Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[Greg Doudna]

6 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Brewer said he was ten feet from Oswald.  Brewer also said that the man taken from the theater (Oswald) was the same man he saw standing ten feet from him in the shoe store entrance.

According to what I have been reading on research on eyewitness identifications in scientific studies as well as incidences involved in DNA exonerations, one finding is that after first (fresh) identification any repetition suffers from contamination from influence of added information. A second finding is that high degree of confidence expressed in court is both persuasive to juries and also poorly correlative to actual validity. A third finding is that the more brief the glance or time of seeing the person the higher the incidence of error. 

One study compared how mock juries differed when presented with a case for which the first set of mock jurors heard only circumstantial evidence for an incrimination--16% of those jurors voted to convict beyond reasonable doubt--whereas other mock jurors presented with the same circumstantial evidence plus an eyewitness identification raised that from 16% to 70%. 

It has also been found that DNA exonerations of actually innocent persons have involved multiple eyewitnesses making the same wrong identification.

Now to go to the specific case of Brewer and the man he saw outside his store. You say Brewer saw him from only ten feet away. Actually, minor point, but ten feet was Brewer's estimated distance from him to the doors, and then there were an additional 15 feet to the street (the doors were inset). The man stepped "into" the outdoor "lobby" area with his back to the patrol car passing with the siren, which may have been only let's say 4 feet in which would make him 21 feet away from Brewer not 10. The more important point is that this was not direct sight but through the glass doors. (Brewer would not have seen Oswald through the display windows, based on this 1957 photo of the store: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth19275/.) 

And it was only a few moments.

Brewer then follows the suspicious man into the Texas Theatre at a distance where the man went up into the balcony, Brewer following and checking in with Julia Postal on the way. Brewer, with Burroughs, inside try to find him in the balcony but do not see anyone there, then check the main floor, where Oswald is sitting, and Brewer does not see the man he is looking for there, even though Oswald was there and Brewer saw all the ground level of the theatre, meaning he saw Oswald sitting there but did not recognize him at this point in time. Then Brewer, peeking through the curtains in the back of the stage, sees in the semidarkness at a distance Oswald at the opposite end of the theater stand up and sit down--suspicious movement, catches Brewer's eye, and, flagged by that, Brewer says "that's him!" to officers arriving at the back door and points him out.

How reliable was that identification at that point? Well not very reliable in itself (the semi-darkness, the distance...), except it appeared vindicated in spades at the arrest.

In other words, there is mechanism for error here. After Brewer saw Oswald arrested (the one he had pointed out in the distance not very reliably but now "proven correct", so he and everybody believed), then Brewer had every basis in his own mind for strong confidence in the identification. He had gotten it right, it was proven! (so he understood in his mind) But that is less than certain, in itself (i.e. considering the validity of the witness identification in isolation), for reasons named. If Oswald is guilty on other grounds, there is no problem, Brewer got it right. But if it was not known that Oswald was guilty in the Tippit murder on other grounds, Brewer's identification falls short of unequivocally establishing that fact, again for reasons named.

The question is whether the killer of Tippit in front of Brewer's store was Oswald, or went into the theater to kill Oswald next. That is the question. 

The reason Craford comes into the story is, as you correctly note, his connection to the man intent on killing Oswald after the failure at the Theatre and success in that intent two days later, Ruby. Oswald's carrying of his revolver that day is also well explained as a rational response to a true belief that his life was in danger, as it was, from Ruby, and in the Texas Theatre, Craford. 

Oswald was wearing a brown shirt at the time of his arrest, into which he had changed at the rooming house (from his maroon colored shirt worn that morning of which Pat Speer obtained the first known color photos). 

The man deputy sheriff Courson described passing coming down from the balcony--where Julia Postal told arriving police the man she and Brewer were looking for was--the man whom Courson mistakenly thought was Oswald (never mind only Brewer making that mistake!)--Courson described him as "wearing a kind of plaid or checkered patterned shirt", suggesting Brewer's brief glances at the man in front of his store could have been that person rather than Oswald if that man's shirt was similar in color seen for a few seconds through glass doors.

And it is known that there were other mistaken identifications of Craford as Oswald. So it is not so hard to imagine.

