"When everyone is agreed on something, it is probably wrong" (with a comment on the Tippit case)

[Bill Brown]

Greg Doudna said:

 

Not one of the Tippit crime scene witnesses who picked Oswald out in lineups as the fleeing gunman knew Oswald previously or had better than brief fleeting glimpses. And there are so many instances of demonstrable mistaken identifications of Oswald by people after the assassination. If the killer of Tippit had some rough resemblance in physical description to Oswald such that witnesses could confuse, naturally they are going to like Helen Markham pick the one that looks most closely like what they remembered out of the choices.

 

Greg, you are implying that Markham, during the lineup, decided to simply pick out the man who had the most resemblance to the man she saw shoot Tippit, even if it was not the man she saw do the shooting.  You are saying that Markham wasn't going to leave the lineup without picking someone.  You are saying that it was not an option for Markham to simply tell the officers conducting the lineup that none of the four was the man she saw shoot Tippit.

 

Referring to the lineup, Markham said: "Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman."

 

Greg would have us believe that Markham said instead: "Number two looked the most like the man I saw shoot the policeman."

[Greg Doudna]

Bill Brown--apart from the heads-up on dispatcher Murray Jackson's last name being Jackson (thanks), the rest of your points mostly go to well-known references where I think you already know what you are asking me to provide. But let's run through them anyway. 

On the fingerprints lifted from the Tippit cruiser in agreement with where the killer's hands were witnessed in closer proximity than any other known person

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the partial prints lifted from the patrol car ever belonged to the killer.  No witness ever said the killer touched the front passenger fender.  Why would the killer touch the front passenger fender?  These partial prints are not "likely" to have come from the killer, despite the claim by Doudna.

Well, well. I would like to answer your question with a question: do you think it likely or unlikely that the fingerprints were left by a human being?

No, I'm not being facetious, I am asking you to answer that question and explain why, since all of your objections to an individual known to have been in proximity to where those prints were found, apply equally well if not more so to all other human beings on the planet too. 

"No witness ever said a human being touched the front passenger fender."

"Why would a human being touch the front passenger fender?"

"[Therefore] these partial prints are not 'likely' to have come from a human being."

Now I don't want to put words into your mouth, but would that be an accurate transference of your logic structure and logical conclusion? 

On the paper-bag revolver found abandoned on a street in downtown Dallas about 18 hours after the Tippit murder, the revolver the Dallas Police department covered up and disappeared, as the possible Tippit murder weapon

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

No.  The revolver taken from Oswald during the scuffle inside the theater is the murder weapon.  The shell casings in evidence tell you so (per Frazier, Killion, Cunningham and Nicol).

There are two issues here. The first is would you know the paper-bag revolver was not the murder weapon, independently of the reported FBI match of Oswald's revolver to the evidence shell hulls. (Answer: no, you would not know that.)

The second is, does the report of the FBI lab experts named on the shell casings in evidence establish a different revolver than the paper-bag revolver was the Tippit murder weapon. (Answer: arguably no, see the next point)

On significance of the absence of police sworn testimony under oath establishing chain of custody on the shell hulls close to the crime scene found by the Davis sisters-in-law

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Please explain the "serious questions" surrounding the chain of possession of the two shell casings found by the Davis girls.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28114-tippit-ballistics-is-it-established-that-oswalds-revolver-was-the-murder-weapon/

On the credible witness in the Texas Theatre who told of unusual seating behavior of Oswald in the theatre, and its interpretation as Oswald looking to meet someone.

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

What "credible witness" said Oswald was looking to meet someone?  What makes this "witness" credible?  How would this "witness" know what Oswald was looking to do?

Jack Davis. Request his oral history account from the Sixth Floor Museum, as I have done, and judge for yourself. Davis reports behavior of Oswald he observed (Oswald oddly seating himself directly next to one theatre patron after another briefly then moving again, including Davis, in a theatre practically entirely empty). Davis does not interpret its meaning. What does that behavior as reported by this witness sound like to you? My discussion: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28004-oswald-tippit-and-carl-mather-connecting-some-dots/.

