Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[Bill Brown]

On 4/8/2023 at 8:49 PM, Greg Doudna said:

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!

 

I don't know how much more clear I can be.  But, I'll try again.

 

Tippit's killer is walking on the sidewalk.  Tippit pulls up alongside.  The killer walks over to the passenger window of the patrol car and leans forward.  The killer may or may not have touched the door.  The killer did not touch the quarter panel.

 

Partial prints are found on the door.  Partial prints are found on the quarter panel.  These prints are from the same person (the opinion of Myers' fingerprint expert Herb Lutz).  The killer did not touch the quarter panel.  Therefore, the prints on the quarter panel are not the killer's prints.  If the prints on the quarter panel are not the killer's, then the prints on the door are not the killer's.

 

[Bill Brown]

On 4/8/2023 at 8:58 PM, Greg Doudna said:

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. 

 

 

Here, let me fix your statement for you...

 

There is no photo, no evidence, no witnesses that Crafard was anywhere near Tenth and Patton in Oak Cliff at 1:15.  Thing is, my statement here does not need to include the "other than" that your statement requires.

 

However, we do have evidence that Crafard was asleep inside the Carousel Club at 12:30.

 

[Bill Brown]

On 4/8/2023 at 9:26 PM, Greg Doudna said:

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"). 

 

I am not saying the killer sported a mullet.  I am saying that a person's collar line up against a jacket collar (you do agree that Tippit's killer was wearing a jacket.  Right?) could very easily give the appearance of a "block cut" (as you call it) instead of tapered look.  Your argument (tapered versus squared collar line) is poor and goes nowhere for either of us, so why do you choose to rely on it?

 

As for the Medium jacket size versus Small jacket size, well, this is perhaps the most lame of all the arguments made in any JFK assassination-related discussions.  Is it your opinion that a man who wears a size Small cannot fit into a size Medium?

 

[Bill Brown]

On 4/8/2023 at 9:26 PM, Greg Doudna said:

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"). 

 

"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."

 

No Sir.

 

Markham was taken to police headquarters straight from Tenth and Patton.  Why do you say Markham was at work when interviewed by Odum?

 

 

[Bill Brown]

On 4/8/2023 at 10:00 PM, Charles Blackmon said:

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

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

 

Hasan Yusuf is a Kook (I don't think I'm breaking any rules, since he is not a member here, but facts are facts).

 

Crafard's alibi (that he was sleeping inside the Carousel Club at the time of the assassination) is solid, unless you want to add the bartender (Andy Armstrong) to the long list of regular, everyday people who lied to help frame the patsy.  Is this what you are doing here?

 

Edited April 18, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

I don't know how much more clear I can be.  But, I'll try again.

Tippit's killer is walking on the sidewalk.  Tippit pulls up alongside.  The killer walks over to the passenger window of the patrol car and leans forward.  The killer may or may not have touched the door.  The killer did not touch the quarter panel.

Partial prints are found on the door.  Partial prints are found on the quarter panel.  These prints are from the same person (the opinion of Myers' fingerprint expert Herb Lutz).  The killer did not touch the quarter panel.  Therefore, the prints on the quarter panel are not the killer's prints.  If the prints on the quarter panel are not the killer's, then the prints on the door are not the killer's.

Twice you state "the killer did not touch the quarter panel". 

How do you know that?

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

I am not saying the killer sported a mullet.  I am saying that a person's collar line up against a jacket collar (you do agree that Tippit's killer was wearing a jacket.  Right?) could very easily give the appearance of a "block cut" (as you call it) instead of tapered look.  Your argument (tapered versus squared collar line) is poor and goes nowhere for either of us, so why do you choose to rely on it?

OK I see your point now. You are saying witness Benavides could have confused a jacket collar against Oswald's tapered-cut hairline in the back of his head as a block-cut hairline, a witness error. He was only a few feet away and he said he got a good look, but in the heat of a few moments and witnesses not being infallible, OK.

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

No Sir.

Markham was taken to police headquarters straight from Tenth and Patton.  Why do you say Markham was at work when interviewed by Odum?

You are right, my mistake. 

Edited April 10, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Bill Brown]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Twice you state "the killer did not touch the quarter panel". 

How do you know that?

 

You're a guy walking on the sidewalk.  A police officer pulls up alongside you in his patrol car and asks you to come over to the car so he can speak with you for a second.  You are on the sidewalk facing the officer in his car.  Why are you laying your hand on the quarter panel on your way over to the passenger-side window?  Also, no witness saw the killer touch the quarter panel.