 

Edited April 9, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

It's foolish (in my opinion) to really believe that the best system the killer and the handler could come up with was to randomly have the killer begin to sit next to people inside the theater in the hopes that he would eventually sit beside the right person.  It's nonsense and laughable.

No, the killer was in the balcony not sitting next to anyone. It was Oswald sitting next to one patron after another in a nearly-empty theater, and that had nothing to do with meeting a killer. I agree, your straw man is laughable. However, it has no bearing on what is under discussion.

[Greg Doudna]

6 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

You keep bringing up Crafard as if there's even a tiny shred of evidence that he has anything to do with anything at all in Oak Cliff.  There is nothing, nada, zilch.  Why do you keep mentioning him trying to tie him into Oak Cliff?  I don't get it.  You're taking a blind leap.

I don't know about that Bill... there is the Ruby connection, who following the failed attempt at the Texas Theatre to kill Oswald, stalked and then killed Oswald himself Sunday morning. 

The physical descriptions of the Tenth and Patton witnesses agree with Craford.

Nobody knows for sure where the killer came from when observed walking west on Tenth toward the location of the killing of Tippit, it was not from Oswald's rooming house but it would be compatible with coming from Ruby's nearby apartment, where Craford spent time. 

He self-confessed to having done contract jobs for mob interests, hits. He hightailed it out of Dallas hours after the Tippit killing for no sensible reason. Just before he began his hightailing, he was driven in the neighborhood where the tossed and abandoned paper-bag revolver was found, driven by Ruby and George Senator at 5 am in the morning for what was explained to the Warren Commission as a nocturnal trip to photograph a billboard.

Again, the issue is whether the killer of Tippit was Oswald, or went to the Texas Theatre intent on killing Oswald next.

Edited April 9, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

How does a revolver found in a paper bag lying on the ground near the curb in downtown Dallas automatically mean that it "looks like the real abandoned murder weapon from the Tippit killing"?

Because that's like how its done in mob movies: the professional killer does the deed, then drops the murder weapon not caring it it will be found since it is untraceable, simply to have it not on his person or found in his possessions, if stopped and searched. Because I can't think of any better explanation for someone disposing of a .38 snub-nosed Smith & Wesson in a paper bag with some fruit, can you?

Its not likely an accidental loss of a handgun by mistake that way. There had to be some homicide attached to that. The only issue is to what recent homicide to attach it. It turns up 18 hours after Tippit is killed with that kind of weapon. But the Dallas Police Department loses it so that it can never be forensically examined. The existence of this paper-bag revolver in the possession of Dallas Police on Saturday Nov 23, 1963 only becomes known buried in FBI documents released in the 1990s. 

[Greg Doudna]

12 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

The revolver taken from Oswald is the weapon linked to the shell casings found at the scene (Nicol, Killion, Cunningham, Frazier), to the exclusion of any other weapon in the world.  Therefore, a revolver found in a paper bag lying in the street in a big city nowhere near Tenth and Patton could not be the weapon responsible for those shell casings.

The FBI found the exclusive match to Oswald's revolver concerning the shell hulls they were given by the Dallas Police. Five officers marked the hulls at the scene of the crime and not one out of those five gave a credible statement under their own signature, or under oath, or in their own name not under oath, saying that they recognized and could find their own marks on the hulls turned in to the FBI lab. That is, lack of chain of custody verified in the form of direct signed statement or credible sworn testimony in their own names, on the part of all five of the officers who were the only ones in a position to verify such chain of custody.

I believe this lacuna is a dog that did not bark, namely, someone in the Dallas Police switched those four hulls and attempted to forge officers' marks that the officers either could not recognize as their own or were puzzled as having been their own, which is why four of those five officers were not willing to swear to it, with only one who did so weakly and unconvincingly.

(Barnes is the one arguable exception but his arguable exception, of claim under oath to identify two shells he marked, not only was expressed with hesitancy but beyond that was formally repudiated in the case of one of those identifications, meaning the other identification equally lacks confidence--that is why I included the caveat "credible" identification, though in the other four officers' cases not even that occurred.)

