Bill Brown

Thanks Gene. I'll take the compliment.

I'm very up to date on the fingerprints. You are misinterpreting what Myers' expert found and what I said earlier in this thread. I said the prints weren't discernible and I stand by that. The only thing that Herbert Lutz (the expert sought out by Myers) was able to determine was that the prints lifted by Barnes were "probably" from just one person. Lutz was able to determine that the prints did not belong to Oswald. He reached that conclusion because there was enough information in the lifted prints to compare to the Oswald fingerprint card. That is not to say that the prints were discernible in trying to determine just who the prints belonged to. The prints were partial yet contained enough information to rule out Oswald. Understand now?

Confused during her testimony on what exactly Ball was asking her. Yes. There is a difference between her positive identification of Oswald as the cop-killer and the confusion during her testimony with Ball many months later. Confused on the evening of 11/22/63? No. Number two was the man she saw shoot the policeman. How does anything she said to Ball negate the fact that many months earlier she was very clear about the man she positively identified at the lineup?

Nothing is illogical about Courson's account (above). What is illogical is your belief that it somehow means that this is evidence or proof that Oswald was inside the theater as well as the man who resembled Oswald who had just killed a police officer. Oswald first went up to the balcony. There were teenagers up there and he decided to then go down to the main lobby, where he was later arrested after a scuffle. So what?

"I saw him coming kind of toward me around that cutoff through there, and he never did look at me. He looked back over his left shoulder like that, as he went by. It seemed like I could see his face, his features and everything plain, you see." -- William Scoggins Scoggins also stated that the killer had on a light-colored shirt (obviously the T-shirt under the jacket and the brown outer shirt). Therefore, we know Scoggins got a good look at the front of the killer as the killer fled directly toward Scoggins. Scoggins also testified that the man with the gun was approximately 25, 26 years old. You only make that sort of determination by the face. Scoggins was asked if the man was wearing glasses and instead of saying he had no idea since he didn't see the man's face, he said "No".

"But he preceeded his remark with 'be sure, take your time, get a good look at him, do not make an identification unless you are absolutely positive'". -- Ted Callaway

The obvious confusion during her testimony to the Warren Commission (namely, Ball) does not take away from the fact that on the evening of 11/22/63, she picked Oswald out of a lineup as the man she saw shoot Tippit. The confused portion of her testimony many months later doesn't change that fact.

But, you said this (below). Sorry man, NOT logical at all: "Meanwhile, the Tippit killer, who resembled Oswald and was mistaken for Oswald by some witnesses just as numerous witnesses mistakenly identified various persons as Oswald post-assassination, abandoned his light-gray, almost-white, jacket in flight, presumably in order to make identification more difficult in a hot pursuit situation from police. The killer went by Brewer's store, entered the Texas Theatre without purchasing a ticket and went up into the balcony, with intent to kill Oswald next. That intent was thwarted by the timely and rapid arrival of police who saved Oswald's life by arresting him. That there were two, not one, persons among the ca. 15 or so patrons inside the theatre that day, who witnesses thought resembled or looked like Oswald--Oswald and someone else--is established from two independent testimonies from inside the theatre..."

Ballistic testing can determine whether or not an empty shell casing was fired from a specific weapon to the exclusion of every other weapon in the entire world. Before shooting, the shell casing is placed against the breech face and the firing pin. When the pin strikes the primer, the bullet is fired off and the shell casing is thrust against the breech face of the weapon. This causes a permanent mark on the base of the empty shell, i.e. the distinctive fine lines etched onto the breech face put their "fingerprint" on the base of the empty shell.Joseph Nicol (Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois) along with Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier and Charles Killion (of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Washington D.C.) each examined the shells found at the Tippit scene and Oswald's revolver, which he ordered from Seaport Traders, Inc. Each of these experts determined that the shells were linked (through ballistics) to Oswald's revolver, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.

I stated: "The only other option (to avoid having to address Oswald's ditching of his jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store) is to make up nonsense about Oswald doubles. THAT is completely illogical."