 

The better question is... How do you know the killer did touch the quarter panel?

 

Edited April 10, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

You're a guy walking on the sidewalk.  A police officer pulls up alongside you in his patrol car and asks you to come over to the car so he can speak with you for a second.  You are on the sidewalk facing the officer in his car.  Why are you laying your hand on the quarter panel on your way over to the passenger-side window?  Also, no witness saw the killer touch the quarter panel.

The better question is... How do you know the killer did touch the quarter panel?

No, answer the question. You stated certainty that a man known, and seen, to be standing right at the right front fender of the Tippit patrol car, did not--could not have--touched that fender and left the fingerprints there that someone did.

Answer the question. State in a simple declarative sentence your evidence or basis for certainty--why you (think you) know that, or withdraw your statement of certainty.

Are you claiming that those fingerprints were left by someone not standing next to the car at the location the partial handprint was found?

[Michael Griffith]

On 7/8/2022 at 3:34 PM, Bill Brown said:

Housekeeper Earlene Roberts, to a radio reporter on the afternoon of the assassination, stated that Oswald was wearing a "short gray coat" as he left the rooming house.  She told the FBI that she remembered Oswald putting on a jacket and zipping it up as he went out the front door, adding that it was the type of jacket that zips up in the front.

Helen Markham, standing at the northwest corner of Tenth and Patton, testified to the Warren Commission that the cop-killer (who she positively identified as Lee Oswald) had on a short jacket that was open in the front and was grayish-tan in color.

Domingo Benavides, passing by in his pickup truck, saw Tippit's patrol car stopped near the curb and stated that the officer (Tippit) was talking to a man on foot.  Benavides heard the shots and saw the killer run from the scene.  Benavides testified to the Warren Commission that the killer was wearing a light-beige jacket, and that the jacket was lightweight.

William Scoggins, sitting in his cab (facing north on Patton towards the intersection with Tenth Street), was eating lunch when he noticed Tippit's patrol car travel from west to east on Tenth Street, crossing through the intersection with Patton.  Scoggins saw the patrol car come to a stop and noticed the officer having a conversation with a man who was walking on the sidewalk.  Scoggins heard the shots, looked up and saw the man running towards his cab.  Scoggins got out of his cab and hid beside it as the cop-killer passed.  He (Scoggins) testified that the man (who he positively identified as Lee Oswald) was wearing a jacket.

Barbara Davis was inside her house on Tenth Street (400 East Tenth St.) at the corner of Patton Avenue when she heard the gun shots.  She went to her front door and noticed a man (who she positively identified as Lee Oswald) cutting across her front yard, heading towards Patton with a gun in his hands.  She testified to the Warren Commission that the cop-killer had on a dark coat as he cut across her yard.

Virginia Davis was inside the same house on Tenth Street as was her sister-in-law, Barbara, when she heard the shots.  Virginia went to the door and saw a man cutting across the yard with a gun in his hands.  Virginia testified to the Warren Commission that the man (who she positively identified as Lee Oswald) had on a light-brown-tan jacket.

Ted Callaway was on the front porch of his office near the alley between Tenth and Jefferson when he heard the shots come from the vicinity of Tenth Street.  He saw a man (who he positively identified as Lee Oswald) cutting across the yard of the house on the corner (Barbara and Virginia Davis) and noticed William Scoggins ducking beside the cab as the man passed, running down Patton from Tenth, holding a gun in his hands.  Callaway stated that the man had on a light tannish-gray windbreaker jacket.  Callaway testified to the Warren Commission that CE-162 (the jacket found on the ground under a car at the Texaco lot) looked like the jacket that the man was wearing as he was running from the scene.

Sam Guinyard was on Patton Ave. when he heard the shots.  Like the others, Guinyard saw the man (who he positively identified as Lee Oswald) cut across the yard of the Davis house on the corner of Tenth and Patton.  Guinyard testified that the man was running down Patton with a gun in his hands.  Guinyard testified to the Warren Commission that Oswald was wearing sort of a light-gray-looking jacket as he ran from the scene.

Warren Reynolds was inside the office at Reynolds Motor Company, located on the corner of Patton and Jefferson.  Reynolds saw a man running down Patton with a gun in his hands and turn the corner onto Jefferson.   Reynolds stated that he followed the man, who he believed in his own mind was Lee Oswald, and saw him go behind the Texaco Station on Jefferson.