In short, what someone in the Dallas Police did with what I believe was the Tippit murder weapon (disappeared it after its find on Sat Nov 23), I believe similarly was done with the shell hulls found at the Tippit crime scene. Someone in the Dallas Police Department switched the hulls found at the Tippit crime scene for shell hulls fired from Oswald's revolver, before sending them on Thu Nov 28 to the FBI lab for analysis to find out from which revolver they had been fired from). 

Edited April 9, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Also, there is no proof that Larry Crafard really was an "experienced hit man" and you won't be able to provide any.

The most important post-Warren Commission testimony work on Curtis Craford (Larry Crafard) is that of Peter Whitmey and especially this article: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/creatingapatsy.htm. 

Peter Whitmey interviewed Craford in Oregon. I am getting that from Whitmey from that article, here:

"During my initial interview with Craford at a bar/restaurant in the small town where he lives in a rural area of Oregon, he revealed to me that he had been a “hit man” in the early sixties in San Francisco, prior to going to Dallas. While living there he got involved with the granddaughter of the local “Don”, and, unfortunately for Craford, she became pregnant. However, in exchange for leaving town and promising never to contact her again, Curtis was spared the usual harsh treatment associated with organized crime. Although I was somewhat skeptical of Craford’s claim, his older brother, whom I later spoke to by phone, appeared to confirm what Curtis had revealed to me." 

[Greg Doudna]

5 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

There is no evidence that Tippit's killer touched the quarter panel.  If Tippit's killer did not touch the quarter panel, then the prints on the passenger door did not belong to Tippit's killer. 

If you are arguing that because no witness saw a human hand from the Tippit killer touch that fender, therefore that means "Tippit's killer did not touch" that fender, that is a logical fallacy. 

If you do mean the premise of your syllogism is indicated by the preceding sentence, the same logic of reasoning would mean no human at all put those fingerprints on the right front fender. 

The syllogism alone, disconnected from the preceding sentence, would be a tautology, not saying anything, i.e. if someone did not touch the Tippit patrol car, then that someone did not leave fingerprints on the Tippit patrol car. No argument with that syllogism Bill! Its your reasoning from the first sentence to the premise of that syllogism that is the problem!

Edited April 9, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

You are perfectly aware that Crafard was asleep inside Ruby's club at the time of the assassination.  Right?  Hardly the state of being for him to be in if he's supposed to be in Oak Cliff walking along Tenth Street having just left Ruby's apartment on Ewing.

Well, faithful Carousel Club employee Andy Armstrong, the African-American with a criminal record in his past who Ruby trusted with money and management and the combination to the safe, who saw everything and spoke of nothing out of line, never talked of anything confidential, never crossed anyone who should not be crossed, did his job as he was told ... he said Craford was there. Ruby did too.

Nobody non-Carousel Club saw Craford any time that morning or until late afternoon. There is no photo, no evidence, no witnesses other than Armstrong and Ruby that he was in the Carousel Club or anywhere other than at Tenth and Patton in Oak Cliff at 1:15 pm. 

Weak alibi. 

 

[Greg Doudna]

On 4/8/2023 at 1:49 PM, Bill Brown said:

As for Benavides and the tapered collar line versus squared off collar line, the killer could have been sporting a 80's style mullet but if the mullet was tucked inside the collar of the jacket (the killer was wearing a jacket, right?) then it would appear squared off instead of tapered.  To try to make any sort of a case for the killer being someone other than Oswald because of this tapered versus squared collar line is highly ill-advised.

I don't follow you here Bill. I read you as saying Benavides' strong and credible testimony (because so close, only a few feet away, and because he said he got a good look at the back of the killer's head) on the "block cut" hairline point, could be alternatively explained as he misunderstood seeing a mullet inside a jacket collar.

That is an interesting suggestion and I would not discount it out of hand, BUT, Oswald had no mullet! So what are you saying then? If it was a mullet it was not Oswald. It would be some unidentified killer with mullet! 

But no other witness said the Tippit killer had a mullet. And Benavides was sure it was a block cut. Oswald did not have a block cut. I think Craford did (from his photo from the side, though it is not clear, but it is not excluded either, as it is in the case of Oswald). 

