Bill Brown

On 7/11/2022 at 2:40 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks for this Larry.

Oliver did not tell me it was that bad.  He just said that she refused to talk to him.

But now his other comment makes sense.  He added, "And you can take that to the bank."

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. 

4 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

No, that #1 point was not the only thing of interest Herbert Lutz determined. He also determined a second matter of interest, #2--new, as of 1998 Myers' publication, for this had not been determined or disclosed, whichever it was (the former according to Warren Commission testimony), prior to Myers' publication in 1998--that "the fingerprints taken from Tippit's patrol car were not Oswald's" (Myers p. 340). As you now also note.

That is of extraordinary significance. Future generations one day may credit Myers with having obtained and published this pivotal exonerating evidence for Oswald in the Tippit case which CTs have for the most part ignored (e.g. no mention of Myers' fingerprint finding in the recent JFK Revisited 2 and 4 hour films, I think; no mention of the Lutz fingerprint findings in McBride's 2013 book on the Tippit case, Into the Nightmare [based on no listing for "Lutz", "Pete Barnes", or "fingerprints" in that book's index], etc.) . . . because published by LNer Myers!

Love that irony!--distaste for work published by a LNer, Myers, overriding paying attention to content in that work materially arguing for exoneration of Oswald! This is the fruits of "ignore" epistemology! aka "shoot yourself in the foot" CT epistemology.

Furthermore, there may be a third (#3?) new development of interest as a result of the 1990s fingerprint analysis of Herbert Lutz, though this is not overtly claimed in Myers' reporting of Lutz's findings: the possibility, perhaps likelihood, contrary to Barnes' early report, that a positive fingerprint match to the killer of Tippit may be obtainable from comparison of the right fender fingerprints (= individual who left the fingerprints on the right front door, per Lutz = killer of Tippit).

Whereas Barnes testified to the Warren Commission that the fingerprints lifted from the two locations on the Tippit cruiser were of no use for identification information because too smeared, a photograph of those right front fender fingerprints published by Myers appears to show quite a bit of fingerprint material, much non-smeared, from that right front fender. I am no fingerprint expert, but I no longer uncritically take Barnes' early word for it that those fender fingerprints are not identifiable or amenable to a positive match by expert analysis--just look at the photo in Myers on p. 337. (I would defer to fingerprint experts today on this point, however, if fingerprint experts today could be found to comment.) Those fingerprints may be identifiable, but have not yet been identified.

But what is established, since 1998 (if Myers' first edition has that; I have only the 2013 rev. edition), from those fingerprints on the basis of expert testimony, unknown in Warren Commission published testimony and exhibits, unremarked in virtually all CT discussions of the Tippit case to date: those fingerprints left by someone in the exact location where witnesses saw the killer's hands on Tippit's car, are from someone who was not Oswald.

Anyway, glad to hear you have been up to date on the Myers' Lutz report all along, including the key point of the finding, not known or reported by DPD at the time, that those prints are not from Oswald.

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.

1 hour ago, Gene Kelly said:

Not sure if Mr. Brown is testing the waters of more knowledgeable researchers here or not.  I watched his YouTube segment and - as one response states - he puts on an excellent show, but only tells the official (government) account of the story....

 

Thanks Gene.  I'll take the compliment.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill you're not up to date on the fingerprints. See Myers, With Malice, pp. 336-340 and get up to speed on what you are talking about.

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?

50 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Some people like their coffee black. I see that you like your witnesses confused.

LOL

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?

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Again you're asserting illogic without explaining why any of the above is illogical. For example, your three-dot ellipses at the end leave off that I cited two inside-the-theatre witness testimonies for exactly what you say is "NOT logical at all" (for those two witnesses to have seen what they said they saw). For example, for the life of me I do not understand why you would say it is illogical that a deputy sheriff's claim that he saw a man coming down from the balcony whom he thought was Oswald but who clearly was not, might logically be accounted for by his having seen a man coming down from the balcony who he thought looked like Oswald but clearly was not.

What's illogical about deputy Courson's account on that point? Explain?