On Ruby telling police on Nov 24 that his dancer Joy Dale lived at "410-1/2 10th St" in Oak Cliff

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Greg Doudna said:

• The street address of the house at which Tippit stopped his cruiser when he was killed, 410 E. 10th, was given by Ruby two days later, on Sun Nov 24 the day Ruby killed Oswald, as the home address of one of his dancers, a friend of the self-confessed hitman who was in Ruby's car the morning of Sat Nov 23 and fled Texas. That dancer is not verified to have actually lived at the address Ruby gave and is believed to have lived elsewhere in Oak Cliff. But the point of interest is Ruby gave that address where Tippit stopped his cruiser when he was killed, "410-1/2 10th", as that dancer's home address. Why that mistake?

Cite please, for Ruby giving anyone the address of 410 E. 10th Street.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62477#relPageId=49

A question for you: do you think Joyce McDonald (Joy Dale) lived at either 410 E 10th or 410 W 10th? If not, how do you interpret Ruby giving that as her address? Why would he give a wrong address for her--that is in agreement with where Tippit stopped his cruiser? I don't know myself. Do you have any bright idea on this? What would the fictional television detective "Columbo" do with that?

Do you think it is possible either Ruby or Joyce McDonald (Joy Dale) did have an apartment on a second story (that would be the "1/2") either at 410 E. 10th where Tippit stopped his cruiser and was killed, or 410 W. 10th? 

On the Tippit crime scene witness identifications of Oswald out of lineups

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

"When everyone is agreed on something, it is probably wrong"

Greg, regarding the Tippit witnesses supposedly agreeing on everything, the aphorism you cite is invalid.

For the sake if the point you are trying to make, you have to take all of the witnesses into account (not only those who said the man was indeed Lee Oswald).  Jimmy Burt, Bill Smith, Domingo Benavides, L.J. Lewis and Robert Brock... all five of these witnesses stated that they couldn't say one way or the other if the man they saw was Lee Oswald.

Because of this, your entire point is moot.

None of those were taken to lineups were they.

Taking the Tippit crime scene witnesses' lineup testimonies on their own, viewed in isolation, do you regard that as stand-alone decisive in establishing the gunman's identification as Oswald, or would you acknowledge or allow for something short of certainty in confidence of correctness of those witness identifications? What do you think?

On the interpretation of the Tippit killing as Tipping being ambushed by a professional killer

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Greg Doudna said:

But set that aside and on the what I consider more likely scenario that Tippit was ambushed, a hit on Tippit, something had to have brought him there at that time, or else he was a regular there at a certain time and someone was lying in wait based on pattern or habitual behavior.

Greg, Jimmy Burt said the man who would eventually kill Tippit was walking from east to west on Tenth.  Burt said he saw the man walking on the sidewalk on the south side of Tenth a full block to the east of the shooting scene (walking west, toward the eventual shooting scene). 

Lying in wait?  What?

I developed the first of that "or" set of two possibilities. I am interpreting the killer as walking to a prearranged location to meet Tippit at a prearranged time, so in that sense he is "in wait" for Tippit's cruiser to pull up even if the killer arrived only a little earlier. That is how I am interpreting the killer's change of direction on the sidewalk, the back and forth ... someone is out front near the address waiting for Tippit's arrival, Tippit pulls up, the killer flags him down, says something to lure Tippit out of the car ... kills Tippit professionally. 

On Helen Markham picking Oswald out of the lineup

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

Greg, you are implying that Markham, during the lineup, decided to simply pick out the man who had the most resemblance to the man she saw shoot Tippit, even if it was not the man she saw do the shooting.  You are saying that Markham wasn't going to leave the lineup without picking someone.  You are saying that it was not an option for Markham to simply tell the officers conducting the lineup that none of the four was the man she saw shoot Tippit.

Referring to the lineup, Markham said: "Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman."

Greg would have us believe that Markham said instead: "Number two looked the most like the man I saw shoot the policeman."

I don't think I need to go through the Helen Markham lineup identification, you know the details. You know how she at first told the Warren Commission that she did not recognize anyone in the lineup when the lineup first appeared, at first thought she had not seen any of them before, including Oswald in that lineup. You know how she was distraught and fainting. You know how police let her take her time and finally she decided it was Oswald based on getting "cold shivers" looking at him and interpreting her bodily reaction (instead of visual recognition apparently) as her intuitive or instinctual reason, in her highly distraught state, for knowing (in her mind) it was Oswald, then reported finally as a (visual) recognition. 