A light colored jacket (CE-162) was found on the ground under a car in the parking lot behind the Texaco station.

Johnny Brewer was working in his shoe shop on Jefferson Boulevard.  He noticed a man duck into the recessed area of the storefront, looking nervous and appearing to avoid the police cars that were racing up and down Jefferson with sirens blaring.  Brewer stated that the man, who he identified as Lee Oswald, was NOT wearing a jacket.

Why did Lee Oswald ditch his jacket?

Oh my goodness. You must be kidding. How can you post such nonsense after all we now know about the supposed "positive identifications," Oswald's movements, etc.?

Those "positive identifications" were a joke. They would have been shredded in a trial. The prosecution probably would not have even used many of them because they were so obviously suspect and questionable. 

Just a few examples:

-- William Scoggins selected the wrong photo when asked to identify Oswald from photos after the police lineup (3 H 335). Law enforcement agents asked Scoggins to pick Oswald from among various photos following the lineup. After Scoggins made his selection, the agent showing him the pictures told him "the other one was Oswald" (3 H 335).

-- Before Helen Markham knew what she was supposed to say, when she was interviewed by an FBI agent on 11/22, she stated that Tippit's killer had a "red complexion." Oswald was lily white, if not downright pale. 

Markham also said that Tippit's killer was a bit heavy and had slightly bushy hair. Oswald was quite thin and had straight, short hair. 

Markham made the ludicrous claim that 20 minutes elapsed after the shooting before anyone else arrived at the scene. 

Even in her WC testimony, Markham required obvious leading and prompting to say she had identified Oswald, after she repeatedly said she had been unable to recognize anyone in the police lineup.

-- William Smith initially told a friend that he had been at the Tippit scene and that the gunman was not Oswald. When the FBI questioned Smith about this, he said that he initially did not think the gunman was Oswald because when he first saw Oswald on TV after the assassination it looked like Oswald had light-colored hair. Huh?

I've watched all of the post-assassination TV footage of Oswald, and I would invite anyone to find a clip from that footage in which Oswald seems to have light-colored hair. (Of course, Smith might not have said this--we have only the word of the FBI agent who interviewed him that he in fact gave this explanation).

Given the fact that Smith got a good look at the killer, one would think he would have been able to base his initial opinion on more than just the appearance of the man's hair on a black-and-white TV screen.

-- William Whaley, who supposedly drove Oswald from downtown Dallas to his neighborhood, testified that Oswald "had on two jackets" while he was allegedly in Whaley's cab.

Whaley's "identification" of Oswald at the police lineup was questionable. Although at one point Whaley told the WC that he selected Oswald, he also repeatedly insisted that he selected the No. 2 man and that the man he selected was the third man to come out into the lineup. The No. 2 man, the man who came out third into the lineup, was not Oswald but was an eighteen-year-old named David Knapp. Whaley also gave contradictory testimony about his police statement. The first statement taken from Whaley, handwritten by Officer Montgomery, said nothing about Whaley having chosen the No. 3 man (Oswald was the No. 3 man). 

Whaley registered 12:30 p.m. in his logbook as the time when his passenger entered the cab. This, of course, eliminated Oswald, since Oswald was in the Depository building at that time. The WC attempted to explain this by claiming that Whaley recorded all trips in fifteen-minute intervals, regardless of how long the actual trip took. Since the Commission decided Oswald entered the cab at 12:47 or 12:48, it did not explain why Whaley entered 12:30 instead of 12:45 in his book. Nor did it explain why other trips were entered at 6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 9:40, 10:50, and 3:10, rather than regular quarter-hour intervals.

And on and on we could go. 

Edited April 17, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Bill Brown]

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

No, answer the question. You stated certainty that a man known, and seen, to be standing right at the right front fender of the Tippit patrol car, did not--could not have--touched that fender and left the fingerprints there that someone did.

Answer the question. State in a simple declarative sentence your evidence or basis for certainty--why you (think you) know that, or withdraw your statement of certainty.

Are you claiming that those fingerprints were left by someone not standing next to the car at the location the partial handprint was found?

 

First, I did not say the killer "could not have" touched the quarter panel.  Don't put words in my mouth and/or misquote me.

 

I said that none of the witnesses said the killer touched the quarter panel.  You have no support for your claim that the killer did indeed touch that quarter panel.  It is YOUR claim that the killer touched the quarter panel.  You haven't supported it, however.