"I pulled up and bumped the bicycle rack in front of the theater in front of the theater, left the car and went in and identified myself as an officer to the ticket taker. I didn't know whether she even saw me or not, but I flashed my badge, then walked from there onto the stairs.

"I started up the stairs to the balcony because that is where the call said that he was hiding. I'm reasonably satisfied in my own mind that I met Oswald coming down. I was looking for a man in a white or light colored jacket because at that time I hadn't been told that he had discarded the jacket and that it had been found. So there were two reasons why I didn't stop him. I'm looking for a man in the balcony, not coming down walking casually, and the description didn't fit because he was wearing a kind of plaid or checkered patterned shirt, not the light colored jacket. But I'm reasonably sure that it was Oswald." (Bill Courson, Sheriff's Department, in Sneed, No More Silence [1998], 485).

What's illogical about Courson's story, apart from the mistaken identification of the man he saw as Oswald? Explain?

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?

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

Scoggins never saw the killer's face and Whaley saw Oswald's picture in the newspaper before viewing the lineup.

 

"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".

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

Not true. Callaway and Guinyard were told the "cop killer" was in the lineup and they wanted to nail him for the assassination as well.

Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this bus driver and myself……and Jim told us, “When I show you these guys, be sure, take your time, see if you can make a positive identification………We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him.”
( 3 H 355 )

"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

9 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

From Helen Markham's testimony before the Warren Commission:

. . . Mr. [Joseph A.] BALL [assistant counsel]. Did anybody tell you that the man you were looking for would

be in a certain position in the lineup, or anything like that?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody -- I

have asked you that question before -- did you recognize anybody from their face?

Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn’t know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup

look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.

Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MABKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?

Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.

Mr. BALL. Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't --

Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.

Mr. BALL: No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in

there if you saw anybody in there --

Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two.
Mr. BALL. What did you say when you saw number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept

asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak.

Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?

Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
Mr. BALL. You recognized him from his appearance?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I asked -- I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn’t

sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.
Mr. BALL. When you saw him?
Mrs. MARKHAM. When I saw the man. But I wasn’t sure, so, you see, I

told them I wanted to be sure, and looked,at his face is what I was looking at, mostly is what I looked at, on account of his eyes, the way he looked at me. So I asked them if they would turn him sideways. They did, and then they turned him back around, and I said the second, and they said, which one, and I said number two. So when I said that, well, I just kind of fell over. Everybody in there, you know, was beginning to talk, and I don’t know, just -- . . .

 

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.

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I don't have anything to do with Oswald doubles or impersonations in the Tippit case. If you are unwilling to read, nothing I can do or say.

I do think there are mistaken witness identifications, not the same thing.

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.

4 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill I must wonder if you read a word I said. I completely agree with housekeeper Earlene's testimony of seeing Oswald leaving zipping up a jacket, and never said otherwise. What does your objection have to do with anything I wrote?

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."

2 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Hey get off Joe, it belongs to me!

Was Oswald guilty?  What, "beyond a reasonable doubt".  Ignoring the official time of 1:16, which a defence council would challenge.  Helen Markham describes the shooter as short, on the heavy side and with bushy hair.  Aquilla Clemons saw two people involved, one being short and heavy, agreeing with Markham.  Clemons was visited later by a man who told her to keep quiet!  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.  Frank Wright, who lived across the street stated the killer of Tippit wore a long coat and drove off in a grey car.

Sadly, history was denied a trial of the accused so I do not know exactly where Oswald was between 1300, leaving the rooming house on Beckley then seen standing by a bus stop outside and his later arrest at the Texas theatre.  I am also doubtful of the automatic/revolver ballistic evidence and the fantastic story behind the discovery of the Oswald/Hidell wallet, found at the scene of the Tippit killing.  Strangely, no witness saw this item at the scene!  So, who discovered it, Cpt. Westbrook at 10th & Patton or Detective Paul Bentley after Oswald's arrest?  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? 

"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.

16 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I second this motion. Greg really did his homework on the Tippit case, and if you have a problem with his theory, and think it’s “illogical”, you’re going to have to explain why. 