That block cut seen by Benavides is such a strong stand-alone detail, so widely ignored. I even wonder if Benavides told the FBI that the same day or the next, and was that the real reason he was not invited downtown to a lineup or further interest shown in him (until the Warren Commission then called him, whereupon he told the block cut hairline detail).

Then there is Helen Markham's FBI interview by Odum on the afternoon of Fri Nov 22, 1963, at her workplace the Eat-Well Cafe, wherein she gave a physical description of the killer before she saw the lineup and Oswald in that lineup whom she picked. 

The physical description she gave to Odum is of critical importance as not influenced by any information concerning Oswald.

She said the Tippit killer was (description in full):

• white male
• about 18
• black hair
• red complexion
• wearing black shoes
• tan jacket

Since one police officer and one FBI agent at the Tippit crime scene said they heard Helen Markham telling at the scene that the killer was maybe 25, or 27, years old respectively, let's consider this "about 18" which represents what would have been her direct answer to Odum's question, as a wash. 

But "black hair"--Oswald's hair was medium brown, and Craford's hair was dark brown

"Red complexion"-- Julia Postal said the man who ran by her into the balcony of the theater (the Tippit killer) had a "ruddy" complexion. Benavides, Latino himself, said the Tippit killer had skin color no lighter than his own. The FBI physical description of Craford in Dec 1963 said he was "medium" complexion, not "light". Oswald however was light complexion.

In a taped interview with Mark Lane, Helen Markham said the Tippit killer was "short". (I am not defending the rest of that tape, simply reporting one detail on which Helen Markham gave a clear answer, said the killer was "short".) 

That agrees with Acquila Clemons who said the gunman she saw was "short". Oswald at 5'9" was not "short", that is considered medium height. Craford was probably 5'7" or 5'7-1/2" (his FBI physical description of Dec 1963 has him at 5'8", but on a number of grounds that seems a half or full inch high). (Although it was much later in life, compare Peter Whitmey's writing of his surprise at how short Craford was when he met him in person.) 

Jimmy Burt, who claimed that he saw the killer and claimed emphatically that the killer definitely was not Oswald, said the killer was 5'8". William Smith said 5'7" to 5'8".  

The killer wore size "M" (from his jacket with the dry cleaning tag which could not be identified as from any dry cleaner in Dallas or New Orleans). That "M" is consistent with the heavier weight of Craford which was 150 pounds versus Oswald's 140 and a little taller. Oswald was lean or almost skinny, whereas Craford was medium build (compare Acquila Clemons' "sort of chunky"). 

Edited April 10, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Charles Blackmon]

Crafard had a weak alibi for his whereabouts during the assassination:

JFK: Did Larry Crafard kill J.D. Tippit? (jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com)

[Bill Brown]

On 4/8/2023 at 7:46 PM, Greg Doudna said:

According to what I have been reading on research on eyewitness identifications in scientific studies as well as incidences involved in DNA exonerations, one finding is that after first (fresh) identification any repetition suffers from contamination from influence of added information. A second finding is that high degree of confidence expressed in court is both persuasive to juries and also poorly correlative to actual validity. A third finding is that the more brief the glance or time of seeing the person the higher the incidence of error. 

One study compared how mock juries differed when presented with a case for which the first set of mock jurors heard only circumstantial evidence for an incrimination--16% of those jurors voted to convict beyond reasonable doubt--whereas other mock jurors presented with the same circumstantial evidence plus an eyewitness identification raised that from 16% to 70%. 

It has also been found that DNA exonerations of actually innocent persons have involved multiple eyewitnesses making the same wrong identification.

Now to go to the specific case of Brewer and the man he saw outside his store. You say Brewer saw him from only ten feet away. Actually, minor point, but ten feet was Brewer's estimated distance from him to the doors, and then there were an additional 15 feet to the street (the doors were inset). The man stepped "into" the outdoor "lobby" area with his back to the patrol car passing with the siren, which may have been only let's say 4 feet in which would make him 21 feet away from Brewer not 10. The more important point is that this was not direct sight but through the glass doors. (Brewer would not have seen Oswald through the display windows, based on this 1957 photo of the store: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth19275/.) 

And it was only a few moments.

