A five-point road map to accomplishing a change of consciousness in America concerning the JFK assassination

[Greg Doudna]

A five-point road map to accomplishing a change of consciousness in America concerning the JFK assassination

The starting point is three planks around which can be mobilized agreement of 90% of CT adherents, focusing on Oswald's standing with respect to three cases: 

·      In the case of Tippit, exoneration with solution. 

·      In the case of JFK, exoneration without solution. 

·      In the case of Walker, reasonable doubt. 

That is two exonerations and one reasonable doubt. The roadmap starts with the Tippit case, exoneration with solution, that solution being a fingerprint match likely to confirm identification of Curtis Laverne Craford, then known as Larry Crafard, as the killer of Tippit. The five steps:

1. A true solution to the Tippit case: exoneration of Oswald and identification of the actual killer accepted in mainstream America. The way this is done is via technical and expert analyses of Dallas Police Department fingerprints of the killer of Tippit which were lifted from the right front passenger door and right front fender of the Tippit cruiser. The single individual who left those fingerprints in both of those locations—the killer of Tippit—has already been excluded as having been Oswald on the basis of a finding of non-match to fingerprints of Oswald. That is to say, these fingerprints already have exonerated Oswald as having been the killer (data at Myers, With Malice [2013 edn], 336-340; interpretation: “Critical to this is the prior issue” at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27754-the-jackets-as-exculpation-of-oswald-as-the-tippit-killer-an-analysis/). However who those fingerprints did come from—who was the killer of Tippit, was never identified from those fingerprints. A solution to the Tippit case is obtainable by commissioning fingerprint analyses with or without technical imaging assistance to determine an up-or-down confirmation or exclusion of a match of those fingerprints to Carousel Club employee Larry Crafard (Curtis Craford), the likely true killer of Tippit. (The Tippit killer’s fingerprints have never been compared to Craford’s fingerprints.) If the match is positive, this would be an historic watershed in impact, not only in establishing a solution to the Tippit case and reinforcing complete exoneration of Oswald in that case, but doing so in a way that would be newsworthy and deemed convincing by mainstream America familiar with the case: that the killer of Tippit was Craford not Oswald. Two other key points in this solution are identification of the murder weapon in the Tippit killing as the revolver found in a paper bag in downtown Dallas on the morning of Sat Nov 23 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48693#relPageId=10); “Critical to this is the prior issue” at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27754-the-jackets-as-exculpation-of-oswald-as-the-tippit-killer-an-analysis/), and a “gray then blue” analysis of the jackets worn by Oswald on Nov 22, 1963 (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27754-the-jackets-as-exculpation-of-oswald-as-the-tippit-killer-an-analysis/). I have developed the arguments relative to each of these three points in what is probably the most substantial argument in existence for a non-Oswald solution to the Tippit case, provisionally written up in draft form in a series of posts starting here: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27367-an-argument-for-actual-innocence-of-oswald-in-the-tippit-case/. If other parties took the lead in such a project and got the fingerprints analysis accomplished (I am in no position to initiate such myself and have no plans to do so), I could in a supporting role with or without coauthors further develop, rewrite and edit my material on the Tippit case into a monograph that would meet “Innocence Project” standards and could receive endorsement and backing on its major points from 90% of the CT community due to the clarity of the argument. These three points—the fingerprints; the murder weapon; the analysis of the jackets—are the foundation of this alternative solution to the Tippit case. A fingerprint match to Craford would be a pivotal breakthrough in the understanding of mainstream law enforcement, historians, and the public in America. A generally-recognized and accepted exoneration of Oswald in the Tippit killing in turn would be a game-changer in perception of the JFK assassination. The comparison of the fingerprints of the Tippit killer to fingerprints of Craford is the first step.

2. Exoneration of Oswald in the JFK assassination without solution of the case, and reasonable doubt in the Walker case, accepted in mainstream America. In this second stage these objectives, as stated, are established in the relevant disciplines in mainstream America. The way this is done in the Walker case is a focus around the issue of whether Walker staged the shot (not whether Oswald was involved which is not at issue if Walker staged the shot)—whether Walker was in the room when the shot was fired and were Walker’s light injuries self-inflicted—reasonable doubt. In the JFK case, mainstream exoneration of Oswald as shooter of JFK is accomplished by two things above all others: first, the momentum of mainstream exoneration of Oswald in the case of Tippit, and, second, identification of Prayer Man as Oswald. (Prayer Man is the name given to a figure in photos who is standing in the front doorway of the Texas School Book Depository in the moments of the assassination.) While there are other arguments favoring exoneration of Oswald in the JFK assassination, none have accomplished exoneration in the view of mainstream law enforcement experts and historians. That changes with Prayer Man, if mobilization of state-of-the-art technical and expert analyses can be bought to bear with the objective of determining an up-or-down confirmation or exclusion that Prayer Man is Oswald. Prayer Man as Oswald can be judged ca. 90% likely prior to up-or-down certainty or falsification. Other arguments for exoneration of Oswald as having been a shooter at JFK exist (lack of gunpowder residue on cheek/NAA; poor rifle shot and ability; lack of shooting practice; issues of preparation and motive; analysis of protestations of innocence). But the two big ones become the public awareness of exoneration in the case of Tippit, and confirmation that Prayer Man is Oswald if that is attained. In this focus the connection of Oswald to the rifle need not be contested since the issue is not whether the rifle came from Oswald but whether it was fired by Oswald. If expert and technical analysis established Prayer Man as Oswald at ca. 100% confidence that would be newsworthy and establish exoneration of Oswald in the shooting of JFK to mainstream America. The one serious objection to Prayer Man as Oswald, the failure of Buell Wesley Frazier to make that identification (Frazier appears looking in Prayer Man’s general direction a few feet away from him in one photo), is weak or indecisive in weight from several factors, one being that Frazier has been unable to remember or recognize or identify Prayer Man at all in his own response to the photos. This second stage of the roadmap—a mainstreamed recognition of exoneration of Oswald in the JFK assassination—is brought about by the means named, state-of-the-art technical and expert analysis of Prayer Man. (Exoneration of Oswald in the JFK assassination here means exoneration from being a shooter.) 

