Lee Oswald - The Cop-Killer

[Gil Jesus]

On 7/9/2022 at 11:02 PM, Bill Brown said:

The witnesses were told that the man they saw may not be any of the men in the lineup.

 

Not true. Callaway and Guinyard were told the "cop killer" was in the lineup and they wanted to nail him for the assassination as well.

Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this bus driver and myself……and Jim told us, “When I show you these guys, be sure, take your time, see if you can make a positive identification………We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him.”
( 3 H 355 )

[Gil Jesus]

On 7/9/2022 at 7:00 PM, Bill Brown said:

Every single one of the above witnesses positively identified Lee Oswald as that man.

Markham hesitated and was pressured to choose a man who she had never seen before.

Callaway and Guinyard were told the perp was in the lineup.

The Davises viewed the lineup together instead of separately.

Scoggins never saw the killer's face and Whaley saw Oswald's picture in the newspaper before viewing the lineup.

None of these "positive identifications" were positive.

https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-witnesses/

 

[Bill Brown]

9 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

From Helen Markham's testimony before the Warren Commission:

. . . Mr. [Joseph A.] BALL [assistant counsel]. Did anybody tell you that the man you were looking for would

be in a certain position in the lineup, or anything like that?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody -- I

have asked you that question before -- did you recognize anybody from their face?

Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn’t know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup

look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.

Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MABKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?

Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.

Mr. BALL. Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't --

Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.

Mr. BALL: No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in

there if you saw anybody in there --

Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two.
Mr. BALL. What did you say when you saw number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept

asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak.

Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?

Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
Mr. BALL. You recognized him from his appearance?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I asked -- I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn’t

sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.
Mr. BALL. When you saw him?
Mrs. MARKHAM. When I saw the man. But I wasn’t sure, so, you see, I

told them I wanted to be sure, and looked,at his face is what I was looking at, mostly is what I looked at, on account of his eyes, the way he looked at me. So I asked them if they would turn him sideways. They did, and then they turned him back around, and I said the second, and they said, which one, and I said number two. So when I said that, well, I just kind of fell over. Everybody in there, you know, was beginning to talk, and I don’t know, just -- . . .

 

The obvious confusion during her testimony to the Warren Commission (namely, Ball) does not take away from the fact that on the evening of 11/22/63, she picked Oswald out of a lineup as the man she saw shoot Tippit.  The confused portion of her testimony many months later doesn't change that fact.

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Allen Lowe said:

Remember what Lavelle said?

To them the JFK shooting was as insignificant as the murder of a black man (he used much worse language)...

but the killing of a cop was something else again. And we haven’t even begun to discuss Tippit’s strange movements in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.

Leavelle hated JFK and it's obvious why. JFK's killing meant nothing to Leavelle.

What percentage of the entire Dallas Police felt the same as Leavelle toward JFK? 

I think a reasonable guess would have been 70,80 maybe even 90+%?

Over decades it's easy to forget the true level of hatred toward JFK in the South in 1963 due to Kennedy's perceived ****** lovin' policies and sentiments.

 

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

Not true. Callaway and Guinyard were told the "cop killer" was in the lineup and they wanted to nail him for the assassination as well.

Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this bus driver and myself……and Jim told us, “When I show you these guys, be sure, take your time, see if you can make a positive identification………We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him.”
( 3 H 355 )

"But he preceeded his remark with 'be sure, take your time, get a good look at him, do not make an identification unless you are absolutely positive'". -- Ted Callaway

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

Scoggins never saw the killer's face and Whaley saw Oswald's picture in the newspaper before viewing the lineup.

 

"I saw him coming kind of toward me around that cutoff through there, and he never did look at me. He looked back over his left shoulder like that, as he went by. It seemed like I could see his face, his features and everything plain, you see." -- William Scoggins

 

Scoggins also stated that the killer had on a light-colored shirt (obviously the T-shirt under the jacket and the brown outer shirt).  Therefore, we know Scoggins got a good look at the front of the killer as the killer fled directly toward Scoggins.

 

Scoggins also testified that the man with the gun was approximately 25, 26 years old.  You only make that sort of determination by the face.

 

Scoggins was asked if the man was wearing glasses and instead of saying he had no idea since he didn't see the man's face, he said "No".

 

[Greg Doudna]

21 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

"Also, as written in a recent post on this Forum, who do the fingerprints on the front passenger side of Tippit's car belong to?"

Pete Barnes (of the crime lab) found partial prints near the passenger door and window but they weren't discernible.

Bill you're not up to date on the fingerprints. See Myers, With Malice, pp. 336-340 and get up to speed on what you are talking about.

