Bill Brown

In his Warren Commission testimony, Benavides used a figure of speech when he said he waited in his truck for a few minutes. To Eddie Barker in 1967 (CBS - The Warren Report, part 3), Benavides stated that he watched the killer go around the corner and then waited for "maybe a second or two". If you really do believe that Benavides actually waited in his truck for a few minutes before getting out, then it means you also believe that Benavides was cowering inside his truck as Helen Markham, Frank Cimino, Jimmy Burt, Bill Smith and others were standing over the body.

Bill after thinking some more about this today I think you are right. Benavides is a high-quality witness and saw no shot after he saw Tippit fall. So that is one strong witness (Benavides, right there and very close), backed up by a weak witness (Wm Smith, due to distance), and no countervailing witness (I don't consider Frank Wright or Tatum countervailing witnesses). Maybe its not airtight that Benavides could not be mistaken, but the weight favors Benavides' witness being accurate on that point. I am agreeing you are right and that I learned something from you here. Well, there is hope for us, yet.

I think Whaley actually did refer to a jacket on Oswald in his original FBI interview even though the original FBI interview report refers to a "shirt" not "jacket". The reason is because Whaley then and later consistently spoke of a match in color between the pants and (later) jacket, earlier "shirt" (as reported in his first FBI interview). The color of Oswald's pants is known: gray, without dispute on that fact. A match of color to Oswald's gray pants would be Oswald's gray jacket which Oswald is otherwise attested as having worn to work that morning. No. Whaley specifically said "shirt" and even described the shirt. "This boy was small, 5'8", slender, had on a dark shirt with white spots of something on it. He had a bracelet on his left wrist. He looked like he was 25 or 26 years old." -- William Whaley affidavit (11/23/63) Not a single mention of any jacket.

Finally, I again repeat that my overall point about Whaley is that his identification of Oswald is open to serious doubt and is far from what would normally be considered a "positive identification." Well, at least you are no longer incorrectly claiming that Whaley picked Knapp out of the lineup and not Oswald.

Again, regardless of whether Benavides heard three, four or even five shots, Benavides saw Tippit fall and the killer backed up onto the sidewalk and headed for the corner. Benavides has not even a single shot taking place after he saw Tippit fall.

Bill Smith saw Tippit fall and the killer run off. No shots AFTER Tippit fell.

At the time? No. After hearing the last of the shots, Benavides looked up in time to see Tippit stumble and fall and the killer back up onto the sidewalk and take off. In other words, Benavides saw Tippit fall; there were no more shots after seeing Tippit fall.

Bill Smith said that the gunman ran off after firing the shots; nothing about the gunman going in front of the car to fire off a final shot before taking off.

Domingo Benavides saw pretty much everything. He said after the shots, the killer, from his position across the hood from Tippit, backed up onto the sidewalk and took off for the corner. Benavides says nothing about the killer going out in front of the patrol car to final a final shot.

Greg, For the record... long before he ever testified to the Warren Commission, Whaley described his infamous passenger to the FBI. In this description, he described the shirt in detail and makes no mention of any jacket, much less two. Also, Oswald got out of the cab three blocks past the rooming house, not five. Oswald gave Whaley the destination of 500 North Beckley, but as they approached the 700 block (Beckley and Neely), Oswald told Whaley that this would do just fine and Whaley pulled over two blocks short of the original destination.

I don't believe Whaley recognized Oswald as the passenger he picked up at 12:30. I believe he was pressured into eventually going along with an Oswald identification. But then why did you say this, below? At the police lineup, Whaley selected an eighteen-year-old named David Knapp instead of the twenty-four-year-old Oswald.

A few pages back, you said: At the police lineup, Whaley selected an eighteen-year-old named David Knapp instead of the twenty-four-year-old Oswald. Before we go on with the issues you raise, re: Whaley, do you still believe Whaley picked Knapp? How about a direct answer to my direct question?

The positive argument is an inference from a negative argument: that the fender prints are not a likely position for anyone to put their hand on to. Yet someone did. Who could that possibly be? You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the prints lifted from the patrol car (both the passenger door and the right front fender) MUST be associated with the shooting. It's like you think it's an impossibility that no one else could have touched those two places on the car EXCEPT the man who killed Tippit.

