Lee Oswald’s Departure from the TSBD

[Denis Pointing]

I do agree that if we consider Earlene's testimony reliable (I think most of it is), she did in fact hear a cop car honk in front of her house about that time, and the reasons why that police was there at that time make an excellent question/discussion. ... He [Tippit] seemed to have that extra uniform in his car, and that may have been (worn by) the second officer at that time. I agree that she was confused about the number on the car. As far as I know he was one of the closest, if not the closest to this location at that time, yes?

I don't agree, however, that she was "confused" about the number on the car. She testified that she looked at the number only to see if it was "170," the number on the car of the officer(s) she knew. Once she saw that it wasn't "170," she ignored it, dismissed it, made no attempt to see what it was when all she knew is what it wasn't.

I find it quite incredible that both yourself and Antti find Earlene Robert's testimony so "reliable" concerning the police car. If the following isn't the testimony of a totally confused and therefor completely unreliable witness then I really dont know what is! The following testimony shows no indication of any harassment nor pressure as suggested, just the opposite in fact.

Robert's closing statements where she admits to being so blind she cant even read her own deposition is particuly revealing. From a witness such as this I'm far from convinced there ever was a "honking" POLICE car. More likely is a CIVILIAN car "honking" whilst waiting at the Zangs Boulevard traffic lights. Nor am I convinced that the officers driving #170 regularly paid Robert's social calls. This sounds more like the wishful thinking of a sad, lonely old lady. In any case, the officers of #170 certainly didn't "visit" during the previous 7 months as that vehicle had been decommissioned since April.

Lets just take a look at this "reliable" testimony:

BALL. Did a police car pass the house there and honked?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. BALL. When was that?

Mrs. ROBERTS. He came in the house.

Mr. BALL. When he came in the house ?

Mrs. ROBERTS. When he came in the house and went to his room, you know how the sidewalk runs?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mrs. ROBERTS. Right direct in front of that door-there was a police car stopped and honked. I had worked for some policemen and sometimes they come by and tell me something that maybe their wives would want me to know, and I thought it was them, and I just glanced out and saw the number, and I said, "Oh, that's not their car," for I knew their car.

Mr. BALL. You mean, it was not the car of the policemen you knew?

Mrs. ROBERTS. It wasn't the police car I knew, because their number was 170 and it wasn't 170 and I ignored it.

Mr. BALL. And who was in the car?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't know--I didn't pay any attention to it after I noticed it wasn't them-I didn't.

Mr. BALL. Where was it parked ?

Mrs. ROBERTS. It was parked in front of the house.

Mr. BALL. At 1026 North Beckley?

Mrs. ROBERTS. And then they just eased on--the way it is-it was the third house off of Zangs and they just went on around the corner that way.

Mr. BALL. Went around what corner?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Went around the corner off of Beckley on Zangs.

Mr. BALL. Going which way--toward town or away from town?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Toward town.

Dr. GOLDBERG. Which way was the car facing?

Mrs. ROBERTS. It was facing north.

Dr. GOLDBERG. Towards Zangs?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Towards Zangs--for I was the third house right off of Zangs on Beckley.

Mr. BALL. Did this police car stop directly in front of your house?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes--it stopped directly in front of my house and it just "tip-tip" and that's the way Officer Alexander and Charles Burnely would do when they stopped, and I went to the door and looked and saw it wasn't their number.

Mr. BALL. Where was Oswald when this happened?

Mrs. ROBERTS. In his room.

Mr. BALL. It was after he had come in his room?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Had that police car ever stopped there before ?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't know--I don't remember ever seeing it.

Mr. BALL. Have you ever seen it since?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No--I didn't pay that much attention--I just saw it wasn't the police car that I knew and had worked for so, I forgot about it. I seen it at the time, but I don't remember now what it was.

Mr. BALL. Did you report the number of the car to anyone?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I think I did---I'm not sure, because I--at that particular time I remembered it.

Mr. BALL. You remembered the number of the car ?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I think it was--106, it seems to me like it was 106, but I do know what theirs was--it was 170 and it wasn't their car.

Mr. BALL. It was not 170?

Mrs. ROBERTS. The people I worked for was 170.

Mr. BALL. Did you report that number to anyone, did you report this incident to anyone?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, I told the FBI and the Secret Service both when they was out there.

Mr. BALL. And did you tell them the number of the car?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I'm not sure--I believe I did--I'm not sure. I think I did because there was so much happened then until my brains was in a whirl.

Mr. BALL. On the 29th of November, Special Agents Will Griffin and James Kennedy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed you and you told them that "after Oswald had entered his room about 1 p.m. on November 22, 1963, you looked out the front window and saw police car No. 207?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No. 107.

Mr. BALL. Is that the number?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes--I remembered it. I don't know where I got that 106---207. Anyway, I knew it wasn't 170.

Mr. BALL. And you say that there were two uniformed policemen in the car?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, and it was in a black car. It wasn't an accident squad car at all.

Mr. BALL. Were there two uniformed policemen in the car?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, yes.

Mr. BALL. And one of the officers sounded the born ?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Just kind of a "tit-tit"--twice.

Mr. BALL. And then drove on to Beckley toward Zangs Boulevard, is that right?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes. I thought there was a number, but I couldn't remember it but I did know the number of their car--I could tell that. I want you to understand that I have been put through the third degree and it's hard to remember.

Mr. BALL. Are there any other questions?

Dr. GOLDBERG. No, that's all.

Mr. BALL. Now, Mrs. Roberts, this deposition will be written up and you can read it if you want to and you can sign it. or you can waive the signature.

