Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[Bill Brown]

3 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Wasn't he over a block away? Viewing from the north side of 10th street diagonally across several cars in his line of sight to the Tippit shooting taking place on the south side of 10th street?

Not to mention viewing through a line of trees stretched along the north side of 10th street which from Smiths position would effectively block any clear view of the Tippit shooting.

 

Bill Smith saw Tippit fall and the killer run off.  No shots AFTER Tippit fell.

 

[Greg Doudna]

9 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

In other words, Benavides saw Tippit fall; there were no more shots after seeing Tippit fall.

That is Benavides' testimony months after the fact. He said he saw Tippit falling after three shots. Then says he saw the killer go back to the sidewalk. But there were five shots, and this is months later in the telling.

Edited April 21, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

On 4/20/2023 at 8:33 AM, Michael Griffith said:

A few follow-up points:

Whaley said nothing about his passenger wearing a jacket in any of his three police statements, nor did he mention a jacket when he described the passenger to the FBI. Yet, at one point in his WC testimony, Whaley said his passenger was wearing two jackets, one over the other. Clearly, something is very wrong with Whaley's WC testimony.

If Oswald did in fact take a cab, this does not automatically mean that he took Whaley's cab. There were plenty of other cabs available. We're talking about the downtown area of a major city. 

An error of 17 minutes on a timesheet strikes me as a bit much, as a bit hard to believe, even making the questionable assumption that Whaley waited several fares before recording his pickup times. Again, his timesheet shows no indication that he used 15-minute increments. I suspect he said this because he was advised to say it or because he was trying to say what he thought the WC wanted to hear. 

Oswald probably resembled 10-15% of the male population of Dallas. His height and weight were in the average range. Nothing about the appearance of his hair stood out. It's entirely possible that Whaley's passenger bore some resemblance to Oswald, and that this general resemblance may have caused Whaley to think that he recognized his passenger when he saw a photo of Oswald in the newspaper. 

I think Whaley actually did refer to a jacket on Oswald in his original FBI interview even though the original FBI interview report refers to a "shirt" not "jacket". The reason is because Whaley then and later consistently spoke of a match in color between the pants and (later) jacket, earlier "shirt" (as reported in his first FBI interview). The color of Oswald's pants is known: gray, without dispute on that fact. A match of color to Oswald's gray pants would be Oswald's gray jacket which Oswald is otherwise attested as having worn to work that morning.

A match of color to gray does not work for the maroon shirt Oswald was then wearing (or the brown shirt Oswald changed into subsequent to that cab at his rooming house). I think the FBI agent erred in writing up the initial report confusing "shirt" with "jacket", not any malevolence, just inaccuracy in the writeup. Yesterday I saw an early FBI interview report of Buell Wesley Frazier which has Frazier referring to his sister, Linnie Mae, living in Grand Prairie, Texas! Obviously Frazier never said that--the FBI agent got that wrong in the writeup.

Same phenomenon with the original FBI reporting that Whaley said Oswald "was dressed in gray khaki pants ... he had on a dark colored shirt ... the color of the shirt [sic!] nearly matched the pants" (FBI Nov 23, 1963).

Compare the parallel from Whaley in his later Warren Commission testimony: "... he had on a brown shirt ... and he had on some kind of jacket ... a work jacket that almost matched his pants".

I doubt if a defense counsel of Oswald would bother going after Whaley on his identification of Oswald, unless it would be for the purpose of showing Dallas Police lineup impropriety. Since it is uncontested that Oswald went to his rooming house, in a sense who cares which cab he took to get there--its not incriminating and it doesn't change he went to the rooming house.