Mrs. Markham.

Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak.

Mr. Ball.

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

Mrs. Markham.

Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.

Mr. Ball.

You recognized him from his appearance?

Mrs. Markham.

I asked--I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.

Mr. Ball.

When you saw him?

Mrs. Markham.

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

Mr. Ball.

Did you recognize him from his clothing?

Mrs. Markham.

He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.

Would you judge this as a "maybe" or as a "certainty", if you were on a jury?

[Bill Brown]

Greg Doudna said:

 

Well, well. I would like to answer your question with a question: do you think it likely or unlikely that the fingerprints were left by a human being?

No, I'm not being facetious, I am asking you to answer that question and explain why, since all of your objections to an individual known to have been in proximity to where those prints were found, apply equally well if not more so to all other human beings on the planet too. 

"No witness ever said a human being touched the front passenger fender."

"Why would a human being touch the front passenger fender?"

"[Therefore] these partial prints are not 'likely' to have come from a human being."

Now I don't want to put words into your mouth, but would that be an accurate transference of your logic structure and logical conclusion? 

 

No.  That is most certainly not an accurate transference of what I said and/or meant.

 

I said there is no real reason (just wishful thinking on your part) to believe that the killer touched the front left fender/quarter panel of the patrol car.  This is clearly what I meant and it is clearly what I said.

 

You claim (without any shred of real evidence at all) that it is likely that those prints cane from the killer.  I could just as easily say that those prints came from a suspect who was told to place his hands on the car in order to be frisked by an officer during a previous shift.  I could just as easily say that those prints came from one of the bystanders at the Tippit crime scene before officers secured the area.  You do realize that people descended on the area of the patrol car well before the area was secured.  Right?

 

This is a tiresome argument that goes nowhere.  The bottom line is that you have no real reason to claim that it is "likely" that those prints came from the killer.  Even though it is tiresome, I will be here to call you out on it every time you make the mistaken claim.

 

Edited October 9, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

Greg Doudna said:

 

The street address of the house at which Tippit stopped his cruiser when he was killed, 410 E. 10th, was given by Ruby two days later, on Sun Nov 24 the day Ruby killed Oswald, as the home address of one of his dancers...

 

Greg, first things first.

 

That is not the address listed in the document.  The address listed is "410 1/2 10th St., Dallas"

 

The document does not say whether or not it's East 10th or West 10th.  Let's acknowledge this, first.

 

[Bill Brown]

Greg Doudna said:

 

I don't think I need to go through the Helen Markham lineup identification, you know the details. You know how she at first told the Warren Commission that she did not recognize anyone in the lineup when the lineup first appeared, at first thought she had not seen any of them before, including Oswald in that lineup. You know how she was distraught and fainting. You know how police let her take her time and finally she decided it was Oswald based on getting "cold shivers" looking at him and interpreting her bodily reaction (instead of visual recognition apparently) as her intuitive or instinctual reason, in her highly distraught state, for knowing (in her mind) it was Oswald, then reported finally as a (visual) recognition. 

 

Markham was confused on what it was that Ball was asking her.  He was asking her if she recognized any of the men in the lineup as the man she saw earlier that day shoot the policeman.  But... for whatever reason, she thought he was asking her if she recognize any of the men in the lineup as someone she had seen or known before 11/22/63.  To me, this is obvious.  Once the confusion is straightened out, Markham very clearly states that the #2 man (Oswald) was the man she saw shoot the policeman. 

 

This really should be all that needs to be said on this subject, but sadly, it won't be.

 

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

You claim (without any shred of real evidence at all) that it is likely that those prints cane from the killer.  I could just as easily say that those prints came from a suspect who was told to place his hands on the car in order to be frisked by an officer during a previous shift.  I could just as easily say that those prints came from one of the bystanders at the Tippit crime scene before officers secured the area.  You do realize that people descended on the area of the patrol car well before the area was secured.  Right?

Are you saying it was one of these other scenarios you name? 

Neither of us really knows for sure, right?

I agree my "likely" is subjective, hunch rather than provable. I am saying that based on looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck logic. 