3. Repudiation of Garrisonism including CT community formal exoneration of Clay Shaw, Ruth Paine, and Michael Paine. Restorations from the CT community of these three individuals to their good names and reputations with respect to the JFK assassination in formal and organized statement with expression of remorse for damage done. On three grounds. First, no advantage: expenditure of energy claiming these three were guilty adds nothing to the case for Oswald exoneration. Second, pragmatic downsides: the public thinks Clay Shaw is innocent in agreement with the trial outcome in that case, and that Garrison was not a good man in his methods. Reasonable mainstream America also will not accept the treatment of the Paines by CTs as justified or fair. And the third, stand-alone and most important reason: it is the right thing to do because they are innocent. Even if not all CTs will immediately agree on this (actual innocence of these three), with sufficient informed discussion most CTs can come to agreement that there is minimally reasonable doubt in favor of innocence of each of these three with respect to the JFK assassination such that they should be presumed innocent in public and in reputation since there is not a sufficient threshold of evidence to justify accusing them of malfeasance with respect to the JFK assassination. The reason for repudiating Garrisonism is because Garrisonism is not good or healthy. Garrisonism stands for poor critical thinking, poor judgment, and damage to innocent persons through witchhunts and lethal accusations on the basis of suspicion alone. Garrison on the JFK assassination should be repudiated no less than the repudiation of Senator Joseph McCarthy on domestic communism. Formal repudiation of Garrisonism by CT’s would be analogous to the major Lutheran bodies’ formal repudiation of the anti-semitism or anti-Jewishness of Luther. Garrisonism is not compatible with success of this roadmap to a change of consciousness in mainstream sectors of America concerning the JFK assassination. Yet this pragmatic reality pales in comparison to the moral reason, that repudiation of Garrisonism is the right thing to do. Formal repudiation with apology in an organized way from the CT community will enhance, not diminish, credibility with the American public, when combined with the impact of actual evidence of the nature cited in the Oswald exonerations in the Tippit and JFK cases. 

4. A dues-paying, voting, national membership and lobbying organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for formal government recognition of an evidence-based finding of exoneration of Oswald of a shooting role in the JFK assassination. This is premised on the preceding three stages having been accomplished. The national lobbying organization will focus on exoneration of Oswald in the shooting of JFK without solution to the case--and to a lesser extent but also necessary, reasonable doubt in the Walker case (the reasonable doubt concerning whether Walker faked being a target of the shot and self-injured, that is, reasonable doubt that the shot fired into the Walker house was an attempted murder). The specific objective of the lobbying organization and the benchmark of its success will be when the US Government, speaking for the American body politic, states formal recognition of an evidence-based finding that Oswald is exonerated from the shooting of JFK, accompanied by a statement of support for the establishment of a Truth Commission by which an understanding of American history in the light of that development can be reassessed. All major policy actions or findings by the dues-paying, national membership lobbying organization should be ratified by vote of the membership, as a partial preventative to undue influence of hidden hands in process and outcome. 

5. A Truth Commission set up formally by existing academic and professional guilds of American historians and law enforcement and forensic specialists. Formal studies and investigations will be conducted which may or may not succeed in solving the JFK assassination but will explore significance and implications of such findings that may come to light. Whether the JFK case is or is not solved to the satisfaction of the guilds of American historians and law enforcement specialists, revision in interpretation of American history in light of the exoneration of Oswald in the JFK assassination is processed. There can be input from outside the guilds for consideration by the guilds but the guilds decide, in the sense that this is how understanding of mainstream America is processed. The guilds' judgments and decision-making on these matters should not be subject to outside control or popular vote of the public, but at the same time should—must—involve plenary vote of the memberships of those guilds on endorsements of findings (not a small delegated number of deciders acting autonomously without ratification by vote of guild members). If the Truth Commission receives funding from the federal government (preferred) it must have formal independence from governmental control or direction (apart from progress-reporting protocols and ability to cut off money, this last option never to be exercised operationally to influence but only extraordinarily as a worst-case mechanism of resignation of support for cause [if that happened for unjust cause, funding to be replaced from private sector sources with the same hands-off independence policies]). The outcomes judged by the guilds of professional American historians and law enforcement bodies in turn will influence the writing of textbooks and the educating of present and future Americans. Nothing in this prevents individuals or groups from holding any other view, but this is how it gets done in an evidence-based way in mainstream America. Any arguments from CT’s going to proposed solutions to the JFK case need to be sufficiently convincing that they pass vetting by the guilds of American historians and crime investigation professionals at this stage. The reason why plenary votes of the guilds’ memberships are important is as a partial preventative to undue influence of hidden hands on shaping and outcome of investigations and findings. 

What could go wrong in these five stages? Obviously there are many things that could go wrong since history is not predictable. Specifically there are two major checkpoints in this roadmap of an up-or-down evidential nature. The first is whether the fingerprints of the Tippit killer will match to Curtis Craford. And the second is whether technical analysis and study of Prayer Man will confirm or exclude a match to Oswald. Either of these could potentially go either way, and in terms of this roadmap a falsification in either one would effectively mean the roadmap would not succeed. But the chances if quantified are perhaps ca. 90% in each case that expert findings will confirm the falsifiable predictions in these two cases. There is also the possibility that despite the best technical and expert efforts, one or both of these cases could remain indeterminate, the least desirable outcome. For these reasons priority should be focused on bringing to bear state-of-the-art technical and expert knowhow with an objective of determination of accurate up-or-down decisive confirmation or falsification of each of the two predictions at issue.  