But Whaley's cab passenger as Oswald works: its to the right pickup location and destination to get him to the rooming house, at approximately the right time on Whaley's retroactively roughly-written time sheet (within 17 minutes); Whaley said it was Oswald and remembered details such as an identification bracelet and a lady who was offered the cab but declined (told by Oswald to his interrogators). Even the cheap tip which disgruntled Whaley (only a nickel tip on a 95 cent fare as he recalled) sounds like a match to Oswald too. 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Michael Griffith]

2 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I think Whaley actually did speak of a jacket on Oswald in his original FBI interview even though the original FBI interview report refers to a "shirt" not "jacket". The reason is because Whaley then and later consistently spoke of a match in color between the pants and (later) jacket, earlier "shirt" (as reported in his first FBI interview). The color of Oswald's pants is known: gray, without dispute on that fact. A match of color to Oswald's gray pants would be Oswald's gray jacket which Oswald is otherwise attested as having worn to work that morning.

A match of color to gray does not work for the maroon shirt Oswald was then wearing (or the brown shirt Oswald changed into subsequent to that cab at his rooming house). I think the FBI agent erred in writing up the initial report confusing "shirt" with "jacket", not any malevolence, just inaccuracy in the writeup. Yesterday I saw an early FBI interview report of Buell Wesley Frazier which has Frazier referring to his sister, Linnie Mae, living in Grand Prairie, Texas! Obviously Frazier never said that--the FBI agent got that wrong in the writeup.

Same phenomenon with the original FBI reporting that Whaley said Oswald "was dressed in gray khaki pants ... he had on a dark colored shirt ... the color of the shirt [sic!] nearly matched the pants" (FBI Nov 23, 1963).

Compare the parallel from Whaley in his later Warren Commission testimony: "... he had on a brown shirt ... and he had on some kind of jacket ... a work jacket that almost matched his pants".

I doubt if a defense counsel of Oswald would bother going after Whaley on his identification of Oswald, unless it would be for the purpose of showing Dallas Police lineup impropriety. Since it is uncontested that Oswald went to his rooming house, in a sense who cares which cab he took to get there--its not incriminating and it doesn't change he went to the rooming house.

But Whaley's cab passenger as Oswald works: its to the right pickup location and destination to get him to the rooming house, at approximately the right time on Whaley's retroactively roughly-written time sheet (within 17 minutes); Whaley said it was Oswald and remembered details such as an identification bracelet and a lady who was offered the cab but declined (told by Oswald to his interrogators). Even the cheap tip which disgruntled Whaley (only a nickel tip on a 95 cent fare as he recalled) sounds like a match to Oswald too. 

Your explanation for why Whaley's FBI statement says nothing about a jacket seems strained to me. I mean, are we to believe that Whaley never once said the word "jacket" or "coat" in his FBI interview? Not once? 

There's also the fact that, as mentioned, none of Whaley's three police statements mention a jacket. 

Whaley's claim to the WC that his passenger was wearing two jackets is clearly unbelievable and by itself should raise a large red flag about his WC testimony. 

You're still assuming that Whaley recorded his pickup times retroactively. He would have had to have had a pretty bad memory to make a 17-minute error. I could believe a five- or maybe even a 10-minute error, but a 17-minute error, especially one that was 17 minutes early, seems a bit hard to believe.

When Whaley told the WC that he waited stretches of time before recording his pickup times (which, again, makes no sense to me, since it would have been easier to record them as they happened), he also claimed that he entered his times in 15-minute intervals, a claim refuted by his timesheet. I don't believe either of these claims. I think he was pressured into making them.

The pickup location proves nothing. Any number of pickup points would have worked. Furthermore, the Whaley pickup location really does not work. The feds had to rig the reenactment to get Whaley's cab from the pickup point to Oswald's neighborhood in the required amount of time.  BTW, it's worth mentioning that Knapp's house was nearly a straight shot down Beckley from the destination spot claimed by Whaley. Huh, now fancy that--what a coincidence.  

Whaley's first police statement said nothing about a lady being offered the cab.

In his first statements, Whaley said his passenger headed south after he exited the cab, but Oswald would have needed to go north to get to his rooming house. 

I'm just not buying the goods here. There are too many contradictions, too many questionable assumptions, too many doubtful claims. 

Finally, I again repeat that my overall point about Whaley is that his identification of Oswald is open to serious doubt and is far from what would normally be considered a "positive identification."

