Bill Brown

My apologies Mark, if you do not believe the revolver found on the ground was used in the Tippit murder. Let's separate the wheat from the chaff. Do you believe that Crafard/Ruby threw the revolver from a car window?

Cite please. (I'm betting you can't cite the original source)

No bullet passed through the windshield. Robert Frazier testified that the windshield was actually two sheets of glass molded together to form one and that only the inner portion was damaged. The outer portion had no damage at all. There was no hole in the windshield; only a bit of damage (from a fragment, most likely) to the inner portion.

British Enfield? Try Dallas police-issued shotgun. I could just as easily claim that the Mentesana film shows an officer holding his own shotgun, which of course would not have a scope attached.

Then please fell free to continue to ignore my posts, like you've done for the past few weeks. Thankfully, you don't set the rules around here. Bill cut out the snark. Members can be offended by such comments and characterisation of fwllow members. Be aware you have already come to the admins attention before. Admin

Good questions. But because they can't be answered means the revolver was discarded because it was used in a murder? You guys are making quite the leap.

A first question is: do you think a scenario of the paper-bag revolver as a disposal of a weapon used in a homicide is a reasonable explanation of that revolver's find circumstances? Never mind which homicide, please answer the question strictly construed as asked, if you would. Your scenario (that it was disposed of because it was used in a homicide) is not reasonable to me because (if what you said is true) there is no other known Dallas area homicide in the recent days. How could this revolver be used in a homicide if there was no other homicides besides Tippit's? This is not a circular argument I am making because the actual murder weapon was taken from the same man who multiple witnesses said was there at the scene with a gun in his hands and that gun ended up being linked, through ballistic testing, to the shells found at the scene where Tippit was shot and killed. You wonder why, in a scenario in which Craford was the killer of Tippit, Craford, who did not have a car, would not have driven to a river to throw the weapon in a river instead of out the window of a car in which he was being driven that morning. There you go with the revolver being thrown out a car window again. You can't possibly know this to be true. Perhaps Craford did the best he could given the opportunity available to him. If Ruby was witting to the weapon disposal in this scenario, Ruby had an unwitting alibi passenger, George Senator, in the car who had been told a purpose of the trip inconsistent with driving to the Trinity River in order to dispose of a bag with fruit in it. Fair point. But.... Do you really believe that disposing of this weapon by simply throwing it out a car window, if used in the Tippit murder, is the best they could have come up with? Aren't there at least a half dozen better ways to dispose of this weapon, in your scenario? If your scenario is true, couldn't Ruby and Crafard be sure to be alone at some point in the last 18 hours and dispose of the revolver then? I never said their only chance would have been that particular trip to Stemmons when Senator was in the car with them; you are implying that, not me. The point there is as long as the weapon is untraceable, it does not matter if the weapon is found--and the sooner the killer can have the weapon not on his person in case he is picked up for questioning, the better. Now you have the conspirators throwing a revolver out a car window that, if used in the Tippit murder, could be linked (through ballistic testing) to that murder. This is a foolish way to frame a patsy, who is supposed to have the murder weapon on him. A ditching of a Tippit murder weapon out a car window where the paper-bag revolver landed next to a street curb in downtown Dallas is not on its face obviously illogical in this scenario. It is illogical if the conspirators have a patsy to frame, a patsy who is not tied to this particular revolver found lying on the ground in downtown Dallas.

I accept that the "paper-bag revolver" looks like it was discarded by someone for any number of reasons. What does a revolver discarded to the ground because it was was used in a homicide even look like? Then explain to me what a revolver discarded to the ground that never was used in a homicide would look like. Okay? Would one somehow look different than the other? If so, how do you make that determination? Or... Are you saying that all revolvers discarded to the ground are definitely homicide-related?

Honestly Greg, I'm not sure what you don't understand here. It is not incumbent upon me to provide an explanation for how a revolver came to be found lying on the ground wrapped inside a bag. You've yet to make a reasonable case for this revolver (found on the ground about four miles from Tenth & Patton) being tied to the Tippit murder. The shells found at the scene were linked to a different weapon from this one. Also, you've ignored the point that if your scenario is true, then these clowns couldn't come up with a better manner to get rid of the murder weapon than to simply throw it to the ground. Much like your posts on the prints lifted from the patrol car, a lot of what you try to pass off as fact is not factual at all; not even close.