You do not allow for the same possibility with the fingerprints coming from the killer, as you do for that jacket coming from the killer. Correct. Because Oswald was identified by multiple witnesses as being the man they saw either shoot Tippit or run from the scene with a gun in his hands. Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket. Oswald is seen in front of the shoe store with no jacket. Oswald's gun is linked, through ballistic testing, to the shells found at the scene. Microscopic fibers found inside one of the sleeves of the jacket matched test fibers removed from Oswald's arrest shirt. In other words, the evidence points to Oswald as being Tippit's killer. The evidence points to Oswald ditching his jacket. A jacket was found with matching fibers to the shirt he was wearing. Marina Oswald said the jacket found behind the Texaco was her husband's jacket. Regarding the prints on the patrol car, there is no evidence that the killer touched the right front fender. The killer probably didn't even touch the door, but that part doesn't really matter. You said it was a 95% certainty, or a 99% certainty (I don't recall what percentage of certainty you used), that the prints on the right front fender belonged to the killer. That was a nonsensical statement. You have no grounds for making such a statement. There is solid evidence that the jacket was Oswald's. There is no evidence at all that the prints on the right front fender belonged to the killer. I do not claim certainty on fingerprint grounds alone that the killer left those fingerprints. Like you, I "believe the fingerprints found on the Tippit patrol car were put there by the killer. But there's no way it can ever [be] proven to a certainty". Echoing your wording. Just for clarity, I do not believe even for a second that the prints lifted off the patrol car belonged to Tippit's killer. I know what you meant to say here but others could be confused (especially considering this crowd here on this forum). Please try to be more clear from now on.

Do you think the jacket found in the parking lot of the gas station, C162, was abandoned by the killer? I do. What about you? Of course you do. Yes, I believe the jacket found behind the Texaco was ditched by the killer. But there's no way it can ever proven to a certainty. But the same arguments you are citing as stated reasons for certainty that the killer of Tippit did not leave fingerprints on the patrol car in the same way would logically prove the killer of Tippit was not the owner of the C162 jacket. Just imagine if C162, let us say hypothetically, had been found not to belong to Oswald as a conclusive finding of fact for some reason. I can just hear you then using the same arguments against linking C162 to the killer of Tippit, as you are now using against linking the fingerprints to the killer of Tippit. No witness saw the killer throw the C162 jacket under the car in the parking lot behind the gas station, you would say. "You have failed to prove any scenario by which the killer threw that jacket there", I can hear you saying, with equal bombast and certainty as in the case of the fingerprints. Its the same thing, same nature of argument. It is parallel. You've completely missed the point. This is where you're goofing up. I have never stated that it is a fact that the jacket found behind the Texaco was most definitely the killer's jacket. The point that I have made, over and over again, is this.... Forget Tenth and Patton. Forget the jacket found behind the Texaco station. Oswald left the rooming house on Beckley, zipping up a jacket as he went out the door. He is seen on Jefferson in front of the shoe store with no jacket. Why would Oswald ditch the jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson? The difference is you are gung-ho (and properly so) concerning one of these, the case of C162, but argue the opposite in the case of the fingerprints. No. Read above.

You simply deny capability to imagine how he could have touched that fender even if he was standing right there. Because if you could imagine that that was possible, then there would no longer be certainty that it didn't happen, and there would be gone your reason for ruling out that the killer left the fingerprints found at the passenger door. How about this... I am asking you to speculate, so feel free... In one or two paragraphs, please explain how it all goes down where the shooter placed his hand on the right front fender. Remember, it must make sense and it must be reasonable. I say the killer had no cause to ever touch the right front fender. Make it make sense that he would. YOU are the one who said that the killer touched the right front fender. You placed a percentage of probability, something like 95% or whatever it was. I say that's a bunch of bull.

Bill, you stated earlier certainty that even though the gunman who killed Tippit was seen with his hands near the top of the right front passenger door--with hands seen touching the window there according to a witness--that fingerprints found twenty minutes later in that exact location most certainly did NOT (you assert) come from the Tippit killer. Two things.... One... The witnesses who said Oswald had his hands on the door were Helen Markham and Jimmy Burt. Markham, from her position (across the street, 150 feet away and on the other side of the car from the passenger door), couldn't really know such a thing to be true. She made an assumption, Greg. Burt, a block east of the patrol car and also across the street, could not know such a thing to be true. He made an assumption, Greg. Two... Even if the killer's prints were lifted off of that door and the killer touched that door, that does not automatically mean that the prints lifted off of the door belonged to the killer. Really, I shouldn't have to point out such a thing. Well hell's bells Bill, no witness was in a position to see the killer touch the right front fender if he had. Helen Markham from her position could not see through the car to have seen the fender below her line of sight on the other side of her. That's exactly right. Markham couldn't see the fender just the same as she couldn't see the door. So then why do you feel it's okay to use her as proof that the killer laid his hands on the passenger door?

