Jump to content
The Education Forum

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions


Recommended Posts

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question 05

Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend

the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two

semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the

xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most

of the 'answers'.

*reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...*

But first, an important note:

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

Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's

only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message

threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.

These trolls include (but are not limited to):

**22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh

Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply

deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or

simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill

files.

source: alt.conspiracy.jfk

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

It's amusing to see how the trolls and LNT'ers are running away from this

evidence in the JFK assassination. Of course, they have to - the evidence has

*NEVER* been in the WCR's favor.

5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as Automatic,

changed to revolver? Sgt Hill was holding the shells in his hand, and asserts

that it was his *examination* of those shells that led to his radio report. How

could an experienced Police Sergeant make such a dumb error in the shooting of a

fellow police officer?

eof

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question 05

...

5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as Automatic, changed to revolver? Sgt Hill was holding the shells in his hand, and asserts that it was his *examination* of those shells that led to his radio report. How could an experienced Police Sergeant make such a dumb error in the shooting of a fellow police officer?

I think that the answer to this one is really quite simple: Hill was not in truth an "experienced police sergeant" at least not to the extent of having much with weapons and crimes. Consider that, as a sergeant, he walked a downtown beat. He was in plain clothes on November 22 not because he was a detective - as he undoubtedly appeared to be to several uniformed officers, including Poe - but because he was assigned to office duty in the Personnel office, not what you'd call hard police work. Earlier, he had been a journalist, and later, the spokesman for the Dallas County Sheriff's Office during the tenure of his good buddy, former DPD communications sergeant Jim Bowles. He was better known among the media than his fellow officers.

As to how they might be identified as "automatic" shells - not having been done by Hill's keen observational skills - is simply that they had been nearby on the ground, as if ejected. Recall that he didn't actually pick them up or see them on the ground: fired shells outside of a gun at the scene might well be inferred to be from an automatic pistol, as opposed to those fired from a revolver, which might be inferred to either have still been in the gun, or located close together as they were dumped from the cylinder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question 05

...

5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as Automatic, changed to revolver? Sgt Hill was holding the shells in his hand, and asserts that it was his *examination* of those shells that led to his radio report. How could an experienced Police Sergeant make such a dumb error in the shooting of a fellow police officer?

I think that the answer to this one is really quite simple: Hill was not in truth an "experienced police sergeant" at least not to the extent of having much with weapons and crimes. Consider that, as a sergeant, he walked a downtown beat. He was in plain clothes on November 22 not because he was a detective - as he undoubtedly appeared to be to several uniformed officers, including Poe - but because he was assigned to office duty in the Personnel office, not what you'd call hard police work. Earlier, he had been a journalist, and later, the spokesman for the Dallas County Sheriff's Office during the tenure of his good buddy, former DPD communications sergeant Jim Bowles. He was better known among the media than his fellow officers.

As to how they might be identified as "automatic" shells - not having been done by Hill's keen observational skills - is simply that they had been nearby on the ground, as if ejected. Recall that he didn't actually pick them up or see them on the ground: fired shells outside of a gun at the scene might well be inferred to be from an automatic pistol, as opposed to those fired from a revolver, which might be inferred to either have still been in the gun, or located close together as they were dumped from the cylinder.

poses even more questions... Thanks for the response,btw. And with your permission, I'll pass it on to the other board....

"...inexperienced Police Sargent" in plainclothes on Nov 22nd? So Hill is a in-experienced cop, with damn few *gun* street smarts when it comes to shooting, who found himself working the streets, in "plain clothes", the day Tippit [and the President ] was murdered performing no-less, crime scene detective work AND, evidently was a Dallas good ole boy especially with the media types.... that sum it up? B)

During the JFK assassination period did Hill perform any documented media (local or national) type related jobs for the DPD?

I don't know Duke, no simple answers re Sgt. Hill, in my estimation

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

poses even more questions... Thanks for the response,btw. And with your permission, I'll pass it on to the other board....

No problem, feel free.