Also Greg, wasn’t Oswald seen changing seats throughout the theater? Do you think he could have taken off the blue jacket in his first seat and maybe that’s why it wasn’t found? 

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.

26 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Did you read Gil’s post? The lineups were most definitely not anything remotely approaching fair. Even Burt Griffin of the WC later came to the same conclusion. Also, from Gil’s post: 

Dr. Gary Wells, an Iowa State University psychologist who has researched identifications by witnesses since the mid-1970s describes what a witness sees in a lineup. He says, "The tendency is to pick the one who looks most like the person you saw. It becomes more about reasoning than memory."

"...... the reason I say that he looked like the man, because the rest of them were larger men ........The only one I could identify at all would be the smaller man on account he was the only one who could come near fitting the description." ---- Cecil McWatters ( 2 H 281 )

When Howard Brennan viewed the second lineup on November 22nd, he chose Oswald as the one who "most resembled" the man he saw. ( 3 H 154-155 )

This phenomena of choosing the one who "looks like" rather than one who "is" is supported by research published in 1998 by a Wells-led team. In that research, subjects were shown a grainy film of a staged crime, then handed six photos. They weren't told whether the "criminal" they had seen was in the group of pictures.

He wasn't, but nearly all of the subjects chose a picture anyway.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-11-25-police-lineups-cover-usat_x.htm

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

.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

As one who has argued for Oswald's innocence in the Tippit killing, I gave an answer to that question Bill, here, https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27754-the-jackets-as-exculpation-of-oswald-as-the-tippit-killer-an-analysis/. Oswald left the rooming house after putting on his blue jacket (not his gray jacket), took a bus south on Beckley to the Texas Theatre on Jefferson, bought a ticket, entered the theatre wearing the blue jacket, took off the jacket inside the warm theatre. That explains why he was not wearing a jacket when arrested, because few people wear a warm jacket (as was Oswald's blue jacket) inside a heated theatre.

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: usher Burroughs (in interview with James Douglass told in Douglass's book), and deputy sheriff Bill Courson told in Sneed, No More Silence. In the second case, deputy sheriff Courson said he met the man he mistakenly believed was Oswald coming down from the balcony. Of course this was not a "second Oswald", there was only one Oswald, but there was a second person who some witnesses thought looked like Oswald, in that theatre at that time, never identified. That person, who was in the balcony of that theatre, who was not Oswald, who never voluntarily came forth to identify himself in the years since, would be the Tippit killer and would-be Oswald killer of that day. 

The killer's abandoned light-gray jacket was size "M", consistent with a Tippit killer slightly shorter and heavier than Oswald who otherwise consistently wore size "S". Witness Benavides who said he got a very good look at the back of the Tippit killer's head from only ca. 15 feet away as the killer started to flee in the moments after the killing, said the Tippit killer had a block cut hairline at the back of his neck--clear view, close, certain in his testimony. Oswald had a tapered haircut in the back of his neck, as seen in the many photos of Oswald after his arrest. The Tippit killer's fingerprints, a single individual's fingerprints on the right front passenger door and right front fender of the Tippit cruiser, both places where the killer was seen with respect to the Tippit cruiser, were found in the 1990s not to have come from Oswald (Myers, With Malice, pp. 336-340). Neither of these two items--the block haircut in the back of the killer's head; the killer's fingerprints, both in disagreement with Oswald--have been given the weight or attention they merit. They weigh in favor of Oswald not being that killer. 

I believe a snub-nosed Smith & Wesson .38 Special found by a citizen in a paper bag several blocks away from the Carousel Club in downtown Dallas in the early morning hours of Sat Nov 23, at the exact time Curtis Craford aka Larry Crafard was being driven by Ruby away from the Carousel Club in what has the appearance of a fugitive taking flight from Dallas, was the murder weapon of the Tippit killing, not Oswald's revolver, and that that is why that "paper bag revolver", whose existence and find is certain, vanished and disappeared after being in police custody without known investigation or paper trail.

