina as a negative thing that Ruth and that organization were "writing letters over there" (at a time when ACLU/Ruth had written a letter inquiring formally whether Marina was being held under duress, an inquiry not appreciated by the Secret Service). But in the one explicit mention in the transcript in that section in which Marina said "ACLU" there are those ellipses, so as not to know what Marina said ABOUT the "ACLU" in that section of testimony. Any idea if there is a way to access the audio of that that does not involve flying to New Orleans? Thanks!

Ps Bill, if Jimmy Burt said he saw Tippit roll down the front passenger window (maybe partway?), I think Burt may have been only a car length away and therefore that witness claim is of interest. I would not automatically assume it was wrong. In that case I could imagine Tippit normally driving with that window up, lowering it partway to be able to hear what the man flagging him down wanted to tell or ask him, then rolling it back up the partway again before getting out of the vehicle on the drivers side. 

It would be plausible behavior it seems to me. I just was not aware until your mention that Jimmy Burt had claimed to witness that if what you say is right.