Brewer then follows the suspicious man into the Texas Theatre at a distance where the man went up into the balcony, Brewer following and checking in with Julia Postal on the way. Brewer, with Burroughs, inside try to find him in the balcony but do not see anyone there, then check the main floor, where Oswald is sitting, and Brewer does not see the man he is looking for there, even though Oswald was there and Brewer saw all the ground level of the theatre, meaning he saw Oswald sitting there but did not recognize him at this point in time. Then Brewer, peeking through the curtains in the back of the stage, sees in the semidarkness at a distance Oswald at the opposite end of the theater stand up and sit down--suspicious movement, catches Brewer's eye, and, flagged by that, Brewer says "that's him!" to officers arriving at the back door and points him out.

How reliable was that identification at that point? Well not very reliable in itself (the semi-darkness, the distance...), except it appeared vindicated in spades at the arrest.

In other words, there is mechanism for error here. After Brewer saw Oswald arrested (the one he had pointed out in the distance not very reliably but now "proven correct", so he and everybody believed), then Brewer had every basis in his own mind for strong confidence in the identification. He had gotten it right, it was proven! (so he understood in his mind) But that is less than certain, in itself (i.e. considering the validity of the witness identification in isolation), for reasons named. If Oswald is guilty on other grounds, there is no problem, Brewer got it right. But if it was not known that Oswald was guilty in the Tippit murder on other grounds, Brewer's identification falls short of unequivocally establishing that fact, again for reasons named.

The question is whether the killer of Tippit in front of Brewer's store was Oswald, or went into the theater to kill Oswald next. That is the question. 

The reason Craford comes into the story is, as you correctly note, his connection to the man intent on killing Oswald after the failure at the Theatre and success in that intent two days later, Ruby. Oswald's carrying of his revolver that day is also well explained as a rational response to a true belief that his life was in danger, as it was, from Ruby, and in the Texas Theatre, Craford. 

Oswald was wearing a brown shirt at the time of his arrest, into which he had changed at the rooming house (from his maroon colored shirt worn that morning of which Pat Speer obtained the first known color photos). 

The man deputy sheriff Courson described passing coming down from the balcony--where Julia Postal told arriving police the man she and Brewer were looking for was--the man whom Courson mistakenly thought was Oswald (never mind only Brewer making that mistake!)--Courson described him as "wearing a kind of plaid or checkered patterned shirt", suggesting Brewer's brief glances at the man in front of his store could have been that person rather than Oswald if that man's shirt was similar in color seen for a few seconds through glass doors.

And it is known that there were other mistaken identifications of Craford as Oswald. So it is not so hard to imagine.

 

 

Your entire point above is that because a witness can be mistaken, then Brewer was mistaken.

 

[Bill Brown]

On 4/8/2023 at 8:00 PM, Greg Doudna said:

I don't know about that Bill... there is the Ruby connection, who following the failed attempt at the Texas Theatre to kill Oswald, stalked and then killed Oswald himself Sunday morning. 

The physical descriptions of the Tenth and Patton witnesses agree with Craford.

Nobody knows for sure where the killer came from when observed walking west on Tenth toward the location of the killing of Tippit, it was not from Oswald's rooming house but it would be compatible with coming from Ruby's nearby apartment, where Craford spent time. 

He self-confessed to having done contract jobs for mob interests, hits. He hightailed it out of Dallas hours after the Tippit killing for no sensible reason. Just before he began his hightailing, he was driven in the neighborhood where the tossed and abandoned paper-bag revolver was found, driven by Ruby and George Senator at 5 am in the morning for what was explained to the Warren Commission as a nocturnal trip to photograph a billboard.

Again, the issue is whether the killer of Tippit was Oswald, or went to the Texas Theatre intent on killing Oswald next.

 

What you are calling a "failed attempt at the Texas Theatre to kill Oswald" is nothing more than an excuse for a faulty theory.  If the plan was to kill Oswald inside the theater, then he would have been killed inside the theater.

 

Your faulty theory doesn't quite fit so to correct it, you create this fictitious scenario about how the patsy was supposed to be killed inside the theater.