Edited June 10, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Lawrence Schnapf]

The assassination can be viewed through the lens of what we have learned from the Innocence Project and the 2009 NAS Study about the unreliability of forensic evidence.  It is no longer acceptable to make sweeping assertions that a particular piece of evidence can be linked back to a weapon to the exclusion of no one weapon without referencing a probability of the match.  and we also have to examine HOW the historical record was assembled (e/g. alot of witnesses were pressured to change their testimony before they testified (lots of off-the-record interviews) and testimony was changed afterwards in FBI 302 reports, significant questions with chain of custody, etc).    

[Greg Doudna]

13 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

The assassination can be viewed through the lens of what we have learned from the Innocence Project and the 2009 NAS Study about the unreliability of forensic evidence.  It is no longer acceptable to make sweeping assertions that a particular piece of evidence can be linked back to a weapon to the exclusion of no one weapon without referencing a probability of the match.  and we also have to examine HOW the historical record was assembled (e/g. alot of witnesses were pressured to change their testimony before they testified (lots of off-the-record interviews) and testimony was changed afterwards in FBI 302 reports, significant questions with chain of custody, etc).    

As late as Feb. 24, 1964, U.S. News and World Report (one of the three major national weekly news magazines in America along with Time and Newsweek) is reported to have reported of the Warren Commission: "2/24/64 As for Oswald, the commission has found that almost all the evidence points to him as the killer. But the panel is not expected to say so in so many words. The final verdict is to be left to the public. Reason: There just is no positive proof. U. S. News & World Report, p. 52". (According to here: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White Files/Warren Commission-Subject/Oswald/Oswald%2C 1964.pdf.) It would be nice to know U.S. News and World Report's source on that, whether that was coming from inside the Warren Commission (almost had to be?). I have not seen the issue of the newsweekly itself. 

[Greg Doudna]

More on the Tippit cruiser fingerprints (= Tippit killer fingerprints)

I do not understand why there has not been more interest or attention given to the importance of the Myers 2013 report on the fingerprints left at the right front door and right front fender of the Tippit cruiser, in the exact positions where the killer of Tippit was according to witnesses. The Tippit killer first talked to Tippit through the window of the right passenger side leaning into the cruiser, and then went around the right front of the cruiser shooting and killing Tippit. In one of the most important and non-heralded findings reported by Myers 2013, the fingerprints in both of those locations were newly identified as having come from the same one individual, not multiple persons. This weighs in favor of those prints coming from the killer of Tippit, as opposed to by accident from some other person. 

There is a case for exoneration of Oswald in the Tippit killing and there is separately and distinctly a case for Curtis Craford as the leading suspect in the Tippit killing, independently of the fingerprints. It should be a no-brainer to have those fingerprints compared to fingerprints of Curtis Craford. Craford had a criminal record in Oregon so prints of Craford should be obtainable. Find three (not just one) of the top names in the field of latent fingerprint examination; agree up-front formally in advance that their findings will be public and published under their names whatever their findings are; that they will conduct their examinations independently, blinded to and without consultation with one another; and that they will be compensated for their services irrespective of findings. Get it done professionally, publish the results however they turn out. Why has this not been done already? Just not of interest to anyone here? 

To my knowledge no one has pointed to the importance of pursuit of further information from these fingerprints based on the new developments reported in Dale Myers, With Malice, the 2013 edition, other than me. (I do not know whether Myers reported the Lutz findings in the earlier 1998 first edition of With Malice; I do not have that edition to check. Bugliosi's exhaustive Reclaiming History in 2007 has no mention of the Myers/Lutz fingerprint information.) My comments about the importance of Myers' report on those fingerprints, over past months, have elicited almost no response or reaction. Ho-hum? Its only the Tippit killer's fingerprints which have been confirmed a non-match to Oswald and would match to the true killer if checked. Would that be of interest to anyone?

For any who need brought up to speed on this and do not have the Myers volume I quote below Myers' discussion of this data. Focus not on Myers' interpretation of the data, but rather focus on the data itself which Myers obtained and reported. (And let there be no irrelevant attacks on Myers. Who cares that he is LN, he has written the most comprehensive and authoritative book in existence relevant to the Tippit killing, with all the primary data, photos, documents, witness interviews, accurate footnotes, the works--all in one volume, well worth the $65 current price on amazon for 864 pages hardbound; a kindle edition is available for $2.99 [https://www.amazon.com/Malice-Harvey-Oswald-Murder-Officer/dp/0966270983]). Myers:

"At about 1:40 p.m. [on Fri Nov 22, 1963] Sergeant W.E. 'Pete' Barnes of the Dallas Police Crime Scene Search Section, arrived at the scene of Tippit's murder and began dusting the passenger side of the officer's squad car for fingerprints.

"'I was told that the suspect [who] shot Tippit had come up to the right side of the car, and there was a possibility that he might have placed his hands on there,' Barnes testified. Barnes dusted areas just below the top of the right door and along the right front fender. When asked whether any prints were found, Barnes told the Warren Commission, 'There were several smear prints. None of value.'

"For this study, crime lab photos of the fingerprints Sergeant Barnes found on Tippit's squad car were obtained from Dallas police archives and compared with Oswald's fingerprint cards by a twenty-six-year latent fingerprint expert. Herbert Lutz, senior crime scene technician for Wayne County, Michigan, examined the prints taken from Tippit's patrol car and was of the opinion that one person was probably responsible for all of them. The smears obtained from the top of the right-side passenger door were of less value, although Lutz felt that the ridges and furrows were consistent with fingerprints found on the right front fender.

"There was sufficient detail in the fingerprints taken from the right front fender to make a reasonable comparison with the fingerprint cards of Lee Harvey Oswald. A fingerprint from Tippit's patrol car, identified as the right-middle index finger, was compared with the right-middle finger from one of Oswald’s fingerprint cards.