 

[Bill Brown]

6 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Oh my goodness. You must be kidding. How can you post such nonsense after all we now know about the supposed "positive identifications," Oswald's movements, etc.?

Those "positive identifications" were a joke. They would have been shredded in a trial. The prosecution probably would not have even used many of them because they were so obviously suspect and questionable. 

Just a few examples:

-- William Scoggins selected the wrong photo when asked to identify Oswald from photos after the police lineup (3 H 335). Law enforcement agents asked Scoggins to pick Oswald from among various photos following the lineup. After Scoggins made his selection, the agent showing him the pictures told him "the other one was Oswald" (3 H 335).

-- Before Helen Markham knew what she was supposed to say, when she was interviewed by an FBI agent on 11/22, she stated that Tippit's killer had a "red complexion." Oswald was lily white, if not downright pale. 

Markham also said that Tippit's killer was a bit heavy and had slightly bushy hair. Oswald was quite thin and had straight, short hair. 

Markham made the ludicrous claim that 20 minutes elapsed after the shooting before anyone else arrived at the scene. 

Even in her WC testimony, Markham required obvious leading and prompting to say she had identified Oswald, after she repeatedly said she had been unable to recognize anyone in the police lineup.

-- William Smith initially told a friend that he had been at the Tippit scene and that the gunman was not Oswald. When the FBI questioned Smith about this, he said that he initially did not think the gunman was Oswald because when he first saw Oswald on TV after the assassination it looked like Oswald had light-colored hair. Huh?

I've watched all of the post-assassination TV footage of Oswald, and I would invite anyone to find a clip from that footage in which Oswald seems to have light-colored hair. (Of course, Smith might not have said this--we have only the word of the FBI agent who interviewed him that he in fact gave this explanation).

Given the fact that Smith got a good look at the killer, one would think he would have been able to base his initial opinion on more than just the appearance of the man's hair on a black-and-white TV screen.

-- William Whaley, who supposedly drove Oswald from downtown Dallas to his neighborhood, testified that Oswald "had on two jackets" while he was allegedly in Whaley's cab. At the police lineup, Whaley selected an eighteen-year-old named David Knapp instead of the twenty-four-year-old Oswald.

Whaley registered 12:30 p.m. in his logbook as the time when his passenger entered the cab. This, of course, eliminated Oswald, since Oswald was in the Depository building at that time. The WC attempted to explain this by claiming that Whaley recorded all trips in fifteen-minute intervals, regardless of how long the actual trip took. Since the Commission decided Oswald entered the cab at 12:47 or 12:48, it did not explain why Whaley entered 12:30 instead of 12:45 in his book. Nor did it explain why other trips were entered at 6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 9:40, 10:50, and 3:10, rather than regular quarter-hour intervals.

And on and on we could go. 

 

William Whaley, who supposedly drove Oswald from downtown Dallas to his neighborhood, testified that Oswald "had on two jackets" while he was allegedly in Whaley's cab. At the police lineup, Whaley selected an eighteen-year-old named David Knapp instead of the twenty-four-year-old Oswald.

 

Long before he ever testified to the Warren Commission, Whaley described to the FBI what his passenger was wearing and he made not a single mention of any jacket.  Whaley even went as far as describing, in detail, the shirt Oswald was wearing.

 

Your claim that Whaley picked out anyone other than Oswald at the lineup is pure nonsense.  Whaley picked Oswald.  This is JFK 101.  Learn the evidence.

 

 

Edited April 10, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

57 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

First, I did not say the killer "could not have" touched the quarter panel.  Don't put words in my mouth and/or misquote me.

I said that none of the witnesses said the killer touched the quarter panel.  You have no support for your claim that the killer did indeed touch that quarter panel.  It is YOUR claim that the killer touched the quarter panel.  You haven't supported it, however.

No, you did NOT say “none of the witnesses said the killer touched the quarter panel”. If that is what you had said we would not be having this discussion, for no one says otherwise and that point is not in the least disputed. You SAID, “The killer DID NOT TOUCH the quarter panel” which is a conclusion of certainty of you personally. You repeated that twice, and deflected but did never said clearly your reason for that conclusion or belief on your part. You have neither retracted nor given a straight answer on what is your reason, what is it that causes you to believe that is certain as you expressed.