The FBI document relative to the paper bag revolver found near the Carousel Club in downtown Dallas the morning of Nov 23, 1963 was apparently first noticed or discovered in 1995 by Paul Hoch even though the document had been released in 1978. Since Paul Hoch's notice the document has received a little discussion, e.g. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48693#relPageId=10, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217846#relPageId=81, https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/983/gun-bag. I have been the first to suggest that that Nov 23 paper bag revolver was the Tippit murder weapon and related to the departure of Curtis Craford from Dallas. The document reads: 

MEMORANDUM TO SAC, DALLAS (89-43) DATE: 11/25/63
FROM SA RICHARD E. HARRISON
SUBJECT: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
On 11/23/63, Patrolman J. RAZ brought into the Homicide and Robbery Bureau, Dallas PD, a brown paper sack which contained a snub-nosed .38 caliber Smith & Wesson, SN 893265.
This gun had the word "England" on the cylinder and had been found at approximately 7:30 AM in a brown paper sack, together with an apple and an orange, near the curb at the corner of Ross and Lamar Streets and was turned in by one Willie Flat, white male, 9221 Metz Drive, employed at 4770 Memphis, to the Dallas PD.

Oswald had a reason for carrying his revolver (self-defense) but there is no good reason for a person throwing a revolver in a paper bag out of a car window on the morning of Nov 23, 1963, other than that it was involved in a recent crime, namely the Tippit homicide done with exactly the kind of weapon in that paper bag. Craford was confused in physical identification, identified as being Oswald, by other Dallas citizens, such that the Tippit crime scene witnesses would simply become a few more instances if he were the killer. Craford's alibi is weak for Friday afternoon Nov 22, and his story of sudden no-notice hitchhiking from Dallas to Michigan hours after the Tippit killing, in the same proximity and timing as the abandonment of the paper bag revolver, suggests a candidate for identity of the killer of Tippit and would-be killer of Oswald of Nov 22, namely Ruby recent hire and later self-confessed hitman, Craford. Oswald was killed by Ruby himself on Sunday morning after the Tippit killer's intent to kill Oswald on Friday in the theatre failed.

On the FBI lab finding that the shell casings identified by DPD as found at the Tippit crime scene were fired exclusively from Oswald's revolver, my treatment of that issue is at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27367-an-argument-for-actual-innocence-of-oswald-in-the-tippit-case/page/2/. 

Obviously the Tippit case involves more than this. But this gives a glimpse of a possible different theory of the case, in which Oswald is innocent in that killing. Some additional previous discussions of mine on various aspects of the Tippit case are:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27358-tippit-acquila-clemons/

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27362-tippit-a-second-officer-present-at-the-tippit-killing/

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26874-the-wallet-at-the-tippit-scene-a-simpler-solution/

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27770-a-five-point-road-map-to-accomplishing-a-change-of-consciousness-in-america-concerning-the-jfk-assassination/

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

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Markham is, well, just not credible; but for the other witness, would you agree that the credibility of their positive identifications is contingent on the conduct of the lineups conducted by the DPD? Do you believe that the lineups were conducted fairly? I'd recommend reading the following post by Gil Jesus:

 

 

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, which
was on Jefferson Boulevard.  Markham was just reaching the northwest corner of
Tenth and Patton when she noticed Tippit's patrol car pass through the
intersection, heading east along Tenth Street.  Markham testified that the
patrol car pulled up to a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side
of Tenth Street.  Helen Markham positively identified Lee Oswald as the man she
saw talking to, and shoot, J.D. Tippit.  She testified that she saw Oswald run
from the scene, heading down Patton with a gun in his hand.
 
William Scoggins was sitting in his cab at the southeast corner of Tenth and
Patton.  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 pulled
up alongside a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side of Tenth
Street.  William Scoggins positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw
running towards his cab seconds after hearing gun shots.  Scoggins got out of
his cab with thoughts of running from the scene as Oswald headed straight
towards 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 turn
the corner and head down Patton towards Jefferson.  Scoggins testified that
Oswald had a gun in his hand.
 
