Jump to content
The Education Forum

"Jefferson Davis Tippitt"


Recommended Posts

The coup de grace, the fatal and final shot which entered Officer Tippit's brain was not a random act, but administered for one of two probable reasons. Either a hatred inspired desire for Tippit to die, or a desire to prevent Tippitt from identifying his assailant.

My feelings regarding this matter have oscillated many times during the past several decades. I tried to convince myself that Tippit's murder could have been a random act that was completely disassociated with that killing of the President. I considered it among several other possibilities, to have been a revenge/hate killing by a husband of one of Tippit's known paramours. However the method and randomness of the encounter pretty much negates that theory in my thinking. An enraged husband is unlikely to have been just walking down the street with the hope that JD might just "drive by". It is also unlikely for it to have been a "planned murder" with the murderer having no means of escape.

It has been theorized many times that JD was to be Lee's means of escape if such a "contingency plan" was evoked. It is further speculated that Oswald very obviously smelled PATSY when he realized that the President had been killed and obviously was afraid to enter the car with Tippitt. As a result of Tippit's possible persistence, a very frightened Oswald took the only appropriate action available to him....let us not forget that at some point during this episode, Tippits revolver was drawn. Oswald fired several times downing Tippitt. He then took the time to fire the coup de grace headshot in order to prevent Tppit from identifying him or calling for help.

I do not believe that, despite police audio tapes,

JD Tppit was in this neighborhood by chance....it is likely that it was his patrol car that beeeped its horn at Oswald's residence as was reported. I do not feel that this was in any way "A chance encounter".

Furthermore I find it unlikely that Oswald, who had on several ocassions previously been arrested with no resistance, would have drawn a weapon, while surrounded by armed police and seriously faced probable death, had he not killed a policeman!

In the theatre, the "cool and collected" Oswald.... LOST IT !

Although I do now believe Oswald to be the Tippitt killer, I believe him to have been a "DUPED participant" in a plot which he believed was to merely "scare or force" President Kennedy to take certain actions which were being demanded by the "empowered hidden government".

I feel that as the nitrate tests indicated, that LHO fired a pistol but "No Rifle" on 11/22/63.

I feel that Lee was both a Patsy and a Cop Killer... but not a Presidential assassin.

Charles Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The coup de grace, the fatal and final shot which entered Officer Tippit's brain was not a random act, but administered for one of two probable reasons. Either a hatred inspired desire for Tippit to die, or a desire to prevent Tippitt from identifying his assailant.

My feelings regarding this matter have oscillated many times during the past several decades. I tried to convince myself that Tippit's murder could have been a random act that was completely disassociated with that killing of the President. I considered it among several other possibilities, to have been a revenge/hate killing by a husband of one of Tippit's known paramours. However the method and randomness of the encounter pretty much negates that theory in my thinking. An enraged husband is unlikely to have been just walking down the street with the hope that JD might just "drive by". It is also unlikely for it to have been a "planned murder" with the murderer having no means of escape.

It has been theorized many times that JD was to be Lee's means of escape if such a "contingency plan" was evoked. It is further speculated that Oswald very obviously smelled PATSY when he realized that the President had been killed and obviously was afraid to enter the car with Tippitt. As a result of Tippit's possible persistence, a very frightened Oswald took the only appropriate action available to him....let us not forget that at some point during this episode, Tippits revolver was drawn. Oswald fired several times downing Tippitt. He then took the time to fire the coup de grace headshot in order to prevent Tppit from identifying him or calling for help.

I do not believe that, despite police audio tapes,

JD Tppit was in this neighborhood by chance....it is likely that it was his patrol car that beeeped its horn at Oswald's residence as was reported. I do not feel that this was in any way "A chance encounter".

Furthermore I find it unlikely that Oswald, who had on several ocassions previously been arrested with no resistance, would have drawn a weapon, while surrounded by armed police and seriously faced probable death, had he not killed a policeman!

In the theatre, the "cool and collected" Oswald.... LOST IT !

Although I do now believe Oswald to be the Tippitt killer, I believe him to have been a "DUPED participant" in a plot which he believed was to merely "scare or force" President Kennedy to take certain actions which were being demanded by the "empowered hidden government".

I feel that as the nitrate tests indicated, that LHO fired a pistol but "No Rifle" on 11/22/63.

I feel that Lee was both a Patsy and a Cop Killer... but not a Presidential assassin.

Charles Black

Charlie,

"I feel that Lee was both a Patsy and a Cop Killer... but not a Presidential assassin."

Wow, we actually agree on this one. I also believe LHO shot and killed Tippit, but not JFK.