It is a sideshow for you to criticize my "likely" based on the grounds of your (correct) observation that there is no real way to objectively quantify or prove a priori odds or probability in this instance, unless--it is a sideshow unless--you suppose one or another alternative explanation (in aggregate) is "more likely" than that they came from the killer. Do you take that position, and if so could you explain your reasoning underlying a subjective judgment why a non-killer's origin is relatively more likely than a killer's origin (if you hold that)? If you don't hold that position, would you make that clear explicitly?

Would you support a responsible effort to obtain an identification of those fingerprints?

[Bill Brown]

21 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Are you saying it was one of these other scenarios you name? 

Neither of us really knows for sure, right?

I agree my "likely" is subjective, hunch rather than provable. I am saying that based on looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck logic. 

It is a sideshow for you to criticize my "likely" based on the grounds of your (correct) observation that there is no real way to objectively quantify or prove a priori odds or probability in this instance, unless--it is a sideshow unless--you suppose one or another alternative explanation (in aggregate) is "more likely" than that they came from the killer. Do you take that position, and if so could you explain your reasoning underlying a subjective judgment why a non-killer's origin is relatively more likely than a killer's origin (if you hold that)? If you don't hold that position, would you make that clear explicitly?

Would you support a responsible effort to obtain an identification of those fingerprints?

 

Are you saying it was one of these other scenarios you name? 

 

No.

 

Here is what I am saying:

 

"You claim (without any shred of real evidence at all) that it is likely that those prints cane from the killer.  I could just as easily say that those prints came from a suspect who was told to place his hands on the car in order to be frisked by an officer during a previous shift.  I could just as easily say that those prints came from one of the bystanders at the Tippit crime scene before officers secured the area."

 

Neither of us really knows for sure, right?

 

That's exactly right.  So then why are you saying that it is "likely" that the prints belonged to the killer?

 

It is a sideshow for you to criticize my "likely" based on the grounds of your (correct) observation that there is no real way to objectively quantify or prove a priori odds or probability in this instance, unless--it is a sideshow unless--you suppose one or another alternative explanation (in aggregate) is "more likely" than that they came from the killer. Do you take that position, and if so could you explain your reasoning underlying a subjective judgment why a non-killer's origin is relatively more likely than a killer's origin (if you hold that)? If you don't hold that position, would you make that clear explicitly?

 

No, I don't take that position.  

 

Would you support a responsible effort to obtain an identification of those fingerprints?

 

I've explained this before.  The prints lifted by Barnes were of no value.  They weren't a complete set of prints.  In order to link prints to a particular person, you need a certain number of matching points (see the 12 point rule).  However, much less is needed in order to rule a person out.

 

In other words, the set of prints weren't complete enough (per Barnes) to link them to any particular person but there was enough information in the prints (per Myers' expert Lutz) to rule out Oswald as the person who left the prints.  Because these prints were of no value (not enough information in the prints to link them to ANYONE), a "responsible effort" to obtain an identification would be futile.

 

Edited October 10, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

 

 

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

No, I don't take that position.  

Thank you for making clear that you do not rule out that the killer may be the most likely source of the fingerprints. (Not that you are saying it is, just that you are not ruling it out that it is, the most likely source. Thank you.)

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Would you support a responsible effort to obtain an identification of those fingerprints?

I've explained this before.  The prints lifted by Barnes were of no value.  They weren't a complete set of prints.  In order to link prints to a particular person, you need a certain number of matching points (see the 12 point rule).  However, much less is needed in order to rule a person out.

In other words, the set of prints weren't complete enough (per Barnes) to link them to any particular person but there was enough information in the prints (per Myers' expert Lutz) to rule out Oswald as the person who left the prints.  Because these prints were of no value (not enough information in the prints to link them to ANYONE), a "responsible effort" to obtain an identification would be futile.

What is your answer to the question asked?

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

Thank you for making clear that you do not rule out that the killer may be the most likely source of the fingerprints. (Not that you are saying it is, just that you are not ruling it out that it is, the most likely source. Thank you.)

What is your answer to the question asked?

 

I don't support futile efforts.

 

[Greg Doudna]

55 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

I don't support futile efforts.