 

[Bill Brown]

12 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

That is Benavides' testimony months after the fact. He said he saw Tippit falling after three shots. Then says he saw the killer go back to the sidewalk. But there were five shots, and this is months later in the telling.

 

Again, regardless of whether Benavides heard three, four or even five shots, Benavides saw Tippit fall and the killer backed up onto the sidewalk and headed for the corner.  Benavides has not even a single shot taking place after he saw Tippit fall.

 

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Your explanation for why Whaley's FBI statement says nothing about a jacket seems strained to me. I mean, are we to believe that Whaley never once said the word "jacket" or "coat" in his FBI interview? Not once? 

There's also the fact that, as mentioned, none of Whaley's three police statements mention a jacket. 

Whaley's claim to the WC that his passenger was wearing two jackets is clearly unbelievable and by itself should raise a large red flag about his WC testimony. 

You're still assuming that Whaley recorded his pickup times retroactively. He would have had to have had a pretty bad memory to make a 17-minute error. I could believe a five- or maybe even a 10-minute error, but a 17-minute error, especially one that was 17 minutes early, seems a bit hard to believe.

When Whaley told the WC that he waited stretches of time before recording his pickup times (which, again, makes no sense to me, since it would have been easier to record them as they happened), he also claimed that he entered his times in 15-minute intervals, a claim refuted by his timesheet. I don't believe either of these claims. I think he was pressured into making them.

The pickup location proves nothing. Any number of pickup points would have worked. Furthermore, the Whaley pickup location really does not work. The feds had to rig the reenactment to get Whaley's cab from the pickup point to Oswald's neighborhood in the required amount of time.  BTW, it's worth mentioning that Knapp's house was nearly a straight shot down Beckley from the destination spot claimed by Whaley. Huh, now fancy that--what a coincidence.  

Whaley's first police statement said nothing about a lady being offered the cab.

In his first statements, Whaley said his passenger headed south after he exited the cab, but Oswald would have needed to go north to get to his rooming house. 

I'm just not buying the goods here. There are too many contradictions, too many questionable assumptions, too many doubtful claims. 

Finally, I again repeat that my overall point about Whaley is that his identification of Oswald is open to serious doubt and is far from what would normally be considered a "positive identification."

 

 

Finally, I again repeat that my overall point about Whaley is that his identification of Oswald is open to serious doubt and is far from what would normally be considered a "positive identification."

 

Well, at least you are no longer incorrectly claiming that Whaley picked Knapp out of the lineup and not Oswald.

 

[Bill Brown]

11 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I think Whaley actually did refer to a jacket on Oswald in his original FBI interview even though the original FBI interview report refers to a "shirt" not "jacket". The reason is because Whaley then and later consistently spoke of a match in color between the pants and (later) jacket, earlier "shirt" (as reported in his first FBI interview). The color of Oswald's pants is known: gray, without dispute on that fact. A match of color to Oswald's gray pants would be Oswald's gray jacket which Oswald is otherwise attested as having worn to work that morning.

A match of color to gray does not work for the maroon shirt Oswald was then wearing (or the brown shirt Oswald changed into subsequent to that cab at his rooming house). I think the FBI agent erred in writing up the initial report confusing "shirt" with "jacket", not any malevolence, just inaccuracy in the writeup. Yesterday I saw an early FBI interview report of Buell Wesley Frazier which has Frazier referring to his sister, Linnie Mae, living in Grand Prairie, Texas! Obviously Frazier never said that--the FBI agent got that wrong in the writeup.

Same phenomenon with the original FBI reporting that Whaley said Oswald "was dressed in gray khaki pants ... he had on a dark colored shirt ... the color of the shirt [sic!] nearly matched the pants" (FBI Nov 23, 1963).

Compare the parallel from Whaley in his later Warren Commission testimony: "... he had on a brown shirt ... and he had on some kind of jacket ... a work jacket that almost matched his pants".

I doubt if a defense counsel of Oswald would bother going after Whaley on his identification of Oswald, unless it would be for the purpose of showing Dallas Police lineup impropriety. Since it is uncontested that Oswald went to his rooming house, in a sense who cares which cab he took to get there--its not incriminating and it doesn't change he went to the rooming house.