BTW, JD Tippit's name wasn't "Jefferson Davis". JD was his real name, the initials not standing for anything.

RJS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are entitled to believe that, Charlie, like many do.

I am more influenced by the work of John Armstrong

in the Tippit matter.

Two key unresolved matters are the THROWDOWN WALLET

and the AUTOMATIC SHELL CASINGS....both indicating

a framing of Hidell by someone other than Tippit or LHO.

If Hidell was framed...SOMEONE ELSE KILLED TIPPIT.

I believe that Tippit and Roscoe White were co-participants

in some covert operation in Oak Cliff regarding Oswald. I am

not convinced that LHO even had a revolver. If he did not

own Hidell's MC rifle, why do we think he owned Hidell's

pistol? No bullets for rifle or pistol were found in ANY of

his residences. If LHO was NOT Hidell, case closed.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....

Charlie,

"I feel that Lee was both a Patsy and a Cop Killer... but not a Presidential assassin."

.......

.....BTW, JD Tippit's name wasn't "Jefferson Davis". JD was his real name, the initials not standing for anything.

RJS

RJS,

By the way, nobody names anybody with a name or a nickname that doesn't stand for anything.

If Jay Dee was his real and only name, then he had an uncle or a godfather or his father had a buddy in the service with that name or there was an instance that created a reason for him to be named J. D. and those initials stand for something. If not Jefferson Davis then John Doe, but not nothing.

I understand that it is the Tippit family who says that Tippit was named JD and that it is not an abriviation for Jeff Davis, and the meaning might not be Jeff Davis, but it is, I can assure you, means something. And the family's reluctance to acknowledge or reveal what it means makes me even more suspicious of what it really does mean.

Just like a murder conviction requires proof of means, motive and opportunity, those who claim Oswald executed JFK and Tippit can't come up with a motive, other than he killed JFK for fame (yet denied the deed) and killed Tippit in the getaway.

With a new sheriff and DA in Dallas, it would probably be easier to get a local Dallas Grand Jury to review the Tippit murder than JFK, and answer all the outstanding questions, including why the victim was named "JD" and how the Tippit murder really is the Rosetta Stone of Dealey Plaza.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RJS,

By the way, nobody names anybody with a name or a nickname that doesn't stand for anything.

If Jay Dee was his real and only name, then he had an uncle or a godfather or his father had a buddy in the service with that name or there was an instance that created a reason for him to be named J. D. and those initials stand for something. If not Jefferson Davis then John Doe, but not nothing.

I understand that it is the Tippit family who says that Tippit was named JD and that it is not an abriviation for Jeff Davis, and the meaning might not be Jeff Davis, but it is, I can assure you, means something. And the family's reluctance to acknowledge or reveal what it means makes me even more suspicious of what it really does mean.

Just like a murder conviction requires proof of means, motive and opportunity, those who claim Oswald executed JFK and Tippit can't come up with a motive, other than he killed JFK for fame (yet denied the deed) and killed Tippit in the getaway.

With a new sheriff and DA in Dallas, it would probably be easier to get a local Dallas Grand Jury to review the Tippit murder than JFK, and answer all the outstanding questions, including why the victim was named "JD" and how the Tippit murder really is the Rosetta Stone of Dealey Plaza.

BK

Bill,

You're adding suspicion where there is none. You can assure me it means something when JD's brothers assure us it doesn't? Is it really suspicious that a poor someone born in rural Texas in 1924 could carry such a moniker? Nobody names anyone with a nickname? No one? Ever?

“Edgar Lee and Lizzie Mae Tippit named their son JD, after a character in a book Edgar once read, JD of the Mountains. ‘The initials JD, despite some claims over the years, never stood for anything.’”

Don Tippit, November 13, 1999

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RJS,

By the way, nobody names anybody with a name or a nickname that doesn't stand for anything.

If Jay Dee was his real and only name, then he had an uncle or a godfather or his father had a buddy in the service with that name or there was an instance that created a reason for him to be named J. D. and those initials stand for something. If not Jefferson Davis then John Doe, but not nothing.

I understand that it is the Tippit family who says that Tippit was named JD and that it is not an abriviation for Jeff Davis, and the meaning might not be Jeff Davis, but it is, I can assure you, means something. And the family's reluctance to acknowledge or reveal what it means makes me even more suspicious of what it really does mean.

Just like a murder conviction requires proof of means, motive and opportunity, those who claim Oswald executed JFK and Tippit can't come up with a motive, other than he killed JFK for fame (yet denied the deed) and killed Tippit in the getaway.