"Lutz immediately noted a difference in the spacing between ridges. The prints taken from Tippit's car showed furrows that were wide, while Oswald's fingerprint furrows were much narrower. In addition, the number of ridges and location of the bifurcations--or 'forks' in the patterns--were different. In short, the fingerprints taken from Tippit's patrol car were not Oswald's. It should be noted that police removed the prints on the 'possibility' that the suspect had put his hands on the car when he came over to talk with Tippit. That might not have happened.

"Jimmy Burt, who was a block away from Tippit's car, said the assailant 'put his hands on the right side of the car as he leaned down and talked in the window.' However, eyewitness Jack Tatum specifically recalls that as he drove past, the man speaking to Tippit was leaning over and 'had both hands in his zipper jacket.'

"So whose fingerprints are they? At least four minutes elapsed before the first officer arrived at the murder scene, and nearly eight minutes before police arrived in force. By then, a large crowd had gathered. Several witnesses are known to have handled Tippit's revolver, sat in his car, and used the police radio. There were plenty of opportunities for a number of people to have touched the police car before it was secured." (With Malice, 336-340)

According to the report of Herbert Lutz to Myers, the fingerprints from the right front fender of the Tippit cruiser were from fingers of a right hand. If the fingerprints were from the killer this might be reconstructed as he shot from a weapon held in his left hand, then either crouched or placed his right hand on the fender for balance to keep from stumbling, after firing the shots into Tippit and turning around to go back around the same side of the cruiser.

A witness of the Tippit killer, cab driver William Scoggins who saw the killer run by him, gun in hand, an estimated twelve feet away from him, said the killer had the gun in his left hand.

Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand. 
Mr. BELIN. Did the pistol appear to be--did he appear to be doing anything with the pistol or not? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes. He had it, holding it, in his left hand in a manner that the barrel was up like this, and the stock was down here, curved back in here. 
Mr. BELIN. Did it look like the gun had been flipped open at all or not? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. I wouldn't say. 
Mr. BELIN. You don't know? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. No; I don't. 
Mr. DULLES. You said he had it in his left hand? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes, sir. 
Mr. BELIN. Did you see where his right hand was?  
Mr. SCOGGINS. He was kind of running, kind of like this, in this manner. 

Edited June 10, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Who cares that [Dale Meyers] is LN[er]?

 

I care, because his being an Lner indicates that he uses poor judgement. And I care because he has shown himself to be a prevaricator. (See Chapter 12C of Pat Speer's website.)

 

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I care, because his being an Lner indicates that he uses poor judgement

That can be said of other "Lner".  I tried reading Dale Myer, but was turned off by reading things I didn't believe in about the JFKA.

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I care, because his being an Lner indicates that he uses poor judgement. And I care because he has shown himself to be a prevaricator. (See Chapter 12C of Pat Speer's website.)

I meant in terms of relevant to the fingerprint data of the Tippit cruiser, the topic at hand. Do you have something to say concerning the fingerprints? 

I do not agree with this business of a long list of persons who cannot be footnoted or cited for specific data or some discussion of a specific topic on the grounds that they are "discredited" because of something xyz over somewhere else on something else. That is not how scholarship gets done well. A better approach might be to pick and choose what is good wherever it occurs, and give credit for that. 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

A better approach might be to pick and choose what is good wherever it occurs, and give credit for that.

 

I agree... as long as it is verifiable or if it otherwise known to be valid.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

I remember Dale Myers as an sbt guy. I found it here at 4:40. "It's not a single bullet theory, in my opinion, it's a single bullet fact".

 

 

Edited May 17, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Greg Doudna]

More on Scoggins' witness testimony of the Tippit killer

Curtis Craford was confused with Oswald by many witnesses unrelated to the Tippit killing. Therefore the notion that multiple witnesses who had no prior acquaintance with Oswald or Craford, seeing the killer for a few moments for the first time, then at police lineups picking out Oswald as the one they thought looked like the killer, is not so difficult to understand if the killer was Craford. 

Where Craford comes into the picture is he later told Peter Whitmey he had been a hitman before being in Dallas Sept-Nov 1963. The killer of Tippit went to the Texas Theatre to kill Oswald after killing Tippit, per reconstruction of movements and reasons for those movements. That someone wanted Oswald dead, evidence Ruby Sunday morning. Craford, self-confessed hitman, arrives to Dallas in the runup to the assassination and is employed by Ruby and lives at the Carousel Club. 

Craford supposedly had an alibi but it is not a very strong alibi--his alibi was Andy Armstrong at the Carousel Club. Also Ruby. They said he was indoors there when everybody else was out watching the presidential parade one block away. This is the same Ruby who killed Oswald Sunday morning.

Although many witnesses thought Craford they had seen had been Oswald in the aftermath of the assassination, to which those witnesses who identified Oswald as the Tippit killer might add a few more, there are small differences in physical description between Oswald and Craford that resonate with Craford better than Oswald. Just looking at witness Scoggins...

Oswald had light- or medium-brown hair whereas Craford may have had darker brown hair. 

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember the color of his hair? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes. It was light; let's see, was it light or not--medium brown, I would say. 
Mr. BELIN. Pardon? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. Medium brown, I would say--now, wait a minute. Now, medium brown or dark. 
Mr. BELIN. Medium brown or dark hair? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.  

