Was the Tippit crime scene gunman Curtis LaVerne Craford?

[Denis Morissette]

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

I don't have to provide an explanation for how a revolver came to be found lying on the ground inside a paper bag. 

Think hard ... surely you can think of some explanation other than that it was a disposal of a weapon used in a homicide? I can't, but I'm counting on you Bill! 🙂

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Think hard ... surely you can think of some explanation other than that it was a disposal of a weapon used in a homicide? I can't, but I'm counting on you Bill! 🙂

 

Honestly Greg, I'm not sure what you don't understand here.  It is not incumbent upon me to provide an explanation for how a revolver came to be found lying on the ground wrapped inside a bag.

 

You've yet to make a reasonable case for this revolver (found on the ground about four miles from Tenth & Patton) being tied to the Tippit murder.  The shells found at the scene were linked to a different weapon from this one.

 

Also, you've ignored the point that if your scenario is true, then these clowns couldn't come up with a better manner to get rid of the murder weapon than to simply throw it to the ground.

 

Much like your posts on the prints lifted from the patrol car, a lot of what you try to pass off as fact is not factual at all; not even close.

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Honestly Greg, I'm not sure what you don't understand here.  It is not incumbent upon me to provide an explanation for how a revolver came to be found lying on the ground wrapped inside a bag.

As long as you accept that the paper-bag revolver looks like it could well be a disposal of a weapon used in a homicide, I agree there is no need to show a credible possible alternative explanation of that revolver's find circumstances. Do you?

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

You've yet to make a reasonable case for this revolver (found on the ground about four miles from Tenth & Patton) being tied to the Tippit murder.  The shells found at the scene were linked to a different weapon from this one.

I think I've made a case.

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Also, you've ignored the point that if your scenario is true, then these clowns couldn't come up with a better manner to get rid of the murder weapon than to simply throw it to the ground.

A first question is: do you think a scenario of the paper-bag revolver as a disposal of a weapon used in a homicide is a reasonable explanation of that revolver's find circumstances?

Never mind which homicide, please answer the question strictly construed as asked, if you would. 

You wonder why, in a scenario in which Craford was the killer of Tippit, Craford, who did not have a car, would not have driven to a river to throw the weapon in a river instead of out the window of a car in which he was being driven that morning. That is a pseudo- not real objection. Perhaps Craford did the best he could given the opportunity available to him. If Ruby was witting to the weapon disposal in this scenario, Ruby had an unwitting alibi passenger, George Senator, in the car who had been told a purpose of the trip inconsistent with driving to the Trinity River in order to dispose of a bag with fruit in it. Your question assumes straw man assumptions as to what someone like Craford (if he were the killer) "would do", e.g. dump the weapon into the Trinity River. In the Godfather, a hit man drops the gun at the scene of the crime, does not keep the weapon on his person to take to a river and then throw it in the river. The point there is as long as the weapon is untraceable, it does not matter if the weapon is found--and the sooner the killer can have the weapon not on his person in case he is picked up for questioning, the better. Craford was not a member of the Mob, not a "made man", perhaps not up to full professional best practices, but was what might be considered an independent contractor. The .38 Smith & Wesson in the paper bag with fruit tossed out of a car window into a city street, in the vicinity Craford passed through, in a car in which he was passenger, an hour or two before the citizen found that paper bag with the revolver in it, might not be a bad way to dispose of it under the circumstances. If no citizen picked up the paper bag, it might be swept up in normal mechanized street sweeping without knowledge that a weapon was inside the bag. If a citizen did pick up the bag and the weapon was found and turned in (which is what did happen in the event), so what, there would be no traceable evidence to go back to the killer so long as the weapon was untraceable by serial number (e.g. stolen weapon) and fingerprints had been wiped off. A ditching of a Tippit murder weapon out a car window where the paper-bag revolver landed next to a street curb in downtown Dallas is not on its face obviously illogical in this scenario.

