Lee Oswald - The Cop-Killer

[Paul Cummings]

9 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

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.

Great information and thanks for sharing.

[Bill Brown]

4 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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.

That doesn't change a thing I said. Yes, there was enough information on the print to determine that the print was not Oswald's (as I've already said).

 

But the prints lifted were of no value when trying to determine exactly who the prints belonged to, exactly as I've also already stated. 

 

You're making me repeat myself as if you've laid some new groundbreaking information when the reality is nothing you've posted here changes a thing that I've already said. 

 

By the way, explain how prints lifted from the passenger side of the patrol car not belonging to Oswald exonerates him from being Tippit's killer.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Bill Brown

[James DiEugenio]

IN CASE ANYONE IS WONDERING WHY GD DIDNOT REPLY, THIS IS IT.

ITS FROM DALE M'S WEB SITE

The conversation was short, about twenty seconds or so. Eyewitness Helen Markham thought it was a friendly conversation, but wasn't close enough to hear what was being said. When eyewitness Jack Tatum rolled by in his car he could see Officer Tippit was either attempting to roll down the passenger window or was going to talk to Oswald through the open vent window. Suddenly, Oswald straightened up and stepped back as Officer Tippit climbed out of the squad car. 

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

IN CASE ANYONE IS WONDERING WHY GD DIDNOT REPLY, THIS IS IT.

ITS FROM DALE M'S WEB SITE

The conversation was short, about twenty seconds or so. Eyewitness Helen Markham thought it was a friendly conversation, but wasn't close enough to hear what was being said. When eyewitness Jack Tatum rolled by in his car he could see Officer Tippit was either attempting to roll down the passenger window or was going to talk to Oswald through the open vent window. Suddenly, Oswald straightened up and stepped back as Officer Tippit climbed out of the squad car. 

Point being...?

[Greg Doudna]

18 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

By the way, explain how prints lifted from the passenger side of the patrol car not belonging to Oswald exonerates him from being Tippit's killer.

The point is those fingerprints at the right front door window of the Tippit cruiser, and at the right front fender, almost certainly came from the killer, who was seen at that right front door window talking to Tippit, then shooting Tippit as he (the killer) went around the right front fender. Handprints on the right front fender are an unusual position for handprints, but well explained as from the killer associated with the shooting while the killer was at that position at the car.

The 1990s Lutz analysis reported by Myers--not known or reported by the earlier DPD in 1963--tightens the argument by Lutz's find that all of those fingerprints are from one single individual (and not multiple ones), an individual whose hands were in contact with the Tippit cruiser in both of those separate locations, exactly where the killer was in both locations, because that individual was the killer.

Lutz's finding, in other words, diminishes the slight possibility (as Myers interprets unconvincingly) that those fingerprints may have come from some onlooker or bystander in the ca. 20 minutes or so between the time the Tippit killer was leaning into and talking to Tippit at the cruiser's right front window, the time officer Barnes lifted those two sets of prints when he arrived to the scene.

If someone else were to be identified as the killer via a match to those fingerprints, then since there was only one shooter that would be evidence of exoneration of Oswald, is the argument.

I agree that both the witnesses and the ballistics physical evidence also must be addressed in any comprehensive "Innocence Project"-genre argument for Oswald's exoneration. But "Innocence Project" cases are filled with cases of actually innocent persons (exonerated via DNA) who were convicted by juries on the basis of eyewitness testimony. As I recall, something like ca. 50% (or was it ca. 70%? I don't remember) of such exonerations in modern times of criminal convictions for serious crimes involve sworn positive eyewitness identifications as part of the evidence which wrongfully convicted those persons. And the JFK assassination case is just filled with known instances--running into the hundreds--of ordinary citizens willing to swear up and down after seeing Oswald on TV that they were certain they remembered encountering him in some town in Kentucky or Montana or wherever, in addition to dozens of alleged sightings in the Dallas area itself of which no one will dispute many were in error (disputes being only over cases, not the phenomenon itself that erroneous identifications happen).  

Testing for exoneration via DNA in the Tippit killing is not possible from the physical evidence available.

But there are those fingerprints on the Tippit cruiser.

Which give every appearance and likelihood of having been left by the killer.

