Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket

[Bill Brown]

8 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Uh, well, the problem is that my statement is defensible based on Whaley's own WC testimony. I did not say that Whaley said that he chose Knapp. On the other hand, writing quickly and wanting to move on to the point about the pickup time in the timesheet, I did not explain the basis of my comment that Whaley chose Knapp. I should have explained that although Whaley said he chose Oswald he also repeatedly said that he chose the No. 2 man and that the No. 2 man was Knapp, not Oswald. I should have also explained that Whaley even specified that the man he chose was the third man to come out to the lineup, and that this was Knapp, not Oswald. And I should have added that Whaley even correctly noted that the men entered the lineup from left to right, which makes it even more puzzling that Whaley kept insisting that he chose the No. 2, and that he stuck to this even when confronted with the typed police statement that said he chose the No. 3 man.

To address your rather dishonest nit-picking, I've edited that statement in my original reply to read as follows:

To all but the willfully blind, it is obvious that Whaley had doubts, if not guilt, about his "identification" of Oswald in the lineup and was dropping fairly obvious hints that there was something wrong with his "identification." 

The real crux of the matter is that Whaley's "identification" of Oswald in the police lineup was hardly "positive" when considered in light of Whaley's WC testimony and the irregularities in the police statements taken from Whaley.

This, in turn, takes us back to the crucial 12:30 pickup time noted in Whaley's timesheet, which categorically rules out Oswald as the passenger. 

 

A few pages back, you said: At the police lineup, Whaley selected an eighteen-year-old named David Knapp instead of the twenty-four-year-old Oswald.

 

Before we go on with the issues you raise, re: Whaley, do you still believe Whaley picked Knapp?  How about a direct answer to my direct question?

 

[Michael Griffith]

9 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

A few pages back, you said: At the police lineup, Whaley selected an eighteen-year-old named David Knapp instead of the twenty-four-year-old Oswald.

Before we go on with the issues you raise, re: Whaley, do you still believe Whaley picked Knapp?  How about a direct answer to my direct question?

Wow. Really? You're still gonna pretend to be clueless about the problems with Whaley's "identification" and pretend that it was a "positive identification"? Anyway, here's my answer:

I don't believe Whaley recognized Oswald as the passenger he picked up at 12:30. I believe he was pressured into eventually going along with an Oswald identification. I think this explains the suspicious issues with the police statements taken from him, and I think it explains his WC testimony. Again, to all but the willfully blind, Whaley's WC testimony shows that he felt guilty about his identification, that--at a minimum--he was uncertain about it, and that he was hinting as far as he dared that he was pressured into it and that there were shenanigans involved with his police statements. 

The core issue with Whaley is the fact that the 12:30 pickup time documented in his timesheet categorically rules out Oswald as the passenger. This explains his statements about the color of the jacket and the rest of the man's clothing. The WC's argument that Whaley picked up this passenger at 12:47 is bogus, but they had to make that claim because that was the earliest they could get Oswald to the spot where he allegedly entered Whaley's cab. 

The WC simply lied when it claimed that the 12:30 entry was not precise because Whaley supposedly entered his pickup times in 15-minute intervals. His timesheet itself refutes this lie. The timesheet includes entries for 6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, and 3:10. Furthermore, if the passenger had really entered the cab at 12:47 or 12:48 as the WC claimed, Whaley, according to Commission's own argument, would have entered the time as 12:45 or 1:00. 

Obviously, Whaley entered 12:30 as the pickup time because that's when he picked up the passenger. But the WC could not accept this because it couldn't get Oswald to the cab until 12:47.

And we haven't even addressed the rigged reenactments of Whaley's drive from downtown Dallas to Oswald's neighborhood. Here, too, the Commission's timeline for Oswald's movements collapses like a house of cards.

Edited April 18, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Bill Brown]

8 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Wow. Really? You're still gonna pretend to be clueless about the problems with Whaley's "identification" and pretend that it was a "positive identification"? Anyway, here's my answer:

I don't believe Whaley recognized Oswald as the passenger he picked up at 12:30. I believe he was pressured into eventually going along with an Oswald identification. I think this explains the suspicious issues with the police statements taken from him, and I think it explains his WC testimony. Again, to all but the willfully blind, Whaley's WC testimony shows that he felt guilty about his identification, that--at a minimum--he was uncertain about it, and that he was hinting as far as he dared that he was pressured into it and that there were shenanigans involved with his police statements. 