I wish to represent you accurately but you are not making it easy. Please help by giving a first straight answer in a simple declarative sentence. “We know the killer DID NOT TOUCH the car at that location BECAUSE….abc…”

Is it “because witness Helen Markham never said she saw the killer put his hand on that fender, therefore that proves he did not touch there”? If so, please say to avoid this Dance of the Seven Veils concerning your reasoning and logic. If your reason is not that but something different please say what it is.

If you wish to retract or reword, that is OK too, we all need to do that from time to time, please do, but please make that EXPLICIT. 

Just a simple straight answer here before proceeding on other things, please…

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

No, you did NOT say “none of the witnesses said the killer touched the quarter panel”. If that is what you had said we would not be having this discussion, for no one says otherwise and that point is not in the least disputed. You SAID, “The killer DID NOT TOUCH the quarter panel” which is a conclusion of certainty of you personally. You repeated that twice, and deflected but did never said clearly your reason for that conclusion or belief on your part. You have neither retracted nor given a straight answer on what is your reason, what is it that causes you to believe that is certain as you expressed.

I wish to represent you accurately but you are not making it easy. Please help by giving a first straight answer in a simple declarative sentence. “We know the killer DID NOT TOUCH the car at that location BECAUSE….abc…”

Is it “because witness Helen Markham never said she saw the killer put his hand on that fender, therefore that proves he did not touch there”? If so, please say to avoid this Dance of the Seven Veils concerning your reasoning and logic. If your reason is not that but something different please say what it is.

If you wish to retract or reword, that is OK too, we all need to do that from time to time, please do, but please make that EXPLICIT. 

Just a simple straight answer here before proceeding on other things, please…

 

Let me put it to you this way...

 

No witness said that the killer touched the quarter panel.

 

You said that it is 99% obvious that the prints on the quarter panel belonged to the killer.

 

Once you explain how you know this to be true then I will address your question to me asking for the same.

 

[Greg Doudna]

47 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Let me put it to you this way...

No witness said that the killer touched the quarter panel.

You said that it is 99% obvious that the prints on the quarter panel belonged to the killer.

Once you explain how you know this to be true then I will address your question to me asking for the same.

Not acceptable. Again you do not give a direct answer. I will give straight answers to you on anything relating to this topic, I assure you. But you are continuing to try to deflect without answering the question. In order to engage with you I need to know what you mean, and not be drawn into guessing and then have you rip me for guessing wrong on your reason when you REFUSE to say what your reason IS.

You have said "the killer did not touch the quarter panel". You have denied saying it could not have happened. But you have said that it did not happen, as if you have some (secret???) means of knowing that with certainty. 

Your statement, without qualification, that the killer did not touch the quarter panel (the right front fender of Tippit's patrol car), you have used as a premise upon which you have built further argument.

When you say "let me put it to you this way..." is that a retraction, a replacement for, or in addition to your assertion, which despite four direct requests from me you still refuse to explain: "the killer did not touch the quarter panel"?

If I allow you to change the subject without you giving a straight answer to what I asked, then you will attack that and it will derail further. 

That is unacceptable. 

Do you believe with certainty your repeated unqualified statement, "the killer did not touch the quarter panel"? If that's not what you meant in its presently worded form, then why not just up front say so, replace it with what you now do believe in a more accurate form, and be done with it?

If you are in good faith my question should not be that hard to answer. 

I will give a straight answer to your question above now, then I want yours: My answer is I don't know the 99% Bayesian probability figure estimate, that specific number, is correct. I believe the Bayesian number is high based on the finding that a single person, and only a single person, left all the prints in both locations, and the killer was the only and last person seen with arms and hands and body leaning on the right front door where those prints were found, and was also standing next to the right front fender where he was shooting and could have stumbled and left that handprint there. Maybe the Bayesian number should be only 92.5%, or 95.4%, who knows, I just think its high for reasons stated. You don't need to agree, but I have answered your question, which was why think the figure is high ("99%").

Its like coming across a spilled goldfish bowl which had a goldfish in it which is now missing and a happy cat nearby, and concluding the Bayesian number is high on a certain explanation of how the goldfish might have disappeared. 

(Note that Bayesian probability says nothing about whether something actually is true or not true after all the evidence is considered. It is a subjective estimate of what one would expect based on starting conditions prior to getting the full evidence to know.)

Question answered.

Now I am ready for your answer to mine.  

Give a straight answer, or I'm about done here.