With a new sheriff and DA in Dallas, it would probably be easier to get a local Dallas Grand Jury to review the Tippit murder than JFK, and answer all the outstanding questions, including why the victim was named "JD" and how the Tippit murder really is the Rosetta Stone of Dealey Plaza.

BK

Bill,

You're adding suspicion where there is none. You can assure me it means something when JD's brothers assure us it doesn't? Is it really suspicious that a poor someone born in rural Texas in 1924 could carry such a moniker? Nobody names anyone with a nickname? No one? Ever?

"Edgar Lee and Lizzie Mae Tippit named their son JD, after a character in a book Edgar once read, JD of the Mountains. 'The initials JD, despite some claims over the years, never stood for anything.'"

Don Tippit, November 13, 1999

Thank you,

So it doesn't mean nothing, it does mean something and did come from somewhere - a book Edgar Lee Tippit once read - "JD of the Mountains" !

Add that to the JFK Assassination bibliography.

Thank you, RJS and D.T.

BK - BK of the Jersey Pines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Jack

I have read and continue to refer to Armstrong's

work. It is a great resource which brought forth much new and interesting information. I have however been unable to force myself to accept its "major conclusion". I cannot believe that this much work and planning needed to occur over a twenty year period, in order to place one "low level intelligence asset" within the Soviet Union. We all agree that it initially had nothing to do with the murder of a President. We also must acknowledge that there were other such "defectors" placed without this ridiculously elaborate planning.

The plan was so complicated and involved so many

actions, that thru the reasonable course of life of "several" (quite a few) persons, could have quite easily and completely fallen apart. I cannot imagine what perceived value that such a "lower level asset" could have provided that required this much time, effort, money and meticulous planning.....particularly when the results would depend to a large degree upon luck or providence. I don't feel that there was any END that could justify the complexity of those MEANS.

Regarding the "wallet" at the Tippitt scene, Gary Mack emailed me appx. one year ago, after I had made an issue of the Tippitt murder scene wallet, that there is no conclusive proof that "the particular wallet alleged to have been picked up at the murder scene" was in fact what it was claimed to be". It came as somewhat of a shock to me, but I understand that there is only one Oswald wallet in evidence that carried the ID's of both Hidell and Oswald, and that was the wallet which was removed from Oswald after his arrest. I had always been under the assumption however that there was a wallet at the Tippitt scene, and it was there because Tippitt asked for ID when he first approached Oswald.

I have since acknowledged Mack's email as fact.

Regarding the shell casings, I have but one explanation.....they were originally "in the heat of the moment" mis-identified as .38 automatic.

By witness testimony, Tippit's assailant was seen discarding shells from a "revolver" and reloading the "revolver" as he fled.

I have for years wracked my simple little brain in an attempt to explain why a "completely innocent" Oswald, while never before having resisted arrest, would when surrounded by a swarm of armed Cops and obviously contained within the theatre, have drawn a weapon which "could and should" have led to his immediate death. It doesn't make sense for an "innocent" to do this !

He was voluntarily "attempting suicide by Police bullets".

I furthermore do not believe "all" of the talk regarding how "cool and collected" that this man was. We also have no way of knowing how many of the "beans" were spilled in his unrecorded interrogation. Apparently enough that he could NOT remain alive.

I have no alternative, in my method of thought, than to not alter my reconstuction of the events which I brought forth in my original posting.

Charles Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Jack

I have read and continue to refer to Armstrong's

work. It is a great resource which brought forth much new and interesting information. I have however been unable to force myself to accept its "major conclusion". I cannot believe that this much work and planning needed to occur over a twenty year period, in order to place one "low level intelligence asset" within the Soviet Union. We all agree that it initially had nothing to do with the murder of a President. We also must acknowledge that there were other such "defectors" placed without this ridiculously elaborate planning.

The plan was so complicated and involved so many

actions, that thru the reasonable course of life of "several" (quite a few) persons, could have quite easily and completely fallen apart. I cannot imagine what perceived value that such a "lower level asset" could have provided that required this much time, effort, money and meticulous planning.....particularly when the results would depend to a large degree upon luck or providence. I don't feel that there was any END that could justify the complexity of those MEANS.

Regarding the "wallet" at the Tippitt scene, Gary Mack emailed me appx. one year ago, after I had made an issue of the Tippitt murder scene wallet, that there is no conclusive proof that "the particular wallet alleged to have been picked up at the murder scene" was in fact what it was claimed to be". It came as somewhat of a shock to me, but I understand that there is only one Oswald wallet in evidence that carried the ID's of both Hidell and Oswald, and that was the wallet which was removed from Oswald after his arrest. I had always been under the assumption however that there was a wallet at the Tippitt scene, and it was there because Tippitt asked for ID when he first approached Oswald.