The core issue with Whaley is the fact that the 12:30 pickup time documented in his timesheet categorically rules out Oswald as the passenger. This explains his statements about the color of the jacket and the rest of the man's clothing. The WC's argument that Whaley picked up this passenger at 12:47 is bogus, but they had to make that claim because that was the earliest they could get Oswald to the spot where he allegedly entered Whaley's cab. 

The WC simply lied when it claimed that the 12:30 entry was not precise because Whaley supposedly entered his pickup times in 15-minute intervals. His timesheet itself refutes this lie. The timesheet includes entries for 6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, and 3:10. Furthermore, if the passenger had really entered the cab at 12:47 or 12:48 as the WC claimed, Whaley, according to Commission's own argument, would have entered the time as 12:45 or 1:00. 

Obviously, Whaley entered 12:30 as the pickup time because that's when he picked up the passenger. But the WC could not accept this because it couldn't get Oswald to the cab until 12:47.

And we haven't even addressed the rigged reenactments of Whaley's drive from downtown Dallas to Oswald's neighborhood. Here, too, the Commission's timeline for Oswald's movements collapses like a house of cards.

 

I don't believe Whaley recognized Oswald as the passenger he picked up at 12:30. I believe he was pressured into eventually going along with an Oswald identification.

 

But then why did you say this, below?

 

At the police lineup, Whaley selected an eighteen-year-old named David Knapp instead of the twenty-four-year-old Oswald.

 

[Michael Griffith]

17 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

I don't believe Whaley recognized Oswald as the passenger he picked up at 12:30. I believe he was pressured into eventually going along with an Oswald identification.

But then why did you say this, below?

At the police lineup, Whaley selected an eighteen-year-old named David Knapp instead of the twenty-four-year-old Oswald.

More of your disingenuous nit-picking. I've already explained and modified my original statement about whom Whaley selected. My statement was too general in isolation. It was an over-generalization because I did not explain the basis for it. Without that explanation, the statement was subject to the kind of nit-picking you've been doing, which is why I revised it.

If nothing else, your claim that Whaley "positively identified" Oswald in the lineup could certainly be viewed as over-generalization or an over-simplification, since it ignores the suspicious irregularities with the police statements taken from Whaley, and since it ignores Whaley's wandering, waffling, and contradictory WC testimony. 

Again, to all but the willfully blind, Whaley's WC testimony shows that he felt guilty about his identification, that--at a minimum--he was uncertain about it, and that he was hinting as far as he dared that he was pressured into it and that there were shenanigans involved with his police statements. 

Now, are you ever going to get around to defending the WC's specious explanation for the 12:30 pickup time documented in Whaley's timesheet? 

[Greg Doudna]

Michael Griffith, just for the record I think you are overthinking the 12:30 pickup time objection. I reread Whaley's testimony and he filled in approximate times later from guessing and memory that would usually be within 15 minutes or so of correct. As you yourself note he was not rounding to exact quarter hours in his times filled in either, despite saying that was his practice. This case of 12:30 would be about 20 minutes or so off from true time, which Whaley said he back-filled in on his time sheet that day after I think 1 or 2 more fares after Oswald. He just wrote the time wrong by 20 minutes, within his margin of error under his working conditions. It doesn't prove he didn't take Oswald 20 minutes after the time he wrote, or that that wasn't his Oswald fare.  

I don't buy the idea that he was trying to give hints that he'd been pressured either, way too subtle for what comes across as a non-subtle man. The number 2 and number 3 business, second or third from the left or right, which order he wrote his statement and saw the lineup, etc., Whaley being pressed on those things months after the fact, was Whaley being not too sharp and just mixed up. He tries to explain and get the "right answers", wants to save face and dignity. That is how I interpret the two coats business in which he sticks to his story that he saw Oswald wearing Oswald's gray jacket (which he calls light blue but agrees on the stand [wrongly] was the light-tan C162), but thinks the "right answer" (what he thought the Warren Commission wanted) was the heavier blue jacket C163. So Whaley concedes (as if this was normal and he never denied it) that Oswald was wearing the blue jacket but over the gray jacket the one he saw.

