New Article by Dale Myers on Tippit

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

What I would like to see is an all-out heavyweight debate/boxing match between Myers and our own Tippit research champ Joseph McBride!

Maybe arrange this on the same R. Robertson podcast JM just appeared on? 

I predict a knock-out by the fourth round by our own Joe "Big Mac" McBride over Dale "Lone Nut" Meyers!

There will be no knockout. They are working from different sets of facts. The debate would be a parade of "what about this" and "what about that". People inclined to believe one set of facts will think Myers won in a landslide, while people inclined to distrust his facts will think he got crushed. 

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I disagree.

Again, I think it's that term "legitimate" that must be applied. Is the ambiguity "legitimate"? In other words, is it truly REASONABLE to think that the cops were running around faking/changing/manipulating the Tippit evidence so that Oswald could be framed and the real killer could get away with it?

Such a notion to me is preposterous. But to many CTers, it's more than reasonable---it actually happened (despite the CTers' ZERO amount of proof to back up such a vile charge).

And around this mulberry bush we pass once more....

You keep ignoring the elephant in the room, David. Police departments in general and the DPD in particular were not above faking and concealing evidence once they thought they had their man. Once Oswald was arrested, there was no way they would let him walk--no matter what the evidence was. So fake this a little. Fake that a little. Pretend this happened so you can avoid admitting blank. 

it seems that you (and perhaps Dale M) are a bit pollyannish on this subject. Watch the Thin Blue Line. And then watch it again. And then read Randall Adams' book. The DPD lied and tried to frame him. So how can we assume they hadn't done as much with Oswald?

P.S. My apologies, Tom. In looking back over the last few pages I see you already made my basic points.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

 

Dale Meyers commented in is article on much of what I said about the timing of Tippit events. I responded with the following, though he hasn't approved it being published (yet):

The bottom line is that you believe what's on the Dictabelt recording while I believe what the witnesses said. The witnesses almost unanimously point to a shooting time before ~1:08, with a couple of them saying specifically 1:06.

Add to this the fact that Tippit was pronounced dead at the hospital at 1:15, with this time undoubtedly being his time of arrival or shortly thereafter, when attempts to resuscitate him failed. This directly contradicts what's on the Dictabelt recording, which indicates that the ambulance headed to pick up Tippit at 1:18. He'd already been at the hospital for three minutes by then!

The problem is that you assume there was no cover up, and thus the Dictabelts can be trusted. There's a ton of evidence and even proof that a coverup was conducted by the U.S. government, so there is good reason to question the Dictabelts since they contradict eyewitness testimony and other evidence.

 

[Pat Speer]

57 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I never said anything of the kind. I merely wanted to know what made you think the DPD cops "believed" in the suspect's guilt in the first place.

How could they not? He was a Marxist. That was as good as being a baby-eater in Dallas. 

[Greg Doudna]

Response to Myers 

And to think of all the times I defended Myers on this forum . . .

Sheesh. The name-calling, the invective. 

Never mind. Myers’ 863-page With Malice is still the most authoritative, comprehensive, accurate analysis of the facts of the Tippit killing there is. For any on the fence about paying the $75 or whatever the current rate is for a hardbound copy, it is absolutely worth it. It is the gold standard, the Bible, on the facts of the Tippit case and judicious analysis of those facts. But now to the present . . . 

(1)  Myers misrepresented me on one point. Myers:

"Doudna, seemingly eager to exonerate Oswald for the Tippit murder at all costs--including, apparently, twisting reality into a lie--claimed that it was now an 'undisputed fact' that Tippit's killer circled and touched the right-front fender"

(Bold is added by me throughout.) I did not claim that it was an "undisputed fact" that Tippit's killer touched the right-front fender. Here is where Myers got that (pay attention to the syntax). I wrote :

"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." (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27892-lee-oswald-the-cop-killer/page/3/)

(2)  Myers takes offense at what he sees as my presuming wrongly his reasoning regarding the fingerprints. Actually I was referring to and addressing Bill Brown’s reasoning not Myers', though I put in a parenthetical caveat factual statement concerning Myers but without reading outside the parentheses as referring to Myers (though I acknowledge it is ambiguous and regret the offense caused). Myers:

"What causes someone to think so irrationally? Here's a clue. In conjuring his own reality, Mr. Doudna takes a stab at explaining how others think, including yours truly.

"In responding to researcher Bill Brown, Doudna writes: 'This is how paradigms work. You (like Myers who reported the Lutz fingerprint findings) believe it is settled fact that Oswald's revolver was the Tippit murder weapon, i.e. that Oswald was the killer. Therefore, you [Bill Brown] reason, no matter how much the fingerprints might look like they could be from the killer, the mental response is 'that cannot be correct' and 'there must be some other explanation'--because of other information and/or assumptions. I am not criticizing this reasoning as method in principle, just pointing out what is going on here.' (emphasis [italics, not bold] in original)

"Actually, that's not how I think, Mr. Doudna. In fact, I find it a bit presumptuous that you believe you know how I think or what my reasoning is behind the research I conduct. Allow me to help you..."

