Bill Brown

Here's the bottom line... The two witnesses (Helen Markham and Jimmy Burt) who said the eventual killer placed his hands on the car were in questionable positions while viewing the goings-on. It's possible they were both right, but at the same time they should not be relied upon to show as a fact that the killer indeed touched the car. Jack Tatum drove by at this same moment in time and said the killer had his hands in his jacket as he was leaning forward talking to the officer. Pete Barnes of the crime lab said the prints lifted were of no value. They were partial. He stated that no legible prints were found. The fact is, whether anyone likes it or not, these prints could have belonged to anyone who happened upon the crime scene before police secured the area. Anyone could have touched the car (Callaway left with Tippit's service revolver, for crying out loud). These partial prints could have belonged to anyone who had occasion to touch that car earlier that day, unrelated to Tenth & Patton. Using the prints to try to determine who the killer was is simply a non-starter. Some of you seem to enjoy grasping at straws.

You guys are completely unbelievable. I never said Tippit opened the vent window to talk to the guy.

Allow me to dumb this down for you... Partial prints were lifted from the patrol car in two locations. One, the passenger front door. Two, just above the wheel near the passenger-side front fender/quarter panel. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that these prints MUST belong to the killer. Also (and I'm typing slow so you can follow), the two prints most likely came from the same person and no one ever said they saw the killer touch the patrol car near the wheel of the passenger-side front fender/quarter panel. If indeed the two prints belong to the same person and the killer did not touch anywhere near the wheel near the passenger-side front fender/quarter panel, then the prints on the passenger side front door are also not the killer's. But none of that matters. What matters is what I said in the first place. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that these prints MUST belong to the killer.

Beyond Tenth and Marsalis, I didn't even pay attention to the fact that Tenth does indeed intersect with Jefferson further east.

Does this mean I wouldn't have to read any more posts by you where you claim that William Scoggins was literally lying face down in the street beside his cab and therefore never got a good look at the fleeing cop-killer? Maybe I could let this go if you'd ever FINALLY admit you were wrong to say such a thing.

Kevin, I appreciate your comments. First, I didn't say Oswald walked all the way to Marsalis. Second, I said the Deputy reported from near Tenth and Marsalis, not Tenth and Jefferson.

Now Dennis, do you have audio from the Fritz interrogations of Oswald? 😄

Great stuff, Dennis. Thanks.

"Hey, I’m glad you shared it Bill. Your previous explanation was reasonable, but you could have just said that to begin with..." I could have just said that to begin with? Like I have to handle it however you wish? Again... I don't owe you or anyone else anything at all. At the end of the day, when it was all said and done, I was going to send Greg the transcripts because he asked me nicely in a private message. But, I was going to send them to Greg on my own terms, that I was out of town, had them on my laptop and was going to wait until I got back home, where my laptop was. I do not owe Greg an explanation for why three or four days had passed between his asking for the transcripts and my addressing it. I don't owe you an explanation for it, either and that is why I didn't "just say so in the first place". Greg thought I was ignoring him and made a smart ass comment (which he since apologized for in another private message). You just jumped in where you shouldn't have and made an ass of yourself. None of this would have even been an issue if you wouldn't have butted in where you shouldn't have. "Do you believe that all police lineup identifications are of equal credibility, and all that matters is if someone picks out the suspect, regardless of how unsure they are, the fairness of the lineup, pressure from police, and anything else imaginable?" Of course, eyewitnesses can be wrong during police lineups. Only a fool would say otherwise. Positive eyewitness identifications need to be supported by physical evidence. In the case of Oswald's guilt in the murder of J.D. Tippit, the physical evidence is overwhelming. This is a fact. If you want to make the argument that the physical evidence in this case is questionable, then go ahead. Start with the names of those who switched out the shell casings, the revolver, the jacket, etc... But, you won't. "Could Markham have been wrong about the killer placing his hands on the car? Sure..." Bingo! We have a winner.

I don't know of anyone these days who argues that Oswald was walking FROM Marsalis. Myers put forth a theory that goes something like this... Oswald (trying to get to Marsalis) is walking east on Tenth toward Marsalis. Oswald goes a block and a half or so (from the area of Tenth and Patton) and notices a Dallas County Sheriff's Deputy car near Tenth and Marsalis (the county Sheriff transcripts shows that Unit 109 reported from near Tenth & Marsalis shortly after the report of the shooting by Bowley on the city police radio). Oswald, not knowing if his face has been plastered all over television (he has been on a bus, in a taxi and on foot for over forty minutes now) does not want to walk past the Deputy so he turns around and is now walking west on Tenth in the direction he had just came from. My own little timeline on Myers' theory (with no intention on being specific to the precise second)... Oswald arrives at Tenth & Patton at 1:11, walks the block and a half east on Tenth and, noticing the Deputy car, reverses direction at 1:13. Oswald walks west on Tenth encountering Tippit at 1:15. It makes as much sense as anything else, when trying to explain why Oswald would be walking east to west along Tenth Street.

