19 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Well, good grief yourself Bill Brown.  Here you go.  The Mary Ferrell Foundation is not a clueless person/website.  Get a clue yourself.  The picture in question was taken by the FBI and included in the Warren Commission Documents.  It's known as Commision Document (CD) 630.

photos.html (maryferrell.org)

I'm perfectly aware of all that.  The Commission document does NOT include the text noting the Holan house.  That was added later by the clueless.  Point being, you're flat out wrong to imply that the Warren Commission itself ever stated that Holan lived in that house.  I'm growing tired of correcting your elementary-level errors and having to explain to you, each time more than once, how you're wrong because you can't accept it the first time.  This is just like the time you kept insisting you knew the exact location of Hardy's Shoes and I had to tell you about four times that you were wrong before you finally agreed.

It's okay to be ill-informed.  But to antagonize while ill-informed is foolish.

On 8/23/2023 at 8:20 PM, Michael Kalin said:

Concentrating on part 1, here's a quote:

The purported shortcut across the front yard of the Davis residence and exit through the shrubbery is not a foregone conclusion. Many saw the killer proceed to the corner of Patton & 10th, turn left at this corner, and leave the area via the alley. This means the spent shells eventually discovered by the Davis women were planted by the framers.

As for Guinyard's WC testimony, here's what he told Ball: "He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand." [7H397]

Note "shells" in the plural -- maybe he saw all four get knocked out, or maybe only two, but his WC testimony contains another more interesting observation that receives scant attention:

Mr. BALL. Were you there when the truck came up that was driven by Benavides?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. He came up right after this?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; he came up from the east side---going west.
Mr. BALL. And then what did you do after that?
Mr. GUINYARD. Well, we stood there a while and talked and I called him Donnie, he picked up all them empty hulls that come out of the gun. [7H398]

This causes so many plots to go up in suborned smoke it is typically ignored altogether. When mentioned, it is often poo-pooed as an inscrutable quirk in the record not to be taken seriously or relegated to a footnote by an author who does not want to reckon with the implications. Indeed, it is not easy to gloss over for those who might be willing to try. The stinger is the content of Ball's leading question which Guinyard quickly affirms, betraying the prepackaged nature of the interrogation. The entire session was scripted in advance, with an inept rewrite man slipping in the bit about the truck arriving several minutes after the shooting, and Ball asleep at the wheel.

Flick off the late arrival of the truck if you must, but this simultaneously flicks off the spent shells.

Another quote:

Few attribute the fumbling with the patrol car radio to Callaway. In a 1977 HSCA interview Bowley stated, "The radio of the scout car was on and the Mexican man was attempting to use it to call for help." This man was Benavides. Callaway is usually named as the person who made an improbable second citizen call after the ambulance left the scene (Kimbrough/Shearer #s 954 & 956).

"The purported shortcut across the front yard of the Davis residence and exit through the shrubbery is not a foregone conclusion. Many saw the killer proceed to the corner of Patton & 10th, turn left at this corner, and leave the area via the alley."

Nonsense.

No one saw the killer leave the area via the alley.

15 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I prefer google maps street view but we'll get to that.  I can't remember the answer to another question at the moment.

It seems from this thread some of us may have been misled by a Warren Commission Exhibit.  Imagine that.  The Ariel Photograph of the scene of the Tippit shooting shows Doris Holan on 10th St., straight across from Tippit's car and the Driveway it blocked.

She was apparently at 113 Patton, fifty yards or so from 10th.  Meaning she wasn't looking up the driveway from 10th from the front but at it from the side on Patton.  Important.  She was looking at the back yards of the first two residences on 10th St.  The driveway between the second and third houses on 10th which led to the alley behind them all.  She could see a DPD cop car back up the driveway to the alley given the view in the Ariel photo, which does show her house, though the real location is

 

mis identified in it.  The house was not directly across from the alley but had a clear view of it.  Easy to figure out.  Just under/beside the Scoggins notation, Not on 10th St.

Here's the current view from google street maps.  With a long brick house and car port blocking the view, not of the alley as gm only let me see from 111.  The alley and driveway could be seen from the address in 1963.

111 S Patton Ave - Google Maps

"It seems from this thread some of us may have been misled by a Warren Commission Exhibit.  Imagine that.  The Ariel Photograph of the scene of the Tippit shooting shows Doris Holan on 10th St., straight across from Tippit's car and the Driveway it blocked."

Good grief, man.

In the "Aerial View Of Tippit Killing Site" image you posted, the Warren Commission did not place Holan in the house on Tenth Street.  That was done by the clueless person/website you took the image from.  

You were "misled" by someone, for sure; but it wasn't the Warren Commission.

Imagine that.

16 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

"Oh yes, that is quite clear to all who have followed this thread so far, except (obviously) to Bill Brown himself.

"No reasonable person believes that Pulte and Brownlow completely fabricated an interview with a woman who decades later (unbeknownst to them), turned out to live EXACTLY where she could indeed see the alley/driveway with a police car in it (...) It doesn't matter which word she used to describe the place WHERE she saw a police car. We know WHERE she was looking ... At the time they interviewed Doris Holan, neither Bill Pulte nor Michael Brownlow had any idea that this was what she could see ..."

Well put Paul. 

There is Doris Holan in position to see and told what she saw (to Brownlow and Pulte); Guinyard who said he saw a patrol car in the same location as Doris Holan's line of sight out her front window (Brownlow); Myers' highly-placed source who told him that there was an undisclosed officer witness of the Tippit killing known to some higher-ups in Dallas which was covered up.