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.

Mr. BALL. Do you want to waive your signature? And then you won't have to come back down here.

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, okay.

Mr. BALL. All right, you waive it then ?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes. Do you want me to sign it now?

Mr. BALL. No; we couldn't, because this young lady has to write it up and it will be a couple of weeks before it will be ready.

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, will you want me to come back or how?

Mr. BALL. Well, you can waive your signature and you won't have to come back to do that--do you want to do that?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Okay, it will be all right.

Mr. BALL. All right. The Secret Service will take you home now.

Mrs. ROBERTS. All right.

Mr. BALL. Thank you for coming.

Mrs. ROBERTS. All right.

Edited November 1, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[Denis Pointing]

Duke, the NBC news report you refer to was the first TELEVISION report not the first RADIO report. The first radio report of a policeman (no mention of Tippits name yet) being shot in Oak Cliff was on radio KLIF at 1.33.

It's always good to know facts. Got a cite on that one? NBC, unless I'm mistaken (which is possible) was also involved in radio at that time, so it's not necessarily apparent that it was a television announcement.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H25_CE_2275.pdf

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...a67db92e456971b

http://www.reelradio.com/se/index.html#klif112263

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6322

Thanks for these links, Denis, but it would help if you could tell us exactly where in these files we can find the first radio broadcast of the Tippit shooting

The cite's are there Ray, if you care to look for them. Personally, I would no longer bother. The whole point of the post was that the first public radio announcement of Tippit's slaying was at or around 1.33, therefore backing up Brewer's statement. As opposed to 1.49 (suggested by Duke I THINK) which would disprove Brewer's statement. Which radio station was first is not really relevant, whats importaint is the time. And if I may quote you: "I think it is entirely plausible that WFAA, at least, had the Tippit story by 1.30, if not before, and so I think that, whatever about the rest of his testimony, Brewer's story about listening to the radio is certainly believable." If you and others are now convinced the time was not 1.49 and that, at least, that part of Brewer's statement was accurate that's good enough for me. Denis.

Edited November 1, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The cite's are there Ray, if you care to look for them.

You asserted that KLIF broadcast the shooting of an Oak Cliff policeman at 1.33. You promised to post the link, and instead you posted THREE links. If it is too much trouble to tell us EXACTLY where this information can be found, could you at least please tell us which of the three links you posted contains the information that you promised?

When I can find the link Ray I will indeed post it, that's a promise..... With respect. DENIS.

[Denis Pointing]

The cite's are there Ray, if you care to look for them.

You asserted that KLIF broadcast the shooting of an Oak Cliff policeman at 1.33. You promised to post the link, and instead you posted THREE links. If it is too much trouble to tell us EXACTLY where this information can be found, could you at least please tell us which of the three links you posted contains the information that you promised?

When I can find the link Ray I will indeed post it, that's a promise..... With respect. DENIS.

Its actually 4 links not 3 and all 4 contain the citations you ask for. The ED forum citation is probably the easiest to find. Have you even tried to find them?

This is the cite from the ED forum, it took 30 seconds to find: "Bill Drenas in his article on the Tippit shooting introduces two incidents indicating that the time was not 1:00, but more towards 1:15. Louis Cortinas, an eighteen-year-old clerk who worked at the Top Ten Record Shop, said that Tippit entered the shop and tried to make a call, got no answer, and left in a hurry. Drenas suggests the reason why the dispatcher got no response to his 1:03 call to Tippit was because Tippit was inside the record shop. Cortinas said, “Maybe 10, no more than 10 minutes Tippit had left, when I heard he had been shot on the radio.” The first report of a policeman being shot in Oak Cliff was on radio station KLIF at 1:33 P.M. If Cortinas was correct, than the time of the shooting was 1:23. Obviously, he was inaccurate in his time estimate. This does not mean that his story was untrue. Tippit indeed entered the shop and tried to make a call but it was sometime between 12:30 and 12:54."

Edited November 2, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[Duke Lane]

... I get your point about the ability to predict the time calls however Google references the time from Bonney View and Kienst to Lancaster and 8th at 10 minutes so it's hard to make a case for "exactly 8 minutes" between locations. Tippit might have given the correct locations on both calls, one or none, at those times, who knows? I merely used the Lancaster call at 12.54 as a location/timestamp.

The case for eight minutes is not calculation or Internet estimation, it is taking the actual trip several times in a vehicle moving at the actual speed limit of 40 mph (Google estimates 30 mph for all sidestreets). Sometimes it took nine to nine-and-a-half minutes, once it took seven-and-a-half. We also know that the dispatchers didn't watch the second hand on the clock to mark the time exactly. The basic point is that he said he was at one point and, in approximately the time it would have taken him to drive from one point to the other, he said he'd arrived at the other. That is a difficult thing to do if you were actually at different places both times, albeit not impossible.

I was aware of the shoplifting call that resulted in no official action but had not heard that he gave the offender a lift home (do you know of an address for this). I have seen that Tippit called "clear" at 12.20 only 3 minutes after calling in to deal with the Bonnie View shoplifter. Would this 3 minutes cover his dealing with the shoplifter and dropping them home? Or would he call "clear" and then drop the shoplifter home? I'm sure you are aware of the contention regarding the radio call into Oak Cliff. In any event we have 20 minutes or so unnacounted for.

I don't recall the source on the female shoplifter; it may have been Dale Myers, Bill Drenas or someone else who tracked down the then-owner of a market there in the 4100 block of Bonnie View, where Tippit had previously said he was or was on call to. This call was apparently relayed by telephone according a call sheet cited and displayed by Drenas in his "Car 10" article.