"Ignoring the official time of 1:16, which a defence council would challenge." The police tapes (along with the actions of witnesses like Domingo Benavides and Ted Callaway) clearly tell you that the shooting occurred just moments before 1:1.7. "Aquilla Clemons saw two people involved, one being short and heavy..." Clemons did not see the shooting. She stated that when she first heard the shots, she originally believed them to be firecrackers. Why give any weight to her "two people involved" when the REAL witnesses who were actually out on the street at the time of the shooting and pretty much saw the entire thing go down (Helen Markham, Domingo Benavides, Jimmy Burt, Bill Smith and William Scoggins) ALL said Tippit encountered only ONE man? "Warren Reynold's did not witness the shooting, but saw the supposed fleeing gunman, he did not i.d. this man as Oswald, until after he was almost killed by a gunman himself." Before he was shot, Reynolds told the FBI that he was "of the opinion" that the man he saw running with a gun in his hands was Lee Oswald. "Frank Wright, who lived across the street stated the killer of Tippit wore a long coat and drove off in a grey car." No Sir. Frank Wright lived a block east and was indoors when the shooting occurred. None of the REAL witnesses (Markham, Benavides, Burt, Smith, Scoggins) ever describe Tippit's killer driving off in any car. ALL of these witnesses (who were actually outdoors and saw the thing go down, unlike Wright) said the killer fled on foot. "I am also doubtful of the automatic/revolver ballistic evidence..." The ballistic evidence tells you that Tippit was killed by .38 special bullets fired from a revolver. The killer was not firing an automatic weapon. Gerald Hill reported over the police radio that the killer was apparently armed with an automatic weapon because he knew shells had been found at the scene. However, Hill was unaware at this early stage that witnesses saw the gunman manually eject the shell casings. Ask yourself, if the killer was using an automatic weapon, why weren't the shell casings found very near the patrol car (where the killer was standing as he fired the shots that killed Tippit) instead of over one hundred feet to the west toward the corner? "Also, as written in a recent post on this Forum, who do the fingerprints on the front passenger side of Tippit's car belong to?" Pete Barnes (of the crime lab) found partial prints near the passenger door and window but they weren't discernible.

To dismiss the idea that Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket is to ignore the only witness that we have to rely on, the only person that was there. Only one person was present when Oswald walked out the door. This person says that Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he left. Therefore, if you dismiss this one person, you're doing so out of convenience because you know what it means if Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket and was seen by Johnny Brewer without a jacket. The only other option (to avoid having to address Oswald's ditching of his jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store) is to make up nonsense about Oswald doubles. THAT is completely illogical.

The witnesses were told that the man they saw may not be any of the men in the lineup.

.

But... I was asking for a LOGICAL explanation. Not just ANY explanation.

The witnesses were asked if the man they saw running with a gun in his hands was among those men in the lineup and if so, which one was he. The witnesses were NOT asked which of the men in the lineup most resembled the man they saw running with a gun in his hands, i.e. if the man they saw with a gun was not among those in the lineup, then they would have picked none of the men. Unfair, unbiased lineups (if they were) will not change the fact that the witnesses picked the man they saw, not the man who most resembled the man they saw.