[Gene Kelly]

Not sure if Mr. Brown is testing the waters of more knowledgeable researchers here or not.  I watched his YouTube segment and - as one response states - he puts on an excellent show, but only tells the official (government) account of the story.  His narrative ignores other key facts such as: the Oswald wallet; Helen Markham's testimony and credibility (and her interview with Mark Lane); other witness accounts (Acquilla Clemons, Frank Wright, Doris Holan); Johnny Reynolds saga; Dallas Officer Harry Olsen (a Jack Ruby associate); the DPD Car 207 episode; the likelihood that Oswald was in the Texas Theater at just after 1 o'clock before Tippit was killed; Tippit's strange movement and behavior just prior to his murder ... this is simply not the entire story.

The background and actions of DPD Captain William Roy Westbrook would be a much more interesting documentary to undertake for the JFK Truth Be Told production company. The DPD captain from the Personnel Bureau - where he was ostensibly responsible for background investigations of applicants and the investigation of personnel complaints - is seen controlling the post-assassination evidence closely and ensuring the incrimination of Oswald in the immediate hour after the murder. He arrived at the TSBD very early (and left early); then he arrives at the Tippit scene very early (but then left early).  He is linked with the shells at the Book Depository, and with the shells and wallet at the intersection of 10th & Patton where Tippit was killed... as well as the grey zipper jacket, the gun found (or planted) on Oswald, and the bullets in his pocket.  The ubiquitous Captain Westbrook was also in charge of the Texas Theater post-arrest disappearance of the list of theater patrons (since anyone who corroborated that Oswald was in the theater at 1:05pm would have exonerated him of the Tippit murder).  And by 1966, Westbrook was working for the CIA in Saigon training South Vietnam's secret police.  You just can't make such a storyline up. 

I think Allen Lowe sums it up very well. The Tippit killing is classic misdirection, that accomplished a number of objectives for the people who orchestrated the assassination.  Other prominent researchers have offered a similar rationale for the murder of a police officer: James Douglass states "...the killing of Tippit helped motivate the Dallas police to kill an armed Oswald in the Texas Theater, which would have disposed of the scapegoat before he could protest his being framed."  Harold Weisberg offered a simpler explanation: "Immediately, the flimsy police case (against Oswald) required a willingness to believe ... proved by affixing to Oswald the opprobrious epithet of 'cop-killer.'" Jim Garrison opined that the Tippit shooting was intended to draw as many police away from Dealey Plaza as possible; given the magnitude of the crime downtown, nothing less than killing a cop that would draw sufficient attention to virtually empty Dealey Plaza (and the department) of cops and allow conspirators who were involved to escape. Further, if Oswald was innocent of the Tippit murder, the foundation of the government's case against him collapsed." Some believe that Tippit himself was involved in the conspiracy, given his erratic and unexplained movements preceding his death. Tippit’s actions in the hour prior to his murder appear to be those of a key ground-level functionary in the plot, tracking and hunting for Oswald.

Indeed, there is much more to this story ...  

Gene 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

The obvious confusion during her testimony to the Warren Commission (namely, Ball) does not take away from the fact that on the evening of 11/22/63, she picked Oswald out of a lineup as the man she saw shoot Tippit.  The confused portion of her testimony many months later doesn't change that fact.

 

Some people like their coffee black. I see that you like your witnesses confused.

LOL

[Bill Brown]

50 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Some people like their coffee black. I see that you like your witnesses confused.

LOL

Confused during her testimony on what exactly Ball was asking her.  Yes.

There is a difference between her positive identification of Oswald as the cop-killer and the confusion during her testimony with Ball many months later.

Confused on the evening of 11/22/63?  No.  Number two was the man she saw shoot the policeman.

How does anything she said to Ball negate the fact that many months earlier she was very clear about the man she positively identified at the lineup?

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill you're not up to date on the fingerprints. See Myers, With Malice, pp. 336-340 and get up to speed on what you are talking about.

I'm very up to date on the fingerprints.  You are misinterpreting what Myers' expert found and what I said earlier in this thread.

 

I said the prints weren't discernible and I stand by that.  The only thing that Herbert Lutz (the expert  sought out by Myers) was able to determine was that the prints lifted by Barnes were "probably" from just one person.  Lutz was able to determine that the prints did not belong to Oswald.  He reached that conclusion because there was enough information in the lifted prints to compare to the Oswald fingerprint card.

 

That is not to say that the prints were discernible in trying to determine just who the prints belonged to.  The prints were partial yet contained enough information to rule out Oswald.  Understand now?

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Gene Kelly said:

Not sure if Mr. Brown is testing the waters of more knowledgeable researchers here or not.  I watched his YouTube segment and - as one response states - he puts on an excellent show, but only tells the official (government) account of the story....

