Bill Brown

"Most of the naysayer Nimrods here couldn't tie his shoes let alone debate or discuss the details of the case with him." "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN"

You have np idea what you're talking about (again). Someone was keying the mic for about ninety seconds before Bowley made his report. You'd rather run away than learn something.

"up 10th (original affidavit)" What she actually said was "ran west on E. 10th across Patton". She didn't say "up 10th". "up Patton (WC testimony)" Which is exactly the same route taken by the killer which the other witnesses described. This does not automatically exclude what she said in her original affidavit: "ran west on E. 10th across Patton". "down the alley (based first on the crime scene sketch & later on recorded interviews)" Markham's son (James) was friends with Jimmy Burt and Bill Smith. No doubt, James Markham heard Burt and Smith's version of seeing the killer in the alley almost down to the next block. It is not that far fetched an idea that Helen heard from her son James that the killer was seen in the alley.

"Benavides was not at the scene at the time of the murder." Then who was keying the patrol car radio mic for about ninety seconds before Bowley got on?

No. Jimmy Burt said he saw the killer in the alley almost down to the next block (behind the Texaco station). Burt did not say he saw the killer flee the shooting scene via the alley. Helen Markham testified that she saw the killer flee to the corner of Tenth and Patton, south on Patton and then cross Patton over to the west side of the street. That was the last she saw of him because she then went over to Tippit.

"I know that Dale Myers says that Harold Russell was Sgt. Hill's witness in the car with him at 1:26, but Russell did not attend a lineup, and he was further away from the suspect when he saw him than was Scoggins. Russell is a possibility, but still less likely than Scoggins. Or for that matter the interchangeable Callaway!" No. The witness in the patrol car with Hill was indeed Harold Russell. This comes from Russell himself in a February 1964 interview with the FBI.

On film.... Reporter: "Were you in the building at the time?" Oswald: "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir." Oswald admits, on film, that he was inside the building at the time of the shooting. Therefore, Oswald was not out by the front steps. If Oswald was not out by the front steps, then he is not prayer man. If Oswald is not prayer man, then who cares who prayer man was.

Of course the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter occurred... Mr. BELIN. What did you see? Mr. TRULY. I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the lunch-room facing Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. BELIN. And where was Lee Harvey Oswald at the time you saw him? Mr. TRULY. He was at the front of the lunchroom, not very far inside he was just inside the lunchroom door.

Nice post, Pat. But, you claimed Oswald had an alibi. I say he had no such thing. What exactly is Oswald's alibi?

"...it didn't do Sirhan any good." Sirhan admitted, in a televised interview, that he shot Bobby Kennedy and even explained his motive, in detail.

"At this point I'm bowing out." Good idea.

Again, this is real simple. You said that Benavides said the hair squared off ABOVE the collar. But, Benavides never said that. This matters. The argument could be made that the straight-edge collar caused the collar line (the hair) to give the appearance of being squared off. That argument could not be made if Benavides had actually used the word ABOVE. Just stop misquoting witnesses.

You don't get it. Do you think I'm lying? Jack Myers sent me the article for feedback long before it was ever posted.

This is real simple. Michael Griffith misquoted Benavides.

Greg, my post to Michael Griffith corrected Griffith's mistaken claim that Benavides said the killer's hairline squared off ABOVE the collar. Benavides never said such a thing and your quote of Benavides supports my statement to Griffith that he (Griffith) was wrong. Nothing in your above post changes any of that. Now, we can argue back and forth over whether or not the killer's collar line squared off or tapered off 'til the cows come home, but that wasn't even remotely close to the point of my post to Griffith. My post was about Griffith's misquote of Benavides and I thought I was pretty clear on that.

And how does any of that change the fact that she identified Oswald as the killer on the late afternoon of 11/22/63?

"Shall we mention that the one guy who was actually close to the shooting when it occurred, Domingo Benavides, said that the gunman had a squared-off (blocked) haircut that ended on the back of his neck above his "Eisenhower" jacket..." Now you're just making stuff up. Why do you guys continually do things like this? Benavides said the killer had a squared off haircut, yes. But he did NOT say the hair was cut "above" the collar of the jacket. You muddy the waters with this stuff. Since Benavides did not say that the hair was cut above the collar, it is indeed possible that the jacket's collar itself gave the appearance of a squared off haircut. The killer could have had a pony tail tucked inside the collar of the jacket and still have the appearance of a squared off haircut.

"This was wrong. You made this mistake because you were ignorant of Jack Myers' source. After being made aware of Jack Myers' source, you quoted it as follows..." No Sir. You have made a foolish statement (most likely because of your own ignorance, again). I was fully aware of Jack Myers' source (since anyone who knows anything about the Tippit case is fully aware of the Tatum interview for the 1993 Frontline special). Also, I discussed this specific point with Jack Myers long before I ever posted here on the Ed Forum. Seriously, stop trolling. By the way, Once I pointed it out to him, Jack Myers accepted that he was wrong and that Tatum is saying that he noticed the curling of Oswald's mouth as he passed within ten to fifteen feet of Oswald as Oswald and Tippit were talking through the window. You wouldn't know this, though, because you're ignorant of the facts (just as you were, regarding your ludicrous claim about how T.F. Bowley drove past Tippit's body lying in the street before parking one block west of the scene, when the reality is that Bowley pulled over east of the scene and never drove past the body lying in the street). You should be embarrassed but you don't know any better.

Except, I do not believe Landis would have found a bullet in or on the back seat. Another location inside the limo, possibly (having already worked it's way out of Connally's thigh).

You're just trolling. "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." - Amos Bronson Alcott

Look, this is real simple... Landis is saying he placed the bullet on Kennedy's gurney right next to Kennedy's body. But we know this goes against the known facts. The Parkland doctors did not take Kennedy off of that gurney, it's the same gurney he was on as they were trying to save his life in Trauma Room One. None of the Parkland doctors ever mention a bullet lying on the gurney. It simply did not happen.

The idea that the bullet which hit Kennedy in the back was "undercharged" and traveling at a significantly lower rate of speed even though it had yet to strike anything is laughable.

Do you really believe the bullet which hit Kennedy in the back was traveling at the same low rate of speed as was the bullet when it hit Connally's thigh? Really?

It's entirely possible that Landis is not lying. Perhaps he did find the bullet inside the car and placed it on A GURNEY, but not necessarily the President's gurney. None of the Parkland doctors recall a bullet lying on Kennedy's gurney as they tried to save his life inside Trauma Room One.

"1. Landis' explanation is that CE 399 is a projectile that made the shallow wound in JFK's back, and then fell out." There is no chance that a bullet struck Kennedy in the back and penetrated only to such a shallow depth that it could later simply fall out of the entry wound. Complete nonsense. Whatever did occur, it wasn't this.