In fact he saw Oswald's actual gray jacket (which he comes to call light blue matching what he calls light blue pants--it was actually gray pants and gray jacket, the pants are known to be have been gray not light blue). Because Whaley thought in the moment the blue coat C163 was being otherwise established as the "right" answer and he had gotten the "wrong" answer, he says Oswald was wearing both, to have it both ways! 

Its like some people I've known, we all have, when caught out on some minor mistake will quickly without missing a beat modify the story to correct or harmonize and say retroactively, "like I've always said..." That is what Whaley was doing with the wearing both coats, and probably doing a bit with the number 2 and 3 lineup discrepancy.

Oswald told his interrogators he took the cab, and taking the bus and the cab on his own evasively makes sense of someone believing their life is in jeopardy. Oswald got to his rooming house some way and with a bus stuck in traffic how else than by cab. 

It certainly makes no sense that he catches a ride in a getaway car to drive him off with no money to his rooming house!   

Yes a defense attorney for Oswald would have ripped up Whaley's testimony. Whaley like a lot of witnesses was no perfect witness. But that's not the question here, the question is did Oswald take the cab. That fare of Whaley was dropped off five blocks beyond Oswald's rooming house which agrees with Oswald's pattern of evasion in his movements, it accounts for how Oswald got there.

Whaley does not come across as sophisticated or nuanced enough to carry out a subtle signaling that he had been pressured, or subtly sabotage his testimony under fear of his life from police if he were to say so openly. If that is what he was trying to get out, he would say so, no evidence he ever did. And apart from that, why on earth would Dallas Police carry out an elaborate pretense of fabricating Oswald taking a bus and a cab? What's the point? 

Roger Craig's "Oswald" getting into the station wagon at Dealey Plaza is well understood as a mistaken identification from viewing briefly at a distance, like so many others. It would be interesting to know who that was Roger Craig (and others) saw, but it wasn't Oswald despite Craig thinking so. Craig was not a perfect witness either.   

Edited April 19, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Michael Griffith, just for the record I think you are overthinking the 12:30 pickup time objection. I reread Whaley's testimony and he filled in approximate times later from guessing and memory that would usually be within 15 minutes or so of correct. As you yourself note he was not rounding to exact quarter hours in his times filled in either, despite saying that was his practice. This case of 12:30 would be about 20 minutes or so off from true time, which Whaley said he back-filled in on his time sheet that day after I think 1 or 2 more fares after Oswald. He just wrote the time wrong by 20 minutes, within his margin of error under his working conditions. It doesn't prove he didn't take Oswald 20 minutes after the time he wrote, or that that wasn't his Oswald fare.  

I don't buy the idea that he was trying to give hints that he'd been pressured either, way too subtle for what comes across as a non-subtle man. The number 2 and number 3 business, second or third from the left or right, which order he wrote his statement and saw the lineup, etc., Whaley being pressed on those things months after the fact, was Whaley being not too sharp and just mixed up. He tries to explain and get the "right answers", wants to save face and dignity. That is how I interpret the two coats business in which he sticks to his story that he saw Oswald wearing Oswald's gray jacket (which he calls light blue but agrees on the stand [wrongly] was the light-tan C162), but thinks the "right answer" (what he thought the Warren Commission wanted) was the heavier blue jacket C163. So Whaley concedes (as if this was normal and he never denied it) that Oswald was wearing the blue jacket but over the gray jacket the one he saw.

In fact he saw Oswald's actual gray jacket (which he comes to call light blue matching what he calls light blue pants--it was actually gray pants and gray jacket, the pants are known to be have been gray not light blue). Because Whaley thought in the moment the blue coat C163 was being otherwise established as the "right" answer and he had gotten the "wrong" answer, he says Oswald was wearing both, to have it both ways! 

Its like some people I've known, we all have, when caught out on some minor mistake will quickly without missing a beat modify the story to correct or harmonize and say retroactively, "like I've always said..." That is what Whaley was doing with the wearing both coats, and probably doing a bit with the number 2 and 3 lineup discrepancy.

Oswald told his interrogators he took the cab, and taking the bus and the cab on his own evasively makes sense of someone believing their life is in jeopardy. Oswald got to his rooming house some way and with a bus stuck in traffic how else than by cab. 

