Bill Brown

No. Again, no. The Supplementary Offense Report is not an official medical document, in regards to Tippit's time of death and/or when he was pronounced dead. It was given by Davenport, who was the police officer who followed the ambulance to Methodist Hospital. The only document that matters says that Tippit was D.O.A. It also says that his time of death was 1:15. However, it does NOT say that Tippit was pronounced D.O.A. at 1:15, as you'd have others believe.

"The report of the officers is corroborated by the "Permit for Autopsy" , which states that Tippit was indeed "dead on arrival" and that the time of his arrival was 1:15 pm." No. It doesn't say that at all. Why do you continually misquote and misrepresent?

No. It's not "BS" at all. Maybe you should run off and watch some of the more recent podcast interviews McBride has done. He has Tippit shooting at the President from behind the fence atop the knoll.

The 30 030 was not a removable tag. It was printed onto the jacket.

Gerry, The sad part here is that McBride has Tippit as Badge Man.

For what it's worth... The 30-030 marking could be a water temperature recommendation when laundering a particular piece of garment, in this case, the jacket. The B-9738 marking could be a description of the jacket's color of "vanilla".

"Someone even wrote a book that borrowed so heavily from my own original work (much of it without credit), that I thought I was reading With Malice, until I started encountering every crazy falsehood and distortion ever written about the Tippit case." -- Dale Myers (11/22/2023 blog post) http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2023/11/six-decades-of-truth-and-consequences.html?m=1

The B9738 tag had been printed by a Tag-O-Lectric tagging machine and the 030 marking had been printed with a National Laundry tagging machine.

Mr. OLDS. Well, I know, but we had the idea that Oswald was not being accurate when he said he had been denied, because in our dealings with the police here, we have had reason to believe that they are very careful of this sort of thing. And certainly in a case of this notoriety, certainly, our tendency was to believe that, but I have always been sorry that we didn't talk with Oswald, because it was not clear whether we would be permitted to see him that night or not. Mr. STERN. But, you did not ask to see him? Mr. OLDS. No; we did not, which I think was a mistake on my part.

No, No and No. There is no verbal timestamp of 1:10 given by the dispatcher. You can hear the dispatcher give the timestamp of 1:11 on two occasions, about thirty seconds apart... and what do ya know? Six minutes later you can hear Bowley report his call on Tippit's squad car radio. You really should just go and listen to the actual audio for yourself.

"The person I got that story from was a little loose in his characterization of the Higgins interview. The "reporters" he spoke of was actually researcher Barry Ernest. The quote is from an unplanned interview he had with Higgins, which he recorded in his book." Right. Exactly as I said, decades later from a questionable researcher. Did Ernest record the supposed interview with Higgins? Of course not. Like i said, questionable. So then perhaps you shouldn't have said that Higgins told reporters that she was watching the news and the announcer stated that the time was six minutes after one. "Oh my gosh, how old are you, Bill? Television was funny back then, with an awful lot of live broadcasts featuring absolute amateurs. I remember one local TV show called "Dialing for Dollars" where the host would randomly pick a phone number, call it, wait for six rings to pass, and then count to ten to give the household more time to answer the phone. If a person did answer, the host would ask a question. The person would win some amount of money if they got the answer right." How is any of the above supposed to suggest that ANY announcer on television ever noted on the air that the time was six minutes after one? What I am telling you is that it did not happen. There is no footage of any television announcer giving that time stamp.

"What?? Markham told the Warren Commission FIFTEEN times that Oswald wasn't the man who she saw shoot Tippit!" No, she doesn't tell the Warren Commission that at all. She was confused about what Ball was asking her and we know this because she very plainly states that the number two man was the man she saw shoot the policeman. Oswald was the number two man. Also, in a filmed interview, Markham says that Oswald is the man she saw shoot Tippit. So I ask you... What does obvious confusion during her testimony in 1964 have to do with the FACT that she positively identified Oswald on the night of November 22nd, 1963?