Another difference was Oswald was very light complexion, whereas Craford, though also a white man, was a little darker complexion. The FBI physical description of Craford in Dec 1963 has him as "medium" (not "light") complexion (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1141#relPageId=205). A slightly darker complexion of the Tippit killer (though still a white man) is a detail that runs through several witnesses. Benavides who saw the Tippit killer--he probably had the closest or best look at the killer of any witness--said the Tippit killer was "a little darker than average" complexion. Benavides also was clear on another detail, that the back of the killer's head--and Benavides got a good look from only feet away--had a block cut. The back of Oswald's head, as so many familiar photos show, was a tapered cut not block cut. If Benavides was correct on this detail and there is no reason he would not have been, Oswald is excluded as the killer right there on that point alone. The FBI color photo of Craford from a side view taken in Dec 1963 however, seems to show a block cut although that is not quite clear in the photo. But back to Scoggins and complexion of the Tippit killer:

Mr. BELIN. Was he a Negro or a white man? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. White, light complected, not real brown. 

(Would one say Oswald was any brown?)

Another difference was Oswald was more slender than Craford. Oswald was 5'9" and about 131-140 pounds. Craford was slightly shorter, 5'7-1/2 or 5'8" yet weighed a little more, 150 pounds according to the FBI Dec 1963 physical description of Craford. This means whereas Oswald was slender or almost skinny, Craford would be slightly shorter and more average, not as slender as Oswald was routinely described. (Compare Acquila Clemons' description of the Tippit killer gunman as "short and kind of chunky".)

Mr. BELIN. Was he fat, average build or thin? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. No, he was slender; not real slender, but you know-- 
Mr. BELIN. Was he wearing glasses or not? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. No.  

Craford not being quite as slender as Oswald corresponds also to the near-white light-gray jacket of the killer found abandoned by the Tippit killer, CE 162, which not only had in it an old dry cleaning ticket that extensive investigation by the FBI could not identify with any dry cleaning establishment in Dallas or New Orleans, but was size "M" (Medium) whereas Oswald always wore size "S" (Small) so far as known. This difference in jacket size would be governed more by weight/chest measurement than by a 1-2" difference in height, that is, the Tippit killer's jacket size corresponds better to Craford than to Oswald. 

Another difference was Craford was 22 years old and looked a little younger than Oswald who was 24. Although Scoggins at a police lineup Sat eve identified Oswald as the killer he had seen--in company with so many other Dallasites who post-assassination thought they had seen Oswald when really they had seen Craford--when the FBI showed Scoggins photos, Scoggins apparently did not pick out Oswald correctly from photos, and notice the reason:

Mr. BELIN. Sometime later, after the lineup, did any of the police officers show you with a picture of anyone and ask you if you could identify him? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes. 
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if he was an FBI man or a Dallas policeman or a Secret Service agent? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. He was an FBI or a Secret Service. 
Mr. BELIN. What did he ask you and what did you tell him? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. He gave me some pictures, showed me several pictures there,, which was, some of them were, pretty well resembled him, and some of them didn't, and they looked like they was kind of old pictures, and I think I picked the wrong picture. I am not too-- 
Mr. BELIN. What did he say to you and what did you say to him, if you remember? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. I don't really--I know he showed me his credentials. 
Mr. BELIN. Did he say to you something like "These are pictures we have of Lee Harvey Oswald"? Did he use that name in front of you, or did he say, "Here are some pictures. See if you can identify them"--if you remember? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. I don't remember, but after I got through looking at them and everything, and I says, I told them one of these two pictures is him, out of this group he showed me, and the one that was actually him looked like an older man than he was to me. Of course, I am not too much on identifying pictures. It wasn't a full shot of him, you know, and then he told me the other one was Oswald. 
Representative FORD. Had you narrowed the number of pictures from more than two to two? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes. 
Representative FORD. In other words, they showed you pictures of how many people altogether, how many different people, your best estimate? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. I would say 4 or 5. 
Representative FORD. And you narrowed the number of 4 or 5 down to 2? 
Mr. SCOGGINS. Down to two; yes.  

And so Craford, recent hire of Jack Ruby (perhaps at the request of some out-of-town mobster for all we know), is a match in a number of ways with the Tippit killer. 

A few hours after the Tippit killing Craford fled Dallas sometime in the morning of Sat Nov 23, hitchhiking (that is how Craford said he made this trip) to Chicago and Michigan without saying goodbys for no clear reason. Ruby and others picked up Craford (who had no car)--supposedly with no idea that Craford would be taking flight from Dallas a couple hours later--at the Carousel Club around 4-5 am Sat Nov 23. A "revolver in a paper bag" was found later that morning by a citizen in downtown Dallas, several blocks away from the Carousel Club in the direction a car would drive to take Craford to the nearest interstate highway headed north. The revolver in the paper bag was an exact match to the kind of murder weapon that killed Tippit, .38 Special. Who tosses a revolver out of a car window in the middle of the night except to ditch it because it has been used in a crime or homicide? The only homicide in the area in the previous hours was the Tippit killing. A killer ditches the murder weapon because in case of being stopped or belongings searched does not want the murder weapon found on his person or property or traceable. That snub-nosed .38 Special in the paper bag was the murder weapon of the Tippit killing and it is a perfect match in time and location to having been tossed from a car by Craford leaving town after committing that murder.  

What are the chances that the fingerprints taken from the Tippit cruiser in the two exact positions with respect to that cruiser the killer was witnessed, were fingerprints of the Tippit killer and, if checked, those fingerprints (which have been excluded as coming from Oswald) would match to Craford?

I say: pretty darn good.

Edited June 10, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Sean Coleman]

Great research writing - as usual Greg!

I think a lot of people could have congregated at the scene before the fingerprint guy turned up, a lot of dirty fingers potentially touching stuff….

