Bill Brown

You realize that a man can't really walk into a back room in a diner and travel back to 1958. Right?

I've never been totally convinced that Clemons saw the killer as he was making his escape. However, to include her is to also include Jack Tatum, who undoubtedly said the guy was Oswald. Fair enough?

"I think research arguing there were two, not one, headshots close together that killed JFK is arguably the most important development in recent memory. If proven, by itself it would blow up the WR. Tink Thompson, Gary Aguilar and Bill Simpich made the two shot argument at the Duquesne conference last month, meticulously going through the Zapruder film frame by frame to identify each shot." Interesting. Let's discuss. "Problem is, the Zapruder film was altered..." Never mind.

Greg Doudna asked: "But back to Benavides. Why Benavides but not Acquilla Clemons?" My simple answer is that though she was interviewed by amateur sleuths in the summer of '64 (Salandria, Martin and the Nashes), there is nothing in an official capacity.

By the way, Greg... I wonder if you could clear something up for me. Earlier in this thread, while you and I were discussing the partial prints lifted from the car by Barnes, I stated that Jimmy Burt (over 300 feet away and on the other side of the street) is not credible, regarding whether or not the killer touched the patrol car. I asked you if you agreed with me or if you feel Burt is credible, re: whether or not the killer touched the car. Do you feel Burt is credible when he discusses what happened down at the patrol car even though he was over 300 feet away?

Bill Smith and Domingo Benavides aren't after the fact. They both testified to the Warren Commission. Clemons did not. The FBI was completely unaware of Clemons until after the Warren Report was released. Clemons was visited by Vincent Salandria, Shirley Martin, as well as George & Patricia Nash in the summer of '64. Martin's recorded interview with Clemons proved that Lane was telling porky pies, regarding a mysterious 2nd female witness to the Tippit murder. Because Smith and Benavides testified to the Warren Commission and Clemons refused/was reluctant, it is faulty to place Clemons in the same category of witnesses as Smith, Benavides, Burt, Markham, B. Davis, V. Davis, Scoggins, Guinyard, Callaway, Reynolds, Patterson, Russell and Lewis.

Oversight? LOL You're a cute kid. I don't include Acquilla Clemons because she's after the fact. It's the same reason I don't include Jack Tatum (who would only help my case).

I am bumping this because a lot of the mistakes that I pointed out in the original post have not been dealt with by the author of those mistakes.

Thanks Greg. Let it stand, as I've clearly stated over and over, that none of the REAL witnesses said the man was NOT Oswald.

"FBI, which has some of the best expertise in the nation on fingerprints, never bothered with, no record ever was asked, to run the Tippit patrol car fingerprints." The prints lifted by Barnes were only partial prints. Because of this, they were of no value in determining who they belonged to.

"I think Craford post-Nov 22 intentionally bought another jacket as closely similar to the one he abandoned in Oak Cliff as he could find, in order to distance suspicion from himself as having left C162 in that parking lot of Ballew's Texaco after killing Tippit." So then you believe that Crafard was also wearing a shirt in which the shirt fibers were an exact match with test fibers removed from Oswald's arrest shirt? For those who may be unaware, microscopic fibers were found inside one of the sleeves of the jacket found underneath one of the cars behind the Texaco station. Test fibers were removed from the shirt Oswald was wearing when he was arrested inside the theater. When comparing fibers forensically, one does so using three fiber characteristics... Color, shade and twist. The fibers found inside the sleeve of the jacket (CE-162) were a match to the test fibers removed from Oswald's arrest shirt, i.e. the exact same color, the exact same shade and the exact same twist. Incidentally, a tuft of fibers were also found in a crevice between the metal butt plate and the wooden stock of the rifle (CE-139) found up on the sixth floor. These rifle fibers were also compared to the test fibers removed from Oswald's arrest shirt. Yep. Exact same color, shade and twist.

"Minor point, you err in saying none of the witnesses said the gunman was not Oswald. Jimmy Burt said so emphatically several years later in a tabloid." No Sir. I did not err at all. I have both the transcripts and the audio of the 1968 Al Chapman interview with Jimmy Burt for the National Enquirer. Although Chapman claims in his article that Burt said the man was not Oswald, the fact is that Burt didn't say it at all. Chapman did not include the transcripts in the article. I wonder why... Not really.

"Scoggins identified Oswald out of a lineup. But when he was shown photos by police he said he picked the "wrong" police photo. (Bill, do you know whose photo Scoggins picked who he got "wrong", ie other than Oswald?)" I wish I could help ya, Greg. But no, I sure don't know. The important thing here is that Scoggins told Jim Leavelle that the guy (Oswald) can bitch and holler all he wants, but that is the guy he saw running from the scene. (Dale Myers interview with Jim Leavelle)

"She herself said she covered her face with her hands and did not look when the killer left the patrol car and came west in what looked like her direction." No. Markham describes covering her eyes momentarily. Then, she spread apart her fingers and looked at the killer and he looked at her. This is almost a direct quote, Greg.