"Clear" would only mean that he was available for duty and/or had finished with whatever business had occupied him previously. Three minutes to "clear" an incident is not difficult to imagine, consisting only of contacting the complainant, finding out what the problem was, getting some clarifying facts (e.g., what did she steal, how much was it worth, do you want her arrested?), and then disposing of the matter.

(Remember that this was in the day when cops would drive you home if you were swerving all over the road on your way home from a bar, unlike today when they'd pull you over, get five cars for backup, thrust you in the back of the car, book you for the weekend, and send you to prison if you've been DWI more than a couple of other times in your lifetime. This was also then in the "outskirts" of Dallas.)

There is no certainty of who the individual was nor where she lived nor, for that matter, that he drove her home. However, given the location, a general rule of thumb that neighborhood markets are usually frequented by people in the immediate area, that the person was not arrested and - out of general good sense - would not have been left standing in front of the small market (vice being left in the larger parking lot of a supermarket), added to the "missing" 20 minutes during which he didn't go but three blocks or so, leads to reasonable presumptions that Tippit (1) took her away from the premises to mollify the store owner, (2) drove her somewhere at least out of sight of the store, and (3) probably gave her something to think about before releasing her.

That is a much smaller leap of faith for the mild-mannered patrolman (as described by virtually everyone who knew him) to have done that than for him to have been embroiled in a nefarious murder plot to kill someone for something he didn't do. That is completely out of character for someone who supposedly didn't even look most people in the eye.

... Then a call at 12.42 calling "all downtown squads". I find it much harder to ignore the 5 witnesses who all claimed to know Tippit and claim to have seen him at Gloco.

"Claim" might be an operative verb, who knows? Setting that aside, if Tippit was sitting at the base of a viaduct leading directly into downtown when that "attention all downtown squads" call came out, why did he race away in the opposite direction? Why not go into downtown, less than a half-mile away? It is also possible that, from a distance (even across a gas station parking lot), whoever was in the car - assuming it was even there - might only have looked like JD Tippit. (I'm looking into that.)

As I see it Oswald cannot get to 1026 North Beckley early enough to walk (even briskly) to get to 10th and Patton soon enough to meet Tippit by 1.06-1.10. I am in total agreement with you on that one. If it was Oswald, he either had other transportation to get there quicker or it was someone else who shot Tippit. Or it was not Oswald who entered 1026 North Beckley.

All true ... except that, if Oswald didn't go into 1026, then he killed Tippit without a gun.

... Also it is apparent as we move the Tippit shooting earlier to accomodate Markham (who I think is a credible witness in order to get the accurate time), it doesn't accomodate both 1026 North Beckley and Top Ten as valid destinations for Tippit. As Top Ten does appear to have credible witnesses one logically has to exclude a pause by Tippit outside the LHO rooming house.

We're in accord except that you've got one thing backward: it is not a case of "mov[ing] the Tippit shooting earlier to accomodate Markham," but rather that the shooting was moved backward to accomodate Oswald having the ability to get there by putting it immediately before the citizen broadcast; to have allowed only for the facts as were presented, it would have eliminated Oswald from being the killer. The facts alone support the earlier time and a delay in anyone making that call, be they Benavides or Bowley.

I don't generally consider Markham "credible" except from the single standpoint that she rode the bus every day and therefore knew her routine. What happened on that particular Friday afternoon was unique in her experience in every way but for her routine. Bowley is as credible a witness as you'd ever want to meet.

It seems to me (and I apologise if this has been stated previously by others).

1) If LHO entered 1026 NBeckley and did not use a transport method other than on foot he did not shoot Tippit.

2) If LHO did not enter 1026 NBeckley but somehow had a handgun he could have shot Tippit and fled to the Texas Theatre.

3) If a police car beeped outside 1026 NBeckley it was not Tippit's car.

That sums it up nicely with the exception of how he might have otherwise gotten ahold of said handgun. The "somehow" needs to at least be hypothesized before we can make that leap.

[Duke Lane]

I find it quite incredible that both yourself and Antti find Earlene Robert's testimony so "reliable" concerning the police car. If the following isn't the testimony of a totally confused and therefor completely unreliable witness then I really dont know what is! The following testimony shows no indication of any harassment nor pressure as suggested, just the opposite in fact.

Robert's closing statements where she admits to being so blind she cant even read her own deposition is particuly revealing. From a witness such as this I'm far from convinced there ever was a "honking" POLICE car. More likely is a CIVILIAN car "honking" whilst waiting at the Zangs Boulevard traffic lights. Nor am I convinced that the officers driving #170 regularly paid Robert's social calls. This sounds more like the wishful thinking of a sad, lonely old lady. In any case, the officers of #170 certainly didn't "visit" during the previous 7 months as that vehicle had been decommissioned since April. ...

Stipulating as to no visits in the last seven months, David Perry found the "Officer Alexander" who'd been who Earlene was referring to. She did, in fact, do housecleaning or similar work for the officer's mother, or possibly even his wife.

She did not say that he or they paid her social calls, but that certainly doesn't preclude his or their having had polite conversation - even lengthy polite conversation - with her whenever they'd see her ... or whenever she saw them and they couldn't get away!

As to there being "no indication of any harassment nor pressure as suggested, just the opposite in fact," I couldn't agree more. In reality, Mrs Roberts must have been the first female Mason who, she said in the testimony you quoted, "I want you to understand that I have been put through the third degree and it's hard to remember." Or maybe that is an indication of "harrassment [or] pressure?" Or do you think maybe I'm reading more into it than she said?