The argument for suspecting it to be the murder weapon of the Tippit killing is the timing when it was found and that there is no other known homicide in the Dallas area within hours or recent days of the time of find of the paper-bag revolver, other than that of Tippit.

Edited September 3, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

8 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

OK Denis I'll bite. Who is this and why are you posting this picture twice without comment? What is it you want the viewer to see or notice? An inquiring mind wants to know 🙂

[Guest]

I think he is referring to this, but it's a bank money bag so I don't know. Further in the test. he says he thinks it's a snub-nose.  They are also talking about ID's of people on the picture, etc The one in the back the "M.C." (master of ceremony I guess ?), the other guy I think was a client.   Perhaps he was ID'd further on, did not read everything.   Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XIII, pages in the 300's

Edited September 3, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Bill Brown]

9 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

As long as you accept that the paper-bag revolver looks like it could well be a disposal of a weapon used in a homicide, I agree there is no need to show a credible possible alternative explanation of that revolver's find circumstances. Do you?

 

I accept that the "paper-bag revolver" looks like it was discarded by someone for any number of reasons.  What does a revolver discarded to the ground because it was was used in a homicide even look like?  Then explain to me what a revolver discarded to the ground that never was used in a homicide would look like.  Okay?  Would one somehow look different than the other?  If so, how do you make that determination?

 

Or... Are you saying that all revolvers discarded to the ground are definitely homicide-related?

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Mark Knight]

Bill, consider one other idea:

Why would someone discard a perfectly good concealable revolver, rather than selling or pawning it?

Sales between individuals weren't tracked in 1963. So this discarded revolver wasn't redeemed in some way for cash, and it begs the question: WHY NOT?

[Bill Brown]

9 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

A first question is: do you think a scenario of the paper-bag revolver as a disposal of a weapon used in a homicide is a reasonable explanation of that revolver's find circumstances?

Never mind which homicide, please answer the question strictly construed as asked, if you would. 

You wonder why, in a scenario in which Craford was the killer of Tippit, Craford, who did not have a car, would not have driven to a river to throw the weapon in a river instead of out the window of a car in which he was being driven that morning. That is a pseudo- not real objection. Perhaps Craford did the best he could given the opportunity available to him. If Ruby was witting to the weapon disposal in this scenario, Ruby had an unwitting alibi passenger, George Senator, in the car who had been told a purpose of the trip inconsistent with driving to the Trinity River in order to dispose of a bag with fruit in it. Your question assumes straw man assumptions as to what someone like Craford (if he were the killer) "would do", e.g. dump the weapon into the Trinity River. In the Godfather, a hit man drops the gun at the scene of the crime, does not keep the weapon on his person to take to a river and then throw it in the river. The point there is as long as the weapon is untraceable, it does not matter if the weapon is found--and the sooner the killer can have the weapon not on his person in case he is picked up for questioning, the better. Craford was not a member of the Mob, not a "made man", perhaps not up to full professional best practices, but was what might be considered an independent contractor. The .38 Smith & Wesson in the paper bag with fruit tossed out of a car window into a city street, in the vicinity Craford passed through, in a car in which he was passenger, an hour or two before the citizen found that paper bag with the revolver in it, might not be a bad way to dispose of it under the circumstances. If no citizen picked up the paper bag, it might be swept up in normal mechanized street sweeping without knowledge that a weapon was inside the bag. If a citizen did pick up the bag and the weapon was found and turned in (which is what did happen in the event), so what, there would be no traceable evidence to go back to the killer so long as the weapon was untraceable by serial number (e.g. stolen weapon) and fingerprints had been wiped off. A ditching of a Tippit murder weapon out a car window where the paper-bag revolver landed next to a street curb in downtown Dallas is not on its face obviously illogical in this scenario.

The argument for suspecting it to be the murder weapon of the Tippit killing is the timing when it was found and that there is no other known homicide in the Dallas area within hours or recent days of the time of find of the paper-bag revolver, other than that of Tippit.