Myers goes on to explain that he does not regard the fingerprints information from Lutz as offering anything useful concerning Oswald's guilt or innocence, irrespective of any other information: it "goes nowhere. It doesn't prove whether Oswald was the killer or not (. . .) the fingerprint evidence doesn't add anything to the case".

Bill Brown in response to my above also said the same in different words, "There's no real reason to believe the prints belong to the killer. None whatsoever." 

There is a disagreement here in that it appears to me 90-95% likely those fingerprints are from the killer of Tippit, but (I have acknowledged) that is not certain because of 5-10% chance they are not. Myers' position is that even if they were from the killer of Tippit it would not be proof of incrimination of that person as the killer of Tippit ("even if the fingerprints did match Oswald's, it would only put him at the car. That would be strong circumstantial evidence, yes? But it wouldn't prove he fired a gun and killed Tippit, would it?"). Bill Brown (as I understand) argues that the prints either were not or likely were not from the killer, i.e. way lower subjective estimate on the odds.

(3)  Concerning my piece on the revolver found with an apple and an orange in a paper bag at 7:30 am on Saturday morning, Nov 23, 1963, on a street in downtown Dallas (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27932-the-murder-weapon-of-the-tippit-killing/), Myers objects to my referring to that paper bag and its contents as thrown out of a car window.

"How does Doudna know that the revolver in the paper bag was tossed out of a car window? Answer: He made it up. Yup, I kid you not. (. . .) And yet, Doudna mentions the revolver being tossed from a car window no less than nine times throughout his narrative."

I would say I inferred the obvious there, rather than "made it up". I quoted the full source document which of course quotes no witness having seen how that revolver in a paper bag got on the street. I think readers understand. This criticism from Myers is dismissed.

(4)  Myers criticizes me for claiming witnesses saw the killer of Tippit with his hands in contact with the Tippit cruiser. Myers:

"Doudna ... proclaimed that the fingerprints were left by 'someone in the exact location where witnesses saw the killer's hands on Tippit's car' and are 'from someone who was not Oswald.' (emphasis in original).

"But who are these witnesses that Doudna speaks of?

"Doudna can't be talking about Helen Markham, who was not only 150 feet away from the squad car at the time of the shooting, but more importantly, her vantage point precluded her from seeing what--if anything--the killer was doing with his hands. Why? Because Tippit's squad car was between her and Tippit's killer. She may have thought the shooter leaned down and placed his hands on the side of the car, but she couldn't possibly have seen that happen from position on the northwest corner of Tenth and Patton. Nor can Doudna be talking about Jack Tatum, who had a good view as he drove passed [sic] Tippit's patrol car seconds before the shooting. Tatum said he saw the killer leaning over, alright, but he had both hands in his zipper jacket--not touching the side of the car."

My comment: I accept Myers’ criticism. That would have been better worded: "one witness claimed to have seen the killer's arms on the car". That witness was Helen Markham, whose witness testimony has some difficulties. I do not see that it can be excluded what Helen Markham could have seen of the killer, because she could have seen through the Tippit cruiser's windows. From Helen Markham’s WC testimony:

Mrs. Markham. I saw the man come over to the car very slow, leaned and put his arms just like this, he leaned over in this window and looked in this window.

Mr. Ball. He put his arms on the window ledge?

Mrs. Markham. On the ledge of the window.

(. . .)

Mr. Ball. Then what happened?

Mrs. Markham. Well, I didn't think nothing about it; you know the police are nice and friendly, and I thought friendly conversation. Well, I looked, and there were cars coming, so I had to wait. Well, in a few minutes this man made--

Mr. Ball. What did you see the policeman do?

Mrs. Markham. See the policeman? Well, this man, like I told you, put his arms up, leaned over, he--just a minute, and he drew back and he stepped back about two steps. 

Helen Markham claimed the right front passenger car window was rolled down but officers arriving at the scene found the right passenger window rolled up but the right front vent window open. The killer must have spoken through the right front vent window. It is possible Helen Markham could have seen the body of the killer through the cruiser's windows while being mistaken on which window the killer was speaking through. It is also possible her testimony is unreliable. The same goes for Tatum whose story first came to light only in the late 1970s. Both Helen Markham and Tatum (also Benavides) put the killer right next to the place on the Tippit cruiser where the passenger door fingerprints were found, but it is not possible to know for certain whether the killer did or did not touch the car since both witness testimonies of Helen Markham and Tatum could be in error.

There is something to be added on this however. In With Malice, p. 210 (2013 edn), there is a photo of Barnes dusting for fingerprints on the Tippit cruiser at the scene of the crime. In that photo Barnes is brushing directly below the open vent window. Doesn't that sort of look like prints that would be left by someone leaning into talk through that vent window? One lowers one's head to be able to speak through the open vent to be heard and to make eye contact--an awkward posture, difficult to maintain if one does not make hand contact with the cruiser?

