Bill Brown

Surely sounds like he parked at least a few houses away. More than two puts him west of Patton and 100 yards starts to look realistic. You have it a little backwards. Bowley approached from the east (heading west). He never would have been west of Patton at any point. "Several houses down" would still have him on Tenth Street on the same block as Tippit's stopped patrol car.

Vince Palamara. Busted! Not surprisingly busted, though.

Gary Doudna, A number of things here. First, Acquilla Clemons never makes any mention of the exchange between the two men as taking place three-fourths of the way down Patton toward Jefferson. Again, you're changing the actual story to fit a narrative you're trying to push. I notice you do this sort of thing a lot. Second, Brownlow most definitely uses "driveway" (not alley). To me, and knowing Brownlow, it is obvious that when they were concocting this hair-brained story, they said Holan told them the police car was in the driveway because they believed Holan actually lived on Tenth right across the street from the scene. Had they known that Myers was going to show (years later) that Holan actually lived pretty much halfway down Patton, their story would have never included any mention of a driveway between the two houses on Tenth. Third, Courson never says he backed up (drove in reverse) in the alley. He said it was on Tenth Street. Again, you're changing what he actually did say to fit your narrative. Any conclusion reached as a result of your studies on these matters will be entirely invalid, since you change the story of the very sources you cite.

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2020/11/doris-e-holan-and-tippit-murder.html

Greg Doudna said: "Bill Brown, I have never seen you differ significantly from Myers once. You just stick with Myers on rejection of the Doris Holan story in toto, and keep missing this one too, if you like." Hey, when you're right, you're right. Greg, you're changing the entire story. Fiction is fun, right?

No. The driveway didn't go through to the alley.

I suppose you believe that not noticing any old vehicle parked out on the street is comparable to not noticing a police car in an alley. Your faulty logic never ceases to amaze me.

But that is not the claim.

You're literally changing a story for no other reason than to have it fit your narrative.

You do realize that Holan (from her apartment halfway down Patton) couldn't have seen a police car in the driveway between 404 and 410 E. 10th Street, right? Dale Myers proved that she did not live on Tenth Street on 11/22/63, as mistakenly claimed by Brownlow, et al.

To the point of this thread and my original post... I have spoken to Mike Brownlow at least a half dozen times in person. I know for a fact that he is full of lies and "tall-tales". I can give examples if you really do insist. He'll say anything to make a buck or two. It is my opinion that Doris Holan never said any of this to him or Livingstone or Pulte. I also do not believe that Sam Guinyard ever told Brownlow (supposedly in 1970, if I recall correctly) that he (Guinyard) saw a police car in the alley.

Greg, again... No. Neither Holan nor Courson describe any strange backing-up movements in the alley. How do you continue to make the leap from supposed backing-up movements in the driveway (the actual claim) to these movements taking place in the alley? The supposed Holan claim has this action taking place in the driveway (not the alley). Based on the fact (per Myers) that she lived pretty much halfway down Patton, she couldn't have seen anything going on in the driveway between the second and third houses on Tenth. The supposed Courson claim doesn't say anything about the alley at all. How do you make the leap from Courson describing pulling up to the scene on Tenth Street to being in the alley? Courson is saying he drove in reverse on the street, not in the alley.

But the new fact established by Myers in 2020, is that Doris Holan lived at 113-1/2 S. Patton Street. That is the second floor of the apartment building on the northwest corner of Patton and the alley, and although Myers did not realize it, it actually strengthens, not weakens, the plausibility of the claim in the Doris Holan story to have seen a police cruiser in the alley. The Doris Holan story gains, is not diminished, in credibility in light of a realization of Doris Holan's actual, true, correct address. For as Doris Holan put it, when she heard the shots she ran to her front window (which in fact, not known until 2020, overlooked Patton), and the view from her window overlooking Patton looks directly east right straight directly into that alley. Doris Holan told of that alley and said she saw a police cruiser making strange backing up movements and then leaving. That is a description of seeing someone in a parked car in that alley backing up and leaving in a hurry, as it would appear to someone looking out Doris Holan's second-story window with a view looking directly into that alley. Greg, No. Holan's supposed account has what you are calling "strange backing up movements" occurring in the driveway between the two houses, NOT in the alley as you are trying to say above. Therefore, your entire point (trying to give credibility to the supposed Holan account of seeing a police car in the alley) is entirely invalid. Sorry buddy, but you're going to have to go back to the drawing board on this one.