Helen Markham was on foot, walking south along Patton toward her bus stop, whichwas on Jefferson Boulevard. Markham was just reaching the northwest corner ofTenth and Patton when she noticed Tippit's patrol car pass through theintersection, heading east along Tenth Street. Markham testified that thepatrol car pulled up to a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south sideof Tenth Street. Helen Markham positively identified Lee Oswald as the man shesaw talking to, and shoot, J.D. Tippit. She testified that she saw Oswald runfrom the scene, heading down Patton with a gun in his hand. William Scoggins was sitting in his cab at the southeast corner of Tenth andPatton. Scoggins saw Tippit's patrol car pass slowly in front of his cab,driving west to east along Tenth Street (Scoggins' cab was sitting on Patton,facing north towards Tenth street). Scoggins noticed that the patrol car pulledup alongside a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side of TenthStreet. William Scoggins positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he sawrunning towards his cab seconds after hearing gun shots. Scoggins got out ofhis cab with thoughts of running from the scene as Oswald headed straighttowards him after the shots rang out. After realizing he had nowhere to hide,Scoggins returned to his cab and ducked down behind it as he watched Oswald turnthe corner and head down Patton towards Jefferson. Scoggins testified thatOswald had a gun in his hand. Barbara Davis was lying in bed inside her residence, which was the house at thecorner of Tenth and Patton. She heard gunshots outside and went to the door.She opened the screen door and noticed HelenMarkham across the street, screaming. Davis then noticed a man cutting throughher front yard, holding a gun in his hands. She testified that the man had thegun cocked in his hands as if he were emptying it. Barbara Davis positivelyidentified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across her yard with a gun inhis hands. Virginia Davis was in the living room of the same residence (400 E. TenthSt.) when she heard gunshots outside. Virginia Davis went to the doorand, like Barbara, noticed Helen Markham across the street, screaming. Davisthen noticed a man cutting across the front yard with a gun in his hands. Shetestified that the man was emptying shells out of the gun. Virginia Davispositively identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across the frontyard with a gun in his hands. Ted Callaway was standing out on the front porch of the used-car lot office,where he worked. Callaway testified that he heard five pistol shots. Callawaytestified that he believed the shots came from the vicinity of Tenth Street,which was behind the office he worked in. He went out to the sidewalk on theeast side of Patton and noticed Scoggins' cab parked up near the corner ofPatton at Tenth. As Callaway watched the cab driver (Scoggins) hide beside hiscab, he noticed a man running across Patton from the east side of Patton to thewest side. Callaway watched the man run down Patton towards Jefferson. TedCallaway positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton witha gun in his hands. Sam Guinyard worked at the same used-car lot as Ted Callaway. Guinyard was outon the lot washing one of the cars when he heard gunshots come from thedirection up toward Tenth Street. From the car lot, Guinyard was looking northtoward Tenth in an attempt to see where the shots came from when he saw a man onthe sidewalk in between the first two houses on Tenth Street (400 E. Tenth and404 E. Tenth). Guinyard went toward the sidewalk on the east side of Patton andsaw the man cut across the yard of the house on the corner (400 E. Tenth, theDavis residence) and proceeded to run south on Patton. Guinyard said the manhad a gun in his hands and was emptying it of shells. Sam Guinyard positivelyidentified Lee Oswald as the man he saw running with the gun in his hands.Each of the above witnesses saw a man flee the vicinity of the Tippit murder. Each of the above witnesses saw a gun in the man's hands. Every single one of the above witnesses positively identified Lee Oswald as that man.

No one can identify Prayer Man, therefore it is yet "one more piece of evidence" that Prayer Man is Oswald. This is faulty logic.

So far, not one logical explanation for why Oswald was seen on Jefferson with no jacket yet he left the rooming house with a jacket (other than Oswald ditched the jacket to alter his appearance somewhat shortly after gunning down a police officer). Conspiracy advocates realize what it means if Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket yet was on Jefferson without a jacket. So they do the only thing they can, they challenge the claim that Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket, zipping it up as he went out the door. Lame.

The view from the front landing was not lousy if one is attempting to get a good view of the Presidential limo as it makes the turn from Houston onto Elm. For some reason, you are acting like those on the landing were there for a view of the limo further down Elm. Strange.

Oswald had a right to an attorney before the arraignment, yes. But that is not to say that Oswald had a right to a court-appointed attorney before the arraignment. In 1963, the right to a court-appointed attorney before arraignment did not exist. That is the difference.

On film.... Oswald: "I work in that building." Reporter: "Were you in that building at the time?" Oswald: "Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir." Therefore, Oswald was not out on the front steps or on the landing. If Oswald was not out on the front steps or the landing, then he is not Prayer Man. If Oswald was not Prayer Man, then who cares who Prayer Man was?

Reporter: "Were you in that building at the time?" Oswald: "Naturally if I work in that building, yes Sir."

The bullet hit Connally in the back, causing an 8mm x 15mm elliptical wound. This wound measurement proves that the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connally's back, proof that the bullet had passed through something else BEFORE hitting Connally in the back.

In other words, when you do not like what the witness testimony tells you, ignore it and call them all l i a r s. Problem solved.