"...inexperienced Police Sargent" in plainclothes on Nov 22nd? So Hill is a in-experienced cop, with damn few *gun* street smarts when it comes to shooting, who found himself working the streets, in "plain clothes", the day Tippit [and the President ] was murdered performing no-less, crime scene detective work AND, evidently was a Dallas good ole boy especially with the media types.... that sum it up? B)

A bit simplistically, but yes.

Hill was in the Personnel office when the DP shooting took place, he was not "working the streets" except by his own volition afterward; he was given no assignment, per se, to do that.

During the JFK assassination period did Hill perform any documented media (local or national) type related jobs for the DPD?

Unequivocally, no, he was assigned to no such job(s); equivocally, he did perform one or more. A transcript of a "press briefing" that he gave is among the WC Exhibits, as I recall. The reporters consistently referred to him as "Jerry."

I don't know Duke, no simple answers re Sgt. Hill, in my estimation

How he came to be at each location he was at is likewise a bit of a mystery since every person that he said he'd ridden with failed to mention him when asked who was in the various cars with them. This includes even Hill's (temporary) superior, Capt. Westbrook ... who held no particular liking for his subordinate. Westbrook seems to have ensured that certain aspects of Hill's actions were put on record, however, none complimentary and at least one potentially even incriminating.

As obscured as they are, there are answers, even if not simple - or easy - ones. I've posted a few myself. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

poses even more questions... Thanks for the response,btw. And with your permission, I'll pass it on to the other board....

No problem, feel free.

"...inexperienced Police Sargent" in plainclothes on Nov 22nd? So Hill is a in-experienced cop, with damn few *gun* street smarts when it comes to shooting, who found himself working the streets, in "plain clothes", the day Tippit [and the President ] was murdered performing no-less, crime scene detective work AND, evidently was a Dallas good ole boy especially with the media types.... that sum it up? :o

A bit simplistically, but yes.

Hill was in the Personnel office when the DP shooting took place, he was not "working the streets" except by his own volition afterward; he was given no assignment, per se, to do that.

During the JFK assassination period did Hill perform any documented media (local or national) type related jobs for the DPD?

Unequivocally, no, he was assigned to no such job(s); equivocally, he did perform one or more. A transcript of a "press briefing" that he gave is among the WC Exhibits, as I recall. The reporters consistently referred to him as "Jerry."

I don't know Duke, no simple answers re Sgt. Hill, in my estimation

How he came to be at each location he was at is likewise a bit of a mystery since every person that he said he'd ridden with failed to mention him when asked who was in the various cars with them. This includes even Hill's (temporary) superior, Capt. Westbrook ... who held no particular liking for his subordinate. Westbrook seems to have ensured that certain aspects of Hill's actions were put on record, however, none complimentary and at least one potentially even incriminating.

As obscured as they are, there are answers, even if not simple - or easy - ones. I've posted a few myself. :o

Hey Duke... FYI, I posted your response to #05 on the USENET board where the question originator hangs out... here's the originators response:

(if you'd like to respond to the thread originator directly, feel free to drop by alt.conspiracy.jfk [series question #05]) -- dgh

[...]

>>5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as Automatic,

>> changed to revolver? Sgt Hill was holding the shells in his hand, and asserts

>>that it was his *examination* of those shells that led to his radio report. How

>>could an experienced Police Sergeant make such a dumb error in the shooting of a

>> fellow police officer?

>from the Ed Forum (04.23.2008):

>I think that the answer to this one is really quite simple: Hill was

>not in truth an "experienced police sergeant" at least not to the

>extent of having much with weapons and crimes.

This falls under the answer category of "simple denial."

>Consider that, as a

>sergeant, he walked a downtown beat. He was in plain clothes on

>November 22 not because he was a detective - as he undoubtedly

>appeared to be to several uniformed officers, including Poe - but

>because he was assigned to office duty in the Personnel office, not

>what you'd call hard police work.

I think he can't figure out what to say... did Sgt. Hill engage in normal police

work on the street, or was he a desk jockey?

Mr. HILL I was on special assignment, detached from the police patrol division,

and assigned to the police personnel office investigating applicants for the

police department.

>Earlier, he had been a journalist,

>and later, the spokesman for the Dallas County Sheriff's Office during

>the tenure of his good buddy, former DPD communications sergeant Jim

>Bowles. He was better known among the media than his fellow officers.