Even with an acknowledged lack of certainty, viewed in isolation what might be the chances that those prints were from the killer who talked through that window vent, seen in that position by the cruiser, by witnesses Markham, Benavides, and Tatum? 

(5)  Myers is critical of me for saying the killer went around the right front fender. This criticism caught me by surprise since my real point was that the killer was at the right front fender of the cruiser, at a position next to the Tippit cruiser where fingerprints from the same individual who left the prints under the vent window were also found. Whether the killer stood at the right front fender location, shot, turned around and headed west on 10th, or went "around" the right front fender, shot, turned around, passed the right front fender again and headed west on 10th, both involve the killer in proximity to the place on the cruiser where the fingerprints were found from the same individual who seems to have talked to Tippit through the vent window at some point in time. So I do not understand the full point of Myers making an issue of this. Even so, I believe there is reason to believe the killer went “around” the right front of the cruiser, though I accept Myers’ criticism (and will get it corrected) that Benavides does not prove that. Myers:

"Finally Doudna coughed up a name: Domingo Benavides.

"'Benavides, the witness who saw him run away,' Doudna wrote, 'got a good look at the back of the killer's head confirming he went back around that right front fender.' (emphasis added)"

"But this is utter, provable, nonsense. Benavides testified to the Warren Commission that as he was approaching in his pick-up truck, the killer was standing on the passenger side of the squad car 'right in front of the windshield on the right front fender.' When Benavides heard the first shot, he pulled his truck into the curb and ducked down. He then heard two more shots. He looked up and saw Tippit stumble and fall.

"'Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk,' Benavides testified, 'and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe five foot and then kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.'

"Later in his testimony, Benavides added, 'As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just turned. He was just turning away. In other words, he was pointing toward the officer, and he had just turned away to his left, and then he started--there was a big tree, and it seemed like he started back going to the curb of the street and into the sidewalk, and then he turned and went down the sidewalk to, well, until he got in front of the corner house, and then he turned to the left here and went on down Patton Street.'"

"Providing a description about Tippit's killer, Benavides testified, 'I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off, and he looked like he needed a haircut for about two weeks...'

"So, in fact, Benevides never saw Tippit's killer leave the passenger side of Tippit's squad car, except to turn to his left (away from the right front fender) and trot west on Tenth toward Patton. It was then that Benavides observed the back of the killer's head.

"Look, folks, this is all basic stuff. Is no one capable of doing basic research before shooting their mouth off on these forums?"

Comment: The key point is the killer is at the position of the right front bumper of the cruiser, whether or not he went "around" it as he was shooting at Tippit. Benavides first saw him "in front of the windshield on the right front fender", then ducked down, then up again, and "I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk". 

Myers makes a major point of disputing that that is not when Benavides first noticed the block-cut hairline of the back of the killer's head. Why not? Benavides sees the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk--he would be looking at the back of his head. Why is Myers insisting some later time is only when Benavides could have seen that?

But whether the killer went "around" the right front fender and returned around it, or merely stood next to it and turned around, either way he was there and turned his body around in the opposite direction at that position. That is the point that matters (for it is consistent with a killer having turned and put his right hand on the cruiser at that right front bumper, as a possible explanation of the prints found in that location left by the same individual who left the prints under the right front window vent). 

However, Benavides aside, I believe there is reason to believe the killer did go "around" that right front bumper while shooting before turning back. Witness Jack Tatum, from a Myers blog post of Nov 22, 2018 (https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2018/11/jack-ray-tatum.html). Tatum:

“'He was already down and I saw a person (positively identified by Tatum as Oswald) with a gun in his hand and he turned around, as if he was going to run off or walk off and as he got to the rear of the car, he hesitated and walked around the squad car (towards the officer) and shot a fourth time. It could have been a third.' (. . .) 'Oswald got within six and eight feet of Tippit. I saw him aim his gun and shoot and I could see the officer and Oswald. I’m not sure he (Oswald) actually obscured my view; maybe I was looking at him (Oswald).' Tatum stated that he had a clear view of the final shot at an oblique angle. (. . .) 'I saw Oswald turn around and look in my direction. At the same time, I saw a lady (Helen Markham) on the corner, down on her knees facing Patton. She was covering her head; she thought she was going to be shot, I guess. I saw Oswald turn around and start to walk towards my car and then he broke into a fast trot in my direction, up the street. At some point, I put my car in gear and went away from him west.'”

Assuming Tatum's story is credible and what he tells is some version of what happened, what happened was the killer was on the sidewalk side of 10^th, the passenger side of the Tippit cruiser. The killer did not go around the back of the car and out into the middle of the street on the driver’s side back up to Tippit again. No, what Tatum appears to be describing is the killer’s movements at the front of the cruiser, after appearing to leave on 10th on the passenger side, returning again around the front of the cruiser, meaning the killer did go around the right front fender in order to get closer to Tippit whom he was shooting. Then the killer would have turned around and gone back around that right front fender to the sidewalk on 10^th and west to Patton. When Tatum says he saw the killer "look in my direction" that corresponds with the same language of Helen Markham telling of seeing the killer coming toward her headed west on the sidewalk on the south side of 10^th: "When he saw me he looked at me, stared at me”. The two testimonies of the killer walking towards and looking at Markham and Tatum become the same thing, with the killer on the sidewalk of the south side of 10^th, having returned from around the front of the Tippit cruiser.