Fingerprints, likely from the killer, which according to the most recent published and non-controverted expert fingerprint analysis, were not, repeat not, left on that Tippit cruiser right front door window by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Should this not in itself be sufficient to cause revisitation of the total evidence picture in the Tippit case--consideration of whether this is another instance (by analogy, since it never came to trial) of a wrongful conviction, which like many Innocence Project case exonerations in recent times, involve eyewitness identifications?

[Bill Brown]

14 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

The point is those fingerprints at the right front door window of the Tippit cruiser, and at the right front fender, almost certainly came from the killer,

I realize that is your point but my point is that you're wrong. There is no way you can claim that those partial prints lifted by Barnes "most certainly came from the Killer". No other way to put it other than you're spouting nonsense.

 

You could have said that there is a chance those partial prints came from the killer.  If you would have simply said that, then I wouldn't take issue with it because you would be factually correct.  But that is not what you said. 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

Just now, Bill Brown said:

I realize that is your point but my point is that you're wrong. There is no way you can claim that those paetial prints lifted by Barnes "most certainly came from the Killer". No other way to put it other than youre spouting nonsense.

You could have said that there is a chance those partial prints came from the killer.  If you would have simply said that, then I wouldn't take issue with it because you would be factually correct.  But that is not what you said. 

To be clear, I recognize there is a slight chance that the fingerprints could be from a bystander or an officer in those ca. 20 minutes before Barnes lifted the prints. I subjectively think of it as in the neighborhood of ca. 90-95% likely they are from the killer, considered in isolation from other evidence and factors. Of course, it is the "other evidence and factors" which cause the differences of interpretation.

What would move that ca. 90-95% to ca. 100% would be if an identification match to those fingerprints was made and it matched to someone who was not one of the officers or bystanders that day. Such as e.g. a match to Curtis Craford (or someone else).

[Bill Brown]

2 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

To be clear, I recognize there is a slight chance that the fingerprints could be from a bystander or an officer in those ca. 20 minutes before Barnes lifted the prints. I subjectively think of it as in the neighborhood of ca. 90-95% likely they are from the killer, considered in isolation from other evidence and factors. Of course, it is the "other evidence and factors" which cause the differences of interpretation.

What would move that ca. 90-95% to ca. 100% would be if an identification match to those fingerprints was made and it matched to someone who was not one of the officers or bystanders that day. Such as e.g. a match to Curtis Craford (or someone else).

So that's it? Either the killer or a bystander? Couldn't possibly be anyone in the parking lot at the Southwest substation? Another officer from a previous shift? A mechanic? There are literally a dozen other options that you are choosing to ignore.

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

1 minute ago, Bill Brown said:

So that's it? Either the killer or a bystander? Couldn't possibly be anyone in the parking lot at the Southwest substation? Another officer from a previous shift? A mechanic? There are literally a dozen other options that you are choosing to ignore.

Touche Bill. However, it is the coincidence of the two locations matching where the killer is known to have been from eyewitnesses, in the one case (the right front door window) the killer directly witnessed placing his hands, that makes the killer look like the most likely source. Fair enough?

[Bill Brown]

1 minute ago, Greg Doudna said:

Touche Bill. However, it is the coincidence of the two locations matching where the killer is known to have been from eyewitnesses, in the one case (the right front door window) the killer directly witnessed placing his hands, that makes the killer look like the most likely source. Fair enough?

Who said the killer touched the right front fender of the patrol car? Maybe I've missed something.

[Greg Doudna]

Just now, Bill Brown said:

Who said the killer touched the right front fender of the patrol car? Maybe I've missed something.

No witness said that, but witnesses saw the killer go around the right front fender and back around it again. The killer was witnessed going around the right front fender shooting Tippit, then witnessed (having turned around) going back around the same right front fender as he walked rapidly or ran west on Tenth (then south on Patton and etc.).

No one saw him touch the right front fender or bumper, in the same way he was seen leaning with hands on the right front door at the window when talking to Tippit through the vent. The prints from the right front fender are identified in Myers as from a right hand. One reconstruction would be the killer, if a right-handed shooter, after administering the coup de grace to Tippit's head, turned around, transferred the revolver to his left hand as he was seen with it moments later at the corner of Tenth and Patton pulling shell hulls out of it with his right hand (and then reloading with his right hand into the revolver held in his left hand). With the revolver in his left hand and his right hand free, and in a hurry, he uses his free right hand to balance or perhaps avoid stumbling as he goes back around that right front fender to make his escape. Thereby accounting for the prints from a right hand in that location.  