None of this precludes him from knowing his job. Indeed, he had a better range

of skills than most people who were police. Not many of them had the experience

set that Sgt. Hill had.

>As to how they might be identified as "automatic" shells - not having

>been done by Hill's keen observational skills - is simply that they

>had been nearby on the ground, as if ejected.

That isn't what *he* said.

>Recall that he didn't

>actually pick them up

He held them in his hand.

>or see them on the ground: fired shells outside

>of a gun at the scene might well be inferred to be from an automatic

>pistol, as opposed to those fired from a revolver, which might be

>inferred to either have still been in the gun, or located close

>together as they were dumped from the cylinder.

Why would someone "infer" anything when they have the shells in their hand, and

can simply look? Telling revolver from automatic is not difficult at all... it

takes no forensic skills or college education.

>Duke Lane - Texas (posted with permission)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Duke... FYI, I posted your response to #05 on the USENET board where the question originator hangs out... here's the originators response:

(if you'd like to respond to the thread originator directly, feel free to drop by alt.conspiracy.jfk [series question #05]) -- dgh

No thanks.

DL> I think that the answer to this one is really quite simple: Hill was not in truth an "experienced police sergeant" at least not to the extent of having much with weapons and crimes.

Whomever> This falls under the answer category of "simple denial."

Let's see, he's dealing with "Duke Lane - Texas" and I'm dealing with "the question originator?" Something a little disparate here, where I can be identified by name and location on alt.jfk, and s/he can't be identified here?

That said, since neither of us know what, exactly, was going through Hill's mind at the time, and since he did not say, specifically, that he read what was on the bottom of the shells ("which was ...") to have identified them as "automatics," in truth, either interpretation has as much validity as the other. Mine can hardly be called "denial."

DL> Consider that, as a sergeant, he walked a downtown beat. He was in plain clothes on November 22 not because he was a detective - as he undoubtedly appeared to be to several uniformed officers, including Poe - but because he was assigned to office duty in the Personnel office, not what you'd call hard police work.

Whomever> I think he can't figure out what to say... did Sgt. Hill engage in normal police work on the street, or was he a desk jockey?

Mr. HILL I was on special assignment, detached from the police patrol division,

and assigned to the police personnel office investigating applicants for the

police department.

I believe that my comment was with respect to his appearance in plain clothes as being a "detective," and that the reason he was in plain clothes was because he was doing office work.

... DL> As to how they might be identified as "automatic" shells - not having been done by Hill's keen observational skills - is simply that they had been nearby on the ground, as if ejected.

Whomever> That isn't what *he* said.

DL> Recall that he didn't actually pick them up

Whomever> He held them in his hand.

DL> ... or see them on the ground: fired shells outside of a gun at the scene might well be inferred to be from an automatic pistol, as opposed to those fired from a revolver, which might be inferred to either have still been in the gun, or located close together as they were dumped from the cylinder.

Whomever> Why would someone "infer" anything when they have the shells in their hand, and can simply look? Telling revolver from automatic is not difficult at all... it takes no forensic skills or college education.

Well, all of this comes down to simple argument, doesn't it? And argument for the sake of being argumentative. I said "he didn't pick up the bullets," which is absolutely true; they were handed to him by Poe, so yes, he held them in his hand (sort of; see below), but he still didn't pick them up or see where they had been originally.

It's likewise true that Hill didn't say that he'd deduced that they were automatic shells for any reason, but he likewise never said that he examined the shells closely; that is an inference by "Whomever."

In actual point of fact, Poe handed Hill the shells "in a Winston cigarette pack," which was not clarified to have been anything other than a cigarette pack, and certainly not as just the cellophane that would have encased a pack of cigarettes (how do you tell a Winston cellophane from a Marlboro cellophane from a Kool cellophane?), and as such, there's no actual evidence, testimonial or otherwise, that Hill even had the opportunity to read what was on the shells. See 7H48-49.

So, if Hill didn't examine them, how did he come to the conclusion that they were automatic shells?

Duke Lane - Texas (posted with permission)

Sort of. "Anonymous" would have been fine, too.

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...