And there is all the mystery over the account of Detective, Criminal Division of the Dallas County Sheriff's Department, Billy Joe Courson (1930-1990) (https://dallascounty.civicweb.net/document/115629/), of his whereabouts and movements in Oak Cliff at the Tippit crime scene and Texas Theatre, in light of a total absence of any reporting unlike other DPD officers and sheriff's department persons that day. Courson, who in his oral history for Sneed said he was at the Tippit crime scene on 10th Street and drove his marked patrol car on 10th Street at speed, in reverse, backwards (!) (Sneed, No More Silence, 484).

Some postscripts on Courson. First, his presence in Oak Cliff following the Tippit killing is not in question since other officers spoke of seeing him at the Texas Theatre and Courson also was recorded on police radio that day from Oak Cliff. But second, Courson is not attested or corroborated at all, so far as I know, at 10th and Patton even though Courson claimed in Sneed 1998 that he was there on 10th Street driving in reverse backwards, the same kind of movement of the patrol car Doris Holan said she saw out the front of her window seconds after the shots, driving in reverse backwards.

More on Courson from his account in Sneed 1998, for those who do not have access to read it directly:

• Courson died in 1990, eight years before his oral history was published in Sneed in 1998 (p. 506) (Gravestone: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/24661103/billy-joe-courson )
• Courson ran for Sheriff of Dallas County (yr unstated) and lost by only 229 votes out of 76,000 votes cast (p. 506)
• Courson's fulltime job for the Sheriff's department was to go out in plain clothes in evenings to places known criminals hung out, such as the Carousel Club, and fraternize with them to gain intelligence (pp. 481, 496, 498). By Courson's account he spent increased time in the Carousel Club just before the assassination--was there two or three evenings in the week or two before the assassination (p. 496).
• Courson describes taking a pistol belonging to Jack Ruby from Ruby when Ruby was being briefly booked and in custody several weeks before the assassination. The next day Courson says he arranged to buy the pistol from Ruby for $50 cash without checking the serial number to see if it was "hot", and without receiving a bill of sale (p. 492). (This is Courson's story of how he carried around what some might call a "throw-down" pistol if it was ever needed, as some well-prepared officers liked to have just in case they shot someone unarmed--if the dead person had not been armed before he became dead, he became retroactively armed after he was dead justifying the officer firing in self-defense.) (If it were not that Courson claims he paid Ruby for the pistol without getting a receipt, it could also sound like that pistol was a bribe Ruby had given Courson.) Then on the day of the assassination Courson claims he was spooked by having what might be a "hot" pistol obtained from Ruby, so he turned the pistol in to the sheriff's office tagged and logged in as found property. Then later Courson says he reconsidered again and decided to take the same pistol out of the sheriff's office into his personal possession without authorization or paperwork and kept it as his personal property (pp. 491-93).
• Courson by his account let the man he later believed had killed Tippit, and who may have been the man who killed Tippit, walk right by him coming down out of the Texas Theatre balcony as Courson went up into the balcony looking for the killer whom Courson had been instructed was in the balcony (p. 485). "I'm reasonably satisfied in my own mind that I met Oswald coming down [it wasn't Oswald]... I didn't stop him" (485). 
• Courson claims at the time of the JFK assassination he was at home far to the south in DeSoto, that his wife was gone, that he normally would go into work about 3 or 4 pm including that day. Upon learning the news that JFK had been shot, Courson says, he put on his previous day's plain clothes (instead of a fresh shirt) (even though he says he was at his own home). Wearing yesterday's clothes he then says he drove his car, a marked patrol cruiser (p. 484), headed toward downtown Dallas where he would normally go but at the last moment decided to turn west into Oak Cliff instead (unrelated to the news of Tippit, before news Tippit had been shot), checking in to the dispatcher reporting himself on duty en route there. That is Courson's explanation of how he first appears that day in service in Oak Cliff, far from home, wearing yesterday's clothes (pp. 482-84).
• Courson claims he was on 10th driving past the Tippit patrol car maybe 15 minutes or so after Tippit was killed, that driving his patrol car he "backed up" and "ran a race, my going backwards ... to see who could make that turn to get onto Jefferson first" (p. 484). Nobody ever told of seeing a patrol car racing in reverse on 10th; nobody ever told of seeing Courson or his cruiser on 10th at all, whether other officer or civilian witness. But Courson's description of his patrol car's unusual movements sound similar to what Doris Holan said she saw a patrol car doing out her front window seconds after the shots.
• Courson spoke well of the ethics in the sheriff's department, how sheriff Decker would not approve of deputies "beating the fire out of somebody on the street unless that somebody took a swing at a deputy first. Then Decker expected you to knock the man loose from his damn glasses" (p. 503). (Good to know the sheriff's department had its principles.)
• Courson himself tells of his slugging--assaulting--deputy sheriff Buddy Walthers--"he was hurt pretty badly"--with Walthers attempting to draw his gun on Courson in self-defense. Courson says Decker let him voluntarily resign from the sheriff's department without known further consequences after that episode (p. 499).
• In light of the above, was Courson the referent of Myers' high-level source saying that an officer was present "having an affair" at the scene of the Tippit killing when Tippit was killed, and the patrol car Doris Holan says she saw backing up and leaving driving backwards out her front window moments later?

But if it was Courson who left the scene of the Tippit killing without reporting that he was there, what is to be made of that? That seems a very serious thing for an officer to have done--and why would it be covered up? 

It is difficult (at least for me) to imagine an officer participating in a murder of a fellow officer. However is it possible Courson was at that location for some reason other than an affair, not involving any advance knowledge or witting participation in a murder, but which turned out to be somehow involved in that murder? 

Who knows the truth?

If only Myers could find a way in his conscience to reveal the identity of the high-level source who told Myers that a few high-level people in Dallas knew all along that there was a secret officer witness at the Tippit crime scene that day, never identified or outed, covered up by upper-level law enforcement in Dallas.

Is Myers' source on that still alive? Would not the greater interest of history justify Myers disclosing the identity of that source?