The argument that the Tippit killer did go around the right front of the cruiser, while not certain, rests on three points. First, the final shot into Tippit at closer range by the killer that Tatum claimed he witnessed, involving going around the front of the cruiser to get that close. Second, the find of the bullet in Tippit’s temple at the autopsy compatible with a professional coup de grace final shot at close range, again which would have involved going around the front of the cruiser. And third, no counterindication or counterevidence, i.e. no witness who affirmatively testified that the killer did not or could not have gone around the right front of the cruiser.

Again I acknowledge Myers is correct that Benavides seeing the back of the killer's head does not establish that the killer went around the right front of the car, that I misspoke on that. But I believe the three points just named do make that very plausible, and Benavides’ testimony is not inconsistent with it.

I have learned much from Myers' work in With Malice and Myers' previous blog posts (and a couple of things in this one). It is especially valuable that Myers in the present blog post gives the details or back story on how the Lutz fingerprint findings happened, the date (1994), how it worked, etc.; that is truly appreciated. 

It is never pleasant to be trashed and called names. But that should be viewed as "static" and focus should be kept on “signal”, which in this case is the enormous solid primary work Myers has done on the Tippit case. Pat Speer has a pretty good take on things here. 

I have updated some of my work in progress on the Tippit case in which I argue for Oswald's innocence in that case at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27367-an-argument-for-actual-innocence-of-oswald-in-the-tippit-case/. I intend to gather there some of my more scattered pieces on individual aspects of the Tippit case. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Police departments in general and the DPD in particular were not above faking and concealing evidence once they thought they had their man. Once Oswald was arrested, there was no way they would let him walk--no matter what the evidence was. So fake this a little. Fake that a little. Pretend this happened so you can avoid admitting blank. 

But don't forget --- the DPD wasn't the ONLY law enforcement entity gathering and collecting evidence in the JFK case. The Secret Service collected CE399 plus all the bullet fragments from the limousine. And there are many many CTers who feel that the FBI was up to their eyeballs in helping to "frame" Lee Oswald too, after the FBI got ahold of the evidence from the DPD around midnight on Nov. 22.

So that's THREE different law agencies (not counting Bill Decker's Sheriff's Dept. as well) who have been accused of playing around with the evidence in the Kennedy/Tippit cases.

So, if the evidence in the JFK/Tippit cases is not legitimate, that means THREE  different law enforcement entities would have had to possess the very same like-mindedness  to want to frame the same man (Lee Oswald) by using fraudulent/manufactured evidence that all points to LHO.

Do you believe that, Pat? Or do you think it was just  the DPD who were involved with "faking this a little" and "faking that a little"?

Edited July 21, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Tom Gram]

Honest question(s). Myers in his article states the following:

“But this can't possibly be true either, since the recordings also show the time the ambulance left the parking lot at Dudley Hughes and arrived at the Tippit shooting scene two blocks away – 1:18:38 and 1:18:59 p.m. respectively. These transmissions were made by the attendants themselves in real time, so there is no question as to the accuracy of both.” [Emphasis added]

Myers’ description of the dictabelt analysis in his book seems to contradict this. Here are a few examples from With Malice:

Relating the recordings to exact times was a problem in itself. Although dispatchers were obligated to give periodic time checks, there is no precise way to relate the “broadcast time” with “real” time. 

Myers goes on to describe how he got around this inherent property of the dictabelt:

Former dispatch supervisor Jim Bowles used a stop watch and some mathematics to deduce a “real” time from the police recordings by comparing an arbitrary zero base-time with the recorded time announcements that followed. A similar technique was applied to the entire channel one recordings for this book…

…It should be stressed that the recording contains no exact record of “real time”…By applying a stop watch and some mathematics to the channel one recordings, and comparing the resulting sequence of events with the eyewitness accounts, a reasonably accurate reconstruction of the Tippit murder and it’s aftermath was possible.

So it looks like the transmissions were not actually made in “real time” but the times were calculated by Myers using a similar method to Jim Bowles consisting of a stop-watch and some mathematics. Am I wrong? Was Myers thus being (gasp) deceptive in his article by stating that the transmissions were made in real time, and that there is no question as to their down-to-the-second accuracy? 

Has anyone examined Myers’ “stop watch and some mathematics” method? Have they been able to replicate Myers’ calculations?

Forgive me if I’m missing something, but these seem like pretty reasonable questions to ask. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

But don't forget --- the DPD wasn't the ONLY law enforcement entity gathering and collecting evidence in the JFK case. The Secret Service collected CE399 plus all the bullet fragments from the limousine. And there are many many CTers who feel that the FBI was up to their eyeballs in helping to "frame" Lee Oswald too, after the FBI got ahold of the evidence from the DPD around midnight on Nov. 22.