"Innocence Project exonerations in which persons convicted by juries of serious crimes such as murder, subsequently proven innocent by DNA testing, sometimes decades later, involve positive eyewitness identifications as part of the evidence which wrongly convicted those innocent persons in over half the cases." So because sometimes a suspect can be wrongly convicted means all suspects are wrongly convicted? Come on, now. A thousand men can be wrongly convicted but that doesn't mean that man #1001 is innocent.

"The reason the 9 who said the killer was Oswald and not Craford is not determinative is because Craford was never offered to those witnesses's awareness as a choice between Oswald or Craford. Craford was not in those lineups. Craford's photo was not, to my knowledge, shown to any of those witnesses (do you know differently on that?). Oswald in those lineups stood among others who did not look like him or Craford. Picking Oswald would be an easy mistake for a witness to make in that context, because we know witnesses did make exactly that identification mistake." That's not how it works. The nine witnesses said the man was Oswald because they felt the man they saw was Oswald. That Crafard was not in the lineups doesn't change the fact that the witnesses believed the man they saw was Oswald. If the man they saw was Crafard, then maybe one or two of them may have chose Oswald (in a lineup with no Crafard) but what do you think the odds are that nine out of nine would pick the wrong guy? Yes, Oswald stood out from the others alongside him. But witnesses are allowed to say that none of the men in the lineup resemble the man they saw. However, that's not what happened. They picked Oswald because they felt strongly enough that Oswald was the guy they saw. You're acting like the witnesses were forced to pick the man who most resembled the man they saw, even if the man they saw was not among those in the lineup before them. That's not the case, though.

"Your first paragraph is correct except for the fact it was 1966, not 1967." Yep. November of '66. Thanks for the correction.