 

A first question is: do you think a scenario of the paper-bag revolver as a disposal of a weapon used in a homicide is a reasonable explanation of that revolver's find circumstances?

Never mind which homicide, please answer the question strictly construed as asked, if you would.

 

Your scenario (that it was disposed of because it was used in a homicide) is not reasonable to me because (if what you said is true) there is no other known Dallas area homicide in the recent days.  How could this revolver be used in a homicide if there was no other homicides besides Tippit's?

 

This is not a circular argument I am making because the actual murder weapon was taken from the same man who multiple witnesses said was there at the scene with a gun in his hands and that gun ended up being linked, through ballistic testing, to the shells found at the scene where Tippit was shot and killed.

 

 

You wonder why, in a scenario in which Craford was the killer of Tippit, Craford, who did not have a car, would not have driven to a river to throw the weapon in a river instead of out the window of a car in which he was being driven that morning.

 

There you go with the revolver being thrown out a car window again.  You can't possibly know this to be true.

 

 

Perhaps Craford did the best he could given the opportunity available to him. If Ruby was witting to the weapon disposal in this scenario, Ruby had an unwitting alibi passenger, George Senator, in the car who had been told a purpose of the trip inconsistent with driving to the Trinity River in order to dispose of a bag with fruit in it.

 

Fair point.

 

But....

 

Do you really believe that disposing of this weapon by simply throwing it out a car window, if used in the Tippit murder, is the best they could have come up with?  Aren't there at least a half dozen better ways to dispose of this weapon, in your scenario?  If your scenario is true, couldn't Ruby and Crafard be sure to be alone at some point in the last 18 hours and dispose of the revolver then?

 

I never said their only chance would have been that particular trip to Stemmons when Senator was in the car with them; you are implying that, not me.

 

 

The point there is as long as the weapon is untraceable, it does not matter if the weapon is found--and the sooner the killer can have the weapon not on his person in case he is picked up for questioning, the better.

 

Now you have the conspirators throwing a revolver out a car window that, if used in the Tippit murder, could be linked (through ballistic testing) to that murder.  This is a foolish way to frame a patsy, who is supposed to have the murder weapon on him.

 

 

A ditching of a Tippit murder weapon out a car window where the paper-bag revolver landed next to a street curb in downtown Dallas is not on its face obviously illogical in this scenario.

 

It is illogical if the conspirators have a patsy to frame, a patsy who is not tied to this particular revolver found lying on the ground in downtown Dallas.

[Bill Brown]

21 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Bill, consider one other idea:

Why would someone discard a perfectly good concealable revolver, rather than selling or pawning it?

Sales between individuals weren't tracked in 1963. So this discarded revolver wasn't redeemed in some way for cash, and it begs the question: WHY NOT?

 

Good questions.

 

But because they can't be answered means the revolver was discarded because it was used in a murder?  You guys are making quite the leap.

 

[Mark Knight]

47 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Good questions.

 

But because they can't be answered means the revolver was discarded because it was used in a murder?  You guys are making quite the leap.

 

You're putting words in my mouth.

STOP IT.

I did NOT say that this missing revolver was used in a murder. I simply said it was illogical for it to be discarded in a bag on a curb because in 1963 it was easy to sell or pawn a handgun for cash. I made NO mention of it being used in a murder. 

Just because someone points out that it is illogical to throw away an item with obvious cash value, that does NOT indicate that I subscribe 100% to anyone's theory as to WHY it was disposed of in this illogical way.

It's also illogical that such a weapon, once in police custody, would disappear without some sort of paper trail. But it did, and one must start asking why.

 

[Bill Brown]

5 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

You're putting words in my mouth.

STOP IT.

I did NOT say that this missing revolver was used in a murder. I simply said it was illogical for it to be discarded in a bag on a curb because in 1963 it was easy to sell or pawn a handgun for cash. I made NO mention of it being used in a murder. 

Just because someone points out that it is illogical to throw away an item with obvious cash value, that does NOT indicate that I subscribe 100% to anyone's theory as to WHY it was disposed of in this illogical way.