As to her blindness in one eye preventing her from reading, there is also the distinct possibility, given her marriage in the 9th grade and being raised in a then-small (and still not very large) town, that she might've been illiterate or at least functionally so and used the blindness as an excuse.

On what do you base the presumption that it was "more likely a CIVILIAN car" that honked? She looked at it to see if it had "170" on the side, but it didn't, but it had a number even if she didn't pay attention to what it was once she knew what it wasn't. She did not say "I looked to see if it was a police car, but there were no numbers on it," thus leading us to such a possible if not "more likely" conclusion.

But you're certainly free to draw whatever conclusions you'd like based on whatever evidence you feel is at hand.

I have never said that I consider her reliable in all respects, but as you can read above, I consider even Helen Markham reliable in some respects. In this case, it boils down to what I believe she could have seen and to what degree. It's quite conceivable that she'd have paid closer attention to the police car if she thought it was her "friends" who might've been able to give her more news than what she could get on her TV at the moment, than she paid to "Oswald" who was just a commonplace occurrence and not very personable, even if he was home a tad early, a mere curiosity and nothing more at the time.

[Denis Pointing]

She did not say that he or they paid her social calls,

According to Robert's testimony: "I had worked for some policemen and sometimes they come by and tell me something that maybe their wives would want me to know, and I thought it was them," Well that sure sounds like a social call to me.

As to there being "no indication of any harassment nor pressure as suggested, just the opposite in fact," I couldn't agree more. In reality, Mrs Roberts must have been the first female Mason who, she said in the testimony you quoted, "I want you to understand that I have been put through the third degree and it's hard to remember." Or maybe that is an indication of "harrassment [or] pressure?" Or do you think maybe I'm reading more into it than she said?

Robert's saying she was confused due to being "put through the third degree" doesn't necessary make it so Duke, I can certainly see no evidence of third degree tactics in this testimony. I belive Robert's was confused due to embarrassment because her story was fallen apart under questioning. It was becoming obvious Robert's had exaggerated the whole car honking incident out of all proportion.

As to her blindness in one eye preventing her from reading, there is also the distinct possibility, given her marriage in the 9th grade and being raised in a then-small (and still not very large) town, that she might've been illiterate or at least functionally so and used the blindness as an excuse.

Considering Robert's worked as a PBX operator at the hotel Blackstone in 1938 and then as a nurse in 1949 I would say that was extremely unlikely. Both these jobs would demand reading skills.

On what do you base the presumption that it was "more likely a CIVILIAN car" that honked? She looked at it to see if it had "170" on the side, but it didn't, but it had a number even if she didn't pay attention to what it was once she knew what it wasn't. She did not say "I looked to see if it was a police car, but there were no numbers on it," thus leading us to such a possible if not "more likely" conclusion.

I base that presumption on the fact that someone not able to read a deposition a few inches away due to partial blindness isn't to be deemed terribly reliable in telling the difference between a police car and a civilian car particular when according to Robert's: "Yes, and it was a black car. It wasn't an accident squad car at all" I'm not really convinced Robert's was even capable of seeing a number on the car door from the distance of her house to the road.

Edited November 2, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[Denis Pointing]

The testimony of Earlene Robert's previously shown on this thread were taken on the 8th of April 1964, some four months and two weeks after 22 Nov. By this time Robert's was no longer even sure what date or day Kennedy was assassinated. Understandable, considering her age and health. So, out of fairness to Robert's, I searched for ealrier testimony. Below is an affidavit from Robert's made on the 5th December only 13 days after the 22.Nov. One would assume this to be a more accurate recollection of events. Three important discrepancies should be noted: Robert's is no longer standing up adjusting the TV, which would place her by the window, when Oswald enters. In this testimony Robert's is actually SITTING DOWN watching the TV. I dont think it's too unreasonable to suggest that it is from this sitting down position that Robert's observed the "police" car honking it's horn. And if that is the case then it seems unlikely Robert's could have seen more than the top of the car, not the car door and certainly not the Dallas Police insignia nor number written on it. Which begs the question, did Robert's see a police car or a civilian car?

The above may be totally irrelevant anyway, as in the the 5th Dec testimony Robert's makes absolutely no mention of ANY car honking outside her home! Which would now beg the question, did the incident even happen?

Finally, at the end of the December affidavit Robert's eyesight is quite sufficient to read and sign her own testimony, whilst in the April affidavit she makes rather a point in stating that her eyesight is so bad she is unable to do so. Kinda makes me wonder if Robert's was already "covering up" for herself in case it was ever suggested in the future that Robert's never in fact saw ANY car outside her home!

The following affidavit was executed by Earlene Roberts on December 5, 1963.

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION

ON THE ASSASSINATION OF AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF TEXAS,

County of Dallas, ss:

I, Earlene Roberts, after being duly sworn, do depose and state:

I live at 1026 Beckley, Dallas, Texas, where I serve as housekeeper for a rooming house owned by Mr. & Mrs. A. C. Johnson.

On Friday, November 22, 1963, at approximately 1:00 pm I was sitting in the living room watching television about the President's assassination when a man I knew as O. H. Lee, but who has since been identified as Lee Harvey Oswald, came into the front door and went to his room. Oswald did not have a jacket when he came in the house and I don't recall what type of clothing he was wearing.

Oswald went to his room and was only there a very few minutes before coming out. I noticed he had a jacket he was putting on. I recall the jacket was a dark color and it was the type that zips up the front. He was zipping the jacket up as he left.

