The Discoveries of Jim Garrison

[James DiEugenio]

Paul:

Because I like and respect you I should comment on your other two points:

1.) The split files of Angleton.  This is in the Lopez Report, way back in 1978.  And Lisa Pease commented on this very pointedly in her milestone two part article on Angleton in Probe back in 1998. Almost twenty years ago.

2.) The generic description of a suspect that was broadcast in the third version of the DPD tapes.

I have never understood why some people give this so much weight and relevance.  Because if you track what TIppit is doing at that time, it seems to me to have little relevance to his murder.

Way back in 1966, Bill Turner checked out a lead by David Lifton.  This placed TIppit at a GLOCO gas station near the end of a viaduct which connected Dealey Plaza with Oak Cliff.  There were five witnesses who placed him at the station at about 12:45 to about 12:55,  intently watching that viaduct as if he were checking for a certain car or bus. (Joe McBride, Into the Nightmare, p. 441)

Question: How can you tell someone's height and weight while he is sitting in  a car or bus, or if he has a rifle with him?

Tippit next stopped a car driven by  a man named Jim Andrews.  He got out of his car and looked in the space between the front and back seat of Andrews' car. (ibid, p. 448)  Note: he did not check the guy's height and weight.

Tippit next went to the Top Ten Record Shop. (ibid, p. 451)  He walked in and made a phone call. He then slammed down the phone and jumped into his patrol car, which he had parked on a side street.  Again, what does this have to do with that generic description?  It sounds to me like TIppit is frustrated about not being able to find someone he had been previously given instructions about who would be in a certain car and carrying something with him--which is why he looked in the back seat of Andrews' car.

The best one can say about the so called generic description is that it provided a later pretext for Tippit to stop Oswald.  As pretexts go, and the WCR is full of them, I don't even think this one is that important.  IMO, the most important manufactured pretexts are for the REA and Klein's pseudo deliveries, since those allowed for the so called weapons Oswald was supposed to use in the two shootings.

But actually, there is something even worse about it.  Because today, and in fact a few  years ago, when I was writing Reclaiming Parkland, I came to the conclusion that Oswald was not at the scene of the TIppit murder.  I based this on the time factor between when he left his rooming house and the real time of the murder of Tippit, which I think, as did the late Larry Harris, was about 1:08; and also the witness testimony of the woman who was interviewed in Barry Ernest's book.  She saw the real killer leaving, and it was not Oswald.  And, if one wants to think logically, this may be the reason the perps left the mock up of Oswald's wallet there. Not realizing Oswald would survive the Texas Theater and blow that caper up.

John Armstrong, McBride and Bill S have done some good work on the actual circumstances of Tippit's murder.  It seems to me that the two guys on the DPD who really look bad here are Westbrook and Hill.  

Edited September 18, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Brancato]

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

Because I like and respect you I should comment on your other two points:

1.) The split files of Angleton.  This is in the Lopez Report, way back in 1978.  And Lisa Pease commented on this very pointedly in her milestone two part article on Angleton in Probe back in 1998. Almost twenty years ago.

2.) The generic description of a suspect that was broadcast in the third version of the DPD tapes.

I have never understood why some people give this so much weight and relevance.  Because if you track what TIppit is doing at that time, it seems to me to have little relevance to his murder.

Way back in 1966, Bill Turner checked out a lead by David Lifton.  This placed TIppit at a GLOCO gas station near the end of a viaduct which connected Dealey Plaza with Oak Cliff.  There were five witnesses who placed him at the station at about 12:45 to about 12:55,  intently watching that viaduct as if he were checking for a certain car or bus. (Joe McBride, Into the Nightmare, p. 441)

Question: How can you tell someone's height and weight while he is sitting in  a car or bus, or if he has a rifle with him?

Tippit next stopped a car driven by  a man named Jim Andrews.  He got out of his car and looked in the space between the front and back seat of Andrews' car. (ibid, p. 448)  Note: he did not check the guy's height and weight.