"There is Doris Holan in position to see and told what she saw (to Brownlow and Pulte); Guinyard who said he saw a patrol car in the same location as Doris Holan's line of sight out her front window (Brownlow);"

Care to guess where the story of Guinyard seeing a police car in the alley came from?  I'll give you a hint, his name rhymes with Schmownlow.

Guinyard didn't mention any patrol car in the alley in 1963 or 1964.  Yet, you believe he all of a sudden remembers the patrol car when Talking to Brownlow.

Boy, Brownlow sure had a talent for drawing information out of witnesses. (Yeah right)

Greg, you're so hopeful that someone other than Oswald gunned down Tippit that you'll throw your common sense and logic aside and believe almost anything which points away from Oswald.

On 8/23/2023 at 10:41 PM, Greg Doudna said:

And you're changing Mrs. Holan telling of a car making backing movements in a "driveway" to her saying nothing at all, in order to fit your narrative, which is a conspiracy theory which has no evidence for it and debatable whether is has much plausibility either.

I am not changing Brownlow's words any more than you.

Bill, please follow carefully here. (Please take this slowly and don't skim.) You and I both agree Brownlow said Doris Holan said "driveway". You and I both agree that Doris Holan did not see a car making backing movements in a driveway out her front window, as Brownlow said. These are facts common to you and me, agreed-upon facts stipulated, not in dispute. 

What is in dispute--is the nature of what you are calling a "change"--what Mrs. Holan actually said. You are changing Brownlow's "driveway" to Mrs. Holan said nothing, in order to agree with your conspiracy theory. I am changing Brownlow's "driveway" to Mrs. Holan describing a car making backing movements away from her in the alley out her front window which Brownlow garbled a bit in the retelling.  

So there you have it, that is the difference--you and I both are, and aren't, changing Brownlow's words depending on how it is viewed.

In this case, I suggest you are too quick to leap to a conspiracy theory, in your change of Brownlow's "driveway" to "nothing" in order to fit your conspiracy theory, whereas I am changing Brownlow's "driveway" non-conspiratorially to something Mrs. Holan could easily have said pre-garbling by Brownlow, based on the view from Mrs. Holan's front window.

It is not as if you are sticking to Brownlow's account of a patrol car in a driveway while I am changing from that.

You are changing that too, in order to fit your narrative of a conspiracy undertaken by Brownlow and Pulte.

The question is which proposed change of Brownlow's account is a more satisfactory change--the one involving necessity for conspiracy (your change), or the one supposing a phenomenon common in everyday life to which Brownlow was not immune (garbling, my change).

If you had some actual evidence for your conspiracy theory here, or some credible evidence that Brownlow and Pulte engaged in the kind of conspiracy you are supposing on other occasions, that would be a different matter. But you don't, and I am doubtful they ever did in the sense you are supposing.

You are ad hoc invoking a conspiracy, in your version of change from Brownlow, without any evidence. 

I am non-conspiratorially invoking supposition of everyday human behavior (hearsay garbling) in agreement with Doris Holan's front window view, in my version of change from Brownlow.

"And you're changing Mrs. Holan telling of a car making backing movements in a "driveway" to her saying nothing at all, in order to fit your narrative, which is a conspiracy theory which has no evidence for it and debatable whether is has much plausibility either."

You really feel that what I am doing (outright dismissing Brownlow's story based on the known evidence) with what you are doing (changing "driveway" to "alley" in order to get it to fit your narrative) are the same thing?  No Sir.

Brownlow is nothing more than a  L-I-A-R.  Period.  I know this to be a fact.  Apparently you do not.

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill, why don’t you make whatever your point is and we can discuss it. I am not sure what you want from me since I doubt any witness said anything about a driveway in the first place. 

I've already made my point.  You're changing "driveway" to "alley" in order to get it to fit your narrative... And none of the REAL witnesses who were outdoors at the time and saw Tippit talking to his killer ever mention a police car in any driveway.

46 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

You mean in the alley? None of the witnesses you name would have seen movements in the alley. As for witnesses who did see a patrol car movement in the alley, there is

• the claim of Doris Holan according to Brownlow and Pulte;
• the claim of Brownlow that Guinyard saw a patrol car movements in the alley (interesting that Brownlow has Guinyard putting the patrol car in the alley, the correct reconstructed position of Doris Holan's sighting from the location of Doris Holan's true front window location, even though Brownlow mistakenly thought Doris Holan was seeing on that driveway on 10th);
• the claim of the unnamed source cited by Myers that an officer was present and left (that account mentions an officer but no patrol car);
• and finally an officer's--off-duty deputy sheriff in plain clothes and patrol car actually--self-witnessing that he made unusual back-and-forth movements with his patrol car evocative of what were claimed in the Doris Holan story, although that deputy sheriff claimed he raced his patrol car driving in reverse on Patton and claimed it was ca. 1:35-40 pm at the time of the police radio bulletin concerning the Texas Theatre--even though no witness on Patton ever reported seeing any patrol car racing backward in reverse on Patton. Nor do I believe (correct if wrong Bill?) there is any known corroboration of any kind for Courson's presence at all on Patton at the Tenth and Patton crime scene at 1:35-1:40 or any other time on Patton, other than Courson's own first sayso 35 years later in Sneed 1998 (no deputy sheriff's report at all from him that day--very odd omission? since all the other deputy sheriffs turned in written reports of that day? why not Courson?--what is the explanation for the lack of a written report from Courson that day, do you know?)