I have since acknowledged Mack's email as fact.

Regarding the shell casings, I have but one explanation.....they were originally "in the heat of the moment" mis-identified as .38 automatic.

By witness testimony, Tippit's assailant was seen discarding shells from a "revolver" and reloading the "revolver" as he fled.

I have for years wracked my simple little brain in an attempt to explain why a "completely innocent" Oswald, while never before having resisted arrest, would when surrounded by a swarm of armed Cops and obviously contained within the theatre, have drawn a weapon which "could and should" have led to his immediate death. It doesn't make sense for an "innocent" to do this !

He was voluntarily "attempting suicide by Police bullets".

I furthermore do not believe "all" of the talk regarding how "cool and collected" that this man was. We also have no way of knowing how many of the "beans" were spilled in his unrecorded interrogation. Apparently enough that he could NOT remain alive.

I have no alternative, in my method of thought, than to not alter my reconstuction of the events which I brought forth in my original posting.

Charles Black

But Charles...it is DOCUMENTED that a Hidell wallet was found at the Tippit scene,

and that the man arrested at the theater had a Hidell wallet.

And then there is the LHO wallet left at the Paines.

Reread the wallet story in H&L.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Charles...it is DOCUMENTED that a Hidell wallet was found at the Tippit scene,

and that the man arrested at the theater had a Hidell wallet.

And then there is the LHO wallet left at the Paines.

Reread the wallet story in H&L.

Jack, you know well that most people that claim to have read and continue to refer to Armstrong's work almost certainly have never read his book, Harvey & Lee.

Although a couple of years old, there is a lengthy thread on Oswald's wallets:

Oswald's Wallet, Where, oh where, was it found?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4572

Although the thread follows tendencies and occasionally strays off-topic, there is some very good information posted by members. Robert Charles-Dunne makes some particularly outstanding points about Oswald's wallets.

I've missed Robert's participation and insightful analyses of late. I hope he is well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Michael Hogan wrote:

[...]

Although the thread follows tendencies and occasionally strays off-topic, there is some very good information posted by members. Robert Charles-Dunne makes some particularly outstanding points about Oswald's wallets.

I've missed Robert's participation and insightful analyses of late. I hope he is well.

***************

Michael,

I was thinking the same thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Charles...it is DOCUMENTED that a Hidell wallet was found at the Tippit scene,

and that the man arrested at the theater had a Hidell wallet.

And then there is the LHO wallet left at the Paines.

Reread the wallet story in H&L.

Jack, you know well that most people that claim to have read and continue to refer to Armstrong's work almost certainly have never read his book, Harvey & Lee.

Although a couple of years old, there is a lengthy thread on Oswald's wallets:

Oswald's Wallet, Where, oh where, was it found?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4572

Although the thread follows tendencies and occasionally strays off-topic, there is some very good information posted by members. Robert Charles-Dunne makes some particularly outstanding points about Oswald's wallets.

I've missed Robert's participation and insightful analyses of late. I hope he is well.

Michael Hogan

It would not take a genius to assume that you are referring to me and my posting, when you inferred that many people claim to have read Armstrongs book that have not done so. I resent such a ridiculous assertion which you made regarding someone that you do not know or truly have any knowledge of.

I was one of the very first to have read this work and was one of the first to post on its content.

I found your comments rude and most certainly unwarranted.

You may not know who or what I am, but I have a pretty good idea regarding you and your very obvious lack of character !

What did you suppose that your comment, which should be judged "ridiculous" by members of this forum, added to the discussion of JFK ?

As a matter of fact, I have read this book more than once, and despite the research which obviously went into this book...I absolutely do not agree with his conclusions, although I can personally not come up with alternate explanations to some of these conclusions.

I personally wouldn't care if I were the only person in the world to so believe !

I don't like it insinuated by ANYONE that I am a xxxx....and that is what you did !

Charles Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like it insinuated by ANYONE that I am a xxxx....and that is what you did !

I did no such thing. You are mistaken.

Michael Hogan

That sir is "exactly" what you did ! Not even an absolute fool could take your words to mean anything else ! You, rather than apologizing for you unwarranted comments, are inferring they must have some other meaning ! This statement was as irresponsible as your former one !

You have the right to disagree with anything or everything which I might post. You have no right to question my integrity !

Charles Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no right to question my integrity !

I did no such thing. Again you are mistaken.

Originally, you never claimed you read Harvey & Lee, only that you "have read and continue to refer to Armstrong's

work." That could be the internet; it could be anywhere. How do you expect me or any other reader to know whether you read his book or not?

I'm tempted to respond more to your invective-laden posts, but my self-control got the better of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...