POLICE CAR IN THE ALLEY? NOPE.

[Bill Brown]

Domingo Benavides was tending to a broken down vehicle on Patton Avenue. To go to the auto parts store, he proceeded east in the alley behind Harris Bros. Motors (this alley ran parallel to Tenth Street and Jefferson Boulevard, halfway between the two). He took a left onto Denver and then a right onto Tenth, heading east on Tenth toward the auto parts store at Tenth and Marsalis.

Realizing he forgot the parts number, Benavides turned around in one of the driveways on Tenth and proceeded west on Tenth. He crossed through the intersection with Denver and was driving west on Tenth (back toward the broken down vehicle on Patton) when he came upon the scene.

Benavides drove his truck east in the alley and never made any mention of any police cars being in that alley. Those familiar with the tall-tales of supposed "researchers" will understand the significance of this. The bottom line is, there was no police car in that alley approximately ninety seconds before the Tippit shooting.

[Greg Doudna]

That's an interesting point Bill, though I wonder how decisive it is. Your point is that Benavides would have noticed, and would be expected to have said something if he had seen, say a parked patrol car in one of the backyards in that alley as he drove by. However Benavides is never known to have been asked that question, and Benavides in particular of witnesses kept very much out of the limelight, said very little of anything. If Benavides was not specifically asked that question by the Warren Commission, and he said little else to anyone other than his Warren Commission testimony, is his failure to volunteer such a detail of significant weight on the question?

On reference to researchers' tall-tales referring to a police car in the alley, what do you make of Myers' report of a presence of a police officer in a house overlooking the crime scene at the time of the murder, covered up by members of the Dallas Police? From the 2013 With Malice, 374:

"Recently, it was learned that there was a Dallas police officer who had frequented the Tenth and Patton area and, in fact, was there at the time of Tippit's murder.

"According to sources, a Dallas police officer was involved in a tryst with a married woman on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, in a house that overlooked the Tippit murder scene. At the sound of the shots, the officer looked out a window and observed the killer fleeing the scene. Reportedly, the officer positively identified the gunman as Lee Harvey Oswald; however, the story never crept beyond a handful of lawmen for fear of unintentionally exposing the relationship. The story was confirmed in 1996 by a high ranking Dallas official who stated that the 'information received was sufficient to cause belief.'

"'This person's credibility level was high,' the official remarked, 'because after all is said and done,. you're not going to get yourself any favorable publicity from it. There's no motive for saying it if it weren't true.' Only a handful of people were aware of the story and as far as the official knew it was never made available to officers investigating Tippit's death."

[Bill Brown]

On 10/7/2022 at 9:09 PM, Greg Doudna said:

That's an interesting point Bill, though I wonder how decisive it is. Your point is that Benavides would have noticed, and would be expected to have said something if he had seen, say a parked patrol car in one of the backyards in that alley as he drove by. However Benavides is never known to have been asked that question, and Benavides in particular of witnesses kept very much out of the limelight, said very little of anything. If Benavides was not specifically asked that question by the Warren Commission, and he said little else to anyone other than his Warren Commission testimony, is his failure to volunteer such a detail of significant weight on the question?

On reference to researchers' tall-tales referring to a police car in the alley, what do you make of Myers' report of a presence of a police officer in a house overlooking the crime scene at the time of the murder, covered up by members of the Dallas Police? From the 2013 With Malice, 374:

"Recently, it was learned that there was a Dallas police officer who had frequented the Tenth and Patton area and, in fact, was there at the time of Tippit's murder.

"According to sources, a Dallas police officer was involved in a tryst with a married woman on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, in a house that overlooked the Tippit murder scene. At the sound of the shots, the officer looked out a window and observed the killer fleeing the scene. Reportedly, the officer positively identified the gunman as Lee Harvey Oswald; however, the story never crept beyond a handful of lawmen for fear of unintentionally exposing the relationship. The story was confirmed in 1996 by a high ranking Dallas official who stated that the 'information received was sufficient to cause belief.'

"'This person's credibility level was high,' the official remarked, 'because after all is said and done,. you're not going to get yourself any favorable publicity from it. There's no motive for saying it if it weren't true.' Only a handful of people were aware of the story and as far as the official knew it was never made available to officers investigating Tippit's death."