But Whaley's cab passenger as Oswald works: its to the right pickup location and destination to get him to the rooming house, at approximately the right time on Whaley's retroactively roughly-written time sheet (within 17 minutes); Whaley said it was Oswald and remembered details such as an identification bracelet and a lady who was offered the cab but declined (told by Oswald to his interrogators). Even the cheap tip which disgruntled Whaley (only a nickel tip on a 95 cent fare as he recalled) sounds like a match to Oswald too. 

 

I think Whaley actually did refer to a jacket on Oswald in his original FBI interview even though the original FBI interview report refers to a "shirt" not "jacket". The reason is because Whaley then and later consistently spoke of a match in color between the pants and (later) jacket, earlier "shirt" (as reported in his first FBI interview). The color of Oswald's pants is known: gray, without dispute on that fact. A match of color to Oswald's gray pants would be Oswald's gray jacket which Oswald is otherwise attested as having worn to work that morning.

 

No.

 

Whaley specifically said "shirt" and even described the shirt.

 

"This boy was small, 5'8", slender, had on a dark shirt with white spots of something on it.  He had a bracelet on his left wrist.  He looked like he was 25 or 26 years old." -- William Whaley affidavit (11/23/63)

 

Not a single mention of any jacket.

 

Edited April 22, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

10 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Again, regardless of whether Benavides heard three, four or even five shots, Benavides saw Tippit fall and the killer backed up onto the sidewalk and headed for the corner.  Benavides has not even a single shot taking place after he saw Tippit fall.

Bill after thinking some more about this today I think you are right. Benavides is a high-quality witness and saw no shot after he saw Tippit fall. So that is one strong witness (Benavides, right there and very close), backed up by a weak witness (Wm Smith, due to distance), and no countervailing witness (I don't consider Frank Wright or Tatum countervailing witnesses). Maybe its not airtight that Benavides could not be mistaken, but the weight favors Benavides' witness being accurate on that point. I am agreeing you are right and that I learned something from you here. 

And so, based on the weight of Benavides' testimony, all the shots were fired over the hood, and the gunman did not fire into Tippit on the ground. 

The shots must have been fired quickly to hit Tippit that many times before he toppled over below line of fire over the hood. 

The shot into the forehead I interpret as an intentional shot to the head by a skilled shooter shooting from the hip. Not Oswald who was not skilled or able to hit a head intentionally, but a skilled practiced shooter who could be that accurate at 10-12 feet shooting from the hip. 

Shooting from the hip was Curtis Craford's job at the Texas State Fair. "'shooting guns' into the air which appeared to be for the purpose of attracting customers to the concession" (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=217).

Also, I have found that Curtis Craford was right-handed based on examining a handwritten letter of Craford to Gale Cascaddan in the Warren Commission exhibits for the one trait I learned which can fairly reliably tell left- from right-handed writing: which direction the crossing of T's is done (known by thicker at the start and thinning to a point at the end of the stroke as the pen lifts off the paper): Craford crosses his T's from left to right as right-handed writers do, and therefore Craford was right-handed.

Here is a possible scenario by which Craford as a right-handed shooter could leave a right handprint on the patrol car's right fender at the position the gunman was firing: shoots five shots over the hood rapidly with gun in right hand including one to the head of Tippit (right temple); wants to look around the front of the car to see Tippit fallen; crouches; transfers gun to left hand; leans on right hand resting on fender for balance as peeks around the right front, sees Tippit prone in the street; gets up and leaves (probably continuing to hold the gun in the left hand while unloading and reloading bullets with the right hand).

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

No.

Whaley specifically said "shirt" and even described the shirt.

"This boy was small, 5'8", slender, had on a dark shirt with white spots of something on it.  He had a bracelet on his left wrist.  He looked like he was 25 or 26 years old." -- William Whaley affidavit (11/23/63)

Not a single mention of any jacket.

Whaley telling of it on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UORpPiG9QmI. "Well he just looked like an ordinary working man. He was small, had on gray work clothes, brown shirt and a silver stripe and a work jacket."