Oswald went out the front door. A moment later I looked out the window. I saw Lee Oswald standing on the curb at the bus stop just to the right, and on the same side of the street as our house. I just glanced out the window that once. I don't know how long Lee Oswald stood at the curb nor did I see which direction he went when he left there.

About thirty minutes later three Dallas policemen came to the house looking for Lee Harvey Oswald. We didn't know who Lee Harvey Oswald was until sometime later his picture was flashed on television. I then let the Dallas policemen in the room occupied by Lee Oswald. While the Dallas police were searching the room two FBI agents came in.

The police and FBI agents took everything in the room that belong to Lee Oswald and also took our pillow case and two towels and wash cloths.

I have made this statement, consisting of three pages, to Special Agents William N. Garter and Arthur W. Blake of the U.S. Secret Service. I have read this statement over and I find it to be true to the best of my knowledge.

Signed this 5th day of December 1963.

(S) Earlene Roberts,

EARLENE ROBERTS.

Hon. Ralph W. Yarborough

Affidavit of Ralph W. Yarborough

The following affidavit was executed by Ralph W. Yarborough on July 10, 1964.

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION

ON THE ASSASSINATION OF AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

Edited November 2, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[Denis Pointing]

Tippits patrol car, typical of the black police car "seen" by Robert's.

Edited November 2, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[Duke Lane]

On what do you base the presumption that it was "more likely a CIVILIAN car" that honked? She looked at it to see if it had "170" on the side, but it didn't, but it had a number even if she didn't pay attention to what it was once she knew what it wasn't. She did not say "I looked to see if it was a police car, but there were no numbers on it," thus leading us to such a possible if not "more likely" conclusion.

I base that presumption on the fact that someone not able to read a deposition a few inches away due to partial blindness isn't to be deemed terribly reliable in telling the difference between a police car and a civilian car particular when according to Robert's: "Yes, and it was a black car. It wasn't an accident squad car at all." I'm not really convinced Robert's was even capable of seeing a number on the car door from the distance of her house to the road.

OK. That's fair. You're unconvinced, and I won't be able to convince you. We won't get into silly things like near-sightedness vs. far-sightedness or any of those little quibbles that only serve to obfuscate the obvious. Little things like the color of the car should have no bearing, even if the fact is that accident patrol cars were white while radio patrol cars were black should have no bearing on her ability to tell that the black car "wasn't an accident squad car at all." You've rested your case.

She did not say that he or they paid her social calls,

According to Robert's testimony: "I had worked for some policemen and sometimes they come by and tell me something that maybe their wives would want me to know, and I thought it was them," Well that sure sounds like a social call to me.

Again, I see your point. Earlene Roberts was clearly a friendless outcast who nobody would want to talk to under any circumstances, especially if one's profession happened to be that of police officer employed by the City of Dallas on November 22, 1963. The fact that the police car she saw - or didn't see - didn't have the number she'd expected her so-called "friends" whose gossipy wives wanted to relay something to her (yeah, right!) proves that. All she effectively said was "I looked to see if it was a patrol car that I recognized, but it wasn't" as if there'd be any reason in the world for her to recognize any patrol car for any reason.

Robert's saying she was confused due to being "put through the third degree" doesn't necessary make it so Duke, I can certainly see no evidence of third degree tactics in this testimony. I belive Robert's was confused due to embarrassment because her story was fallen apart under questioning. It was becoming obvious Robert's had exaggerated the whole car honking incident out of all proportion.

True. Chances are that she lied through her false teeth: my bet would actually be that when she mentioned this police car #170, nobody paid any attention to her and she reacted by making it a big issue that she clung to like a pit bull and raised a hue and cry over. The "third degree" was probably a figment of her imagination or, more likely, a means to gain even greater sympathy than she'd been able to elicit through her various and sundry other mistruths. Finally, after hearing enough about it, the FBI finally decided to make a pro forma inquiry to DPD, which in turn brushed it off by requiring a statement from every patrol officer in the city working that particular shift. The mere fact that the testimony given before WC counsel was polite in every respect makes quite it clear that everyone else who realized that she was "exaggerating the whole car honking incident out of all proportion" was likewise eminently patient with her as well.

Since the evidence available shows that she made a single statement about this "whole car honking incident" prior to her testimony and the subsequent investigation into the identity of this car, perhaps you might indulge me by explaining how it was she who "exaggerated [it] out of all proportion" because it seems to me that she only said that there was a cop car out front that tooted its horn that didn't appear to be one driven by anyone she knew, that it wasn't 170 and that she didn't know what number it was. Perhaps I need to re-read her testimony because it seemed to me that it was counsel who asking all the questions trying to pin her down on the identification of a police car that she had said she couldn't identify.

As to her blindness in one eye preventing her from reading, there is also the distinct possibility, given her marriage in the 9th grade and being raised in a then-small (and still not very large) town, that she might've been illiterate or at least functionally so and used the blindness as an excuse.

Considering Robert's worked as a PBX operator at the hotel Blackstone in 1938 and then as a nurse in 1949 I would say that was extremely unlikely. Both these jobs would demand reading skills.

Ah, yes, silly me. Let's see: a hotel would have generally - what, 1000? 2000? - rooms with the names of the overnight guests rather than simply room numbers on them, and because one could not string together a whole sentence clearly means that she could not distinguish "Smith" from "Jones" even if that were the case, and certainly not "103" from "170." Let's see if these photos of PBX operations show the degree of reading comprehension required for the job:

Viewing the image in its full size should reveal some of the intricate writing needed to operate a PBX. The photos are all from the '60s and '70s with the exception of the top-left one which is from around 1900; none are from 1938, so are really not indicative of the systems that were in use then, which may have evolved from the simple system in use around the turn of the century into something much more complex ... before being simplified again in later years. Do you think it's possible that hotel PBXes might've used room numbers instead of names? Can illiterate people not count?