 

First, let me get this straight.

 

Are you saying that this is a tall-tale by Myers?

 

[Greg Doudna]

No don't be silly. You are the one, not me, who referred to tall tales of a police car at the crime scene. Are you saying the story reported by Myers is a tall tale? That is the question. I do not think it is a tall tale. What about you?

I have enough problems running afoul of Myers on real issues, I don't need you manufacturing ones out of thin air. 

Edited October 10, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

No don't be silly. You are the one, not me, who referred to tall tales of a police car at the crime scene. Are you saying the story reported by Myers is a tall tale? That is the question. I do not think it is a tall tale. What about you?

I have enough problems running afoul of Myers on real issues, I don't need you manufacturing ones out of thin air. 

 

In saying tall-tales by "researchers", I was referring to Mike Brownlow.

 

I didn't manufacture anything out of thin air.  I was asking you a question.

 

As for the story of the officer having a "tryst with a married woman" in one of the houses on Tenth Street, I don't have an opinion on it.  I don't support it.  I don't use it in any attempt to show Oswald's guilt.  At the same time, I haven't said it was not true.  I couldn't know one way or another, since the name of the officer isn't revealed.  Because the officer's name isn't revealed, I have no interest in it.

 

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

In saying tall-tales by "researchers", I was referring to Mike Brownlow.

I didn't manufacture anything out of thin air.  I was asking you a question.

As for the story of the officer having a "tryst with a married woman" in one of the houses on Tenth Street, I don't have an opinion on it.  I don't support it.  I don't use it in any attempt to show Oswald's guilt.  At the same time, I haven't said it was not true.  I couldn't know one way or another, since the name of the officer isn't revealed.  Because the officer's name isn't revealed, I have no interest in it.

OK thanks for clarifying. 

[Greg Doudna]

The case for a patrol cruiser in the alley behind E. 10th Street at the time of the Tippit killing, and possible identification of the anonymous "affair" officer of the Myers story, Part 1

Bill, I think there is something to the story of the officer at the scene whose existence and identity was covered up and whose identity remains covered up to the present day. Part of the reason is Myers' report of the senior standing and credibility of who told him that. 

This conceivably could be some kind of intentional planting of a total fabrication (with Myers who has the most standing and credibility on the Tippit case to report), just to create a wild-goose chase. While not knowing for sure, I think Myers' judgment that his source was truthful to him (this from the way Myers' presents the story in With Malice, whether or not it is explicitly stated) weighs in favor of something there to the story. 

But what I see is it is an intentional, very late, leak to Myers. For that reason I do not regard the specifics of the story as obviously correct even if there is something to the story itself. Specifically, suppose an officer was an unknown witness at the scene. Was he really there because he was having an affair with a woman, and his presence at that location therefore completely accidental? That is the story given to Myers. If there was an officer there was that the reason or is this someone's later innocent alibi?

Many times leaks of unusual or sensational true stories happen when it is realized or feared that the true story could leak without one's wishes, so preemptively leak in the most favorable spin. It looks outwardly like someone coming forth on their own initiative. But this is standard PR practice when bad news is about to break (or there is risk of such)--get out front and leak the story yourself and frame it favorably, before hostile journalists who are after your blood leak it in a worse framing of your side. 

With this said, your whole point of this thread comes down to an argument that the Brownlow story of the police car in the alley is a tall tale, but the argument you give in support of that I have shown above is too weak to qualify as much of a significant negative argument. On the other hand Myers' high-level confidential informant saying there was a police officer there that day at that time, while not certain, is more substantial. It weighs in favor of the Brownlow story could be correct, in the sense of having something to it (not meaning in the sense of every specific of Brownlow's story).

By the Brownlow story is meant the Doris Holan story. Doris Holan claimed to be a witness that day and claimed to have seen a police car making strange back-and-forth movements and leaving that alley immediately following the shots. That Doris Holan had such a story, a claim to have been a firsthand witness, is not in dispute, though it is highly frustrating and unfortunate that there is no tape or writing from Doris Holan herself of that story, and the contents of her story are known only through the hearsay retelling of Livingstone, Brownlow, and Pulte, who unfortunately may not be the most scrupulously accurate retellers. So the only form in which Doris Holan's story is known has to be examined critically on the likely assumption that it is garbled. What Doris Holan actually said can only be reconstructed underneath the hearsay retelling of Livingstone, Brownlow, and Pulte. And of course even if there was a perfect reconstruction of what Doris Holan said, what the truth was that day can only be reconstructed underneath the telling of Doris Holan.