Here is a photo taken in Minsk which I think is a photo of Oswald's gray jacket (which was not C162, the Tippit killer's jacket, which was not gray and which appears in no photograph of Oswald whether USSR or US): https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24945209. Oswald wore his gray jacket from Irving to the TSBD the morning of Nov 22, 1963, and it was not found at the TSBD left behind, so I think when he left the TSBD he left with the gray jacket with him, even though he no longer had it when Earlene saw him enter the rooming house.

In the statement you cite, Whaley does not state there was no jacket. His statement written up by police based on what he was telling does not mention it, true, but Whaley later said Oswald was wearing a jacket matching the color of his pants which were gray.  

 

Edited April 22, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Michael Griffith]

From my critique of Dale Myers' With Malice:

The standard lone-gunman explanation is that Benavides waited in his truck only for a
matter of seconds and not for a few minutes. But this flies in the face of common sense,
not to mention that it ignores what Benavides himself initially said, which was that he
waited in his truck for "a few minutes." If you were only 25-50 feet away from a shooting
and feared you could be the next target, how long would you wait until coming out into
the open again? Understandably, and by all accounts, Benavides was scared to death
by the shooting. He told the WC he waited in his truck "a few minutes" after he heard
the shots. According to fellow witness Ted Calloway, Benavides told him the day after
the shooting that,

When I heard that shooting, I fell down into the floorboard of my truck and I stayed there. It scared me to death. (p. 220, emphasis added)

Years later Benavides changed his story and told CBS he only waited a few seconds,
not a few minutes. Predictably, Myers chooses to accept Benavides' belated change of
story and rejects his original statements (pp. 86-87).

If, as seems likely, Benavides did in fact wait in his truck for a minute or two after the
shots rang out, then the case against Oswald collapses, unless one is willing to assume
some unknown person gave Oswald a ride to the Tippit shooting scene. Myers is willing
to speculate that this might have happened, suggesting that a person who gave Oswald
a ride would not have come forward to tell about it because he would have been too
embarrassed (p. 352). But why would Oswald have wanted to be dropped off at 10th
and Patton?

The problem of getting Oswald to the Tippit crime scene in time to commit the crime has
always vexed the lone-gunman theory. Oswald's rooming house was nearly a mile from
the spot on 10th and Patton where Tippit was shot, right around nine-tenths of a mile.
Even walking at a very brisk pace, Oswald would have taken a minimum of 10 minutes
to reach the Tippit scene, and bear in mind this does not allow time for him to
supposedly walk a block and a half past 10th and Patton and then supposedly spin
around after seeing the police car approach.

Importantly, Mrs. Roberts said that when she looked out the window a short time after
Oswald left the boarding house, she saw him standing near the street. This was a few
minutes after 1:00, around 1:03 or 1:04.

As mentioned, Myers says the shooting occurred at 1:14:30. A very brisk pace would
have put Oswald at the Tippit scene at 1:14, if we assume he began his speed walk at
1:04, but that would not have left enough time for him to walk past 10th and Patton, spin
around, start walking the other way, get stopped by Tippit, have a "friendly chat" with
Tippit, wait while Tippit got out of the car, and then shoot Tippit. And note that this whole
scenario assumes Oswald suddenly started sprint-walking toward the Tippit scene right
after Mrs. Roberts saw him standing near the road in front of the rooming house. It also assumes that Benavides waited only a few seconds before coming out from hiding and
approaching the police car. It just does not work.

[Bill Brown]

On 4/22/2023 at 1:40 AM, Greg Doudna said:

Bill after thinking some more about this today I think you are right. Benavides is a high-quality witness and saw no shot after he saw Tippit fall. So that is one strong witness (Benavides, right there and very close), backed up by a weak witness (Wm Smith, due to distance), and no countervailing witness (I don't consider Frank Wright or Tatum countervailing witnesses). Maybe its not airtight that Benavides could not be mistaken, but the weight favors Benavides' witness being accurate on that point. I am agreeing you are right and that I learned something from you here. 