You're still evading the key issues and doing so in a disingenuous manner. Let's see if we can unpack the situation with Whaley with a series of factual observations. I'll be happy to discuss any of this with you just as soon as you admit that you were wrong to say that Whaley, during the lineup, picked out Knapp and not Oswald. Once you (finally) admit this, we can move forward.

I can't admit anything? What are you talking about? I have discussed what you are calling "the contradictions in Whaley's identification" for a decade before I ever heard of you. You keep wanting to take the conversation to these contradictions, to improper lineups, to Whaley's confusion on what number Oswald was in the lineup, Whaley's log book, etc... all to avoid saying that you were wrong, that Whaley obviously picked Oswald because Whaley tells us (which you admit you were unaware of) that he picked out the guy who was bawling out the police. So again, simple question... Do you believe Knapp was bawling out the police or were you wrong to say Whaley chose Knapp? It's one or the other. I'll answer it for you, since you're afraid to. Whaley picked out the man who was bawling out the police. The man who was bawling out the police was Lee Oswald. Whaley picked Lee Oswald. Your statement that Whaley actually picked out Knapp was foolish.

Oswald's motive for shooting at General Walker was the same as he had for assassinating the President. Marxism and Cuba. Oswald wanted the United States Government to keep it's hands off of Cuba. Oswald told Capt. Will Fritz that he was a Marxist, that he belonged to the Fair Play For Cuba organization and that he was in favor of Fidel Castro's revolution. Before the revolution, Castro, with his Marxist beliefs, condemned social and economic inequality in Cuba. He adopted the Marxist view that meaningful political change could only be brought about by proletariat revolution. While Castro was imprisoned for the failed attack on the Moncada Barracks in Cuba, his wife took employment with the Ministry of the Interior. Castro was enraged and insulted. His Marxist beliefs were so strong that filed for divorce. Mirta (Castro's wife) took custody of their son Fidelito. The thought of his son growing up in a bourgeois environment further enraged Castro. Oswald agreed strongly with the Marxist beliefs of Castro. During the revolution, the U.S. Government feared that Castro was a socialist. In early January of 1959, Batista was overthrown by the rebels and he fled. The revolution was a crucial turning point in relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Originally, the U.S. government was willing to recognize Castro's new government. However, the U.S. government would eventually fear that Communist insurgencies would spread through Latin America, as they had in Southeast Asia. On March 5, 1963, Major General Edwin Walker gave a speech where he called on the White House to "liquidate the (communist) scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba." Walker was obviously referring to Fidel Castro. Oswald ordered his rifle seven days later. Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission: "I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution. I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing. I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that."

Look. This is real simple. In addition to trying to change the subject, you said that Whaley did not choose Oswald at the lineup; that he chose Knapp. But, you were completely unaware that Whaley said that the man he chose was bawling out the police and complaining about being placed in lineups alongside teenagers. Perhaps you should stop commenting on subjects that you are clueless on. So my direct question to you (AGAIN), do you believe Knapp was bawling out the police or were you wrong to say Whaley chose Knapp? It's one or the other.

So then, you do indeed believe that Knapp was "bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers". Strange, but okay I guess.

Greg, as simple as I can answer this... No witness said the killer touched the front fender/quarter panel. The man was walking on the sidewalk and then went straight to the passenger door to talk to Tippit. The man would have no reason at that moment to touch the front fender. Then, after the man shoots Tippit from across the hood, the man backs up onto the sidewalk and heads toward the corner in the opposite direction from the front passenger fender.. At no point does this man touch the front passenger fender. It is YOU who is stating that the killer touched the front passenger fender without a shred of evidence to suggest such a scenario. This is the kind of thing you do all the time, quite frankly.

No Sir. You are changing the subject in an attempt to avoid answering my original question. You said that Whaley didn't pick Oswald at the lineup. You said Whaley picked the #2 man while Oswald was the #3 man. You said that Whaley actually picked Knapp. I told you what Whaley said about the guy he did pick, about how the guy was acting; and it certainly was not Knapp. Unless you believe that Knapp was "bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers".

Blah, blah blah. Again... I suppose you believe that Knapp was "bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers". Really? Do you believe that Knapp was doing such a thing?