The Doris Holan story as Pulte, Livingstone, and Brownlow told it, and as many have believed and promoted for years, one can still find it in books, collapsed in that Myers showed that Doris Holan was not living on 10th Street at the time of the Tippit killing as Pulte, Livingstone and Brownlow had Doris Holan telling it. Myers' evidence on this is unequivocal, it is just fact, that Doris Holan did not live on 10th Street and hence the Pulte et al story of her overlooking and seeing the cruiser and the men and police car in the driveway behind the cruiser, cannot have happened as Pulte et al told it. (Added to that Myers also makes a pretty good argument that the driveway itself was blocked from exit access into the alley making the account not possible on separate grounds, but that is neither here nor there compared to the fact that Doris Holan was not living on 10th St. in the first place.) (https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2020/11/doris-e-holan-and-tippit-murder.html)

But the new fact established by Myers in 2020, is that Doris Holan lived at 113-1/2 S. Patton Street. That is the second floor of the apartment building on the northwest corner of Patton and the alley, and although Myers did not realize it, it actually strengthens, not weakens, the plausibility of the claim in the Doris Holan story to have seen a police cruiser in the alley. The Doris Holan story gains, is not diminished, in credibility in light of a realization of Doris Holan's actual, true, correct address. For as Doris Holan put it, when she heard the shots she ran to her front window (which in fact, not known until 2020, overlooked Patton), and the view from her window overlooking Patton looks directly east right straight directly into that alley. Doris Holan told of that alley and said she saw a police cruiser making strange backing up movements and then leaving. That is a description of seeing someone in a parked car in that alley backing up and leaving in a hurry, as it would appear to someone looking out Doris Holan's second-story window with a view looking directly into that alley.

Doris Holan still could have got it wrong, been mistaken, whatever. But her story now, on its face, becomes actually more plausible, nothing implausible about it (cutting through the garbling of the Pulte et al retelling). 

And when that is combined independently with the Myers' high-level confidential leak to Myers re the secret police officer witness there that day, that sounds, not as certain, but it sounds like corroborative support for the Doris Holan claim. So much so that I have wondered if the thing that prompted the late leak to Myers might have been the garbled versions of the Doris Holan story itself kicking around on the internet.

I also have a third independent account to add to this mix, my discovery of an account of an officer in a patrol car at the scene of the crime that day whose patrol car movements evoke that described by Doris Holan, not known on any document in the Mary Ferrell site, not known in Myers' book of 2013, not known in Myers' 2020 breaking of his research on the Doris Holan story. (Continued.)

Edited October 11, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

The case for a patrol cruiser in the alley behind E. 10th Street at the time of the Tippit killing, and possible identification of the anonymous "affair" officer of the Myers story, Part 2

In 1998 an officer, not otherwise known to have been at the Tippit crime scene, gave a firsthand account of driving a cruiser at the crime scene doing strange backing-up movements, told for the first time ever in Sneed, No More Silence (1998). The officer is not a Dallas Police officer but rather a sheriff's deputy, Bill Courson. Bill Courson tells that he was in Oak Cliff, was at the scene of the Tippit crime and was at the Texas Theatre. But unlike as with other sheriff's deputies and officers at those places in Oak Cliff that day, there is no written report from Courson from that day, anywhere to be found. that day. You can search on the Mary Ferrell site and there is practically nothing on this guy. No researcher, no book author, no newspaper reporter, ever interviewed him about his presence in Oak Cliff apart from the Sneed 1998 chapter that I have ever been able to find, even though Courson was prominent enough in the sheriff's department that I believe he actually ran for sheriff in a later election although he lost the election. Roger Craig's manuscript mentions Courson a few times, maybe one or two other sheriff's deputies that day, so his name does pop up in the background here and there. But no official report on or about or from Courson himself. 