It certainly makes no sense that he catches a ride in a getaway car to drive him off with no money to his rooming house!   

Yes a defense attorney for Oswald would have ripped up Whaley's testimony. Whaley like a lot of witnesses was no perfect witness. But that's not the question here, the question is did Oswald take the cab. That fare of Whaley was dropped off five blocks beyond Oswald's rooming house which agrees with Oswald's pattern of evasion in his movements, it accounts for how Oswald got there.

Whaley does not come across as sophisticated or nuanced enough to carry out a subtle signaling that he had been pressured, or subtly sabotage his testimony under fear of his life from police if he were to say so openly. If that is what he was trying to get out, he would say so, no evidence he ever did. And apart from that, why on earth would Dallas Police carry out an elaborate pretense of fabricating Oswald taking a bus and a cab? What's the point? 

Roger Craig's "Oswald" getting into the station wagon at Dealey Plaza is well understood as a mistaken identification from viewing briefly at a distance, like so many others. It would be interesting to know who that was Roger Craig (and others) saw, but it wasn't Oswald despite Craig thinking so. Craig was not a perfect witness either.   

I doubt that Whaley waited so long to enter pickup times on his timesheet. This doesn't make sense to me. I know he told the WC he did this, but his timesheet does not support his claim, and it would have been much easier to enter each pickup time as it occurred.

We don't know what Oswald did and did not tell the police. The evidence relating to the bus ride is shaky at best. The cab-ride reenactments were unrealistic. They couldn't get the cab to Oswald's neighborhood in the required amount of time without rigging the reenactment. 

We'll have to agree to disagree about whether Whaley was trying to hint that there was something wrong with his identification of Oswald. I agree that he comes across as a simple man, but I also find it interesting that he volunteered such damning information about the police affidavits and about the lineup (Oswald's bawling out the police), and that he insisted that he chose the No. 2 man even after being confronted with the typed police statement that said he chose the No. 3 man. 

As you noted, at times Whaley was trying to say what he thought the WC wanted to hear. Yes, I agree. This fact alone calls into question his accommodating statements (waiting to record pickup times, the color of the jacket and of other clothing, where he dropped off his passenger). 

My bottom line about Whaley, getting back to my first reply in this thread, is that his identification of Oswald in the police lineup was not what one would normally call a "positive identification," and that given the overtly unfair nature of the lineup, there are serious questions about his identification. 

[Bill Brown]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Michael Griffith, just for the record I think you are overthinking the 12:30 pickup time objection. I reread Whaley's testimony and he filled in approximate times later from guessing and memory that would usually be within 15 minutes or so of correct. As you yourself note he was not rounding to exact quarter hours in his times filled in either, despite saying that was his practice. This case of 12:30 would be about 20 minutes or so off from true time, which Whaley said he back-filled in on his time sheet that day after I think 1 or 2 more fares after Oswald. He just wrote the time wrong by 20 minutes, within his margin of error under his working conditions. It doesn't prove he didn't take Oswald 20 minutes after the time he wrote, or that that wasn't his Oswald fare.  

I don't buy the idea that he was trying to give hints that he'd been pressured either, way too subtle for what comes across as a non-subtle man. The number 2 and number 3 business, second or third from the left or right, which order he wrote his statement and saw the lineup, etc., Whaley being pressed on those things months after the fact, was Whaley being not too sharp and just mixed up. He tries to explain and get the "right answers", wants to save face and dignity. That is how I interpret the two coats business in which he sticks to his story that he saw Oswald wearing Oswald's gray jacket (which he calls light blue but agrees on the stand [wrongly] was the light-tan C162), but thinks the "right answer" (what he thought the Warren Commission wanted) was the heavier blue jacket C163. So Whaley concedes (as if this was normal and he never denied it) that Oswald was wearing the blue jacket but over the gray jacket the one he saw.

In fact he saw Oswald's actual gray jacket (which he comes to call light blue matching what he calls light blue pants--it was actually gray pants and gray jacket, the pants are known to be have been gray not light blue). Because Whaley thought in the moment the blue coat C163 was being otherwise established as the "right" answer and he had gotten the "wrong" answer, he says Oswald was wearing both, to have it both ways! 

Its like some people I've known, we all have, when caught out on some minor mistake will quickly without missing a beat modify the story to correct or harmonize and say retroactively, "like I've always said..." That is what Whaley was doing with the wearing both coats, and probably doing a bit with the number 2 and 3 lineup discrepancy.