 

Thanks Gene.  I'll take the compliment.

[Paul Cummings]

Barbara J. Davis testimony

Mr. BALL. Did you see him throw anything away ?

Mrs. DAVIS. No.

Mr. BALL. You didn’t?

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. BALL.. What did you do next?

Mrs. DAVIS. He looked at her first and looked at me and then smiled and went around the corner.

Mr. BALL. Was he running or walking?

Mrs. DAVIS. He was walking at his normal pace.

Later on...

Mr. BALL. Now, did you recognize him from his face or from his clothes when you saw him in the lineup?

Mrs. DAVIS. Well, I looked at his clothes and then his face from the side because I had seen him from a side view of him. I didn’t see him fullface.

Mr. BALL. Now answer the question. Did you recognize him from seeing

Mrs. DAVIS. From his face because that was all I was looking at. 

So was he was smiling from the sideview? Or was he looking at her straight on and smiled? Just asking because the inference was he was looking at her directly and smiling.

[Allen Lowe]

8 hours ago, Richard Price said:

Thank you Allen.  In all my years reading and studying the JFKA, for some reason, this concept never entered my thought process.  Always good to find new thoughts about old events.

I have to confess, and I should’ve credited him earlier,  that I believe this was Duke Lane‘s thesis. It just made so much sense.

[Greg Doudna]

6 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

I'm very up to date on the fingerprints.  You are misinterpreting what Myers' expert found and what I said earlier in this thread.

I said the prints weren't discernible and I stand by that.  The only thing that Herbert Lutz (the expert  sought out by Myers) was able to determine was that the prints lifted by Barnes were "probably" from just one person.  Lutz was able to determine that the prints did not belong to Oswald.  He reached that conclusion because there was enough information in the lifted prints to compare to the Oswald fingerprint card.

That is not to say that the prints were discernible in trying to determine just who the prints belonged to.  The prints were partial yet contained enough information to rule out Oswald.  Understand now?

No, that #1 point was not the only thing of interest Herbert Lutz determined. He also determined a second matter of interest, #2--new, as of 1998 Myers' publication, for this had not been determined or disclosed, whichever it was (the former according to Warren Commission testimony), prior to Myers' publication in 1998--that "the fingerprints taken from Tippit's patrol car were not Oswald's" (Myers p. 340). As you now also note.

That is of extraordinary significance. Future generations one day may credit Myers with having obtained and published this pivotal exonerating evidence for Oswald in the Tippit case which CTs have for the most part ignored (e.g. no mention of Myers' fingerprint finding in the recent JFK Revisited 2 and 4 hour films, I think; no mention of the Lutz fingerprint findings in McBride's 2013 book on the Tippit case, Into the Nightmare [based on no listing for "Lutz", "Pete Barnes", or "fingerprints" in that book's index], etc.) . . . because published by LNer Myers!

Love that irony!--distaste for work published by a LNer, Myers, overriding paying attention to content in that work materially arguing for exoneration of Oswald! This is the fruits of "ignore" epistemology! aka "shoot yourself in the foot" CT epistemology.

Furthermore, there may be a third (#3?) new development of interest as a result of the 1990s fingerprint analysis of Herbert Lutz, though this is not overtly claimed in Myers' reporting of Lutz's findings: the possibility, perhaps likelihood, contrary to Barnes' early report, that a positive fingerprint match to the killer of Tippit may be obtainable from comparison of the right fender fingerprints (= individual who left the fingerprints on the right front door, per Lutz = killer of Tippit).

Whereas Barnes testified to the Warren Commission that the fingerprints lifted from the two locations on the Tippit cruiser were of no use for identification information because too smeared, a photograph of those right front fender fingerprints published by Myers appears to show quite a bit of fingerprint material, much non-smeared, from that right front fender. I am no fingerprint expert, but I no longer uncritically take Barnes' early word for it that those fender fingerprints are not identifiable or amenable to a positive match by expert analysis--just look at the photo in Myers on p. 337. (I would defer to fingerprint experts today on this point, however, if fingerprint experts today could be found to comment.) Those fingerprints may be identifiable, but have not yet been identified.

But what is established, since 1998 (if Myers' first edition has that; I have only the 2013 rev. edition), from those fingerprints on the basis of expert testimony, unknown in Warren Commission published testimony and exhibits, unremarked in virtually all CT discussions of the Tippit case to date: those fingerprints left by someone in the exact location where witnesses saw the killer's hands on Tippit's car, are from someone who was not Oswald.

Anyway, glad to hear you have been up to date on the Myers' Lutz report all along, including the key point of the finding, not known or reported by DPD at the time, that those prints are not from Oswald.