While we're at it, we might as well stipulate that the term "nurse" would apply primarily if not exclusively to those white-suited women working in a hospital assisting doctors to administer to patients, dispensing drugs and reading charts, and that the term would certainly not apply to someone whom today we might refer to as a "caregiver," someone with only marginal training - such as someone who left school in the 9th grade - who tended to her charge's bedpan and gave a tablespoon of medicine to on a schedule. Since Earlene could not have been an actual nurse, at least not without falsifying her credentials, it's clear that either way her propensity toward "telling stories" that weren't true once again reared its ugly head by her either claiming to have held such a position, or actually holding it while clearly not qualified.

Color me convinced. I will soon be writing a book on why the Warren Commission got it right despite themselves, as a newly-converted member of that elite corps of those who have seen the light. Move over, Vince Palamara, you've met your match! (At least now I'm in better company than those conspiracy scavengers, eh?)

[Duke Lane]

Tippits patrol car, typical of the black police car "seen" by Robert's.

Gee, the more I look at it, the better I get your point. I mean, what, Earlene Roberts actually thinking that she could see a number of that size from so very far away to be able to make out whether it read "170" or not? How ridiculous is that? I mean, talk about "exaggerating something out of all proportion," pretending to be able to read the number when she clearly couldn't see well enough to notice those much larger block letters reading "DALLAS POLICE" above and below it on a CIVILIAN car that she at least had the wherewithal to recognize as not being an accident patrol car. It's very nearly a wonder that she could even distinguish that the object was a car!

Thank you for pointing this out. I have no idea and no excuse why I'd failed to notice it before.

It might be wise if everyone would simply ignore everything I've written in the last 800-some-odd posts because it's now clear to me that I've never had any idea of what I'd been talking about. Gosh, I'm just so ashamed of myself. Can anyone find it within themselves to forgive me, and not relegate me to the fate that befell that evil outcast, Earlene Roberts, who wandered through the world forsaken, without friend but only foe?

I should also point out that "Tippits" was not the officer's name, and "Robert" was not Earlene's, as per the above. Is this ESL? It might explain why we're having so much difficulty with the written word (or should that be capitalized, "the written Word?").

[Denis Pointing]

Although I must admit your last two posts were indeed highly amusing Duke, fact is I dont come here for comic relief. Just let me know when you're ready to continue this thread in a less satirical manner and then perhaps we can carry on. Meanwhile, I think I'll go watch the comedy channel, your exquisite wit seems to have whet my appetite.

[Duke Lane]

Looks nothwithstanding, I am a funny guy!

[Neville Gully]

The case for eight minutes is not calculation or Internet estimation, it is taking the actual trip several times in a vehicle moving at the actual speed limit of 40 mph (Google estimates 30 mph for all sidestreets). Sometimes it took nine to nine-and-a-half minutes, once it took seven-and-a-half. We also know that the dispatchers didn't watch the second hand on the clock to mark the time exactly. The basic point is that he said he was at one point and, in approximately the time it would have taken him to drive from one point to the other, he said he'd arrived at the other. That is a difficult thing to do if you were actually at different places both times, albeit not impossible.

Please don't think I'm being nitpicky on this but the weight placed on this needs to be reduced accordingly.......Tippit was between say 7 and 10 minutes from the 2 locations he specified, "exactly" is not so precise. All I am trying to do is find what we can rule out as possibliities from what evidence we have available. Certainly, it looks impossible for the offical version to be supported. As stated earlier the evidence supports that Tippit shooting to have happened no later than 1.10 (likely earlier) then it is impossible to LHO to have arrived by walking from the roominghouse in time.

I don't recall the source on the female shoplifter; it may have been Dale Myers, Bill Drenas or someone else who tracked down the then-owner of a market there in the 4100 block of Bonnie View, where Tippit had previously said he was or was on call to. This call was apparently relayed by telephone according a call sheet cited and displayed by Drenas in his "Car 10" article.

"Clear" would only mean that he was available for duty and/or had finished with whatever business had occupied him previously. Three minutes to "clear" an incident is not difficult to imagine, consisting only of contacting the complainant, finding out what the problem was, getting some clarifying facts (e.g., what did she steal, how much was it worth, do you want her arrested?), and then disposing of the matter.

(Remember that this was in the day when cops would drive you home if you were swerving all over the road on your way home from a bar, unlike today when they'd pull you over, get five cars for backup, thrust you in the back of the car, book you for the weekend, and send you to prison if you've been DWI more than a couple of other times in your lifetime. This was also then in the "outskirts" of Dallas.)

There is no certainty of who the individual was nor where she lived nor, for that matter, that he drove her home. However, given the location, a general rule of thumb that neighborhood markets are usually frequented by people in the immediate area, that the person was not arrested and - out of general good sense - would not have been left standing in front of the small market (vice being left in the larger parking lot of a supermarket), added to the "missing" 20 minutes during which he didn't go but three blocks or so, leads to reasonable presumptions that Tippit (1) took her away from the premises to mollify the store owner, (2) drove her somewhere at least out of sight of the store, and (3) probably gave her something to think about before releasing her. .

So we can assume that at the 12.20 call Tippit was available again and likely no more than a minute or so from 4100 Bonnie View even if he drove the offender a short distance away from the shop without charging them.