So that's THREE different law agencies (not counting Bill Decker's Sheriff's Dept. as well) who have been accused of playing around with the evidence in the Kennedy/Tippit cases.

So, if the evidence in the JFK/Tippit cases is not legitimate, that means THREE  different law enforcement entities would have had to possess the very same like-mindedness  to want to frame the same man (Lee Oswald) by using fraudulent/manufactured evidence that all points to LHO.

Do you believe that, Pat? Or do you think it was just  the DPD who were involved with "faking this a little" and "faking that a little"?

I think it was mostly the DPD. The FBI faked some stuff as well, IMO, but it was after Oswald was dead. The Secret Service is in the same boat. I don't really have an issue with any of the Sheriff's Dept. stuff from 11-22. When you read their statements, after all, virtually every deputy said he thought shots had come from west of the depository. 

[Sandy Larsen]

56 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

So it looks like the transmissions were not actually made in “real time” but the times were calculated by Myers using a similar method to Jim Bowles consisting of a stop-watch and some mathematics. Am I wrong? Was Myers thus being (gasp) deceptive in his article by stating that the transmissions were made in real time, and that there is no question as to their down-to-the-second accuracy?

 

Tom,

The dispatcher announced the time-of-day to the nearest minute every now and then. With a stopwatch (or any watch or clock) you can interpolate the time of any communication to the nearest minute or so, if you have the recording. But certainly not with any precision beyond that.

Now, if what you are doing is giving the time SPAN from one message to another, then yes, you can measure and calculate that to a resolution of a second. But that is not the case for the absolute time (i.e. time of day).

 

[Tom Gram]

52 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tom,

The dispatcher announced the time-of-day to the nearest minute every now and then. With a stopwatch (or any watch or clock) you can interpolate the time of any communication to the nearest minute or so, if you have the recording. But certainly not with any precision beyond that.

Now, if what you are doing is giving the time SPAN from one message to another, then yes, you can measure and calculate that to a resolution of a second. But that is not the case for the absolute time (i.e. time of day).

 

That’s what I thought, but doesn’t that make my point? Did Myers not misrepresent the accuracy of his absolute time measurements in his article? I know it’s nitpicky, but when evidence is presented with anything less than exacting precision on the conspiracy side, Myers finds it worthy of insults and ridicule, so you’d think he’d hold himself to a higher standard than contradicting his own book in a blog post. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Tom Gram

[James DiEugenio]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

How could they not? He was a Marxist. That was as good as being a baby-eater in Dallas. 

The early indication of Oswald as a suspect was Truly giving his name to Fritz. Remember, the so called line up and roll call that really wasn't?  Truly then got Oswald's address, phone etc from his employment application card.  Truly said he gave this to Fritz about 20 minutes after the shots were fired. Fritz disagreed. (WR p. 156)

We then have the wallet left at the scene of the Tippit murder.

We then have the six cruiser cars at the theater. But through that we know that the FBI and DPD were already at Beckley before this happened.  Which is an important issue.

Repeat: how can anyone take Myers seriously after his Single Bullet Fact farrago which was torn to shreds five times? And Joe McBride's book is the best on the TIppit case, hands down. The work he did on Mentzel and Nelson alone is crucial.

Edited July 21, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Karl Kinaski]

Beware of those CT to LN converts!:

Dale Myers

Gary Mack

And Edward J. Epstein who started his career as an outspoken WC-critic and ended up as James Jesus Angleton fanboy.

(It is like going from the round earth back to the flath earth.)

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

That’s what I thought, but doesn’t that make my point? Did Myers not misrepresent the accuracy of his absolute time measurements in his article? I know it’s nitpicky, but when evidence is presented with anything less than exacting precision on the conspiracy side, Myers finds it worthy of insults and ridicule, so you’d think he’d hold himself to a higher standard than contradicting his own book in a blog post. 

 

In my opinion, Dale Myers makes a habit of misrepresenting the facts. Recall how he moved the jump seat and other things in his animation to make the SBT work.

But I can think of a methodology that I believe could be used to get more precise measurements from the imprecise manual timestamps the dispatcher voiced into the audio.

For example, do the following. Assume that every dispatcher timestamp occurs precisely halfway through the minute that follows it. For example, if the dispatcher says 1:10, assume that the precise time is 1:10:30. If he says 2:30, assume it is precisely 2:30:30. And so forth.

Then play the audio and compare it to the time on a clock that has been set to precisely match the first dispatcher timestamp. Compare the timestamps to the clock. If any of the timestamps fall outside their minute, then you adjust your 30 second assumption -- ahead or back as needed -- and redo the procedure.

I'm pretty sure this procedure could be used to increase the precision of the time readings from the clock.. HOWEVER, I'm fairly certain that you couldn't increase the precision to be within one second, or anywhere near that. Because there just aren't very many timestamps. Plus, as I understand it, each Dictabelt held only 15 minutes of audio. Not a lot of timestamps per belt.