Oswald told his interrogators he took the cab, and taking the bus and the cab on his own evasively makes sense of someone believing their life is in jeopardy. Oswald got to his rooming house some way and with a bus stuck in traffic how else than by cab. 

It certainly makes no sense that he catches a ride in a getaway car to drive him off with no money to his rooming house!   

Yes a defense attorney for Oswald would have ripped up Whaley's testimony. Whaley like a lot of witnesses was no perfect witness. But that's not the question here, the question is did Oswald take the cab. That fare of Whaley was dropped off five blocks beyond Oswald's rooming house which agrees with Oswald's pattern of evasion in his movements, it accounts for how Oswald got there.

Whaley does not come across as sophisticated or nuanced enough to carry out a subtle signaling that he had been pressured, or subtly sabotage his testimony under fear of his life from police if he were to say so openly. If that is what he was trying to get out, he would say so, no evidence he ever did. And apart from that, why on earth would Dallas Police carry out an elaborate pretense of fabricating Oswald taking a bus and a cab? What's the point? 

Roger Craig's "Oswald" getting into the station wagon at Dealey Plaza is well understood as a mistaken identification from viewing briefly at a distance, like so many others. It would be interesting to know who that was Roger Craig (and others) saw, but it wasn't Oswald despite Craig thinking so. Craig was not a perfect witness either.   

 

Greg,

 

For the record... long before he ever testified to the Warren Commission, Whaley described his infamous passenger to the FBI.  In this description, he described the shirt in detail and makes no mention of any jacket, much less two.

 

Also, Oswald got out of the cab three blocks past the rooming house, not five.  Oswald gave Whaley the destination of 500 North Beckley, but as they approached the 700 block (Beckley and Neely), Oswald told Whaley that this would do just fine and Whaley pulled over two blocks short of the original destination.

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

20 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I doubt that Whaley waited so long to enter pickup times on his timesheet. This doesn't make sense to me. I know he told the WC he did this, but his timesheet does not support his claim, and it would have been much easier to enter each pickup time as it occurred.

We don't know what Oswald did and did not tell the police. The evidence relating to the bus ride is shaky at best. The cab-ride reenactments were unrealistic. They couldn't get the cab to Oswald's neighborhood in the required amount of time without rigging the reenactment. 

We'll have to agree to disagree about whether Whaley was trying to hint that there was something wrong with his identification of Oswald. I agree that he comes across as a simple man, but I also find it interesting that he volunteered such damning information about the police affidavits and about the lineup (Oswald's bawling out the police), and that he insisted that he chose the No. 2 man even after being confronted with the typed police statement that said he chose the No. 3 man. 

As you noted, at times Whaley was trying to say what he thought the WC wanted to hear. Yes, I agree. This fact alone calls into question his accommodating statements (waiting to record pickup times, the color of the jacket and of other clothing, where he dropped off his passenger). 

My bottom line about Whaley, getting back to my first reply in this thread, is that his identification of Oswald in the police lineup was not what one would normally call a "positive identification," and that given the overtly unfair nature of the lineup, there are serious questions about his identification. 

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. 

[Greg Doudna]

Bill you claimed certainty the fingerprints on the patrol car from a single person found exactly at two locations where the gunman was seen at the car were not from the gunman.

You claim that is not influenced by the knowledge that they have been found to be not from Oswald. 

Are you aware that Dallas Police Paul Benton of the crime lab believed the prints were the gunman’s? He told people and believed they were Oswald’s prints! Why do you suppose he thought that? 

When I asked your reason you answered: because no conceivable plausible scenario that the gunman would have. That was your stated reason for negative certainty. You have refused multiple requests from me to cite what you would consider a plausible scenario for any OTHER single individual to leave those prints in those two locations. But you are certain someone else did so, just not the gunman, because you claim to know the gunman didn’t, which certainly wasn’t the view of the Dallas police if Bentley was representative. 

You object to my ca 90-95% guess at prior odds those would be the gunman’s prints (in a situation where that is not yet known either way), versus your 0%. You consider my ca 90-95% odds unwarranted, versus your 0% odds as warranted.