So there are four possible accounts or echoes of varying degree of weight. Although I do not see any opposing negative argument against from the names you cite, would Callaway be one you might cite here who might be? Was Callaway standing about where Guinyard was, right in or next to the alley? Guinyard thought so? Or was Callaway farther south on Patton and might have missed seeing a patrol car's movement in the alley? I'm not sure. Anyway, Callaway did not say anything about seeing a patrol car in the alley. Maybe that is an argument? And as you have noted, Guinyard, the quiet African American who was the most agreeable witness to say what the police wanted to hear, is not reported as having volunteered anything about seeing a police car in the alley, to police taking his report, and I don't believe he was asked that question in his WC testimony. Yet from his position Guinyard certainly would have seen any patrol car that Doris Holan would have seen out her front window (if she did).  

On the Bill Courson story though, isn't it odd that no witness ever reported seeing any patrol car racing driving backwards on Patton at 1:35-1:40 pm, or any confirmation of Courson's presence on Patton at all? That seems to be a more substantial witness silence than that no one reported seeing a patrol car driving backward in the alley at ca 1:15 pm (other than the two claimed who said they did), since there were many more witnesses on Patton than in the alley.

I have suggested Courson's story in Sneed is a retelling by Courson of Courson's questionable actions that day with certain details massaged and modified, in which Courson (who ran for sheriff one year and narrowly missed being elected sheriff, Decker's old job) might be the unnamed witness referred to by Myers' source, and Courson's patrol car the patrol car's strange backward movement of the Doris Holan story of what she saw from her front window at ca 1:15.   

There are those items of "smoke" to the story, three modestly independently substantial in my opinion, or four if one includes the Brownlow/Guinyard which may or may not be an independent fourth.

And apart from a possible argument from silence of Callaway's not seeing a patrol car in the alley at the time of the shots (I suppose Callaway would have said so if he had seen it), or anyone else other than the four possible ones cited, there is no solid negative argument falsifying the patrol car movements in the alley of the Doris Holan story if she did speak of seeing such movements from her front window.

But while I acknowledge uncertainty, I am puzzled why you find more likely, less improbable, a definitely unlikely conspiracy theory for which there is no positive evidence-- your idea of advance collusion of Pulte and Brownlee to in concert manufacture out of whole cloth their claim in public presentation that Doris Holan told them some things). I don't find your conspiracy theory explanation very likely at all, apart from no evidence for such a conspiracy in the first place.

If Courson or any other office was present and did leave the scene of Tippit's murder hurriedly, without calling in immediately or (even though-off-duty if he had a firearm) immediately attempting to use his patrol car and firearm to apprehend the gunman running on Patton if he saw him, instead failing to report his presence there altogether that day, that is unconscionable and should have been a firing offense, not covered up.

But according to Myers' source, although only a few high-level persons knew of an officer's presence near the Tippit crime scene at the time of the shots, they covered it up, on behalf of that officer. That was Myers' high-level anonymous source's story to Myers.   

"You mean in the alley?

No.  I don't mean in the alley.  If I meant alley, then I would have said alley.  I said (and meant) driveway, since you said this (below):

"It may not actually be totally impossible that Doris Holan could have seen a "driveway" (differing from the alley) in the vicinity of 404 and 410 E 10th from her vantage point from her window facing Patton, if she saw a car in the back of a house (not the front of the house toward 10th), backing out into the alley."

Greg Doudna, of the witnesses who were outdoors and saw the patrol car stop alongside a man walking and/or saw Tippit before he was shot, people like Burt, Smith, Benavides, Markham and Scoggins, please list which of these REAL witnesses stated that there was a police car doing such a thing as going back and forth in ANY driveway of ANY of the houses along Tenth Street. 

Neither Brownlow nor Pulte are credible.  Having said that, their claim is that a police car was seen in the DRIVEWAY between the houses of 404 E. 10th and 410 E. 10th.  You guys are then, for some unknown reason, switching DRIVEWAY to ALLEY.  Nope.

7 hours ago, Tommy Tomlinson said:

In her testimony to the WC she says "1:15" in one of the other interviews  she phrases it slightly different, I have neither the time nor inclination to retrace the instance as it's a distracting matter of semantics, entirely irrelevant to the matter of what time she was present at the shooting, unless, as I asked before you are going to contend that The Warren Commissions estimation of the shooting is accurate at 1:16.

Markham says that she estimates the time of the shooting was 1:06 to 1:07 having just left her house at a little after 1PM. 

Benavides says that after the shooter leaves he waits a further 2 minutes, then moves to attend to Tippit, and then moves to try the radio.

Bowley arrives around that time, checks his watch and it's 1:10. He moves to Tippit, and attempts to help him before taking over the radio from Benavides, he gets the radio wokring and makes a call to dispatch the time of that call is 1:16.

I know people are very keen to argue to the far end of a fart about technical discrepancies in where someone was standing or what angle they were at, or using situations to further theories by postulating "Ah, but what IF????" scenarios... I;m not at that point yet with this part of the case I just want to know how Oswald got there in the time they say he did when the timescales say he couldn't have unless he was runing VERY fast indeed, and am still suprised that with the way DPD decnded on that Movie Theatre, that no one was interest in a guy sprinting hell for leather through the streets. Was that a common occurrence in Dallas in 1963? I don't know!  

What evidence, suggests that timeline is incorrect (taken from statements made to the WC) and that all three were individually out of whack to almost identical levels of disparity for the Commission to decide, and subsequent people accepted... that everyone was wrong, and they were right?

 

 

"In her testimony to the WC she says "1:15"

Right.  So in the interest of accuracy, maybe stop putting quotes at "around quarter past".

By the way, when she gave the time of 1:15, it was in response to the question asked by Ball about what time she gets her bus (a strange way to ask a question).  Therefore, we don't really know if Markham is telling us she gets to her bus stop at 1:15 or if she gets on the bus at 1:15.  Since a bus stopped there at 1:12 and again at 1:22, I'm going with the notion that she gets to her bus stop regularly at 1:15 in order to catch the 1:22 bus.  Like I said before, one does not normally plan on getting to the bus stop three minutes after the bus was due.  One would miss the bus over half the time (if not more).