So, in the end, I feel that you are probably right -- that Myers misrepresented the precision of his time readings.

Big surprise.

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Response to Myers 

And to think of all the times I defended Myers on this forum . . .

Sheesh. The name-calling, the invective. 

Never mind. Myers’ 863-page With Malice is still the most authoritative, comprehensive, accurate analysis of the facts of the Tippit killing there is. For any on the fence about paying the $75 or whatever the current rate is for a hardbound copy, it is absolutely worth it. It is the gold standard, the Bible, on the facts of the Tippit case and judicious analysis of those facts. But now to the present . . . 

(1)  Myers misrepresented me on one point. Myers:

"Doudna, seemingly eager to exonerate Oswald for the Tippit murder at all costs--including, apparently, twisting reality into a lie--claimed that it was now an 'undisputed fact' that Tippit's killer circled and touched the right-front fender"

(Bold is added by me throughout.) I did not claim that it was an "undisputed fact" that Tippit's killer touched the right-front fender. Here is where Myers got that (pay attention to the syntax). I wrote :

"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." (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27892-lee-oswald-the-cop-killer/page/3/)

(2)  Myers takes offense at what he sees as my presuming wrongly his reasoning regarding the fingerprints. Actually I was referring to and addressing Bill Brown’s reasoning not Myers', though I put in a parenthetical caveat factual statement concerning Myers but without reading outside the parentheses as referring to Myers (though I acknowledge it is ambiguous and regret the offense caused). Myers:

"What causes someone to think so irrationally? Here's a clue. In conjuring his own reality, Mr. Doudna takes a stab at explaining how others think, including yours truly.

"In responding to researcher Bill Brown, Doudna writes: 'This is how paradigms work. You (like Myers who reported the Lutz fingerprint findings) believe it is settled fact that Oswald's revolver was the Tippit murder weapon, i.e. that Oswald was the killer. Therefore, you [Bill Brown] reason, no matter how much the fingerprints might look like they could be from the killer, the mental response is 'that cannot be correct' and 'there must be some other explanation'--because of other information and/or assumptions. I am not criticizing this reasoning as method in principle, just pointing out what is going on here.' (emphasis [italics, not bold] in original)

"Actually, that's not how I think, Mr. Doudna. In fact, I find it a bit presumptuous that you believe you know how I think or what my reasoning is behind the research I conduct. Allow me to help you..."

Myers goes on to explain that he does not regard the fingerprints information from Lutz as offering anything useful concerning Oswald's guilt or innocence, irrespective of any other information: it "goes nowhere. It doesn't prove whether Oswald was the killer or not (. . .) the fingerprint evidence doesn't add anything to the case".

Bill Brown in response to my above also said the same in different words, "There's no real reason to believe the prints belong to the killer. None whatsoever." 

There is a disagreement here in that it appears to me 90-95% likely those fingerprints are from the killer of Tippit, but (I have acknowledged) that is not certain because of 5-10% chance they are not. Myers' position is that even if they were from the killer of Tippit it would not be proof of incrimination of that person as the killer of Tippit ("even if the fingerprints did match Oswald's, it would only put him at the car. That would be strong circumstantial evidence, yes? But it wouldn't prove he fired a gun and killed Tippit, would it?"). Bill Brown (as I understand) argues that the prints either were not or likely were not from the killer, i.e. way lower subjective estimate on the odds.

(3)  Concerning my piece on the revolver found with an apple and an orange in a paper bag at 7:30 am on Saturday morning, Nov 23, 1963, on a street in downtown Dallas (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27932-the-murder-weapon-of-the-tippit-killing/), Myers objects to my referring to that paper bag and its contents as thrown out of a car window.

"How does Doudna know that the revolver in the paper bag was tossed out of a car window? Answer: He made it up. Yup, I kid you not. (. . .) And yet, Doudna mentions the revolver being tossed from a car window no less than nine times throughout his narrative."

I would say I inferred the obvious there, rather than "made it up". I quoted the full source document which of course quotes no witness having seen how that revolver in a paper bag got on the street. I think readers understand. This criticism from Myers is dismissed.

(4)  Myers criticizes me for claiming witnesses saw the killer of Tippit with his hands in contact with the Tippit cruiser. Myers:

"Doudna ... proclaimed that the fingerprints were left by 'someone in the exact location where witnesses saw the killer's hands on Tippit's car' and are 'from someone who was not Oswald.' (emphasis in original).

"But who are these witnesses that Doudna speaks of?

"Doudna can't be talking about Helen Markham, who was not only 150 feet away from the squad car at the time of the shooting, but more importantly, her vantage point precluded her from seeing what--if anything--the killer was doing with his hands. Why? Because Tippit's squad car was between her and Tippit's killer. She may have thought the shooter leaned down and placed his hands on the side of the car, but she couldn't possibly have seen that happen from position on the northwest corner of Tenth and Patton. Nor can Doudna be talking about Jack Tatum, who had a good view as he drove passed [sic] Tippit's patrol car seconds before the shooting. Tatum said he saw the killer leaning over, alright, but he had both hands in his zipper jacket--not touching the side of the car."

