Bill Brown

Why do you feel the need to continually point out who you have on ignore? Do you think even a single person cares at all?

The man seen by Brewer was indeed Oswald. Stop it. Forget Tenth and Patton. Forget the jacket found behind the Texaco station. Why did Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?

Mr. BALL. Then, what happened after that? Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket. Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door. Mr. BALL. He was zipping it up as he went out the door? Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes. ========= Mr. BELIN - So you say he was about 5'9"? Mr. BREWER - About 5'9". Mr. BELIN - And about 150? Mr. BREWER - And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out. Mr. BELIN - Any jacket? Mr. BREWER - No. ========= Forget CE-162. Why did Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?

Gerry, in 1963, the county jail overlooked Dealey Plaza. The jail you've circled in red is the new facility.

Acquilla Clemons never said that two men were involved in the shooting of Tippit. In addition to that, if two men really were involved (they weren't), how did REAL witnesses who were outdoors and pretty much watched the thing go down (Burt, Smith, Benavides, Markham and Scoggins) manage to completely miss this supposed second man?

"It would be worth going along that track with a metal detector to see if that shell could still be found today." Today, it's a fully concrete alley.

For what it's worth... I consider many of Sandy Larsen's posts to be of the "far-fetched" variety. I also consider Sandy Larsen to be a fair Moderator. Jeremy, one can't possess both characteristics?

You haven't even read any of the Warren Commission report and/or testimony. How would you know?

The Neely Street house is still there. I was there back in November.

That's good advice.

All I'm trying to say here is that Markham thought the window was down. She said she knows it was down. She was wrong about this. Therefore, why can't she also be wrong about the killer actually placing his arms on the car? From her position, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the window was down and that the killer made contact with the car. She was wrong about one. Why can't she be wrong about both?

Exactly. Bingo! You're finally getting it. Markham saw a movement from Tippit which, because of her position in relation to the patrol car and Tippit, she assumed he did one thing when the reality is he did another. Same with the killer putting his hands/arms on the car. Markham saw a movement from the killer which, because of her position in relation to the patrol car and the killer, she assumed he did one thing when the reality is he did another. Oswald simply had his hands in his jacket pockets (per Jack Tatum, who had a much better look than Markham ever did), walked over to the passenger side of the car and leaned forward to speak through the vent window.

But Markham said the window was down. You're basically admitting she was simply making an assumption. She did the same when she said Oswald put his hands/arms on the passenger door.

"Correct me if I’m wrong here, but doesn’t this crime scene photo show the passenger vent window cracked open?: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49421/?q=Tippit photo If so, that settles it. The killer leaned down to talk through the cracked vent, just like you said." I mentioned the tiny vent window being opened. Greg simply replied to my mention of it. And YES, it's nothing new that the vent window was open in the crime scene photos.

Do you believe Tippit leaned over and rolled down the passenger's side window of the patrol car?

"Markham seems to have been very consistent in stating that she observed the killer’s hands ON the patrol car. Her affidavit says arms but..." I find this comical. Claim Markham was consistent about how the killer touched the car and then provide an example of her inconsistency.

This interview with Markham was for the Sept. 27, 1964 broadcast of "November 22, 1963: The Warren Report" (CBS). Yes, it has been there all along, nothing new here. Markham says: "He wasn't a very big man. He was short - kind of short - so, as I can remember." What she does NOT say is he was short, kind of short, sort of a fat(?) man, as incorrectly attributed to her by Greg Doudna. Therefore, Markham's description does NOT rule out Oswald, since she doesn't use the word fat. We also know that her description doesn't rule out Oswald because she positively identified Oswald (the #2 man) during a police lineup a couple hours after the shooting. "Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman." - Helen Markham (Warren Commission testimony) Markham was absolutely positive that the man she saw shoot Tippit was Lee Oswald when she said this (also from her testimony to the Warren Commission): "When we looked at each other, he just stared, just like that. I just don't know. I just seen him, I would know the man anywhere, I know I would." As for the partial fingerprints lifted from the driver's side door, this entire thing is foolish. It does not take a Lieutenant Columbo to understand that Markham was standing about 150 feet west of the patrol car and on the other side of the street, i.e. the other side of the car from where Oswald was. All it takes is a basic understanding of the Tippit case. From her position across the street and 150 feet west of the car, there is no way she could see whether or not Oswald touched the door. All she could determine was that Oswald walked over to the car and leaned down to talk to Tippit. Jack Tatum drove by at about this same instant, saw Oswald from ten to fifteen feet away and said Oswald had his hands in his jacket pockets and he was leaning down to talk to Tippit. Maybe part of the problem here is that some of you are completely unaware of where Markham was standing in relation to the stopped patrol car. This is simple stuff as long as one doesn't choose to jump through hoops in an effort to make it difficult. There is no way Markham can be relied upon as a witness to whether or not the killer touched the passenger side door. We know this because she incorrectly said: "The window was down, and I know it was down, I know, and he put his arms and leaned over." The problem here is that window was NOT down during the conversation between Tippit and Oswald, unless one wants to believe that Tippit rolled the window up before getting out of the car, which would be complete nonsense. Crime scene photos show the window clearly rolled up. In addition to Markham, earlier in this thread, Greg Doudna relied on Jimmy Burt as a witness to Tippit's killer touching the passenger door of the patrol car. This is also faulty. First, Jimmy Burt was about 300 feet east of the stopped patrol car. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Burt also said that Tippit, siting in the driver seat, "reached over and rolled the window down". Since the window was NOT down, Burt is making a mistaken assumption (as was Markham). Since we know Burt was making a mistaken assumption regarding Tippit reaching over and rolling the window down, then why can't Burt be making another mistaken assumption when he said the killer placed his hands on the car? This statement by Burt is proof that he cannot be relied upon as to whether or not the killer touched the car. Again, crime scene photos show the window rolled up. Markham and Burt saw Tippit's killer walk over to the passenger side of the patrol car and lean down to talk to Tippit through the opened tiny vent window. Is it really all that unreasonable for both to later make the simple but yet mistaken assumption that the killer actually touched the car? Of course not. Sometimes you see an event unfold without seeing the complete picture. Your mind then fills in the blanks; a perfectly natural thing to do.