"Benavides says that after the shooter leaves he waits a further 2 minutes, then moves to attend to Tippit, and then moves to try the radio."

If you really believe Benavides was cowering down in his truck for two minutes after the shooting, then you have Benavides hiding inside his truck, a mere fifteen feet from Tippit's body, while Helen Markham, Frank Cimino and others are already beginning to mill around the body.  Did you think this through?  No way is this the scenario which occurred.

Secondly, and more importantly, Benavides tells Eddie Barker (The Warren Report, part 3, CBS, 1967) that he watched the killer go around the corner and then sat in his truck "for a second or two" before getting out.

It's most likely that Benavides was out of his truck and on the patrol car radio about sixty seconds after the shooting.  We can hear Benavides begin to key the mic at 1:16.

"Bowley arrives around that time, checks his watch and it's 1:10. He moves to Tippit, and attempts to help him before taking over the radio from Benavides, he gets the radio wokring and makes a call to dispatch the time of that call is 1:16."

Bowley tells us that he pulled up to the scene, got out of his car, walked over to the body, saw right away that there was nothing he could do for Tippit, then immediately went over to the driver's side door and grabbed the mic from Benavides.  How long do you think something like that would take?  Sixty seconds?  Ninety seconds?  No way does Bowley pull up at 1:10 and then take roughly seven minutes (1:17, per Dale Myers) before making the report on the squad car radio.

I refuse to believe Bowley's 1960 era windup wristwatch was more accurate than the clocks in the dispatch room (which place Bowley's call at 1:16).  Bowles, the dispatch supervisor, tells us that those clocks could be off by a minute or so (he's simply allowing room for error, smart man) but there is no reason to believe they were off that day.  I also refuse to believe Bowley was on the scene for six or seven minutes, standing there looking at the body, before getting on the squad car radio.

7 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Bill, of course this mega-silly. Growing up and Dallas, I can confirm Lancaster was pronounced phonetically "Lank-ur-ster". That's what my relatives called it, and friends of the family. We were often in the area on the street of Lancaster in the early 1960's in Oak Cliff. Similar to this, Dallas residents often referred to Zang Blvd as "Zang's". 

And as usual, they never think this through. 

Steve, apparently there's a conspiracy at every turn; including the one at Lankster & 8th.

3 hours ago, Tommy Tomlinson said:

 I don't think you are getting it Bill. I'm not sure if I've explained it badly or you are being wilfully contrarian? I'll ingore the nonsense strawman of me claiming these things as facts other than to say that I've specifically used phrasess such as "I believe" "fairly sure" and "confident" to describe my understanding of the situation. I freely admit I'm way behind the curve on the details of the shooting.  Are you trying to say that a the Warren Commissions assertion of a 1:16 shooting was correct?

She didn't say the bus arrived at 1:15. She said that she would leave her house just after one, and walk to the bus which would arrive around quarter past. She's clearly not a woman accustomed to taking note of details. (You've read and seen her recollections...) If she was catching that bus with any degree of regularity she would be leaving the house at just after 1:00pm and be arriving there in time to catch a bus that was shceduled to arrive at 1:12. And unless you arre planning a military operation, or maybe a bank heist, most people would accept that twelve minutes past is "around quarter past" If she were regularly having to wait an additional ten minutes, even someone as scatter brained as Helen Markham would have figured that out after a few days, and if she wasn;t even that smart, then... well.. good luck convincing me that anything she said about the shooting has any merit whatsoever.

But, the important part is the time she left the house and the time it took her to get to the stop. What MIGHT have happpened at the bus stop in terms of waiting around or quickly boarding, is not what matters, the time she left and the time she took to get to the scene of the shooting is what matters.

If you are trying to blow holes in Markham's credibility over her understanding and comprehension of her own, personal, regular routine for getting to work, then any credibility she has over a brief explosive event that gave her several feinting fits should be, by association and at the very least, treated with the same lack of credibility. 

If you wish to proceed discounting Markham as not being credible, we can talk about the other witnesses who established the timeline, and ignore Markham's testimony, afffidavits and interviews completely, (as several members of the WC seemed eager to do...)

Out of interest what was the 1:22 bus? I've seen the schedule for the Number 55 bus, but that ran hourly (or, more accurately, every 58 minutes for some reason...). The "15" Bus would have arrived around 1:36 and the "30" would as I understand it, (happy to be corected on this) have required her to move to a different stop. What was the bus that ran 10 minutes after the 1:12pm "55" at the same stop? From what I can see from the schedule, the next bus would have arrived at around 2:10pm, meaning she would have been stepping off the bus about 5 minutes after her shift started. I'll pop a link to the schedule up when I'm on my proper computer, this notebook is struggling to do one thing at once, let alone multi-task.

"Out of interest what was the 1:22 bus? I've seen the schedule for the Number 55 bus, but that ran hourly (or, more accurately, every 58 minutes for some reason...). The "15" Bus would have arrived around 1:36 and the "30" would as I understand it, (happy to be corected on this) have required her to move to a different stop. What was the bus that ran 10 minutes after the 1:12pm "55" at the same stop? From what I can see from the schedule, the next bus would have arrived at around 2:10pm, meaning she would have been stepping off the bus about 5 minutes after her shift started. I'll pop a link to the schedule up when I'm on my proper computer, this notebook is struggling to do one thing at once, let alone multi-task."

In March of '64, Agent Bob Barrett (of the FBI) determined with the Dallas Transit System that a bus stopped at that bus stop (Jefferson and Patton) at "about 1:12 and every ten minutes thereafter".