Barbara Davis was lying in bed inside her residence, which was the house at the
corner of Tenth and Patton.  She heard gunshots outside and went to the door.
She opened the screen door and noticed Helen
Markham across the street, screaming.  Davis then noticed a man cutting through
her front yard, holding a gun in his hands.  She testified that the man had the
gun cocked in his hands as if he were emptying it.  Barbara Davis positively
identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across her yard with a gun in
his hands.
 
Virginia Davis was in the living room of the same residence (400 E. Tenth
St.) when she heard gunshots outside.  Virginia Davis went to the door
and, like Barbara, noticed Helen Markham across the street, screaming.  Davis
then noticed a man cutting across the front yard with a gun in his hands.  She
testified that the man was emptying shells out of the gun.  Virginia Davis
positively identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across the front
yard 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.  Callaway
testified 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 the
east side of Patton and noticed Scoggins' cab parked up near the corner of
Patton at Tenth.  As Callaway watched the cab driver (Scoggins) hide beside his
cab, he noticed a man running across Patton from the east side of Patton to the
west side.  Callaway watched the man run down Patton towards Jefferson.  Ted
Callaway positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton with
a gun in his hands.
 
Sam Guinyard worked at the same used-car lot as Ted Callaway.  Guinyard was out
on the lot washing one of the cars when he heard gunshots come from the
direction up toward Tenth Street.  From the car lot, Guinyard was looking north
toward Tenth in an attempt to see where the shots came from when he saw a man on
the sidewalk in between the first two houses on Tenth Street (400 E. Tenth and
404 E. Tenth).  Guinyard went toward the sidewalk on the east side of Patton and
saw the man cut across the yard of the house on the corner (400 E. Tenth, the
Davis residence) and proceeded to run south on Patton.  Guinyard said the man
had a gun in his hands and was emptying it of shells.  Sam Guinyard positively
identified 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.

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

True. But it is yet one more piece of evidence that Oswald was outside, given that those around PM "conveniently" (IMO) forgot he was there.

 

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.

On 7/7/2022 at 7:24 PM, Roger Odisio said:

Try using a little logic.  You're a stranger.  You pass up all the all of the spots on either side of Elm St. from the corner on down to the underpass where the crowd is thin and the view is easy.  Instead you leave the street and push thru the pack of Depository employees on the steps and go to the back corner of the top step.  Into the shadows as it were.  Where you lose sight of the motorcade quickly as it starts down the hill.

Have you been on those steps?  I have.  The view is lousy; PM could not have seen the shots from there.

Add the fact that all employees on those steps answered no when asked if they saw any strangers among them, and I think you can conclude PM was an employee. 

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.

On 7/5/2022 at 7:36 PM, Roger Odisio said:

I hesitate to answer your question about Oswald and a lawyer, David, because the answer is so obvious it feels like I'm being played.  But I'm new here so I will.

Any suspect has a constitutional right to remain silent and have the presence of an attorney because anything he says can be used against him in a court of law.  In the Miranda decision in 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that a suspect must be informed of those basic rights, which always existed, before he is questioned by authorities.  

Oswald was entitled to have a lawyer present during questioning.  He knew it.  He asked for one (I think more than once).  They kept questioning him. He  never did get a lawyer.  That was illegal.

Others have told stories--I think one was by the head of the local bar at the time--of trying to get to Oswald to offer their services only to be thwarted by the cops.  That was a further layer of illegality by the authorities, tho it's not necessary to establish their fundamental breaking of the law in the first instance.   

 

 

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 7/5/2022 at 3:18 AM, David Von Pein said:

I think every reasonable person knows, deep down, that the film cannot possibly show Lee Oswald. Because if it did show Oswald, I'd have at least one or two news videos in my collection which include Oswald shouting to the world, "I was on the steps!"

Can there be any doubt at all that what I just said is absolutely true and makes total sense?

On 7/1/2022 at 9:48 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

He just says that naturally he's gonna be in the building given that he works there. He doesn't say he was inside the building right when the motorcade past.

And now we know that in his interrogation, he said he was outside watching the presidential parade. His alibi was covered up, but discovered a few years ago.

Why did they cover up his alibi?

 

Reporter:  "Were you in that building at the time?"

Oswald:  "Naturally if I work in that building, yes Sir."