The way to test if you are being honest and straightforward about this is as follows. Judge what kind of odds you would gamble with discretionary money and expect to win more than lose, like betting on the outcome of an election or a sports game but in this case betting on whether those fingerprints would turn out to be from the gunman (before knowing, with assumption there will be a finding at point Y future date). 

I would put my money where my mouth is in such a situation, since I judge true odds in the 90’s %, it would be a no-brainer for me to offer 4 to 1 on “from the gunman” and I would expect to win at those odds (if identical cases of such bets were repeated and averaged),

Now what about you? Would you bet 10 to 1 the other way, on “other than the gunman” (for both locations’ single-individual prints)? (you win @1 if they are from somebody else and lose @10 if they ARE from the gunman.)

Which is more realistic in the real world on this — my 4 to 1 (what I would consider winning odds and would offer) or your 1 to 10 going the opposite way (which if you have not been bs’ing you logically should consider winning odds). 

would you put (discretionary) money of yours on those odds so extremely different from mine (and officer Bentley)? Be honest!! 

Just as insurance actuaries make bets on odds for profit on life expectancies of people, or Jimmy the Greek of Las Vegas gives odds on presidential election outcomes, this is a useful mental exercise in this case.

If you wouldn’t offer 10 to 1 odds on the prints being from anybody BUT the gunman—the only individual known to have been at those two location—what odds WOULD you offer and expect rationally to win (if enough identical situations were to be bet and averaged)? 

Also, having run me through hoops to go to the work of giving you a hypothetical plausible scenario for the gunman leaving a handprint on the fender, I notice you seem to be ignoring that. This is a third request to answer— do you find that scenario plausible or implausible? 

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill you claimed certainty the fingerprints on the patrol car from a single person found exactly at two locations where the gunman was seen at the car were not from the gunman.

You claim that is not influenced by the knowledge that they have been found to be not from Oswald. 

Are you aware that Dallas Police Paul Benton of the crime lab believed the prints were the gunman’s? He told people and believed they were Oswald’s prints! Why do you suppose he thought that? 

When I asked your reason you answered: because no conceivable plausible scenario that the gunman would have. That was your stated reason for negative certainty. You have refused multiple requests from me to cite what you would consider a plausible scenario for any OTHER single individual to leave those prints in those two locations. But you are certain someone else did so, just not the gunman, because you claim to know the gunman didn’t, which certainly wasn’t the view of the Dallas police if Bentley was representative. 

You object to my ca 90-95% guess at prior odds those would be the gunman’s prints (in a situation where that is not yet known either way), versus your 0%. You consider my ca 90-95% odds unwarranted, versus your 0% odds as warranted.

The way to test if you are being honest and straightforward about this is as follows. Judge what kind of odds you would gamble with discretionary money and expect to win more than lose, like betting on the outcome of an election or a sports game but in this case betting on whether those fingerprints would turn out to be from the gunman (before knowing, with assumption there will be a finding at point Y future date). 

I would put my money where my mouth is in such a situation, since I judge true odds in the 90’s %, it would be a no-brainer for me to offer 4 to 1 on “from the gunman” and I would expect to win at those odds (if identical cases of such bets were repeated and averaged),

Now what about you? Would you bet 10 to 1 the other way, on “other than the gunman” (for both locations’ single-individual prints)? (you win @1 if they are from somebody else and lose @10 if they ARE from the gunman.)

Which is more realistic in the real world on this — my 4 to 1 (what I would consider winning odds and would offer) or your 1 to 10 going the opposite way (which if you have not been bs’ing you logically should consider winning odds). 

would you put (discretionary) money of yours on those odds so extremely different from mine (and officer Bentley)? Be honest!! 

Just as insurance actuaries make bets on odds for profit on life expectancies of people, or Jimmy the Greek of Las Vegas gives odds on presidential election outcomes, this is a useful mental exercise in this case.

If you wouldn’t offer 10 to 1 odds on the prints being from anybody BUT the gunman—the only individual known to have been at those two location—what odds WOULD you offer and expect rationally to win (if enough identical situations were to be bet and averaged)? 

Also, having run me through hoops to go to the work of giving you a hypothetical plausible scenario for the gunman leaving a handprint on the fender, I notice you seem to be ignoring that. This is a third request to answer— do you find that scenario plausible or implausible? 