My comment: I accept Myers’ criticism. That would have been better worded: "one witness claimed to have seen the killer's arms on the car". That witness was Helen Markham, whose witness testimony has some difficulties. I do not see that it can be excluded what Helen Markham could have seen of the killer, because she could have seen through the Tippit cruiser's windows. From Helen Markham’s WC testimony:

Mrs. Markham. I saw the man come over to the car very slow, leaned and put his arms just like this, he leaned over in this window and looked in this window.

Mr. Ball. He put his arms on the window ledge?

Mrs. Markham. On the ledge of the window.

(. . .)

Mr. Ball. Then what happened?

Mrs. Markham. Well, I didn't think nothing about it; you know the police are nice and friendly, and I thought friendly conversation. Well, I looked, and there were cars coming, so I had to wait. Well, in a few minutes this man made--

Mr. Ball. What did you see the policeman do?

Mrs. Markham. See the policeman? Well, this man, like I told you, put his arms up, leaned over, he--just a minute, and he drew back and he stepped back about two steps. 

Helen Markham claimed the right front passenger car window was rolled down but officers arriving at the scene found the right passenger window rolled up but the right front vent window open. The killer must have spoken through the right front vent window. It is possible Helen Markham could have seen the body of the killer through the cruiser's windows while being mistaken on which window the killer was speaking through. It is also possible her testimony is unreliable. The same goes for Tatum whose story first came to light only in the late 1970s. Both Helen Markham and Tatum (also Benavides) put the killer right next to the place on the Tippit cruiser where the passenger door fingerprints were found, but it is not possible to know for certain whether the killer did or did not touch the car since both witness testimonies of Helen Markham and Tatum could be in error.

There is something to be added on this however. In With Malice, p. 210 (2013 edn), there is a photo of Barnes dusting for fingerprints on the Tippit cruiser at the scene of the crime. In that photo Barnes is brushing directly below the open vent window. Doesn't that sort of look like prints that would be left by someone leaning into talk through that vent window? One lowers one's head to be able to speak through the open vent to be heard and to make eye contact--an awkward posture, difficult to maintain if one does not make hand contact with the cruiser?

Even with an acknowledged lack of certainty, viewed in isolation what might be the chances that those prints were from the killer who talked through that window vent, seen in that position by the cruiser, by witnesses Markham, Benavides, and Tatum? 

(5)  Myers is critical of me for saying the killer went around the right front fender. This criticism caught me by surprise since my real point was that the killer was at the right front fender of the cruiser, at a position next to the Tippit cruiser where fingerprints from the same individual who left the prints under the vent window were also found. Whether the killer stood at the right front fender location, shot, turned around and headed west on 10th, or went "around" the right front fender, shot, turned around, passed the right front fender again and headed west on 10th, both involve the killer in proximity to the place on the cruiser where the fingerprints were found from the same individual who seems to have talked to Tippit through the vent window at some point in time. So I do not understand the full point of Myers making an issue of this. Even so, I believe there is reason to believe the killer went “around” the right front of the cruiser, though I accept Myers’ criticism (and will get it corrected) that Benavides does not prove that. Myers:

"Finally Doudna coughed up a name: Domingo Benavides.

"'Benavides, the witness who saw him run away,' Doudna wrote, 'got a good look at the back of the killer's head confirming he went back around that right front fender.' (emphasis added)"

"But this is utter, provable, nonsense. Benavides testified to the Warren Commission that as he was approaching in his pick-up truck, the killer was standing on the passenger side of the squad car 'right in front of the windshield on the right front fender.' When Benavides heard the first shot, he pulled his truck into the curb and ducked down. He then heard two more shots. He looked up and saw Tippit stumble and fall.

"'Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk,' Benavides testified, 'and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe five foot and then kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.'

"Later in his testimony, Benavides added, 'As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just turned. He was just turning away. In other words, he was pointing toward the officer, and he had just turned away to his left, and then he started--there was a big tree, and it seemed like he started back going to the curb of the street and into the sidewalk, and then he turned and went down the sidewalk to, well, until he got in front of the corner house, and then he turned to the left here and went on down Patton Street.'"

"Providing a description about Tippit's killer, Benavides testified, 'I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off, and he looked like he needed a haircut for about two weeks...'

"So, in fact, Benevides never saw Tippit's killer leave the passenger side of Tippit's squad car, except to turn to his left (away from the right front fender) and trot west on Tenth toward Patton. It was then that Benavides observed the back of the killer's head.

"Look, folks, this is all basic stuff. Is no one capable of doing basic research before shooting their mouth off on these forums?"

Comment: The key point is the killer is at the position of the right front bumper of the cruiser, whether or not he went "around" it as he was shooting at Tippit. Benavides first saw him "in front of the windshield on the right front fender", then ducked down, then up again, and "I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk". 