3 hours ago, Tommy Tomlinson said:

 I don't think you are getting it Bill. I'm not sure if I've explained it badly or you are being wilfully contrarian? I'll ingore the nonsense strawman of me claiming these things as facts other than to say that I've specifically used phrasess such as "I believe" "fairly sure" and "confident" to describe my understanding of the situation. I freely admit I'm way behind the curve on the details of the shooting.  Are you trying to say that a the Warren Commissions assertion of a 1:16 shooting was correct?

She didn't say the bus arrived at 1:15. She said that she would leave her house just after one, and walk to the bus which would arrive around quarter past. She's clearly not a woman accustomed to taking note of details. (You've read and seen her recollections...) If she was catching that bus with any degree of regularity she would be leaving the house at just after 1:00pm and be arriving there in time to catch a bus that was shceduled to arrive at 1:12. And unless you arre planning a military operation, or maybe a bank heist, most people would accept that twelve minutes past is "around quarter past" If she were regularly having to wait an additional ten minutes, even someone as scatter brained as Helen Markham would have figured that out after a few days, and if she wasn;t even that smart, then... well.. good luck convincing me that anything she said about the shooting has any merit whatsoever.

But, the important part is the time she left the house and the time it took her to get to the stop. What MIGHT have happpened at the bus stop in terms of waiting around or quickly boarding, is not what matters, the time she left and the time she took to get to the scene of the shooting is what matters.

If you are trying to blow holes in Markham's credibility over her understanding and comprehension of her own, personal, regular routine for getting to work, then any credibility she has over a brief explosive event that gave her several feinting fits should be, by association and at the very least, treated with the same lack of credibility. 

If you wish to proceed discounting Markham as not being credible, we can talk about the other witnesses who established the timeline, and ignore Markham's testimony, afffidavits and interviews completely, (as several members of the WC seemed eager to do...)

Out of interest what was the 1:22 bus? I've seen the schedule for the Number 55 bus, but that ran hourly (or, more accurately, every 58 minutes for some reason...). The "15" Bus would have arrived around 1:36 and the "30" would as I understand it, (happy to be corected on this) have required her to move to a different stop. What was the bus that ran 10 minutes after the 1:12pm "55" at the same stop? From what I can see from the schedule, the next bus would have arrived at around 2:10pm, meaning she would have been stepping off the bus about 5 minutes after her shift started. I'll pop a link to the schedule up when I'm on my proper computer, this notebook is struggling to do one thing at once, let alone multi-task.

"She didn't say the bus arrived at 1:15. She said that she would leave her house just after one, and walk to the bus which would arrive around quarter past."

First, where did she say such a thing?

You keep using the phrase "around quarter past" with quotes.  What makes you say this?

2 hours ago, Tommy Tomlinson said:

I'm fairly sure it was the 1:12 since she described the one she always caught as arriving around quarter past after leaving the house at just after 1.00pm, and it being her daily schedule to arrive in time for a bus that in her brain arrived in under 15  minutes after she left. If her bus were arriving 3 minutes or so AFTER its scheduled time (schedule vs her understanding), I kind of think she'd have eventually figured out that it was closer to 1.30 than "quarter past" and she'd been waiting an extra ten minutes on top of the 3 or minutes she would have waited for the 1:!2 pm bus BY setting off "just after 1.00"?

As the conspiracy theorist here, I think it's odd that normally I would be the one supposed to be questioning Helen Markhams cerdibility as a witness, yet whe I given her the benefit of the doubt on an issue she would be far more reliable on than any identification of a man she saw for a few moments, here you are... defending her ID by way of questioning her ability to tell the time and reliably relate her daily work routone.

But whatever suits your agenda I suppose.

I know we need to follow some crazy "Well... it MIGHT have happened that way!" leaps of credulity to fit the "Oswald did it, alone... and so did Ruby!" theory based on th other witness reports. The entire case is based "Is it potentially, vaguelly theoretically possible for these events to occurr and line up at the same instance and allow us to say that one man could have done it?", why not add another.

Anything else about her testimony you think she might have messed up?

"I'm fairly sure it was the 1:12 since she described the one she always caught as arriving around quarter past after leaving the house at just after 1.00pm, and it being her daily schedule to arrive in time for a bus that in her brain arrived in under 15  minutes after she left."

I'm fairly sure Markham would quite often miss the 1:12 bus if she regularly got to the bus stop at 1:15.  This tells me that she usually got to the bus stop at 1:15 and caught the 1:22 bus.

The bottom line is that 1:15 is the only time she gives, regarding catching the bus.  You cannot claim as a fact that Markham regularly caught the 1:12 bus.  Be sure of it if you like, but it's not a fact.

20 hours ago, Tommy Tomlinson said:

Thanks for that Gil.

To me, that journey is the cornerstone of labeling Oswald the Tippit killer.  If you can show he covered that distance in the time the evidence establishes you get to say "he could have killed Tippit". If you can't show that a) he DID manage to do that or b) he COULD do that, you have to concede it might have not been him.

Both Roberts and Markham have come in for some bruising over the years depending on which side of the fence people are sitting when throwing stones, but both are considered to be pretty reliable in terms of the times. The only reason one could have to doubt them would be to forward an agenda or theory that doesn't fit without them being completely wrong.

The Warren Report did itself no favours by asserting the time of the shooting as being at 1:16PM. Helen Markham would have long been at her bus stop by that time, following her daily routine of setting off slightly after 1PM to meet a bus that arrrived at 1:12PM, though she said it was some time around 1:15... Regardless of the possibility of the bus' delayed arrival that day, she would have been there by 1:12PM and nowhere near the scene.

Seeing as how she estimated being about a minute and a half to two minutes away from the bus stop... even if her daily routine had her land at exactly the same time as the bus every day, the shooting was no later than 1:10-1:11PM 

The WC relied on Oswald enterring and leaving "around 1PM" allowed time for him to "briskly" walk the 9/10 of a mile in what the reader was meant to believe was 16 minutes... OK that's fine... PLENTY of time.. But when Roberts reliably placed his leaving at 1:03/1:04PM, and Markham reliably placed herself at the scene at no later than 1:10/1:11PM, that brisk walk suddenly becomes a hard run. 