 

Domingo Benavides saw pretty much everything.  He said after the shots, the killer, from his position across the hood from Tippit, backed up onto the sidewalk and took off for the corner.  Benavides says nothing about the killer going out in front of the patrol car to final a final shot.

 

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill you claimed certainty the fingerprints on the patrol car from a single person found exactly at two locations where the gunman was seen at the car were not from the gunman.

You claim that is not influenced by the knowledge that they have been found to be not from Oswald. 

Are you aware that Dallas Police Paul Benton of the crime lab believed the prints were the gunman’s? He told people and believed they were Oswald’s prints! Why do you suppose he thought that? 

When I asked your reason you answered: because no conceivable plausible scenario that the gunman would have. That was your stated reason for negative certainty. You have refused multiple requests from me to cite what you would consider a plausible scenario for any OTHER single individual to leave those prints in those two locations. But you are certain someone else did so, just not the gunman, because you claim to know the gunman didn’t, which certainly wasn’t the view of the Dallas police if Bentley was representative. 

You object to my ca 90-95% guess at prior odds those would be the gunman’s prints (in a situation where that is not yet known either way), versus your 0%. You consider my ca 90-95% odds unwarranted, versus your 0% odds as warranted.

The way to test if you are being honest and straightforward about this is as follows. Judge what kind of odds you would gamble with discretionary money and expect to win more than lose, like betting on the outcome of an election or a sports game but in this case betting on whether those fingerprints would turn out to be from the gunman (before knowing, with assumption there will be a finding at point Y future date). 

I would put my money where my mouth is in such a situation, since I judge true odds in the 90’s %, it would be a no-brainer for me to offer 4 to 1 on “from the gunman” and I would expect to win at those odds (if identical cases of such bets were repeated and averaged),

Now what about you? Would you bet 10 to 1 the other way, on “other than the gunman” (for both locations’ single-individual prints)? (you win @1 if they are from somebody else and lose @10 if they ARE from the gunman.)

Which is more realistic in the real world on this — my 4 to 1 (what I would consider winning odds and would offer) or your 1 to 10 going the opposite way (which if you have not been bs’ing you logically should consider winning odds). 

would you put (discretionary) money of yours on those odds so extremely different from mine (and officer Bentley)? Be honest!! 

Just as insurance actuaries make bets on odds for profit on life expectancies of people, or Jimmy the Greek of Las Vegas gives odds on presidential election outcomes, this is a useful mental exercise in this case.

If you wouldn’t offer 10 to 1 odds on the prints being from anybody BUT the gunman—the only individual known to have been at those two location—what odds WOULD you offer and expect rationally to win (if enough identical situations were to be bet and averaged)? 

Also, having run me through hoops to go to the work of giving you a hypothetical plausible scenario for the gunman leaving a handprint on the fender, I notice you seem to be ignoring that. This is a third request to answer— do you find that scenario plausible or implausible? 

 

Bill Smith said that the gunman ran off after firing the shots; nothing about the gunman going in front of the car to fire off a final shot before taking off.

 

[Gerry Down]

18 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Domingo Benavides saw pretty much everything.  He said after the shots, the killer, from his position across the hood from Tippit, backed up onto the sidewalk and took off for the corner.  Benavides says nothing about the killer going out in front of the patrol car to final a final shot.

 

Wasn't he hiding under the dashboard at the time?

[Gerry Down]

16 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Bill Smith said that the gunman ran off after firing the shots; nothing about the gunman going in front of the car to fire off a final shot before taking off.

 

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.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Gerry Down

[Greg Doudna]

13 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Domingo Benavides saw pretty much everything.  He said after the shots, the killer, from his position across the hood from Tippit, backed up onto the sidewalk and took off for the corner.  Benavides says nothing about the killer going out in front of the patrol car to final a final shot.

What conclusion do you draw from that as to what happened or did not happen? 

13 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Bill Smith said that the gunman ran off after firing the shots; nothing about the gunman going in front of the car to fire off a final shot before taking off.

What conclusion do you draw from that as to what happened or did not happen? 

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Bill Brown]

3 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Wasn't he hiding under the dashboard at the time?

 

 

At the time?  No.

 

After hearing the last of the shots, Benavides looked up in time to see Tippit stumble and fall and the killer back up onto the sidewalk and take off.

 

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