It's also illogical that such a weapon, once in police custody, would disappear without some sort of paper trail. But it did, and one must start asking why.

 

 

My apologies Mark, if you do not believe the revolver found on the ground was used in the Tippit murder.

 

Let's separate the wheat from the chaff.  Do you believe that Crafard/Ruby threw the revolver from a car window?

 

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

The point there is as long as the weapon is untraceable, it does not matter if the weapon is found--and the sooner the killer can have the weapon not on his person in case he is picked up for questioning, the better.

Now you have the conspirators throwing a revolver out a car window that, if used in the Tippit murder, could be linked (through ballistic testing) to that murder.  This is a foolish way to frame a patsy, who is supposed to have the murder weapon on him.

A ditching of a Tippit murder weapon out a car window where the paper-bag revolver landed next to a street curb in downtown Dallas is not on its face obviously illogical in this scenario.

It is illogical if the conspirators have a patsy to frame, a patsy who is not tied to this particular revolver found lying on the ground in downtown Dallas.

Bill, this is a red herring. I do not assume intent to frame Oswald for the killing of Tippit on the part of the killers of Tippit, or that the killers of Tippit cared about that. That has nothing to do with my argument and reconstruction. I cannot help that that is an assumption of others, but it is not from me. With that straw man assumption removed, there is no reason why the killers of Tippit would care that the weapon could be linked to the Tippit murder, no more than in the Godfather the hit man cared that the hit was linked to the weapon that the hit man abandoned at the scene. The issue is: that the revolver not be linked to the killer. The issue is NOT: that the killing not be traced to the revolver used.

In this context, the purpose of throwing a weapon out a car window in downtown Dallas, as opposed to a dumpster out back of the Carousel Club in case that was searched, in the scenario proposed, is not to destroy the weapon or ensure or care that the revolver not be found, but to have it not be traceable to the one who threw it out the car window or to those who carried out the killing. 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Mark Knight]

I have no theory on how the revolver in the sack got to the curb.

I just find its presence there illogical.

It may have been discarded by Crafard and/or Ruby.

It may have been left there by someone else. There is no way to determine, short of eyewitness testimony. Which doesn't exist.

For all we know, the revolver in the sack may have been connected to a different crime. Perhaps an armed robbery. But its disappearance once in DPD custody is as mysterious as its appearance on the day after Tippit's murder [which may have been coincidental].

[Bill Brown]

12 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill, this is a red herring. I do not believe there was any intent to frame Oswald for the killing of Tippit on the part of the killers of Tippit, or that the killers of Tippit cared about that. That has nothing to do with my argument and reconstruction. I cannot help that that is an assumption of others, but it is not from me. With that straw man assumption removed, there is no reason why the killers of Tippit would care that the weapon could be linked to the Tippit murder, no more than in the Godfather the hit man cared that the hit was linked to the weapon that the hit man abandoned at the scene. The issue is: that the revolver not be linked to the killer. The issue is NOT: that the killing not be traced to the revolver used.

In this context, the purpose of throwing a weapon out a car window in downtown Dallas, as opposed to a dumpster out back of the Carousel Club in case that was searched, in the scenario proposed, is not to destroy the weapon or ensure or care that the revolver not be found, but to have it not be traceable to the one who threw it out the car window or to those who carried out the killing. 

 

In this context, the purpose of throwing a weapon out a car window in downtown Dallas, as opposed to a dumpster out back of the Carousel Club in case that was searched, in the scenario proposed, is not to destroy the weapon or ensure or care that the revolver not be found, but to have it not be traceable to the one who threw it out the car window or to those who carried out the killing.

 

So that's it?  Either throw it out a car window or hide it in a dumpster behind the Carousel Club?  These are the only two options to dispose the weapon?

 

Again, the shells found at the scene were linked, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world, to Oswald's revolver, not this "paper-bag revolver".

Edited September 3, 2022 by Bill Brown