I have no problem with ignoring Markham's testimony, which is completely unrelated to her positive identification of Oswald as the cop-killer during the lineup about five months BEFORE her testimony. On the evening of 11.22.63, she picked Oswald as the man she saw shoot the policeman.

"Bill Brown has provided me with scans of the pages of a transcript of the Al Chapman interview of Jimmy Burt. I see now Bill Brown posted that transcript in full (11 scanned pages) on another forum for anyone interested, here: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3689.672.html " Wait. What? I shared the transcripts with others in the past? Don't tell this to Tom Gram. It would ruin my seedy reputation with him. @Tom Gram "When Tippit was through talking with the man Tippit would have reached over and rolled that same window back up, as he preferred the window up, before he started to get out of his car on the driver's side. That will account for the window found rolled up after he was killed." Please list the witness who stated that Tippit rolled the window back up after rolling it down to talk to the guy who was walking. Greg, this is what you do. You literally make up scenarios in your head and try to insert them into reality with no evidence backing yourself up, only supposition. Crime scene photos show the passenger door window up and the VENT WINDOW OPENED. Tippit didn't reach over to roll the window down. Burt and Markham were wrong about this. If they're wrong about that (they were), then they could also be wrong about the killer touching the car with his hands.

"Tippit made an unsuccessful attempt to call the dispatcher at 1:08, right before he stopped his car to question a young man on foot. Domingo Benavides, a key witness, was driving his car when he saw Tippit step out of his police car and reach for his gun as he walked towards the front of the car. When the young man saw Tippit draw, he pulled out his gun from his coat pocket and fired several shots at Tippit. The time of the shooting is estimated at 1:09." Benavides stated that he watched the killer get around the corner and waited "a second or two" (The Warren Report, CBS, 1967) before getting out and going to the patrol car to use the radio. So Benavides is on the radio within 60 seconds after the shots rang out (90 seconds if I'm being generous). Benavides doesn't begin keying the mic of the patrol car radio until after 1:15. For the shooting to have occurred at 1:09 as falsely stated above, it would mean that Benavides is still cowering down inside his truck as people like Helen Markham and Frank Cimino begin to hover around Tippit's body.

"Tippit made an unsuccessful attempt to call the dispatcher at 1:08, right before he stopped his car to question a young man on foot." There is no evidence whatsoever that Tippit attempted to radio the dispatcher at 1:08. There's not much more to add here.

"Burroughs’ story was corroborated by eighteen-year-old Jack Davis, never questioned by the Warren Commission, who remembered at 1:15 seeing Oswald squeeze in right next to him at the mostly deserted theater during the opening credits to the movie..." Except that Davis doesn't say that at all. When one has to twist things around to make your point, then the point becomes completely invalid.

"Burroughs also saw someone who looked a lot like Oswald arrested about four minutes after he was. This Oswald look-alike was taken out through the rear of the theater, rather than the front. Bernard Haire, who ran his business Bernie’s Hobby House two doors away from the theater, thought he had seen Oswald taken away through the rear doors for more than twenty-five years. When he learned that he had seen someone else, he was absolutely stunned." One could make a pretty good argument that Bernard Haire is captured in a photo out in front of the Texas Theater as crowds gathered to get a look at the potential assassin. If true, then Haire would be lying when he said that "all these years, I had always believed Oswald was taken out the back blah blah blah..."

"I think it’s more likely that Oswald went straight to the Texas Theater, and was never at the Tippit crime scene. Butch Burroughs, a Texas Theater concessions employee for decades, told author Jim Marrs in 1987 that he sold Oswald popcorn right around 1:15 pm. Author Dale Myers challenged Burroughs, saying that he “told the Warren Commission that he didn’t see Oswald slip into the theater. He also didn’t mention selling popcorn to Oswald.” Myers missed the point. Ticket taker Julia Postal quoted Burroughs as saying “Well, I saw him coming out.”, presumably when Oswald bought the popcorn. Burroughs was never asked by the Warren Commission if he saw Oswald prior to the police hunt." Nonsense. The police asked Burroughs, while the search was going on inside the theater, if he had seen the guy and Burroughs told them that he had not. This would mean that Burroughs is lying a couple of decades later when he says he sold popcorn to the guy.