"Yep... 1:06 PM:" No Sir. Helen Markham had just arrived at the northwest corner of 10th & Patton, en route to catch the city bus one block south at Jefferson & Patton (at 1:15 PM). She told the Warren Commission it was "6 or 7 minutes after 1 [1:06 or 1:07 PM]" She also told the Warren Commission that Oswald was the man she saw shoot the police man. So, what now? Mrs. Margie Higgins, who lived at 417 East 10th St. was watching television and later told reporters, "Well, I was watching the news on television and for some reason the announcer turned and looked at the clock and said the time was six minutes after one (1:06 PM). At that point I heard the shots." Two things. First, what reporters did Higgins say this to? Do you have footage of it? I bet you don't. This supposed claim by Higgins came from a very questionable researcher decades later. Second, there was no moment in any of the broadcasts where the announcer looks at a clock and notes the time as being 1:06. Simply didn't happen. Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig was searching the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, when a rifle was discovered. Craig wrote, “… At that exact moment an unknown Dallas police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. I instinctively looked at my watch. The time was 1:06 PM." Good grief. In 1968, during an interview (along with Penn Jones) with the L.A. Free Press, Roger Craig was asked about the Tippit shooting. Craig told the interviewer that the shooting occurred at 1:45. Jones immediately corrected Craig, informing him that the shooting occurred around 1:15. Craig responded with "Oh? Is that right? Okay." (or words to that effect, I'm going by memory) The bottom line is, in 1968, Craig obviously had no idea what time the Tippit shooting occurred. Then, in the early 70's when writing his manuscript, Craig tells the story of being in Dealey Plaza and hearing of the shooting of the police officer in Oak Cliff. In the scenario, Craig supposedly looks at his watch and notes that it said the time was 1:06. Does anyone really believe that Craig heard of the shooting over in Oak Cliff, looked down at his watch and noted that the time was 1:06.... And then less than five years later, he is being interviewed and easily accepts the correction that the time of the shooting occurred at 1:15, only to then tell the story a few years later (early '70s) that his watch said it was 1:06 when he heard of the shooting? In the 1968 interview with the LA Free Press, it is painfully obvious that Craig had no idea what time the Tippit shooting occurred. So then why would he say the shooting happened at 1:06 when he was writing his "manuscript" in the early '70s? Answer? Because he was trying to sell the manuscript. T.F. Bowley was driving west on 10th Street and arrived a few minutes after the shooting. He looked at his watch--the time was 1:10 PM. An original DPD police transcript, found in the National Archives, lists the time of Bowley's call to the police as 1:10 PM. The original DPD transcript (CE 705) shows the report of Tippit's murder by Bowley at 1:10 PM. The FBI transcript, (CE 1974) prepared in August, 1964, lists the reporting time of Tippit's murder by Bowley at 1:19 PM--nine minutes later. Listen to the tapes and follow the timestamps given by the dispatcher. The dispatcher never says 1:10. The 1:10 notation on the document is old hat and has been debunked many years ago.

All of the evidence indicates that the Tippit shooting occurred at 1:06? Laughable. The Dallas Police tape tells you when the shooting occurred and it was much later than 1:06.

"What's that got to do with the way the others were dressed ?" Your graphic asks "Can you pick the suspect"? Your graphic shows Oswald in a beat up plain white T-shirt, no doubt in an attempt to misrepresent what Oswald was wearing versus what the fillers were wearing. Oswald was wearing his brown shirt for all of the Friday lineups. You couldn't find a photo of Oswald in the brown shirt? Really?

The bottom line... the official conclusion is no evidence of any conspiracy. An article by Fred Litwin in which he posts the letter from the Department of Justice... https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/paul-bleau-chokes-part-5?fbclid=IwAR3PLD95zILJ3RZbEUhVOkqQbTm3klsvW0NSRryeq2DhyOmGhyz4pC0zmRw_aem_AfYMEpGy0wr_OZs6_nXORupgl0chd1LEyvBEifIXaQ2zU5j8LvWjen88ulfyQ5hWaN526wlcyo-kZ7tdeq2DS94_ @Pat Speer

Misleading. Oswald was wearing his brown shirt for the Friday lineups. Therefore, why use the mugshot photo of Oswald only in the white T-shirt?

Perhaps you're completely unaware that the HSCA concluded that Kennedy was assassinated as part of a "probable" conspiracy and then recommended that the Department of Justice look into the matter further. The DOJ did just that and concluded that there was no evidence of any conspiracy. Learn the case, please.

T.F. Bowley tells us what he did upon arriving on the scene, actions which would take 60 to 90 seconds at the most. Bowley tells us he arrived, got out of his car, walked over to the body and saw there was nothing he could do for the officer, then went over and grabbed the mic from Benavides to report the shooting. Bowley reported the shooting at 1:17. As for Markham, she most certainly did NOT see a picture of Oswald on television before attending the lineup. Maybe go read her testimony?

Greg Doudna said: "...and a few years later Chapman in National Enquirer quoted Jimmy Burt as saying categorically that Oswald was not the killer." Just a side note, Greg... I have the audio of the entire interview between Chapman and Burt. Nowhere in the interview does Burt say that the killer was NOT Oswald. @Greg Doudna

You're using wayyyyyy too much common sense, Mark.

This means you're choosing to believe Markham over the accuracy of the police tapes. By the way, Markham was also "cocksure" that Oswald was the man she saw shoot Tippit. So, what now?

I think that's a perfect statement to wrap up this thread.

Nonsense. There is nothing which proves that Oswald gave his name and place of employment during the lineups.

Thanks for the reply, Greg. Here's the thing... Brewer said that the man who he saw in front of his store was about 5'9", about 150 pounds (what was Crafard's height/weight?) and wearing a brown outer shirt and a T-shirt underneath. Oswald's autopsy report stated he was 5'9", 150 pounds. And we know he was wearing a brown shirt with a T-shirt underneath. I'm saying that if the man seen by Brewer was Crafard, then it's one hell of a coincidence that the clothing this man was wearing happened to match the clothes Oswald was wearing.