Myers makes a major point of disputing that that is not when Benavides first noticed the block-cut hairline of the back of the killer's head. Why not? Benavides sees the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk--he would be looking at the back of his head. Why is Myers insisting some later time is only when Benavides could have seen that?

But whether the killer went "around" the right front fender and returned around it, or merely stood next to it and turned around, either way he was there and turned his body around in the opposite direction at that position. That is the point that matters (for it is consistent with a killer having turned and put his right hand on the cruiser at that right front bumper, as a possible explanation of the prints found in that location left by the same individual who left the prints under the right front window vent). 

However, Benavides aside, I believe there is reason to believe the killer did go "around" that right front bumper while shooting before turning back. Witness Jack Tatum, from a Myers blog post of Nov 22, 2018 (https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2018/11/jack-ray-tatum.html). Tatum:

“'He was already down and I saw a person (positively identified by Tatum as Oswald) with a gun in his hand and he turned around, as if he was going to run off or walk off and as he got to the rear of the car, he hesitated and walked around the squad car (towards the officer) and shot a fourth time. It could have been a third.' (. . .) 'Oswald got within six and eight feet of Tippit. I saw him aim his gun and shoot and I could see the officer and Oswald. I’m not sure he (Oswald) actually obscured my view; maybe I was looking at him (Oswald).' Tatum stated that he had a clear view of the final shot at an oblique angle. (. . .) 'I saw Oswald turn around and look in my direction. At the same time, I saw a lady (Helen Markham) on the corner, down on her knees facing Patton. She was covering her head; she thought she was going to be shot, I guess. I saw Oswald turn around and start to walk towards my car and then he broke into a fast trot in my direction, up the street. At some point, I put my car in gear and went away from him west.'”

Assuming Tatum's story is credible and what he tells is some version of what happened, what happened was the killer was on the sidewalk side of 10^th, the passenger side of the Tippit cruiser. The killer did not go around the back of the car and out into the middle of the street on the driver’s side back up to Tippit again. No, what Tatum appears to be describing is the killer’s movements at the front of the cruiser, after appearing to leave on 10th on the passenger side, returning again around the front of the cruiser, meaning the killer did go around the right front fender in order to get closer to Tippit whom he was shooting. Then the killer would have turned around and gone back around that right front fender to the sidewalk on 10^th and west to Patton. When Tatum says he saw the killer "look in my direction" that corresponds with the same language of Helen Markham telling of seeing the killer coming toward her headed west on the sidewalk on the south side of 10^th: "When he saw me he looked at me, stared at me”. The two testimonies of the killer walking towards and looking at Markham and Tatum become the same thing, with the killer on the sidewalk of the south side of 10^th, having returned from around the front of the Tippit cruiser.

The argument that the Tippit killer did go around the right front of the cruiser, while not certain, rests on three points. First, the final shot into Tippit at closer range by the killer that Tatum claimed he witnessed, involving going around the front of the cruiser to get that close. Second, the find of the bullet in Tippit’s temple at the autopsy compatible with a professional coup de grace final shot at close range, again which would have involved going around the front of the cruiser. And third, no counterindication or counterevidence, i.e. no witness who affirmatively testified that the killer did not or could not have gone around the right front of the cruiser.

Again I acknowledge Myers is correct that Benavides seeing the back of the killer's head does not establish that the killer went around the right front of the car, that I misspoke on that. But I believe the three points just named do make that very plausible, and Benavides’ testimony is not inconsistent with it.

I have learned much from Myers' work in With Malice and Myers' previous blog posts (and a couple of things in this one). It is especially valuable that Myers in the present blog post gives the details or back story on how the Lutz fingerprint findings happened, the date (1994), how it worked, etc.; that is truly appreciated. 

It is never pleasant to be trashed and called names. But that should be viewed as "static" and focus should be kept on “signal”, which in this case is the enormous solid primary work Myers has done on the Tippit case. Pat Speer has a pretty good take on things here. 

I have updated some of my work in progress on the Tippit case in which I argue for Oswald's innocence in that case at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27367-an-argument-for-actual-innocence-of-oswald-in-the-tippit-case/. I intend to gather there some of my more scattered pieces on individual aspects of the Tippit case. 

Greg, your response is an example of how a true gentlemen acts,  my respect ! 

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

That’s what I thought, but doesn’t that make my point? Did Myers not misrepresent the accuracy of his absolute time measurements in his article? I know it’s nitpicky, but when evidence is presented with anything less than exacting precision on the conspiracy side, Myers finds it worthy of insults and ridicule, so you’d think he’d hold himself to a higher standard than contradicting his own book in a blog post. 

It does, in his article Meyers presented "his" timing pretty much as spot on, while in his book he said it was reasonably accurate.   

To me, Meyers' name-calling pretty much diminished the value of this writing.  AND with that he is doing the same he accuses others of doing on forums (and the reason for him not joining.... euhh...).