 

Add to the melee that a witness who turned up a couple of minutes after the shooting having the good sense to check his watch for the time, and placing the time at 1:10PM

Unless I'm mistaken the timescales mentioned by people who have no credible reason to be disbelieved puts the shooting pretty much around 1:08/1:09PM

I did some checks on various times taken to run a mile and simply applied a 9/10 modifer to it... not exactly scientific, but pretty close. This is assuming ideal conditions and wearing suitable running gear... (lightweight vest, shorts, running shoes...) An intermediate level 20-25 yr old middle distance runner could have done it in a little under 6 minutes. Someone who was not a middle distance runner but was in decent shape could do it in around 8 1/2 minutes. (These times are increased significantly if not wearing suitable footwear...) However, in both circumstances, upon stopping their exertion, the runner would have been exhausted! Remember... this isn't "jogging" we are talking about, its running. Normal, healthy, "non-runners" struggle to keep up a full run for more than 2-3 minutes. 

At best Oswald needed to RUN for 6 to 8 minutes, wearing THREE layers of clothing, and wearing normal shoes.  

As to questions over things like Scoggins' posture... I'm pretty new to the Tippit discussion, I have Joe's book but to my shame have yet to get round to it... I've pretty much exclusively focused my interest on the Dealey Plaza evidence part of the case and try not to speculate down too many rabbit holes. But I'm to happy to engage in discussionos over the kneeling, prostrate, standing or otherwise positions of ear-witnesses after the basic question of "How the Hell did he get from Here to There within the permitted time frame?" has been put to rest.

"The Warren Report did itself no favours by asserting the time of the shooting as being at 1:16PM. Helen Markham would have long been at her bus stop by that time, following her daily routine of setting off slightly after 1PM to meet a bus that arrrived at 1:12PM, though she said it was some time around 1:15... Regardless of the possibility of the bus' delayed arrival that day, she would have been there by 1:12PM and nowhere near the scene."

Since Markham never mentions the 1:12 bus, it's equally as possible that she intended to catch the bus at 1:22.

You don't get to automatically assume that she was intending to catch the 1:12 bus.  Regarding the bus, the only time Markham gives is 1:15.  People don't regularly get to the bus stop three minutes after the bus was due to stop by.

1 minute ago, Tommy Tomlinson said:

I thought he said he was crouched behind the car? I recall he said something about the shooter looking over his left shoulder as he went past, when Scoggins was on his right, which would have made it hard to see his face, or was that someone else?

I'm curious, does that have any relevance to people seeing Oswald on his way TO the shooting?

Have I missed something?

Scoggins said he was crouched behind the cab.  Gil Jesus (mistakenly) said Scoggins was lying face down in the street.

As for the killer looking back over his shoulder, Benavides said the killer did this, not Scoggins.

The relevance is that you stated that Gil Jesus seems to have "a damn good grasp on the Tippit witness situation".  I'm here to tell you that this is not so.

3 hours ago, Tommy Tomlinson said:

Hi Gil,

I'm hijacking this Thread rather than create a new one, because my questions are all about the Tippit Witneses and this one already existed.

First question. You seem to have a damn good grasp on the Tippit witness situation, what I'm trying to find.are witness accounts not of the shooting. or of the escape, but of any witnesses who "observed Oswald" on his high speed forced narch to the scene of Tippit's shooting?

Could you point me in the right direction?

 

Second question... I understand that tthe shell casings found at the scene were 2 x Winchester and 2 x Remington, and that Benevides found two, and the Davis gals found the other two.

Does history relate what the breakdwon was in terms of who found what? e.g did Benavides find two of the same brand?

 

Many thanks in advance and anticipation!

I'm curious...

Do you believe that William Scoggins was lying face down in the street as the fleeing gunman approached the cab moments after shooting Tippit?

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Any more information on patrolman Angell, 81?  Maybe a first name, where he normally worked (Oak Cliff?)?

J.L. Angell

https://www.legacy.com/funeral-homes/obituaries/name/jl-angell-obituary?pid=184395600&v=batesville&view=guestbook

https://www.parker-ashworthfuneralhome.com/obituaries/6087733

His patrol car (#20) is captured on film in Dealey Plaza after the assassination.

Some of you need to read this and learn something...

https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/welcome-to-texas-unusual-pronunciation/

"And we recently visited Lancaster to find out why it's pronounced "Lang-k's-ter" instead of "LAN-caster," as many people assume."

15 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

It is all confusing, and impossible to know much of anything for sure.  I went back and re read a bit in Nightmare.  I'd forgotten about the Top Ten records stop.  Drenas article is very good, it's referenced in Nightmare.  But I have to take it with a grain of salt when in the second paragraph he gives special thanks to Dave Perry for his advice.  Gary Mack was a convert by 97/98 if I'm not mistaken and Sneed's No More Silence is useful but is pretty much a lone nut work.

I still have to wonder about the timing.  Some have proposed the Top Ten encounter may have happened before the 12:54 response to dispatch.  I know Cortinas, the 18 year old employee said, years later, that it wasn't but 10 minutes after Tippit was in the shop that he heard about the shooting on the radio.  Which is impossible.  Though Cortinas account of Tippit leaving the shop is more detailed and differs from his 50 year old boss's account many years later.  The boss said JD took off North/East on Jefferson.  Cortinas is the one who said he crossed Jefferson on Bishop then ran the stop sign at Sunset turning right/N-E on it.  The next street North is 10th.

Then we have James Andrews being stopped by an agitated Tippit heading West on 10th, a few minutes after 1:00.