 

Edited April 18, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

On 4/8/2023 at 8:16 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Because that's like how its done in mob movies: the professional killer does the deed, then drops the murder weapon not caring it it will be found since it is untraceable, simply to have it not on his person or found in his possessions, if stopped and searched. Because I can't think of any better explanation for someone disposing of a .38 snub-nosed Smith & Wesson in a paper bag with some fruit, can you?

Its not likely an accidental loss of a handgun by mistake that way. There had to be some homicide attached to that. The only issue is to what recent homicide to attach it. It turns up 18 hours after Tippit is killed with that kind of weapon. But the Dallas Police Department loses it so that it can never be forensically examined. The existence of this paper-bag revolver in the possession of Dallas Police on Saturday Nov 23, 1963 only becomes known buried in FBI documents released in the 1990s. 

 

"Because that's like how its done in mob movies"...

 

Well, How can I argue with that?

 

[Bill Brown]

On 4/8/2023 at 8:32 PM, Greg Doudna said:

The FBI found the exclusive match to Oswald's revolver concerning the shell hulls they were given by the Dallas Police. Five officers marked the hulls at the scene of the crime and not one out of those five gave a credible statement under their own signature, or under oath, or in their own name not under oath, saying that they recognized and could find their own marks on the hulls turned in to the FBI lab. That is, lack of chain of custody verified in the form of direct signed statement or credible sworn testimony in their own names, on the part of all five of the officers who were the only ones in a position to verify such chain of custody.

I believe this lacuna is a dog that did not bark, namely, someone in the Dallas Police switched those four hulls and attempted to forge officers' marks that the officers either could not recognize as their own or were puzzled as having been their own, which is why four of those five officers were not willing to swear to it, with only one who did so weakly and unconvincingly.

(Barnes is the one arguable exception but his arguable exception, of claim under oath to identify two shells he marked, not only was expressed with hesitancy but beyond that was formally repudiated in the case of one of those identifications, meaning the other identification equally lacks confidence--that is why I included the caveat "credible" identification, though in the other four officers' cases not even that occurred.)

In short, what someone in the Dallas Police did with what I believe was the Tippit murder weapon (disappeared it after its find on Sat Nov 23), I believe similarly was done with the shell hulls found at the Tippit crime scene. Someone in the Dallas Police Department switched the hulls found at the Tippit crime scene for shell hulls fired from Oswald's revolver, before sending them on Thu Nov 28 to the FBI lab for analysis to find out from which revolver they had been fired from). 

 

Captain George Doughty retrieved shell #3 (the shell found by Barbara Davis).  Detective Dhority took possession of shell #4 (the shell found by Virginia Davis).

 

Regarding the chain of possession of the shells, In June of '64, the FBI visited both Doughty and Dhority.  The FBI presented both men with the four shell casings in evidence.  Each man found his marking and positively identified the shell he handled on 11/22/63.

 

There is no issue with the chain of possession of these two shell casings.

 

These two shell casings were positively linked, through ballistic testing, to the revolver taken from Oswald inside the theater (per Nicol, Cunningham, Frazier, Killion).

 

These are the facts, Greg.

 

[Bill Brown]

On 4/8/2023 at 8:36 PM, Greg Doudna said:

The most important post-Warren Commission testimony work on Curtis Craford (Larry Crafard) is that of Peter Whitmey and especially this article: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/creatingapatsy.htm. 

Peter Whitmey interviewed Craford in Oregon. I am getting that from Whitmey from that article, here:

"During my initial interview with Craford at a bar/restaurant in the small town where he lives in a rural area of Oregon, he revealed to me that he had been a “hit man” in the early sixties in San Francisco, prior to going to Dallas. While living there he got involved with the granddaughter of the local “Don”, and, unfortunately for Craford, she became pregnant. However, in exchange for leaving town and promising never to contact her again, Curtis was spared the usual harsh treatment associated with organized crime. Although I was somewhat skeptical of Craford’s claim, his older brother, whom I later spoke to by phone, appeared to confirm what Curtis had revealed to me." 

 

I knew that was coming.

 

Sorry, but I don't believe a hit man admits he was a hit man to an interviewer, unless he is about to testify under immunity in court.

 

Is this the best you have, re: proof that Crafard was a hit man?