"If you are questioning that a .38 Smith & Wesson in a paper bag tossed into a street at night is a suspected murder weapon disposal from a gangland or contract murder, I can hardly believe you are serious." Who says it's a murder weapon? You? Please list a murder in the Dallas area which ballistic evidence ties this weapon to. "Its a murder weapon disposal hours after the Tippit murder..." Who, other than you, says it was a murder weapon? "The most plausible candidate for who tossed that paper-bag revolver, from timing and route logistics, by coincidence is none other than the leading non-Oswald suspect for the Tippit murder." Nonsense. Any one in that part of Dallas could have tossed that paper bag at any time before it was found. "The tossing into a city street near the Carousel Club..." Near the carousel club? What characteristics are you using to determine what is "near" anywhere? I know how far away this bag was found from the Carousel Club. Do you? "...is consistent with that suspect having no car of his own and being a passenger sitting in the back seat of Ruby's car driving from the Carousel Club at ca 5 am Nov 23 toward the Stemmons Freeway." How is a paper bag containing a revolver and found in the street up against the curb "consistent" with any of the above? Explain. A paper bag containing a revolver found on the ground must be tossed out of the backseat of a car by someone in the backseat because he has no car of his own? I don't understand how you're making these leaps. It certainly isn't based on a shred of evidence. "I would like a straight answer from you to this last question above, with explanation as to why in your answer." If I were on the jury, I would vote Oswald guilty based on the eyewitness positive identifications along with the ballistic evidence linking the shells found at the scene to the revolver taken from Oswald when he was arrested. The shells found at the Tippit murder scene didn't come from the revolver found in a paper bag near downtown Dallas because the shells have been proven (through ballistic testing) to have come from Oswald's revolver. When fired, the revolver puts a distinct marking (a "fingerprint") on the shell. The shell casing is up against the breech face and the firing pin. The bullet is fired when the hammer makes contact with the primer. When this happens, the shell is thrown back against the breech face. This action is what places the "fingerprint" onto the base of the shell casing (marks which match the breech face to the shell casing). The marks on the breech face matching the marks on the shell casing is what is what proves that the shell casing was fired from that specific weapon, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world. Joseph Nicol (Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification & Investigation for the State of Illinois) Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier, Charles Killion (all three of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Washington D.C.) These four experts each examined the shell casings found at the scene at Tenth and Patton as well as Oswald's revolver (taken from him upon his apprehension at the theater). Using this manner of ballistic testing, these investigators, independent of each other, determined that the shells were linked to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world. For those who haven't yet, get a copy and actually read With Malice by Dale Myers.

"Burt said he saw the killer's hands touching but Burt is not the argument." So I am clear, you're no longer relying on Jimmy Burt as evidence that the killer touched the patrol car? You were before and I'm just trying to follow. "Here is what is strong: the first-day interview of witness Helen Markham by FBI agent Barrett, in which Helen Markham says she saw the killer of Tippit with his face right up to the glass of the Tippit patrol car right where the unidentified fingerprints were lifted twenty minutes after Helen Markham saw this, and told this the same afternoon..." But nothing from that first day statement to Barrett about the killer actually touching the patrol car. It wouldn't matter anyway, since she was about 150 feet away and on the other side of the car. "Twenty minutes later, after officer Tippit was shot dead by that man, a Dallas Police officer lifted fingerprints from the top of that right front door." Surely, you're aware that the crime scene was unsecured for at least ten minutes. Tippit's service revolver was handled by at least two witnesses on the scene. Anyone could have touched the patrol car. Sadly, the partial prints lifted by Barnes are not evidence of anything. "Especially if that jury or that public were also allowed to know of the paper-bag revolver, the disposal of a murder weapon of the kind used to kill Tippit..." Help me understand how this "paper bag revolver" has now been upgraded to the class of "murder weapon". Thanks Again, Oswald was arrested in the theater with the revolver on him which was linked (through ballistic testing) to the shells found at the scene to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world. Thirteen witnesses saw the man either shoot Tippit or run from the scene with a gun in his hands. Nine of these witnesses said the man was Lee Oswald. Four of the witnesses weren't sure one way or the other. Zero out of the thirteen said the man was not Oswald.

"I don’t know. On present information, not unequivocally, even though what he says he saw sounds plausible." I only ask because you strongly rely on Burt when trying to show that the killer indeed had his hands on the car. So which is it? "You’re not going to discuss Acquilla further? It is now dawning on me why you consistently attacked my known Callaway/gunman interaction exchange episode as what Acquilla was describing having witnessed, while resolutely refusing to say your own alternative interpretation of what she saw. It’s because you don’t think she saw the gunman at all? That she made it up? Is that correct?" First, again, the exchange between Callaway and the cop-killer took place much too far down Patton for Clemons to have heard any of it. Second, what I do know for sure is that she said nothing in an official capacity and that is why I discount her. First Day Evidence, ya know?

So do you find Jimmy Burt's description of what happened at the patrol car to be credible or no?

Nope.

The Commission called Lee Bowers, Sam Holland, Frank Reilly, Arnold Rowland, Sylvia Odio and many others who's testimony contradicted what ended up being the Commission's conclusion.

I'm aware of that. King sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

The book is fiction, it involves time travel for cripes' sake. Get over yourselves.