And so, based on the weight of Benavides' testimony, all the shots were fired over the hood, and the gunman did not fire into Tippit on the ground. 

The shots must have been fired quickly to hit Tippit that many times before he toppled over below line of fire over the hood. 

The shot into the forehead I interpret as an intentional shot to the head by a skilled shooter shooting from the hip. Not Oswald who was not skilled or able to hit a head intentionally, but a skilled practiced shooter who could be that accurate at 10-12 feet shooting from the hip. 

Shooting from the hip was Curtis Craford's job at the Texas State Fair. "'shooting guns' into the air which appeared to be for the purpose of attracting customers to the concession" (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=217).

Also, I have found that Curtis Craford was right-handed based on examining a handwritten letter of Craford to Gale Cascaddan in the Warren Commission exhibits for the one trait I learned which can fairly reliably tell left- from right-handed writing: which direction the crossing of T's is done (known by thicker at the start and thinning to a point at the end of the stroke as the pen lifts off the paper): Craford crosses his T's from left to right as right-handed writers do, and therefore Craford was right-handed.

Here is a possible scenario by which Craford as a right-handed shooter could leave a right handprint on the patrol car's right fender at the position the gunman was firing: shoots five shots over the hood rapidly with gun in right hand including one to the head of Tippit (right temple); wants to look around the front of the car to see Tippit fallen; crouches; transfers gun to left hand; leans on right hand resting on fender for balance as peeks around the right front, sees Tippit prone in the street; gets up and leaves (probably continuing to hold the gun in the left hand while unloading and reloading bullets with the right hand).

 

Bill after thinking some more about this today I think you are right. Benavides is a high-quality witness and saw no shot after he saw Tippit fall. So that is one strong witness (Benavides, right there and very close), backed up by a weak witness (Wm Smith, due to distance), and no countervailing witness (I don't consider Frank Wright or Tatum countervailing witnesses). Maybe its not airtight that Benavides could not be mistaken, but the weight favors Benavides' witness being accurate on that point. I am agreeing you are right and that I learned something from you here.

 

Well, there is hope for us, yet.

 

[Bill Brown]

On 4/22/2023 at 9:11 AM, Michael Griffith said:

From my critique of Dale Myers' With Malice:

The standard lone-gunman explanation is that Benavides waited in his truck only for a
matter of seconds and not for a few minutes. But this flies in the face of common sense,
not to mention that it ignores what Benavides himself initially said, which was that he
waited in his truck for "a few minutes." If you were only 25-50 feet away from a shooting
and feared you could be the next target, how long would you wait until coming out into
the open again? Understandably, and by all accounts, Benavides was scared to death
by the shooting. He told the WC he waited in his truck "a few minutes" after he heard
the shots. According to fellow witness Ted Calloway, Benavides told him the day after
the shooting that,

When I heard that shooting, I fell down into the floorboard of my truck and I stayed there. It scared me to death. (p. 220, emphasis added)

Years later Benavides changed his story and told CBS he only waited a few seconds,
not a few minutes. Predictably, Myers chooses to accept Benavides' belated change of
story and rejects his original statements (pp. 86-87).

If, as seems likely, Benavides did in fact wait in his truck for a minute or two after the
shots rang out, then the case against Oswald collapses, unless one is willing to assume
some unknown person gave Oswald a ride to the Tippit shooting scene. Myers is willing
to speculate that this might have happened, suggesting that a person who gave Oswald
a ride would not have come forward to tell about it because he would have been too
embarrassed (p. 352). But why would Oswald have wanted to be dropped off at 10th
and Patton?

The problem of getting Oswald to the Tippit crime scene in time to commit the crime has
always vexed the lone-gunman theory. Oswald's rooming house was nearly a mile from
the spot on 10th and Patton where Tippit was shot, right around nine-tenths of a mile.
Even walking at a very brisk pace, Oswald would have taken a minimum of 10 minutes
to reach the Tippit scene, and bear in mind this does not allow time for him to
supposedly walk a block and a half past 10th and Patton and then supposedly spin
around after seeing the police car approach.