This is where it gets squirrely for me.  Drenas says Tippit's time of death was 1:10-1:15, acknowledging the WC says 1:15.  This has been discussed in depth and more like 1:06 seems to be more accurate.  If Tippit responded to dispatch at 12:54 from Lancaster or Lansing, that's 12 minutes before he was shot.  I don't think enough time for everything.

To go from the Gloco station at the Houston viaduct a block East to Lancaster then down it reporting in at 12:54 as he gets to 8th.  On down to Jefferson?  Then stopping at Top Ten to use the phone.  North on Bishop across Jefferson to Sunset, right on it.  Then stopping Andrews heading West on 10th 5 blocks East of where he would die a 1:06.  It doesn't make sense to me time wise.  Adding in him going by and asking Olsen if he'd seen Oswald pass by or looking in that area stretches the possibilities even more.

"It is all confusing, and impossible to know much of anything for sure.  I went back and re read a bit in Nightmare.  I'd forgotten about the Top Ten records stop.  Drenas article is very good, it's referenced in Nightmare.  But I have to take it with a grain of salt when in the second paragraph he gives special thanks to Dave Perry for his advice."

You critique Dave Perry (a very fine researcher, no doubt) while "forgetting" about the Top Ten scenario.  Hilarious.

Point being, if you're so ignorant on the goings on in Oak Cliff, then who are you to critique anyone, especially someone like Perry?

32 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Listen to any number of the transmitted radio and television programs broadcast on November 22, 1963 (David von Pein has them on his site), and very quickly after JFK is shot, a bulletin is broadcast describing the killer. How was that possible? Where did this information come from? A central source, and if so, what was the originating source?

Herb Sawyer from Howard Brennan.

I never rely on Brennan and I don't see how it is possible to accurately give a height/weight description of a man in the window from Brennan's position, though this is what happened.

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The poster replies:

It’s being rebutted by a “Bill Brown” who’s insisting it’s:-

 

1) been contracted to “Lankster”. 

 

When it hasn’t!  The whole point is that any element of “ster” is absent. 

You know what?  All ya gotta do is listen to the tapes for yourself.  The "ster" is most definitely there.

BUMP

This whole thing is plain silly.

First, Tippit says he's at Lancaster and 8th.  He simply pronounced Lancaster and 8th like "Lankster & 8th".  All Tippit did was shorten Lancaster from three syllables to two.

Second, Lancaster and 8th is only two measly blocks from Lansing and 8th.  Am I to understand that whatever conspiratorial nonsense a moving patrol car could be involved in at Lansing & 8th could not happen just two simple blocks away at Lancaster and 8th?

Did you really think this through?

On 8/8/2023 at 10:25 AM, Steve Thomas said:

Report on Officer's Duties by M. G. Hall in regards to the President's murder #1] Page: 1 of 4

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337510/m1/1/?q=lineups

 

WC testimony of Elmer Boyd

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/boyd.htm

 

Mr. BALL. Who asked the questions?
Mr. BOYD. Let me see---at one of the showups---I've forgotten whether it was on this particular one whether it was someone out from--Sims asked him some questions in one of those showups.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever ask any questions?
Mr. BOYD. Not that I recall--I don't believe I did.

Mr. BALL. Now, when they asked questions of Oswald at this showup, did he reply?
Mr. BOYD. I believe he did at that one--I believe he did reply.

 

WC testimony of Richard Sims

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/sims.htm

 

Mr. BALL. When he was in the interrogation room for the first showup, did you ask him any questions?
Mr. SIMS. Yes; we talked to him.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember what you said to him?
Mr. SIMS. No, sir; I don't remember-

Mr. BALL. And did you hear anything that was said from the audience part of the showup?
Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you hear?
Mr. SIMS. Well, someone was asking each one in the showup a few questions.
Mr. BALL. Do you know who that was that asked the questions in the first showup?
Mr. SIMS. I'm not positive, but I believe it was Detective Leavelle in our office conducted the first showup.
Mr. BALL. And what questions did they ask?
Mr. SIMS. I couldn't say the exact questions, but as a rule, his age and address and where he went to school and where he was born and just a few questions like that, just to have them say a few words.
Mr. BALL. Did Leavelle ask all of the questions?
Mr. SIMS. He asked all four of the men in the showup.

 

WC testimony of James Leavelle

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/leave_j1.htm

Mr. BALL. Who conducted the showup questioning?
Mr. LEAVELLE. I probably asked the questions, yes.
Mr. BALL. What questions?
Mr. LEAVELLE. Normally, I would not have asked names in this case because for fear of her remembering the name, so, or might have heard the name, so, probably asked how old they were, what occupation, anything so they could speak and let me hear the sound of their voice.
Mr. BALL. Did any of them say they were police officers?
Mr. LEAVELLE. No, no; the officers gave some other occupation.

 

Gil is not "making things up out of thin air"

 

Steve Thomas

Gil is not "making things up out of thin air"

Regarding the Tippit shooting, Gil Jesus once stated right here on this forum (not too long ago) that William Scoggins' identification of the fleeing gunman as being Oswald is faulty because Scoggins couldn't have possibly seen the gunman's face since he (Scoggins) was lying face down in the street on the other side of the cab from the gunman.

Scoggins was indeed ducking behind the cab but never said he was lying face down in the street.  In fact, Scoggins said he peeked up over the cab at the gunman.  I have never seen anyone (sans Gil Jesus) claim that Scoggins was lying face down in the street.  In fact, Scoggins testified that the fleeing gunman was not wearing glasses and appeared to be about 25 years old.  Scoggins couldn't have said either of these things if he had not seen the gunman's face.

So @Steve Thomas, I ask you, when Gil Jesus said Scoggins was lying face down in the street, was he flat out wrong or was he making things up?  It's one or the other.