On the other hand Myers' high-level confidential informant saying there was a police officer there that day at that time, while not certain, is more substantial. It weighs in favor of the Brownlow story could be correct, in the sense of having something to it (not meaning in the sense of every specific of Brownlow's story). Come on, Greg. Surely you're not saying that if a police officer was there having a tryst with a married woman, that he would have driven a police car to her house?

They separated, and ended up seeing more of each other? They divorced, and were living together in their 80's? To me, it's eye-rollingly implausible. Why do you guys keep saying "living together"? They weren't living together.

My third option doesn't include the DPD knowing at the time that the prints were complete enough to rule anyone out. This whole thing is silly. I'm not wasting anymore time on this subject. I've made my point, which is entirely valid. Let me know once you've obtained a fingerprint card on Larry Crafard and then we can go from there.

Either they were not competent compared to Lutz in 1994, or they were competent and were holding that finding back. Which do you think it was? I believe a third option: No one said the killer touched the fender. The prints lifted from the fender don't belong to Oswald. Oswald killed Tippit but didn't touch the fender. The prints weren't Oswald's but they don't rule out Oswald as the killer (since no one saw the killer touch the fender). The prints, if they could have been linked to anyone (they couldn't because they were only partial) would not rule out Oswald as the killer.

Greg, have you seen the prints? They're only partial prints and Barnes tells you that they're of no use.

No. Because I believe Barnes when he said the prints were of no use. But, have at it. Good luck.

In saying tall-tales by "researchers", I was referring to Mike Brownlow. I didn't manufacture anything out of thin air. I was asking you a question. As for the story of the officer having a "tryst with a married woman" in one of the houses on Tenth Street, I don't have an opinion on it. I don't support it. I don't use it in any attempt to show Oswald's guilt. At the same time, I haven't said it was not true. I couldn't know one way or another, since the name of the officer isn't revealed. Because the officer's name isn't revealed, I have no interest in it.

I don't support futile efforts.

First, let me get this straight. Are you saying that this is a tall-tale by Myers?

Are you saying it was one of these other scenarios you name? No. Here is what I am saying: "You claim (without any shred of real evidence at all) that it is likely that those prints cane from the killer. I could just as easily say that those prints came from a suspect who was told to place his hands on the car in order to be frisked by an officer during a previous shift. I could just as easily say that those prints came from one of the bystanders at the Tippit crime scene before officers secured the area." Neither of us really knows for sure, right? That's exactly right. So then why are you saying that it is "likely" that the prints belonged to the killer? It is a sideshow for you to criticize my "likely" based on the grounds of your (correct) observation that there is no real way to objectively quantify or prove a priori odds or probability in this instance, unless--it is a sideshow unless--you suppose one or another alternative explanation (in aggregate) is "more likely" than that they came from the killer. Do you take that position, and if so could you explain your reasoning underlying a subjective judgment why a non-killer's origin is relatively more likely than a killer's origin (if you hold that)? If you don't hold that position, would you make that clear explicitly? No, I don't take that position. Would you support a responsible effort to obtain an identification of those fingerprints? I've explained this before. The prints lifted by Barnes were of no value. They weren't a complete set of prints. In order to link prints to a particular person, you need a certain number of matching points (see the 12 point rule). However, much less is needed in order to rule a person out. In other words, the set of prints weren't complete enough (per Barnes) to link them to any particular person but there was enough information in the prints (per Myers' expert Lutz) to rule out Oswald as the person who left the prints. Because these prints were of no value (not enough information in the prints to link them to ANYONE), a "responsible effort" to obtain an identification would be futile.

.

Greg Doudna said: I don't think I need to go through the Helen Markham lineup identification, you know the details. You know how she at first told the Warren Commission that she did not recognize anyone in the lineup when the lineup first appeared, at first thought she had not seen any of them before, including Oswald in that lineup. You know how she was distraught and fainting. You know how police let her take her time and finally she decided it was Oswald based on getting "cold shivers" looking at him and interpreting her bodily reaction (instead of visual recognition apparently) as her intuitive or instinctual reason, in her highly distraught state, for knowing (in her mind) it was Oswald, then reported finally as a (visual) recognition. Markham was confused on what it was that Ball was asking her. He was asking her if she recognized any of the men in the lineup as the man she saw earlier that day shoot the policeman. But... for whatever reason, she thought he was asking her if she recognize any of the men in the lineup as someone she had seen or known before 11/22/63. To me, this is obvious. Once the confusion is straightened out, Markham very clearly states that the #2 man (Oswald) was the man she saw shoot the policeman. This really should be all that needs to be said on this subject, but sadly, it won't be.