[Greg Doudna]

Thanks Sean C. While what you point out is possible (meaning lack of match of those fingerprints to any suspect falls short of airtight exoneration of that suspect), I think the weight is in favor of those fingerprints being from the killer if the finding of Lutz is correct that it appeared the same individual left both the right door prints and the right front fender prints. The DPD photograph of the right front fender prints shows quite a few fingerprints clustered there, as if multiple fingers were used to rest body weight on that bumper or fender. If those were not from the killer, it would have to be supposed a double coincidence--that some non-Tippit-killer person not only put their fingers on the right front door but that same person also put their hand or fingers on a lower part of the right front of the car which is not a natural place for a bystander to do that. The argument from improbability of that coincidence suggests the fingerprints did come from the killer of Tippit. If there were a confirmed match to Craford of those right front bumper fingerprints, which are readable, there could hardly be any other explanation for Craford's contact with the Tippit cruiser in that manner than that he was present at the crime scene on 10th Street as the killer of Tippit. That is the most important fact here and if confirmed would be sensational. 

[Greg Doudna]

Domingo Benavides' testimony on the Tippit killer physical description: Oswald vs. Craford, who did Benavides actually see?

Benavides, who was driving east on 10th Street and had almost arrived to the position of the Tippit cruiser when Tippit was shot and killed, who saw both the killer at the right front fender of the cruiser and Tippit fall as he was shot, was probably the single best witness of the Tippit killer of all witnesses, in terms of close proximity, getting a good look, and credibility. He saw the killer and Tippit both, heard the shots, saw Tippit fall from being shot, then saw the killer running away with a gun in his hand, although he did not see the killer fire the shots. Benavides told the police at about 4 pm on Fri Nov 22 that he could not identify the killer so he was not taken by police to a police lineup or utilized further. There is good reason to suspect Benavides said that because he feared running afoul of something gangland if he made an identification. Over the years Benavides has accepted that it was Oswald whom he saw which seems influenced by the apparently convincing accepted narrative. Here I note several details of Benavides' Warren Commission testimony concerning the killer which point to Craford rather than Oswald as that killer.

Mr. BELIN - All right. Did you see the officer as he was getting out of the car? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; I seen as he was, well, he had his hand on the door and kind of in a hurry to get out, it seemed like. 
Mr. BELIN - Had he already gotten out of the car? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - He had already gotten around. 
Mr. BELIN - Where did you see the other man? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - The other man was standing to the right side of the car, riders side of the car, and was standing right in front of the windshield on the right front fender. And then I heard the shot. Actually I wasn't looking for anything like that, so I heard the shot, and I just turned into the curb. Looked around to miss a car, I think.
And then I pulled up to the curb, hitting the curb, and I ducked down, and then I heard two more shots.  

(. . .)

Mr. BELIN - Now, the first time that you saw him, what was his Position?
Mr. BENAVIDES - He was standing, the first time I saw him. The man that shot him? 
Mr. BELIN - Yes. 
Mr. BENAVIDES - He was standing like I say, on the center in front of the windshield, right directly on the right front fender of the car. 
Mr. BELIN - He was not moving when you saw him? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; he wasn't moving then. 

Mr. BENAVIDES - As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just turned. He was just turning away.
In other words, he was pointing toward the officer, and he had just turned away to his left, and then he started. There was a big tree, and it seemed like he started back going to the curb of the street and into the sidewalk, and then he turned and went down the sidewalk to, well, until he got in front of the corner house, and then he turned to the left there and went on down Patton Street.  

Note the detail, the killer "had just turned away to his left", which would be the killer turning to face the right front fender of the car with his right hand nearest it where the fingerprints were found, as opposed to turning around in the other direction away from that part of the cruiser where the prints were.

Was the killer slender like Oswald or average (not particularly slender), in agreement with Craford who was 1" or 1-1/2" shorter than and about 10-15 pounds heavier than Oswald?

Mr. BELIN - Was he average weight, slender, or heavy? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was average weight. 

Was the color of the killer's hair the light brown of Oswald or the darker and fuller brown of Craford?

Mr. BELIN - What color hair did he have? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - Oh, dark. I mean not dark. 
Mr. BELIN - Black hair? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - No. Not black or brown, just kind of a---- 
Mr. BELIN - My color hair? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. 
Mr. BELIN - You say he is my size, my weight, and my color hair? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - He kind of looks like---well, his hair was a little bit curlier. 

Oswald's hair was not curly or wavy at all. Craford's hair while not curly was full and wavy. 

What about complexion? Oswald was a "light" complected white man. 

Mr. BELIN - What about his skin? Was he fair complexioned or dark complexioned? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - He wasn't dark. 
Mr. BELIN - Average complexion? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; a little bit darker than average. 
Mr. BELIN - My complexion? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - I wouldn't say that any more. I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine.  

Craford (per FBI description Dec 1963, and color photos of Craford taken by the FBI at that time seem to confirm) was "medium" (not "light") complexion.

What about the back of the killer's head? Note the incredible significance of Benavides' comment below, and notice how Belin changes the subject from this bombshell:

Mr. BELIN - Okay, well, I thank you. I was flying from St. Louis to Des Moines, Iowa. at about this time. Is there anything else? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. And he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look flat in back. 
Mr. BELIN - When you put these two shells that you found in this cigarette package, what did you do with them? (. . .)

Oswald had a tapered, not block cut, of the hair on the back of his head (from many well-known photos of Oswald from the weekend of the assassination). If Benavides' testimony is accurate on this one point, Oswald was not the Tippit killer. 

Benavides had not been asked about this bombshell in direct questioning, but introduced it on his own in the standard "anything else" question to witnesses at the end. Belin shows no interest or followup and changes the subject immediately. Why would stand-alone exculpation of Oswald as the Tippit killer according to this credible witness testimony be of any interest to Belin to further pursue or question? 

Let it be emphasized: this is a highly credible witness, who says he got a "good look" at the killer from only fifteen or twenty feet away as the killer was running away, who is saying what he saw of a specific item of physical description that cannot have been Oswald. 

There are no photos known of the back of Craford's head. The FBI in Dec 1963 did get a good color side profile photo of Craford standing. That photo seems suggestive of a block cut in the back of Craford's head but does not seem possible to verify that for sure from that photograph.