"If Craford was the gunman, all of the witness identifications of the gunman as Oswald go out the window as being determinative, in light of how known that particular identification confusion was to witnesses who did not know either individual well from prior knowledge." If Crafard was the gunman? No. Crafard was not the gunman; Oswald was. How do we know this? Easy. Of the 13 REAL witnesses, 9 said the man was Oswald and 4 chose to not say one way or the other. Zero said the man was not Oswald. Also, Crafard was not the owner of the revolver which was linked (through ballistic testing) to the shell casings found at the scene. How is Crafard the shooter when nine different witnesses said the man was Oswald? Of the witnesses who said the man was Oswald versus saying the man was not Oswald, what are the odds that nine witnesses out of nine would identify Oswald as the man if the killer was Crafard? How is Crafard the shooter when the revolver taken from Oswald 35 minutes after the shooting was responsible for firing off the shells found at the scene? "We have Oswald not a match to the fingerprints from a right hand on the right front bumper, and right front passenger door. (Correct, fingerprints, not a palm print, on the bumper, the person was not putting weight on that hand while touching, perhaps more like resting fingers for balance.)" Okay and if you don't mind, please stop saying that a palm print was lifted from the patrol car by Barnes. Regarding the partial fingerprints lifted, they are completely irrelevant. They mean nothing. Nearly anyone in South Oak Cliff could have touched the patrol car in those spots in the previous 12 to 24 hours. Greg, Crafard joined the military and entered in Salem, Oregon. You're out that way. Why not make an attempt to locate Crafard's fingerprints? They'll show that the prints lifted by Barnes will not be a match to Crafard's prints and then you'll have to cease with this Crafard stuff. "On Tatum driving by and seeing the killer standing with hands in pockets, that could well be true until after Tatum drove by and missed seeing the killer lean into the side of the car to speak through that open vent window. Tatum would not see that since he was facing forward looking where he is driving. Also, Helen Markham insisted and was very clear she saw the killer’s arms raised, both of them, as he leaned into and talked through the patrol car window. She would have been able to see that through the glass of the patrol car. You might say she imagined the arms raised, and that is possible. But that’s what she said, and she said it consistently and immediately starting within minutes of the crime to police (Tatum over a decade later)." Tatum has Oswald with his hands in his jacket pockets. Markham (from her position, having no view of the passenger side of the patrol car) is not a witness to be relied upon, re: whether or not Oswald touched the patrol car on the passenger side. That's just how it is, Greg. Markham was over 150 feet behind the patrol car and on the driver's side. She could see the full length of the driver's side of the patrol car and she could not see the passenger side at all. Also, unless you're standing at Markham's corner and you have a replica patrol car in place, you have no idea what Markham could and couldn't see through the glass of the patrol car. Burt was over 300 feet away and also more toward the driver side of the patrol car than the passenger side. From Burt's position, the killer leaning over to talk could certainly give the appearance of touching the car even though he may not be. This would be a natural assumption to make, if you're Burt, though an incorrect one. Burt simply is not reliable, regarding whether or not the killer touched the patrol car at all. Do you disagree, Greg? Do you find Burt reliable from over 300 feet away? "On the shell hulls match to Oswald’s revolver, the issue is the chain of custody. As I showed in my paper on this matter (linked earlier above in this thread), of the five DPD officers who marked one or more of the shell hulls at the scene, four of those five never stated any identification firsthand in their own signature or direct sworn or unsworn testimony, and the fifth who did so testified under oath to a shell hull identification of his own mark which was rejected by the Warren Commission as correct and laughed at by Leavelle who didn’t believe it." The two shells that Benavides found and gave to Poe, let's call them shells #1 and #2. Let's call the shell found by Barbara Davis (and turned over to Captain Doughty) shell #3. Let's call the shell found by Virginia Davis (and turned over to Detectives Brown and Dougherty) shell #4. Set aside shells #1 and #2 for a moment (since Poe couldn't be certain that he marked them or not). Let's concentrate for a moment on shell #3. The FBI visited Captain Doughty in June of '64 and presented him with all four shell casings. He looked them over, found his mark on one of them and identified that shell casing that he handled that day. So we have a shell casing found at the scene linked through ballistic testing to the revolver taken from Oswald when he was arrested inside the theater, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world. Since all four shell casings were fired from the same weapon, then all four shell casings were fired from Oswald's revolver (even if we cannot establish a chain of custody for the other three shells, which we can indeed, in my opinion). Just the one shell casing (shell #3) would be enough to send Oswald to death row for killing a cop. "Do you accept Barnes’ sworn WC testimony to his own shell hull mark identification that the Warren Commission rejected and Leavelle too with mockery? " First, if you don't mind, please cite for Leavelle mocking Barne's identification. I know Leavelle "mocked" Poe, saying that Poe never marked the two Benavides shells (#1 and #2). "But back to Craford, if he was the gunman then the murder weapon becomes the paper-bag revolver which Craford had means, motive and opportunity to have ditched out the rear window of a car driven by Ruby a few hours later, ca 6 am the next morning, before Craford took flight from Dallas for Michigan." There's that "if he was the gunman" again. Again, he was not the gunman. Of the 13 REAL witnesses, 9 said the man was Oswald and 4 chose to not say one way or the other. Zero said the man was not Oswald. Also, Crafard was not the owner of the revolver which was linked to the shell casings found at the scene. How is Crafard the shooter when nine different witnesses said the man was Oswald? Of the witnesses who said the man was Oswald versus saying the man was not Oswald, what are the odds that nine witnesses out of nine would identify Oswald as the man if the killer was Crafard? How is Crafard the shooter when the revolver taken from Oswald 35 minutes after the shooting was responsible for firing off the shells found at the scene? A revolver was found inside of a small paper bag lying along a curb on a Dallas street. How does that automatically mean that Crafard threw this particular revolver out of a car window when he was riding around town with Jack Ruby in the wee hours of Saturday morning? You're making quite the reach, especially since we know this revolver is NOT the one linked to the shells found at the Tippit scene. It should also be noted, for those who may be unaware, that Crafard was sleeping inside the Carousel Club when the President was assassinated and was awakened by bartender Andy Armstrong AFTER the assassination. Crafard says this. Armstrong says this. Sleeping and UNEXPECTEDLY being woke up after the assassination is hardly what one would be doing if he were to be involved in whatever shenanigans were to take place just a few short minutes later over in Oak Cliff. "And as shown on the other thread, the testimony from witnesses inside the theater, three out of three who gave information on this point, put Oswald in that main seating area on the ground level in the 1:15-1:20 pm time frame, meaning Oswald was not the man who ran into the balcony at 1:35, and means Oswald could not have been the killer of Tippit at Tenth and Patton at 1:15 pm since he was in the theater at that time. And the WC testimony of one of those three witnesses to Oswald’s alibi, Burroughs, who, in answer to WC counsel questioning, sounded like Burroughs identified the balcony man as Oswald, even though Burroughs insisted later that is not what he meant and that is not what happened, becomes explained by the reason brought out by Joe Bauer: Burroughs had failed a mental test in the Army and was no match for experienced WC counsel manipulative questioning. But Burroughs in his own voice later told that Oswald was in that theater before the movie started, as a paid-ticket customer." While inside the theater and during the short search for the suspicious man out in the lobby, Burroughs was asked by the police if he had seen the guy at all. He told them No. Burroughs told the Warren Commission that he hadn't seen Oswald enter the theater at all. There is nothing to suggest that Oswald was inside the theater at 1:15. Oswald certainly was the man who entered around 1:35 as pointed out by Johnny Brewer. Johnny Brewer, moments later, identified Oswald as the man he saw at the theater entrance around that time. Brewer pointed out the man he saw at the theater entrance as being Lee Oswald, not any particular man who was already inside the theater at 1:15. Or, is Brewer yet another witness we can add to the long list of those not knowing the difference between Lee Oswald and Larry Crafard? Burroughs in his own voice? So you choose to ignore what he said (and did not say) when it counted versus something he said to a conspiracy author (Marrs in 1987) and also when he was interviewed for The Men Who Killed Kennedy (1988)? Why discount what he said and didn't say in 1964 in favor of what he said roughly twenty-four years later? I appreciate the back and forth, Greg. I will await your responses.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/the-secrets-of-anne-dischler?fbclid=IwAR2OSFKm65_EAmEMVyckG3oPprTN3peu90DNiV3-F7kLhAkx6fZudvqWRs4