Importantly, Mrs. Roberts said that when she looked out the window a short time after
Oswald left the boarding house, she saw him standing near the street. This was a few
minutes after 1:00, around 1:03 or 1:04.

As mentioned, Myers says the shooting occurred at 1:14:30. A very brisk pace would
have put Oswald at the Tippit scene at 1:14, if we assume he began his speed walk at
1:04, but that would not have left enough time for him to walk past 10th and Patton, spin
around, start walking the other way, get stopped by Tippit, have a "friendly chat" with
Tippit, wait while Tippit got out of the car, and then shoot Tippit. And note that this whole
scenario assumes Oswald suddenly started sprint-walking toward the Tippit scene right
after Mrs. Roberts saw him standing near the road in front of the rooming house. It also assumes that Benavides waited only a few seconds before coming out from hiding and
approaching the police car. It just does not work.

 

In his Warren Commission testimony, Benavides used a figure of speech when he said he waited in his truck for a few minutes.

 

To Eddie Barker in 1967 (CBS - The Warren Report, part 3), Benavides stated that he watched the killer go around the corner and then waited for "maybe a second or two".

 

If you really do believe that Benavides actually waited in his truck for a few minutes before getting out, then it means you also believe that Benavides was cowering inside his truck as Helen Markham, Frank Cimino, Jimmy Burt, Bill Smith and others were standing over the body.

[Bill Brown]

 

"At the time I was just approaching the squad car, I noticed this young white male with both hands in the pockets of his zippered jacket leaning over the passenger side of the squad car. This young white male was looking into the squad car from the passenger side." -- Jack Tatum (to HSCA investigators Jack Moriarty and Joe Basteri)

 

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

In his Warren Commission testimony, Benavides used a figure of speech when he said he waited in his truck for a few minutes.

To Eddie Barker in 1967 (CBS - The Warren Report, part 3), Benavides stated that he watched the killer go around the corner and then waited for "maybe a second or two".

If you really do believe that Benavides actually waited in his truck for a few minutes before getting out, then it means you also believe that Benavides was cowering inside his truck as Helen Markham, Frank Cimino, Jimmy Burt, Bill Smith and others were standing over the body.

Your ability to robotically make pro-WC assumptions and ignore contrary evidence is truly impressive. First off, Markham said that she was alone with Tippit for "about 20 minutes" after he was shot, and that Tippit tried to talk to her during this time. In her FBI interview on the day of the shooting, she also said the killer had a "red complexion." But, nah, just never you mind the truck-sized holes in her story, right? Just cherry-pick the few things she said that support your mythology and ignore everything else.

As for Benavides, before he knew what he was supposed to say, he logically and credibly told Ted Calloway that after the shots rang out, he fell down to the floorboard of his truck because he was scared to death, and "stayed there":

          When I heard that shooting, I fell down into the floorboard of my truck and I
stayed there. It scared me to death.

Gee, does this sound like he only "stayed" in the truck for a few seconds? No, of course not. This makes no sense. But common sense goes out the window whenever you guys need it to disappear to avoid admitting the lone-gunman theory is implausible and contrary to the best evidence.

When Benavides initially explained how long he "stayed there," he gave the entirely logical and believable answer of "a few minutes." Let's read Benavides' explanation for why he waited a few minutes before getting out of his truck:

          Mr. BENAVIDES. After that, I set there for just a few minutes to kind of, I thought he went in back of the house or something. At the time, I thought maybe he might have lived in there and I didn’t aant to get out and rush right up. He might start shooting again. 

          That is when I got out of the truck. . . . (6 H 448)

This makes total sense. It's what any rational person would do in such a situation. It's completely understandable. If you were only 25-50 feet away from a shooting and feared you could be the next target, how long would you wait until coming out into the open? I guarantee you that you'd wait a lot longer than a few seconds.

But, shucks, if we accept Benavides' first account, the one that makes complete sense and that matches what he initially told another witness, this wreaks havoc on the lone-gunman theory's timeline for the Tippit shooting. So, the only alternative, since truth and logic are off the table, is to go with the "few seconds" claim that Benavides made many years later.