The killer looked like Oswald, just as many witnesses thought of Craford, independently of the Tippit case:

Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald. 
Mr. BELIN - Were they newspaper pictures or television pictures, or both, or neither? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - Well, television pictures and newspaper pictures. The thing lasted about a month, I believe, it seemed like.  

Update on the left- or right-handed question

On a separate point (and correcting something I wrote above earlier), I don't think the fingerprints on the right front fender of the Tippit cruiser, or Scoggins' witnessing of the killer holding the gun in the air in the killer's left hand as the killer ran away ejecting shells and reloading, means the killer must be left-handed. The killer could have shot holding the gun in his right hand, then shifted the gun to his left hand in order to (being right-handed with greater dexterity of the right hand) take the used shell casings out of the pistol and reload with new live cartridges with his right hand. In a reconstruction of a right-handed killer, the shift of the gun to the left hand would happen immediately after the shots were fired before the killer turned (to his "left" to face the right front fender of Tippit's car as he turned, per Benavides). This would leave his right hand free to momentarily place his fingers on that right front bumper of Tippit's car perhaps for balance as pivoting. I do not see sufficient evidence to know whether the Tippit killer was left- or right-handed.

[Greg Doudna]

Acquila Clemons' description of the Tippit killer

Acquila Clemons has been one of the most misunderstood witnesses. What she actually said she saw is very credible but has been misrepresented. Acquila Clemons never claimed to have seen two gunmen at the Tippit crime scene. Nothing in her testimony calls for two men to have been involved in the Tippit killing. She said she saw two men go past one another and shouting words to one another, going in opposite directions, one of whom was the gunman. That's it. It was Mark Lane, Garrison, and countless others continuing to the present day, not Acquila Clemons, who interpreted that as a second gunman. 

Acquila Clemons saw one gunman--the same single gunman of the Tippit killing seen by all the other witnesses--from a vantage point of near the northwest corner of 10th and Patton, at about the same location as Helen Markham. Clemons, from a mid-July 1964 Shirley Martin interview:

"He [gunman] went across that lot there [the Davis house, SE corner 10th and Patton], that's all I know. He went across that lot, I don't know which way ... I don't know which way he went after I seen him unloading and loading his gun. That's all I seen ... I was afraid. He frightened me. To come out and see him unloading his gun and reload it. But, I didn't pay no attention [to what he was wearing]. I just tried to get out of the way, because I thought he was going to shoot me... and I didn't pay him any mind. I was getting out of the way... See, I was pretty close to him. [He was] between that telegram [sic] post and that tree, loading his gun... And I was on this side of the walk standing right there and I didn't want him to be shooting me." (https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-october-jfk-assassination-file.html)

Acquila Clemons did see a second person but Acquila did not interpret that second person as necessarily involved with the gunman. In fact although Mark Lane and Garrison and practically everyone else since have not recognized it, Acquila Clemons was describing Ted Callaway all along, and his interaction with the killer on Patton! The mystery is gone--the mysterious "second" person seen by Aquila Clemon was not a second gunman, not a second person involved in the Tippit killing, but Ted Callaway of the auto dealership who heard the shots and ran out to Patton, and as he did so he saw the killer across the street from him running south on Patton and he waved and shouted at him across the street (not realizing he was the killer), "Hey man, what's going on?" The man (the killer) waved back at him something unintelligible and kept going, while Callaway proceeded in the opposite direction around the corner on to Tenth to the scene of the Tippit cruiser. Callaway later said he did not know the man he shouted at was the killer, at the time he shouted at him "Hey man, what's going on?"  

That is exactly what Acquila Clemons saw and heard and told. Heard the very words shouted, "go on!" (from "what's going on?")

Martin. There were supposed to be two men weren't there?

Clemons. Well, it was two men. I don't know, I wouldn't know them if I was to see them.

Martin. No, of course not. I wouldn't expect you to do that. They were both on that same corner?

Clemons. I don't know. All I know, he was talking to [unintelligible] who done the shooting [unintelligible]. [The gunman] was talking to a tall guy on the other side of the street with yellow khakis and a white shirt on, but I don't know whether he was in it or he was just going to get out of the way or something. I don't know because I had to go back in and tend to [Mr. Smotherman]."

(. . .)

Martin. The other one went up that... Patton?

Clemons. Yeah. He went up [unintelligible]. He may have been just a boy getting out of the way. 

Martin. Scared maybe.

Clemons. Yeah. Probably somebody he told to get out of his way or something... 

That was followed by an interview of Acquila Clemons by Mark Lane in 1966 which has been widely seen on Utube and the internet (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRToGPV4W7M). (Note there is a splice of two clips at 1:37 in the Utube link. The relevant part starts at 1:37.

Lane. Now, when you went out of the house [after hearing shots] did you see a man with a gun?

Clemons. Yes I did.

Lane. What was he doing?

Clemons. Oh he was reloading. And I see he was reloading his gun.

Lane. And how would you describe that man?

Clemons. Well he was kind of chunky. He was kind of heavy, he wasn't a very big man.

Lane. Was he tall or short?

Clemons. He was kind of a short guy.

Lane. Short and heavy.

Clemons. Yes.

Lane. Was there any other man there?

Clemons. Yes one on the other side of the street. All I know is he told him to 'go on' (waves arm)

Lane. Mrs. Clemons, the man who had the gun, did he make any motion at all to the other man across the street?

Clemons. No more than to tell him to go on (waving).

Lane. Waves his hand and said--

Clemons. Yeah, said 'go on' (waving)

Lane. And then what happened with the man with the gun?

Clemons. He unloaded and reloaded.

Lane. And what did the other man do?

Clemons. The man kept going straight down the street.

Lane. And then did they go in opposite directions?