Tippit next went to the Top Ten Record Shop. (ibid, p. 451)  He walked in and made a phone call. He then slammed down the phone and jumped into his patrol car, which he had parked on a side street.  Again, what does this have to do with that generic description?  It sounds to me like TIppit is frustrated about not being able to find someone he had been previously given instructions about who would be in a certain car and carrying something with him--which is why he looked in the back seat of Andrews' car.

The best one can say about the so called generic description is that it provided a later pretext for Tippit to stop Oswald.  As pretexts go, and the WCR is full of them, I don't even think this one is that important.  IMO, the most important manufactured pretexts are for the REA and Klein's pseudo deliveries, since those allowed for the so called weapons Oswald was supposed to use in the two shootings.

But actually, there is something even worse about it.  Because today, and in fact a few  years ago, when I was writing Reclaiming Parkland, I came to the conclusion that Oswald was not at the scene of the TIppit murder.  I based this on the time factor between when he left his rooming house and the real time of the murder of Tippit, which I think, as did the late Larry Harris, was about 1:08; and also the witness testimony of the woman who was interviewed in Barry Ernest's book.  She saw the real killer leaving, and it was not Oswald.  And, if one wants to think logically, this may be the reason the perps left the mock up of Oswald's wallet there. Not realizing Oswald would survive the Texas Theater and blow that caper up.

John Armstrong, McBride and Bill S have done some good work on the actual circumstances of Tippit's murder.  It seems to me that the two guys on the DPD who really look bad here are Westbrook and Hill.  

Jim - Thanks for the complete response. I've read all of McBride's great work on Tippit and think the timing of his pre and post assassination movements leaves no doubt that he could have been at Dealey plaza during the assassination, possibly shooting. I don't think Oswald killed him. What I do think is that the false description indicates that it came from CIA files, or maybe military - can't recall exactly which one had a similar false description. I'm less interested in what effect it might have had on Tippit than what its origin is. 

The question about the barium meal description - what does Pease think Angleton was up to?

i know we are off subject. 

[James DiEugenio]

Yes I think we are off subject.

But in deference to you, Lisa never referred to it as a "barium Meal", (she likes oatmeal like me.)

She though the reason for the split file was to make sure no one has all the proper data on Oswald except Angleton.

Therefore, this was part of having his profile lowered after Mexico City.  Sort of like dimming the lights, when they should have been being raised.

You don't have The Assassinations?  Its in that book.

[David Andrews]

Tippit next stopped a car driven by  a man named Jim Andrews.  He got out of his car and looked in the space between the front and back seat of Andrews' car.

This has been discussed in several places.  Does anybody know what make/model/color Andrews' car was?  It might be important to why Tippit pulled Andrews over.

The way that Morales has been aggrandized over the years from his first appearance in Fonzi's book is really weird to me.

As far as why David Morales was ignored for so long (before he began appearing in everyone's theories), I suspect a kind of intellectual race blindness was involved.  As the mysterioso "big Indio," he may not have attracted the research interest that a suit-and-tie Beltway "whitebread" type would.  Ted Shackley, for instance, was much more visible over several operations across his career (Laos, Phoenix Program, Wilson-Terpil), and so overshadowed Morales' on-the-ground work out of JM/Wave.  Anonymity and race may have worked in Morales' favor in his career - he blended in among mixed cultures, and may have been perceived by those he confronted as an enforcer rather than as an operational officer (again, the "big Indio" who couldn't possibly be an equal among gentleman spooks).  His paranoia and braggadocio at the end of his life may have been prompted in part by realization that he would always be an outsider who "knew too much" in CIA culture, a military grunt raised up by the college-tie crowd for his ruthlessness and operational ability in non-white cultures.  Prior neglect for him because of that status may now be increasing his notoriety among researchers.  (Though I'm not sure it's wise to underestimate anyone who worked in Shackley's world, in Miami or Saigon.)  These are difficult, but real, issues to confront, and I hope I've used some sensitivity.

Edited September 21, 2017 by David Andrews