Edited April 23, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Your ability to robotically make pro-WC assumptions and ignore contrary evidence is truly impressive. First off, Markham said that she was alone with Tippit for "about 20 minutes" after he was shot, and that Tippit tried to talk to her during this time. In her FBI interview on the day of the shooting, she also said the killer had a "red complexion." But, nah, just never you mind the truck-sized holes in her story, right? Just cherry-pick the few things she said that support your mythology and ignore everything else.

As for Benavides, before he knew what he was supposed to say, he logically and credibly told Ted Calloway that after the shots rang out, he fell down to the floorboard of his truck because he was scared to death, and "stayed there":

          When I heard that shooting, I fell down into the floorboard of my truck and I
stayed there. It scared me to death.

Gee, does this sound like he only "stayed" in the truck for a few seconds? No, of course not. This makes no sense. But common sense goes out the window whenever you guys need it to disappear to avoid admitting the lone-gunman theory is implausible and contrary to the best evidence.

When Benavides initially explained how long he "stayed there," he gave the entirely logical and believable answer of "a few minutes." Let's read Benavides' explanation for why he waited a few minutes before getting out of his truck:

          Mr. BENAVIDES. After that, I set there for just a few minutes to kind of, I thought he went in back of the house or something. At the time, I thought maybe he might have lived in there and I didn’t aant to get out and rush right up. He might start shooting again. 

          That is when I got out of the truck. . . . (6 H 448)

This makes total sense. It's what any rational person would do in such a situation. It's completely understandable. If you were only 25-50 feet away from a shooting and feared you could be the next target, how long would you wait until coming out into the open? I guarantee you that you'd wait a lot longer than a few seconds.

But, shucks, if we accept Benavides' first account, the one that makes complete sense and that matches what he initially told another witness, this wreaks havoc on the lone-gunman theory's timeline for the Tippit shooting. So, the only alternative, since truth and logic are off the table, is to go with the "few seconds" claim that Benavides made many years later.

 

Your ability to robotically make pro-WC assumptions and ignore contrary evidence is truly impressive. First off, Markham said that she was alone with Tippit for "about 20 minutes" after he was shot, and that Tippit tried to talk to her during this time. In her FBI interview on the day of the shooting, she also said the killer had a "red complexion." But, nah, just never you mind the truck-sized holes in her story, right? Just cherry-pick the few things she said that support your mythology and ignore everything else.

 

You're all over the place.  No one's talking about Markham.

 

 

As for Benavides, before he knew what he was supposed to say, he logically and credibly told Ted Calloway that after the shots rang out, he fell down to the floorboard of his truck because he was scared to death, and "stayed there":

          When I heard that shooting, I fell down into the floorboard of my truck and I
stayed there. It scared me to death.

Gee, does this sound like he only "stayed" in the truck for a few seconds? No, of course not. This makes no sense.

 

No. You're confused.

 

No one is saying that Benavides stayed in his truck for a few seconds.  Benavides stayed in his truck for probably 45 seconds to a minute.  He stayed in his truck while watching the killer go around the corner and THEN he waited a few seconds before getting out.

 

 

But common sense goes out the window whenever you guys need it to disappear to avoid admitting the lone-gunman theory is implausible and contrary to the best evidence.

 

So claiming that Whaley picked Knapp out of the lineup instead of Oswald (even though Whaley specifically tells us that he picked out the guy who was bawling out the police and and was complaining about being placed alongside teens) is using common sense?

 

 

This makes total sense. It's what any rational person would do in such a situation. It's completely understandable. If you were only 25-50 feet away from a shooting and feared you could be the next target, how long would you wait until coming out into the open? I guarantee you that you'd wait a lot longer than a few seconds.

 

This confirms for me that you don't know what you're talking about.  Benavides was fifteen feet away.  Your biggest fault seems to be that you are clueless on most of the subjects you post about.  And again, No one is saying Benavides waited only a few seconds before getting out.  You seem to be unaware that Benavides said he waited a second or two AFTER the killer went around the corner.