Completely unrelated to Herb Sawyer putting out the physical description over the police radio moments after talking to Howard Brennan.

Same goes for Markham giving the time of "six or seven minutes after one". First, conspiracy advocates like to automatically take that to mean she is saying she arrived at Tenth and Patton about six or seven minutes after one o'clock (save for her affidavit, which only adds to the confusion). But the truth is when you read her testimony, she could still be referring to the time she left her apartment (which was one block north of Tenth and Patton). In other words, we don't really know whether Markham is saying she left her apartment six or seven minutes after one or if she's saying she estimates she arrived at Tenth and Patton at six or seven minutes after one. When asked by Ball what time she left her apartment, she says it was at one. Then moments later, she adds "I believe it was a little after one". Anyway, my point... die hard conspiracy advocates like to use Markham when trying to show that Oswald couldn't have shot Tippit because he couldn't have arrived at the scene in time but then they totally dismiss her positive identification of Oswald as the cop-killer when she attended the lineup on the evening of 11.22.63.

Re: Markham's positive identification I believe Markham picked Oswald on the evening of 11.22.63. Period.

Sounds to me like you need to take much of the above up with Dale Myers.

Howard Brennan gave a description to Herb Sawyer, who then put it out over the police radio.

"So to Bill Brown, Markham’s testimony has zero bearing on the credibility of that identification. It doesn’t matter that she said was unsure multiple times, originally said she’d never seen any of the men, had to be led into answering that she picked the #2 man, and that her identification was based more on a “feeling” than actual visual memory. Is that an accurate assessment? Really? That’s a stone-cold reliable identification to you? Do you even believe some of the stuff you post here or are you just trolling? Honest question." Since you're asking... My opinion... In her testimony to Ball, she was obviously confused on what it was exactly that Ball was asking her. I feel that Ball asked her if she had seen any of the men (among the four in the lineup) before, as in had she seen any of them on Tenth Street. But, I feel Markham mistakenly believed Ball was asking her if she knew any of the four men at any point in time before 11.22.63. Now, obviously Ball was not asking her that but it's irrelevant to what she THOUGHT he was asking her. But, none of her confused testimony given many months later changes the fact that on 11.22.63, she positively identified Lee Oswald as the cop-killer. "Also I see you’ve taken a page out of your messiah Myers’ book and are refusing to share Burt’s interview transcript with Greg Doudna." Why do some of you guys continually make things up? Secondly, are you somehow working under the mistaken impression that Myers owes anyone around here copies of his interviews? Third, I have not refused to share the transcripts of the Burt interview with Greg Doudna. Not that I owe you an explanation, but Greg sent me a private message last week asking for the audio and/or transcripts of the Burt interview with Al Chapman. I was out of town for a week and I have the audio saved onto my laptop, which I did not have with me. I told myself that I would respond to Greg's inquiry once I returned home. In the meantime, I was posting here on the forum using my phone. Then, Greg made a smartass comment to me (apparently I hadn't replied to his private message in when he'd consider a timely manner?). I then told him that I thought he once told me that he had read the transcripts of the interview. He hasn't replied yet and that is where we currently stand. Why are you making this about Bill Brown, anyway? Move on. "What’s the actual reason you don’t want to share that information? Is it an ego thing, like it makes you feel better to know you have access to secret evidence that no one else is allowed to see - not even a copy-pasted direct quote - or are you afraid that Greg will call you out for being full of it?" Again, I haven't said I don't want to share the information with Greg. I assure you, I am not afraid of anything Greg or anyone else around here would have to say. As for being "full of it", that'd imply that I am lying about what Burt said in the interview. Is that what you are doing here? Or, are you just trolling? Honest question.

"The evidence also shows that he was not knowingly involved in the assassination, but was set up to become exactly what he stated he was after he was arrested and before he was conveniently silenced – a patsy." It's entirely amateurish to believe that Oswald was saying, during his "patsy" statement, that dark sinister forces were conspiring to frame him for the assassination. You have to take Oswald's statement in it's entirety (which most conspiracy advocates never do)... "They have taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy." "They" is very obviously the Dallas Police Department. Oswald is clearly (if you consider the statement in it's totality) saying that the Dallas Police are questioning him/charging him for no other reason than he lived in Russia.

Fascinating. Is it sharable?