And--boy do I find this detail interesting!--Courson tells of how he was in his yesterday's crumpled clothing all the time he was at the Tippit crime scene, at the Texas Theatre, etc. A deputy sheriff on duty wearing yesterday's clothing! (Yesterday's street clothing, he was plain-clothed.) How normal is that? Sort of sounds like he maybe was in Oak Cliff overnight before unexpectedly called into service Fri Nov 22 because of the assassination, doesn't it? As if he was in yesterday's clothing because he had no chance to get home and into fresh clothing (Courson lived quite a way south of Oak Cliff). Why would an officer wear yesterday's clothing on Fri Nov 22 in Oak Cliff? Maybe he was the officer of the affair of the story told to Myers. That would be one way of explaining why Courson was in yesterday's clothes, and I do not have a very long short list of other good explanations. Courson that day was in plain clothes, street clothes (his normal dress in his work), but in a patrol cruiser.

"As I was coming up Jefferson, running fast with red lights and siren ... As I stepped out of the car, a uniformed officer who had seen the red lights and realized it was an official car, even though I was in the rumpled plain clothes that I had worn the night before, hollered at me..."" (p. 484).

"... I had on some old wrinkled clothes and really didn't look like a police officer" (p. 485)

Here is Courson's description of his driving that police cruiser in a strange backing-up way. In Courson's telling he has this occurring a few minutes after the Tippit killing in the context of all law enforcement arriving in response from elsewhere, even though no other account of the Tippit killing ever heard of Courson's presence at 10th and Patton prior to Courson's 1998 account. No official record, no known report or record in the Dallas Police archives, or on the Mary Ferrel site, mentions Courson present at the Tippit crime scene. Nor does Myers' With Malice contain any mention of Courson's presence at the Tippit crime scene. Notice Courson's description of his patrol car's movements, and compare it with echoes or similarities in the Doris Holan story.

"[I] went to the location where the office, Tippit, had been shot. Tippit's car was on the right hand side of the street facing east while I was on the right side facing west. As I pulled up alongside the car, there was another uniformed officer at the location who was evidently waiting for the wrecker to come and get Tippit's car. I don't recall whether I had heard that he was dead, but I believe I did. As I stepped out of the car, the call came in on Tippit's radio, which was still on, that 'The suspect wearing a white or light colored jacket, has been seen running into the balcony of the Texas Theater.'

"We were only a few blocks from the theater, but I had to back up and turn to get back onto Jefferson. Another officer was headed the same way, so he and I ran a race, my going backward and his going forward to see who could make that turn to get onto Jefferson first. He was in front of me and went on around to the back of the theater. I'm inclined to believe this was McDonald, the one who eventually captured Oswald, but I'm not sure. Anyway, he went on in his squad car around the theater..." (pp. 484-85)

Doris Holan story:

"[Doris Holan] also claimed she saw a Dallas police squad car, that apparently originated from the back of the lot [at 410 or 406 E. 10th], rolling slowly down the driveway toward the street. About half-way down the driveway, the squad car stopped. 'She said, I could see this--on the left side--the cherry--what they called the cherry on top,' Brownlow tells us." (Myers 2020, linked above, citing a transcript of Brownlow and Pulte 2015)

"... the police car, which was continuing to back-up in the driveway" (Myers 2020, same) 

Long story short, I studied the Doris Holan story a while ago and reconstructed what I think happened, and what I think was the same as actually happened with Courson's patrol car. The car was parked off the alley, somewhere in the vicinity of 410 or 406 E. 10th. Within moments of the shots in which Tippit was killed, as Doris Holan looked out her window with line of sight right into that alley, she saw that patrol car back up and leave the alley. The way the patrol car left was not straightforward however. From wherever it was parked, it backed into the alley itself, headed east in the alley, but for some reason was unable to turn the car around to go frontward east. From my interpretation of the accounts I believe the driver of that patrol car backed his car all the way east until coming out on Denver. Then backing into Denver out into the street, the driver was able to drive normally south on Denver the half-block to Jefferson. The reason for backing up the length of the alley east to Denver would be because of the narrowness of the alley, and perhaps because the driver at first backed out thinking he would exit the alley on Patton (closer) but perhaps from seeing persons there changed his mind to just take the longer way east to Denver, backing up the entire length of the alley due to the alley's narrowness and/or not wanting to take the time to get his cruiser turned around. In any case, this is my reconstruction of that car's movements as a match to both the Doris Holan story and Courson's story, because I think there is a very good chance those two stories are the same story.