[Bill Brown]

7 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

No witness said that, but witnesses saw the killer go around the right front fender and back around it again. The killer was witnessed going around the right front fender shooting Tippit, then witnessed (having turned around) going back around the same right front fender as he walked rapidly or ran west on Tenth (then south on Patton and etc.).

No one saw him touch the right front fender or bumper, in the same way he was seen leaning with hands on the right front door at the window when talking to Tippit through the vent. The prints from the right front fender are identified in Myers as from a right hand. One reconstruction would be the killer, if a right-handed shooter, after administering the coup de grace to Tippit's head, turned around, transferred the revolver to his left hand as he was seen with it moments later at the corner of Tenth and Patton pulling shell hulls out of it with his right hand (and then reloading with his right hand into the revolver held in his left hand). With the revolver in his left hand and his right hand free, and in a hurry, he uses his free right hand to balance or perhaps avoid stumbling as he goes back around that right front fender to make his escape. Thereby accounting for the prints from a right hand in that location.  

Exactly.  No witness said they saw the killer touch the right front fender. 

 

Then if no one said they saw the killer touch the right front fender, why have you so adamantly included it?

 

In fact, I would argue that since Lutz determined both prints (passenger door/window & right front fender) belonged to the same person, then it's more probable that the print on the passenger door/window didn't belong to the killer since the killer most likely never touched the right front fender. 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

4 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Both prints belong to the same person. The killer did not touch the right front fender. Therefore, there is no real reason to believe that the prints on the passenger door belong to the killer at all. 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

On 7/12/2022 at 7:07 PM, Bill Brown said:

Then if no one said they saw the killer touch the right front fender, why have you so adamantly included it?

In fact, I would argue that since Lutz determined both prints (passenger door/window & right front fender) belonged to the same person, then it's more probable that the print on the passenger door/window didn't belong to the killer since the killer most likely never touched the right front fender. 

Someone left full-hand prints on that right front fender. By your logic since no one saw any anyone do so then it is most likely no one left those prints. A right hand on top of a right front bumper is not a usual or normal place for a person to put their right hand full-on, and the killer was rounding that right front of the car in a situation of stress and rapidly. No witness said they saw whether he did or did not physically touch the car at that moment because no one was looking at the right front fender at that moment (Benavides, the witness who saw him run away, got a good look at the back of the killer's head confirming he went back around that right front fender).

It is plausible the killer left his right hand print there, the killer was there, it agrees with the killer talking through the right passenger window vent to Tippit and the same fingerprints at the right passenger window, and the somewhat unusual position of full right-hand on something as low as the right front bumper from other causes reinforces that it looks like the killer left the right front bumper prints from a right hand. I do not understand your reasoning for making a probability judgment that the killer who went around that right front bumper was present at the area of the right-front bumper (undisputed fact) "most likely never touched" the right front fender as he went around the front of the car. Where is your "most likely" coming from? Its extremely plausible and, since the prints are there in agreement with the killer's position and movements, likely that the killer was the source of those prints. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Bill Brown]

33 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Someone left full-hand prints on that right front fender. By your logic since no one saw any anyone do so then it is most likely no one left those prints. A right hand on top of a right front bumper is not a usual or normal place for a person to put their right hand full-on, and the killer was rounding that right front of the car in a situation of stress and rapidly. No witness said they saw whether he did or did not physically touch the car at that moment because no one was looking at the right front fender at that moment (Benavides, the witness who saw him run away, got a good look at the back of the killer's head confirming he went back around that right front fender).

It is plausible the killer left his right hand print there, the killer was there, it agrees with the killer talking through the right passenger window vent to Tippit and the same fingerprints at the right passenger window, and the somewhat unusual position of full right-hand on something as low as the right front bumper from other causes reinforces that it looks like the killer left the right front bumper prints from a right hand. I do not understand your reasoning for making a probability judgment that the killer who went around that right front bumper (undisputed fact) "most likely never touched" the right front fender as he went around the front of the car. Where is your "most likely" coming from? Its extremely plausible and, since the prints are there in agreement with the killer's position and movements, likely that the killer was the source of those prints. 

You are simply trying way too hard to link those prints to Tippit's killer. There's no real reason to believe the prints belong to the killer. None whatsoever.

 

The prints belong to the same person.  No one saw the killer touch the right front fender.  Therefore, other than your bias, there is no reason to believe the prints on the passenger door belong to the killer.