Bill Brown

Who said the killer touched the right front fender of the patrol car? Maybe I've missed something.

No, I do not believe that Oliver Stone was afraid to contact Ruth Paine. That is not to say that he attempted to contact her, however.

So that's it? Either the killer or a bystander? Couldn't possibly be anyone in the parking lot at the Southwest substation? Another officer from a previous shift? A mechanic? There are literally a dozen other options that you are choosing to ignore.

Straw man. I don't think anyone has said that Oliver was scared to talk to Ruth.

Like I said, you put a disingenuous spin on it. Everyone can plainly see that for themselves. And I'm not angry. You certainly don't have that kind of power. This is real simple, just be honest. That's all.

I realize that is your point but my point is that you're wrong. There is no way you can claim that those partial prints lifted by Barnes "most certainly came from the Killer". No other way to put it other than you're spouting nonsense. You could have said that there is a chance those partial prints came from the killer. If you would have simply said that, then I wouldn't take issue with it because you would be factually correct. But that is not what you said.

You just went from "we reached an audience of 40 million" to "potentially". You don't see the difference? At least be honest when tooting your own horn.

I know Ruth personally. Do you? You know Oliver. Is that supposed to mean anything related to what we're discussing here? I was aware of some of the things you mention above but I don't see how even one bit of that is somehow supposed to automatically mean he tried to contact Ruth. As for Oliver's film crew, I have concerns about their credibility. I can elaborate if you'd like.

Point being...?

And you believe that is the only possible conclusion to be reached? I could just as easily say that he changed the name for fear of being sued since he never bothered to contact her. The difference is I am not claiming either version to be factual.

Bingo.

A disingenuous exaggeration.

They can't even spell Tippit's name correctly. It's a credibility issue.

So it's Oliver's word versus Ruth's word. Why do you automatically accept Oliver's over Ruth's? How could you possibly know? None of us could know; only the two of them.

That doesn't change a thing I said. Yes, there was enough information on the print to determine that the print was not Oswald's (as I've already said). But the prints lifted were of no value when trying to determine exactly who the prints belonged to, exactly as I've also already stated. You're making me repeat myself as if you've laid some new groundbreaking information when the reality is nothing you've posted here changes a thing that I've already said. By the way, explain how prints lifted from the passenger side of the patrol car not belonging to Oswald exonerates him from being Tippit's killer.

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."