Then, if that is true, Courson would become the unnamed officer of the story that was leaked to Myers, which was said to involve an affair.

His rumpled day-old street clothing would be consistent with his having been overnight in Oak Cliff, not at his home where he would have put on fresh clothes if so.

His failure to turn in a report or be asked to turn in a report is consistent with what Myers was told years later, that high-level insiders to Dallas law enforcement covered up that officer's presence at the scene of the crime.

The immediate leaving of the officer, instead of running out to assist Tippit and/or call for backup and/or attempt to apprehend the killer in hot pursuit, would be accounted for in terms of his not wanting his presence and the affair to come out. (It could also be accounted for in terms of his having been part of the killing itself, but I reason that is not the case, since in that case it is unlikely he would openly park his police cruiser in the alley right there. The affair is how it was told to Myers, and although it is hard to know for sure, the story at least hangs together with Courson's day-old clothing.) 

Courson's 1998 story in Sneed would be Courson's alibi version, in which a careful reading could show Courson was covering all major points of a story giving his explanations, not all of which should be assumed to be accurate as Courson tells it. For example: Courson claims he was sleeping at home, way to the south of Oak Cliff, with his wife gone at work and no one at home but himself, when he claims his wife called him and told him of the assassination, whereupon he put on all his same street clothes from the day before evidently not believing there was a moment to spare to put on fresh clothes, and headed in to Dallas to assist officers there. 

"At first, I just couldn't believe it [what his wife told him over the phone re JFK shot] and that it had happened in Dallas. So I dressed, put on the old rumpled clothes that I had worn the night before, and within five minutes, since the squad car was at the house, I was on the way to downtown Dallas and checked into service about halfway between DeSoto and Oak Cliff ... I just listened to the radio until I was about halfway into Oak Cliff. I didn't try to break in and check in sooner because of the traffic..." (Sneed, p. 482) 

I do not believe Courson was at home. I think he had on his old clothes because he was in Oak Cliff overnight. When the Tippit killing occurred he fled, drove just enough south of Oak Cliff or reported his location as such, to report in to service as if he was newly arriving to Oak Cliff from his home from the south. Then Courson returned (or remained) in Oak Cliff to be present at the Texas Theatre et al. Courson's claim that he was at home, as well as other claims which can be similarly examined in his Sneed account, is his alternative storyline or alibi narrative, a counter-narrative to what may have been the actual truth, that he was that mystery officer witness told high-level to Myers, present at the scene of the Tippit killing when it happened, identity covered up. 

And Doris Holan did see that patrol car in that alley. 

So that's my reconstruction Bill. What do you think? 

[Michael Kalin]

The original post is a recitation of Benavides' 4/2/64 WC testimony (6WH446-7). In the absence of corroboration why believe it? Are there reports that anyone else saw either the pickup on 10th or a broken down vehicle on Patton at that time?

At least as strong a case can be made that Benavides heard the shots from his mother's house on East Jefferson where he was eating lunch. He then drove to the scene via Jefferson to Denver to East 10th, encountering a red-and-white Ford along the way. His arrival was observed by Guinyard & Markham.

[Bill Brown]

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The case for a patrol cruiser in the alley behind E. 10th Street at the time of the Tippit killing, and possible identification of the anonymous "affair" officer of the Myers story, Part 1

Bill, I think there is something to the story of the officer at the scene whose existence and identity was covered up and whose identity remains covered up to the present day. Part of the reason is Myers' report of the senior standing and credibility of who told him that. 

This conceivably could be some kind of intentional planting of a total fabrication (with Myers who has the most standing and credibility on the Tippit case to report), just to create a wild-goose chase. While not knowing for sure, I think Myers' judgment that his source was truthful to him (this from the way Myers' presents the story in With Malice, whether or not it is explicitly stated) weighs in favor of something there to the story. 

But what I see is it is an intentional, very late, leak to Myers. For that reason I do not regard the specifics of the story as obviously correct even if there is something to the story itself. Specifically, suppose an officer was an unknown witness at the scene. Was he really there because he was having an affair with a woman, and his presence at that location therefore completely accidental? That is the story given to Myers. If there was an officer there was that the reason or is this someone's later innocent alibi?