In 1967 the autopsy pathologists (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), the acting chief of radiology (Ebersole) and one of the autopsy photographers (Stringer) viewed the autopsy photographs and/or X-rays and confirmed the photos and X-rays were accurate in the portrayal of the wounds of the President. The Clark Panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck only once and from above and behind. The Rockefeller Commission studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck only once and from behind. The HSCA forensic panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos (and interviewed the Kennedy autopsy personnel in order to verify the validity of the photos and X-rays) and concluded that the head was struck once and only from behind.

It is absolutely my belief that Oswald was Tippit's killer. The revolver taken from Oswald was a ballistic match to the four shell casings found at the scene to the exclusion of any other weapon in the world. Nine eyewitnesses (Markham, B. Davis, V. Davis, Scoggins, Guinyard, Callaway, Reynolds, Patterson & Russell) said the man they saw running with a gun was Oswald and NONE of the other eyewitnesses (Burt, Smith, Benavides & Lewis) said the man was not Oswald. While we're at it, you are wrong to say that the defense would attempt (during the trial) to show a flawed chain of custody of the shells. Once evidence is actually admitted, the defense does not spend time challenging the authenticity of said evidence during trial proceedings. All that does is make it appear to the jury that this particular piece of evidence must be pretty damning to the defendant. Sorry Greg, but this just isn't done during a trial. It makes me wonder why you make such a claim. Do you have courtroom experience or are you (mistakenly) assuming what a defense attorney would do? Next, and this is a fact.... there is nothing to suggest that the partial fingerprints (have you acknowledged yet that you were wrong to say one was a palm print?) lifted from the patrol car by Barnes MUST belong to the killer. This simply is not a MUST. The scene was not secured for damn near ten minutes after the shooting and plenty of citizens (some known and some not known) were in the direct vicinity of the patrol car. Hell, Benavides, Bowley and Callaway were literally inside the car (though admittedly on the driver's side). Point being, if these three men were able to do what they did, then who's to say others did not touch the passenger side? I'm not saying this is a must, but a definite possibility. What about someone back at the parking lot where the patrol cars were kept? Who had that car during the shift the night before and did that officer frisk anyone for whatever reason where the suspect was made to place his hands on the car? Almost anyone in South Oak Cliff could have touched that car in the previous 12 hours leading up to the assassination. Why is automatic to you that the partial fingerprints could only belong to the killer? It sounds like wishful thinking on your part and nothing more. One final thought... You live in the Pacific Northwest, right? Crafard also lived in the Pacific Northwest. Why don't you try to get hold of his fingerprints? Then have a fingerprint expert compare them to a clear copy of the partial prints which Barnes lifted from the patrol car that day. The result would most likely be that the prints do not belong to Crafard and we know this because eyewitnesses at the scene said the man they saw was in fact Lee Oswald and Lee Oswald was caught with the revolver responsible for the shell casings found at the scene.

Jonathan, you're using way too much logic and common sense for some.

I've discussed this before on this forum. I even created a thread around it. There is nothing about that piece of paper which makes it "relevant" to Oswald or the Kennedy assassination.

"The library was the only building of significance close to 510 East Jefferson." Nonsense. The Johnny Reynolds Motor Company had the address of 500 E. Jefferson. This is the location from where L.J. Lewis called the police after hearing the shots and seeing a man with a gun running down Patton. Lewis (having no idea where exactly the shooting occurred) probably gave that address to the police operator.

"For identification purposes two potential destinations required the two torn bills that were found on Oswald." There is no evidence that two torn bills were found on Oswald and it should not be stated as a fact.