Clemons. Yes--they were--they weren't together (waves arms in opposite directions). They went this way from each other. The one that done the shooting went this way (points right arm to right at 45 degree angle). The other one (pointing with let arm about 45 degrees to the left) went straight down past the street, that way. 

Comment: From the vantage point of where Acquila Clemons was standing near the NW corner of 10th and Patton, 45 degrees to her right pointed with the right arm for the killer's direction of movement is south on Patton. 45 degrees to her left pointed with her left arm points to 10th Street looking eastward around the corner from Patton in the direction of the Tippit cruiser. That is exactly the two directions of movement of the killer and witness Ted Callaway. Callaway on Patton first shouted at the killer, then went the other way as they went in opposite directions.

Lane. What was the man who did not do the shooting, but the man who went in the other direction from the man with the gun. What was he wearing, if you remember?

Clemons. Well <unintelligible> it looked like khakhis and a white shirt.

Lane. And was he tall or short?

Clemons. He was tall.

Comment: Ted Callaway was 6'2", 220 pounds, in 1964.

Lane. Was he heavy or thin?

Clemons. He was thin.

Lane. But the one who did—the one who had the gun seconds after Tippit was shot, he was short--

Clemons. Yes he was short and kind of heavy. 

Ted Callaway's version:

Mr. BALL. And where were you when you noticed he had the gun? Or where was he when you noticed he had the gun? 
Mr. CALLAWAY. When I first saw the gun, he had already crossed from here to here and was coming up this sidewalk. 
Mr. BALL. Coming up the sidewalk on which side of Patton? 
Mr. CALLAWAY. West side of Patton. 
Mr. BALL. And did he continue to come? 
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes. 
Mr. BALL. And did you say anything to him? 
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes. 
Mr. BALL. What did you say? 
Mr. CALLAWAY. I hollered "Hey, man, what the hell is going on?" When he was right along here. 
Mr. BALL. Make a mark there where he was when you yelled, "What the hell is going on?" "X" marks the place where the man with the gun was when you yelled at him? 
Mr. CALLAWAY. That is right. 
Mr. DULLES. Would you mark it on this chart, too--Exhibit 537? 
Mr. CALLAWAY. Right along here about 27. I guess. That would be it. You see, here is where I was, sir. And then he was right there when I hollered at him. 
Mr. DULLES. I don't get this. There is an alleyway there, apparently. 
Mr. CALLAWAY. That is right. 
Mr. DULLES. But here is where the squad car was. 
Mr. CALLAWAY. That is right. 
Mr. DULLES. And here is where the cab was. 
Mr. CALLAWAY. That is right. 
Mr. DULLES. He had come all the way down? 
Mr. CALLAWAY. He had come from there through this yard and cut behind this taxicab, over to this side of the street. 
Mr. DULLES. So he was there, then? 
Mr. CALLAWAY. No, sir. I didn't holler at him until he came up to here. He was running up this sidewalk. 
Mr. DULLES. He was going south on Patton? 
Mr. CALLAWAY. On the west side of the street. 
Representative FORD. You saw him run from about the taxicab-- 
Mr. CALLAWAY. Across the street, up this sidewalk. 
Mr. DULLES. About how far is that? Fifty feet or more? 
Mr. CALLAWAY. Oh, it is more than that. From here down to there, I think is about 300 feet. 
Mr. BALL. Mark on this diagram, which is 537, where the man was, and the course he took. 
Mr. CALLAWAY. Well, now, when I first saw him he was right here. Then he came across here, down this way.

Mr. BALL. Down to the point where you spoke to him? 
Mr. CALLAWAY. That is right. 
Mr. BALL. What did he do when you hollered at him? 
Mr. CALLAWAY. He slowed his pace, almost halted for a minute. And he said something to me, which I could not understand. And then kind of shrugged his shoulders, and kept on going. 

It is the same thing Acquila Clemons saw! The physical descriptions of Callaway and the killer, Callaway telling that he shouted to the killer, "what's going on?" and Acquila seeing that shouted interaction, hearing the final two words of that as a shouted, "go on!". Mishearing "what's going on?" for "go on!" In fact Acquila Clemons' testimony is corroboration of Callaway's account and vice versa. Also, Acquila Clemons who was ignored by the Warren Commission as a witness it turns out was saying nothing unusual at all--what she was saying agrees with the other witness testimonies concerning the movements of the killer.

The point: there was only one gunman, a single killer of Tippit, and nothing Acquila Clemons told ever claimed or gives reason to suppose any differently. And this witness, Acquila Clemons, who saw the killer, remembers that killer as "short and kind of chunky", not a usual description of Oswald (5'9", 131-140 lbs.) but a not-implausible description of Craford who at 5'7 or 5'8", 150 lbs., was 1-2" shorter than Oswald and ca. 15 pounds heavier. The "M" sized jacket might have further filled out Craford's appearance slightly to Acquila's perception. 

The point: these three witnesses who saw the killer--Scoggins, Benavides, Acquila Clemons--in each case gave physical descriptions which better agree with Curtis Craford than with Oswald. Given that many witnesses confused Craford for Oswald independently of the Tippit case such that that is a known--not speculated or conjectured--phenomenon of eyewitness mistaken identification in Dallas in 1963, this suggests the extremely reasonable possibility, indeed arguably likelihood, that the so-called "positive identifications" of Oswald as the Tippit killer, by witnesses in the Tippit case, were nothing more and nothing less than simply mistaken identifications like so many other cases of mistaken Oswald identifications. That is not hard to imagine at all. How many innocent persons have been convicted or even executed in history from mistaken identifications by witnesses? 

A check of the fingerprints taken from the Tippit cruiser compared to Craford's fingerprints could tell the story here.

Edited June 10, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Does anyone have a comment on the viability of the schematic five-step roadmap to go to a change in mainstream consciousness re the JFK assassination?