What he actually said was, in his opinion, it's the single bullet fact.

ps. What with all the copyright hoohaa lately, I’m hoping Dalek Myers is ok with all this. No need for you to concern yourself with that.

I didn't miss your post above. Did you explain how you know for a fact that the path taken by Ruby, Senator and Crafard (on their way over to Stemmons) took them right past the location on the ground where the revolver was found? If you did, then I did miss that, yes.

I don't have to provide an explanation for how a revolver came to be found lying on the ground inside a paper bag. I will say, however, that if conspirators were trying to get rid of a gun used in the murder of a police officer, they would choose a far better method than to simply throw it to the ground. I assume you've heard of the Trinity River (just west of Dealey Plaza).

WITH MALICE (2013 Edition, Dale Myers, pg. 28) "Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Officer J.D. Tippit. There can no longer be any doubt about it. The truth of that statement will unfold in the pages that follow. In many ways, this is the investigative file that was never completed. Naturally, Oswald's malicious desperation in the wake of the Kennedy assassination brings that crime into clearer focus. For some, the precise nature of Oswald's participation in the President's murder remains open to debate. But, no matter what role he played, Oswald's guilt in the Tippit shooting must be hereafter considered a historic truth."

What makes this revolver look like "a murder weapon recently used in a professional killing"? Cite for your claim that Crafard and Ruby were recently "zero miles" from where the revolver was found.

You calling the prints suspicious doesn't make them suspicious.

The revolver was found on the ground four miles from Tenth and Patton. There is absolutely no reason for it to be considered "a second possible murder weapon for Tippit".

So that's a No, you did not ask for permission from Myers before posting your private exchanges.

You're not getting it. Since the prints were not complete, then they are of no value. The prints could do only one of two things. One, they were complete enough to be linked to a person. Two, they were incomplete and could not be linked to any person (but could rule out someone). They are of no value because... If it is shown that they do not belong to Oswald, then that still doesn't rule out the idea that Oswald was the killer and simply did not touch the patrol car. The prints do not need to be a full print in order to rule someone out. However, they do need to be complete enough (12 points of match) in order to state that the prints do indeed belong to a particular person. The prints lifted by Barnes weren't complete enough to give 12 points of match (but were complete enough to rule out a person, since less points are needed to rule out a suspect than to match a suspect). Face it, as Barnes testified to, the prints were of no value and now you (should) know why. Greg, if you were to track down Crafard's prints, Barnes (basically) tells you that there would not be enough matches between the prints he lifted from the car and the prints of Crafard because the prints lifted were only partial. You would be left with one of two conclusions. One, the prints do not belong to Crafard because enough non-matching points would be available to rule out Crafard. Two, the prints could possibly belong to Crafard but there would not be enough matching points to state as a fact that they are Crafard's prints. Therefore, even if you had Crafard's prints, the prints lifted from the patrol car would be of no value. This isn't rocket science.

Right. Craig is specifically asked if he knew what time Tippit was killed and he said about 1:40. Yet, a few years later (while trying to publish a manuscript, no less), he says he heard of the shooting over one of the police radios and looked down at his watch, which (supposedly) read 1:06. C'mon man.

Did you ever retract your statement that Scoggins never saw the fleeing killer's face because he was actually lying in the street?

And while I'm at it... Greg... Did you ask Myers for permission before posting your private exchanges with him?

Correct. The prints do not match the suspect; exactly as I said. Right? Look Greg. Real simple... The crime scene was not closed off right away. A crowd gathered. How do you know the prints do not belong to any of those bystanders? How do you know the prints do not belong to Tippit himself? How do you know the prints do not belong to a suspect who was told to place his hands on the car in order to be frisked in any one of the previous days leading up to 11/22/63? How long do prints last on sheet metal? Is it a given that rain washes away prints? But, here is the big question... Why are you automatically assuming that the prints belong to whoever shot Tippit?

Perhaps you should read my post again. I said the prints didn't belong to the suspect. Oswald was the suspect. Slow down, Greg.

Like I said, I was going by memory. Is there somehow a difference in your mind between 1:40 and 1:45? My point remains the same. Craig was telling porky pies.