... Then a call at 12.42 calling "all downtown squads". I find it much harder to ignore the 5 witnesses who all claimed to know Tippit and claim to have seen him at Gloco.

"Claim" might be an operative verb, who knows? Setting that aside, if Tippit was sitting at the base of a viaduct leading directly into downtown when that "attention all downtown squads" call came out, why did he race away in the opposite direction? Why not go into downtown, less than a half-mile away? It is also possible that, from a distance (even across a gas station parking lot), whoever was in the car - assuming it was even there - might only have looked like JD Tippit. (I'm looking into that.).

OK. So we have some other possiblilities to explore. We could say that all 5 were mistaken about seeing Tippit, I can go along with that. Not so easy to dismiss the likelyhood they saw a Police car parked around this time. So, we have the possiblity that another car was parked there. I have been trying to get more details on Officer Nelson who apparently responded to the 12.42 call downtown and responded that he was on Marsalis and Thornton (closer to Oak Cliff) at the same time tippit was at Bonnie View and Kienst. So far all I can find is thet Nelson arrived at the TSBD but the only time i can get for this is 45 minutes after he responded called in on Marsalis. Could his car be the one seen at Gloco? If so, did Nelson resemble Tippit enough to be mistaken by the 5 witnesses? Could Nelson's be the car outside 1026 NB?

As I see it Oswald cannot get to 1026 North Beckley early enough to walk (even briskly) to get to 10th and Patton soon enough to meet Tippit by 1.06-1.10. I am in total agreement with you on that one. If it was Oswald, he either had other transportation to get there quicker or it was someone else who shot Tippit. Or it was not Oswald who entered 1026 North Beckley.

All true ... except that, if Oswald didn't go into 1026, then he killed Tippit without a gun..

"

Can we hypothese that LHO took the handgun to the TSBD that day, therefore he didn't need to retrieve it from the roominghouse?

He was arrested with a gun, so either;

a) he went to 1026 to retrieve it but without travel assitance didn't shoot Tippit with it or

he went to 1026 to retrieve it and then later finished up at the Texas Theatre or

c) the gun was placed in his posession sometime before or during his arrest.

d) he had the gun with him at the TSBD and didn't visit 1026

So for LHO to be tagged with 2 murders he needed assistance (someone else was involved) or,

Tippit's murderer was not Kennedy's (if LHO was)

I don't generally consider Markham "credible" except from the single standpoint that she rode the bus every day and therefore knew her routine. What happened on that particular Friday afternoon was unique in her experience in every way but for her routine. Bowley is as credible a witness as you'd ever want to meet. .

Agree 100% Most humans are capable of getting to their bus ontime.

It seems to me (and I apologise if this has been stated previously by others).

1) If LHO entered 1026 NBeckley and did not use a transport method other than on foot he did not shoot Tippit.

2) If LHO did not enter 1026 NBeckley but somehow had a handgun he could have shot Tippit and fled to the Texas Theatre.

3) If a police car beeped outside 1026 NBeckley it was not Tippit's car.

That sums it up nicely with the exception of how he might have otherwise gotten ahold of said handgun. The "somehow" needs to at least be hypothesized before we can make that leap.

Agreed......see above

Edited November 3, 2008 by Neville Gully

[Duke Lane]

Please don't think I'm being nitpicky on this but the weight placed on this needs to be reduced accordingly.......Tippit was between say 7 and 10 minutes from the 2 locations he specified, "exactly" is not so precise. All I am trying to do is find what we can rule out as possibliities from what evidence we have available.

OK, let's look at it in "linear" form:

12:17 - Tippit "out of the car a minute, 4100 block of Bonnie View." According to a 1984 letter from the late Larry Ray Harris to Chris Scally (a member of this forum), Larry Ray had been the one to track down the manager of the Hodges Super Market at 4121 Bonnie View, who related the shoplifter story. The market owner told Larry Ray that "Tippit placed the woman in the squad car and left." This is cited in Bill Drenas' "Car 10" article (search for "4121" to find the specific reference).

12:20 - Tippit radios "clear" from Hodges, apparently with the shoplifter in his car. The mark-out record for this incident reflects the calls made by Tippit:

This is Hodges Market today, with a map showing its location relative to Kiest and Bonnie View about a mile away:

12:45 - Tippit contacted by dispatch, indicates that he is at "about Kiest and Bonnie View." The transmission is made about half-way between the 12:45 and 12:46 time checks; Tippit could be anywhere within a reasonably short distance of the actual intersection. He is told to "move into central Oak Cliff" along with Nelson. (Nelson reports "going north on Marsalis at R. L. Thornton," which is now part of I-35E at that location.)

12:49 - Nelson calls in, "87. I'm on south end Houston Street viaduct;" dispatcher acknowledges: "10-4." This is approximately 1.2 miles directly north on Marsalis, estimated at a three-minute drive by Google Maps. The location is at the far northeast edge of Oak Cliff.

12:52 - The following exchange takes place on Channel One:

87

: 87.

DIS

: 87.

87

: 87 out down here.

DIS

: 10-4.

According to Google Maps, the TSBD is 1.7 miles from the south end of the Houston Street viaduct, and takes approximately five minutes to reach from there. This call is only three minutes from Nelson's previous call. Since Nelson is next heard from at the TSBD and given the time difference between his transmissions, it is reasonable to assert that Nelson went to the TSBD instead of moving into central Oak Cliff as he was ordered. This is particularly so since his later report (in conjunction with the "Car 170/207" investigation) indicates that he had been "assigned to the Texas School Book Depository," where he remained "the rest of [the] afternoon" (which he clearly did not).