Understood. But what if it cost you nothing other than lending your name or endorsement, in the company of other legitimate requesting names. Worst case: it is futile, what have you lost. Best case: maybe it is possible despite your pessimism. What's the harm in pointing the telescope, so to speak, using 2022 expertise and best methods, just to see if something could be there?

What is your answer to the question? Would you support a responsible effort to obtain an identification of those fingerprints? 

I am asking you to answer the question.

[Bill Brown]

33 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Understood. But what if it cost you nothing other than lending your name or endorsement, in the company of other legitimate requesting names. Worst case: it is futile, what have you lost. Best case: maybe it is possible despite your pessimism. What's the harm in pointing the telescope, so to speak, using 2022 expertise and best methods, just to see if something could be there?

What is your answer to the question? Would you support a responsible effort to obtain an identification of those fingerprints? 

I am asking you to answer the question.

 

No.

 

Because I believe Barnes when he said the prints were of no use.

 

But, have at it.  Good luck.

 

[Bill Brown]

Greg, have you seen the prints?  They're only partial prints and Barnes tells you that they're of no use.

[Greg Doudna]

7 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

No.

Because I believe Barnes when he said the prints were of no use.

But, have at it.  Good luck.

OK, a straight answer, thanks.

Incidentally, do you have any idea why Barnes did not disclose the exclusion of a match with Oswald in 1963? Would there have been any reason not to disclose that?

Was it the DPD crime lab was just not up to speed on that, really couldn't find what Lutz in 1994 easily found in a few minutes, as Myers has told?

But it sure is good to know you have certainty that the DPD crime lab was right on no ability to get a positive identification!

17 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Greg, have you seen the prints?  They're only partial prints and Barnes tells you that they're of no use.

Yes I've seen the prints, they're published Myers 336-337. The fender prints look like there's a lot there to me. I am not knowledgeable enough on fingerprints to know that Barnes was correct that they are useless. 

If Barnes (or whoever prepared the information to which Barnes testified) really knew what they were talking about, they would have disclosed the non-match to Oswald of those fender prints, instead of saying the prints were of no use. 

Either they were not competent compared to Lutz in 1994, or they were competent and were holding that finding back. Which do you think it was?

[Bill Brown]

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

OK, a straight answer, thanks.

Incidentally, do you have any idea why Barnes did not disclose the exclusion of a match with Oswald in 1963? Would there have been any reason not to disclose that?

Was it the DPD crime lab was just not up to speed on that, really couldn't find what Lutz in 1994 easily found in a few minutes, as Myers has told?

But it sure is good to know you have certainty that the DPD crime lab was right on no ability to get a positive identification!

Yes I've seen the prints, they're published Myers 336-337. The fender prints look like there's a lot there to me. I am not knowledgeable enough on fingerprints to know that Barnes was correct that they are useless. 

If Barnes (or whoever prepared the information to which Barnes testified) really knew what they were talking about, they would have disclosed the non-match to Oswald of those fender prints, instead of saying the prints were of no use. 

Either they were not competent compared to Lutz in 1994, or they were competent and were holding that finding back. Which do you think it was?

 

Either they were not competent compared to Lutz in 1994, or they were competent and were holding that finding back. Which do you think it was?

 

I believe a third option:

 

No one said the killer touched the fender.

 

The prints lifted from the fender don't belong to Oswald.

 

Oswald killed Tippit but didn't touch the fender.

 

The prints weren't Oswald's but they don't rule out Oswald as the killer (since no one saw the killer touch the fender).

 

The prints, if they could have been linked to anyone (they couldn't because they were only partial) would not rule out Oswald as the killer.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Either they were not competent compared to Lutz in 1994, or they were competent and were holding that finding back. Which do you think it was?

I believe a third option:

No one said the killer touched the fender.

The prints lifted from the fender don't belong to Oswald.

Oswald killed Tippit but didn't touch the fender.

The prints weren't Oswald's but they don't rule out Oswald as the killer (since no one saw the killer touch the fender).

The prints, if they could have been linked to anyone (they couldn't because they were only partial) would not rule out Oswald as the killer.

Wait a minute Bill. How is your third option different from the second (that the DPD Crime Lab found in Nov 1963 "the prints weren't Oswald's" but intentionally did not disclose that)?