12:54 - The following exchange takes place on Channel One:

DIS

: 78.

78

: 78.

DIS

: You are in the Oak Cliff area, are you not?

78

: Lancaster and 8th.

DIS

: You will be at large for any emergency that comes in.

78

: 10-4.

This exchange takes place approximately half-way between the 12:54 and 12:55 time checks, that is, about nine minutes after the original call directing Tippit (and Nelson) into central Oak Cliff (my mistake calling it eight minutes).

So, based on the available evidence, both men left their 12:45 locations and drove independently to other locations as they'd indicated in approximately the same amount of time as it would normally take them, with Nelson's being shortened by possibly driving on "code 3" (lights & sirens), and/or not being exactly at the TSBD at the time he radioed being "out down here." That Tippit was in the 4100 block of Bonnie View at 12:17 and 12:20, and still approximately only a mile away at 12:45 suggests that he never left the area and, after driving away from Hodges Market with the shoplifter in his car, it is a reasonable conclusion that he may have spent all or part of that time in driving her home and/or giving her a stern lecture about what he would do if he ever had to respond to such a call again.

In any case, the evidence is that Tippit was up to nothing nefarious at that point in time.

Furthermore, also according to Google Maps, it would have taken approximately 15 minutes to have driven from 4100 Bonnie View to the location of the Gloco station at 1502 N. Zangs Blvd, or more roughly to the north end of Lancaster Avenue, the street that the police car there left "tearing down" at some point between 12:45 and 1:00. According to the story developed by Bill Turner cited in "Car 10" (search for "tearing") "Tippit stayed at the station for about 10 minutes, somewhere between 12:45 and 1:00 P.M., then he went tearing off down Lancaster at high speed."

Consequently, if Tippit had only driven the shoplifter a block away from the market and let her off, he would have presumably reached the Gloco at about 12:35, where he remained "for about 10 minutes." Presumably then he received a call asking his location, which he responded to with a lie, claiming to be some five or six miles away. Then, he went "tearing off down Lancaster" where nine minutes later he reported being at the intersection of that road and 8th Street, a three-minute ride, less "at high speed."

Of course, it is possible that Tippit also was never at Lancaster & 8th as he reported, and possible that he had simply picked a place to be nine minutes after the first transmission that happened to be approximately nine minutes' drive from where he'd lied about being at the time of that transmission. That's either awful lucky or great planning. But given all that is known about JD Tippit, he was not of the character, much too mild-mannered, to be involved in planning this sort of operation.

For the record, I do not believe that the Gloco folks were lying, but merely mistaken. Two of them were a couple driving by the station, who saw Tippit and waved to him; they did not indicate that he acknowledged their wave in any way. The other three were employees of the gas station, none of whom apparently approached the police car for the 10 minutes it was there. None, then, either apparently observed the driver closely nor had any interaction with him. This is especially true of the Volklands, the couple who were driving by: not only did they see him from a distance, they were also driving past him at some 30 miles per hour.

I also don't agree with Bill Drenas' assessment that "we have to question the truthfulness of this statement" of Tippit's saying that he was at Kiest and Bonnie View because "it is much easier to believe that Tippit was not being truthful about his location than to discount the statements of five witnesses that knew him personally and place him at a location approximately 5 miles away from the location he reported, at approximately the same time."

In support of this, Bill notes that dispatcher Murray Jackson, "a close personal friend of Tippit's" who had been the one to effectively order Tippit to his death, had said in an interview that "if somebody is out of pocket off their district and you ask them their location, they are either not going to answer or they are going to give you somewhere else anyway," in other words that dispatchers have no way of knowing where officers really are because if they want to lie to you, they will, and you'd have no way of knowing.

(As "a close personal friend of Tippit's" - he reportedly spent the night sleeping on the Tippits' couch - it particularly seems unlikely that Jackson would be accusing his friend of lying to cover his whereabouts. Indeed, testimony before the Warren Commission by Tippit's superiors - Sergeants Calvin "Bud" Owens and Jim Putnam, and Lieutenant Rio Sam Pierce - all had more than adequately covered justifiable reasons why JD Tippit would not have been within his regular district when he reported being at Lancaster & 8th. This was, of course, before it was known that Tippit had been ordered into central Oak Cliff.)

In sum, the bulk of the evidence shows that was where he claimed to have been and not at the Gloco station; moreover, other than the Gloco witnesses placing him there and pure speculation, there is no evidence that he was in any way "in on the plot" and even less that he was somehow involved with Oswald.

I think the above covers your other points ...?

So we can assume that at the 12.20 call Tippit was available again and likely no more than a minute or so from 4100 Bonnie View even if he drove the offender a short distance away from the shop without charging them.

So we have some other possiblilities to explore. We could say that all 5 were mistaken about seeing Tippit, I can go along with that. Not so easy to dismiss the likelyhood they saw a Police car parked around this time. So, we have the possiblity that another car was parked there. I have been trying to get more details on Officer Nelson who apparently responded to the 12.42 call downtown and responded that he was on Marsalis and Thornton (closer to Oak Cliff) at the same time tippit was at Bonnie View and Kienst. So far all I can find is thet Nelson arrived at the TSBD but the only time i can get for this is 45 minutes after he responded called in on Marsalis. Could his car be the one seen at Gloco? If so, did Nelson resemble Tippit enough to be mistaken by the 5 witnesses? Could Nelson's be the car outside 1026 NB?