Many times leaks of unusual or sensational true stories happen when it is realized or feared that the true story could leak without one's wishes, so preemptively leak in the most favorable spin. It looks outwardly like someone coming forth on their own initiative. But this is standard PR practice when bad news is about to break (or there is risk of such)--get out front and leak the story yourself and frame it favorably, before hostile journalists who are after your blood leak it in a worse framing of your side. 

With this said, your whole point of this thread comes down to an argument that the Brownlow story of the police car in the alley is a tall tale, but the argument you give in support of that I have shown above is too weak to qualify as much of a significant negative argument. On the other hand Myers' high-level confidential informant saying there was a police officer there that day at that time, while not certain, is more substantial. It weighs in favor of the Brownlow story could be correct, in the sense of having something to it (not meaning in the sense of every specific of Brownlow's story).

By the Brownlow story is meant the Doris Holan story. Doris Holan claimed to be a witness that day and claimed to have seen a police car making strange back-and-forth movements and leaving that alley immediately following the shots. That Doris Holan had such a story, a claim to have been a firsthand witness, is not in dispute, though it is highly frustrating and unfortunate that there is no tape or writing from Doris Holan herself of that story, and the contents of her story are known only through the hearsay retelling of Livingstone, Brownlow, and Pulte, who unfortunately may not be the most scrupulously accurate retellers. So the only form in which Doris Holan's story is known has to be examined critically on the likely assumption that it is garbled. What Doris Holan actually said can only be reconstructed underneath the hearsay retelling of Livingstone, Brownlow, and Pulte. And of course even if there was a perfect reconstruction of what Doris Holan said, what the truth was that day can only be reconstructed underneath the telling of Doris Holan.

The Doris Holan story as Pulte, Livingstone, and Brownlow told it, and as many have believed and promoted for years, one can still find it in books, collapsed in that Myers showed that Doris Holan was not living on 10th Street at the time of the Tippit killing as Pulte, Livingstone and Brownlow had Doris Holan telling it. Myers' evidence on this is unequivocal, it is just fact, that Doris Holan did not live on 10th Street and hence the Pulte et al story of her overlooking and seeing the cruiser and the men and police car in the driveway behind the cruiser, cannot have happened as Pulte et al told it. (Added to that Myers also makes a pretty good argument that the driveway itself was blocked from exit access into the alley making the account not possible on separate grounds, but that is neither here nor there compared to the fact that Doris Holan was not living on 10th St. in the first place.) (https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2020/11/doris-e-holan-and-tippit-murder.html)

But the new fact established by Myers in 2020, is that Doris Holan lived at 113-1/2 S. Patton Street. That is the second floor of the apartment building on the northwest corner of Patton and the alley, and although Myers did not realize it, it actually strengthens, not weakens, the plausibility of the claim in the Doris Holan story to have seen a police cruiser in the alley. The Doris Holan story gains, is not diminished, in credibility in light of a realization of Doris Holan's actual, true, correct address. For as Doris Holan put it, when she heard the shots she ran to her front window (which in fact, not known until 2020, overlooked Patton), and the view from her window overlooking Patton looks directly east right straight directly into that alley. Doris Holan told of that alley and said she saw a police cruiser making strange backing up movements and then leaving. That is a description of seeing someone in a parked car in that alley backing up and leaving in a hurry, as it would appear to someone looking out Doris Holan's second-story window with a view looking directly into that alley.

Doris Holan still could have got it wrong, been mistaken, whatever. But her story now, on its face, becomes actually more plausible, nothing implausible about it (cutting through the garbling of the Pulte et al retelling). 

And when that is combined independently with the Myers' high-level confidential leak to Myers re the secret police officer witness there that day, that sounds, not as certain, but it sounds like corroborative support for the Doris Holan claim. So much so that I have wondered if the thing that prompted the late leak to Myers might have been the garbled versions of the Doris Holan story itself kicking around on the internet.

I also have a third independent account to add to this mix, my discovery of an account of an officer in a patrol car at the scene of the crime that day whose patrol car movements evoke that described by Doris Holan, not known on any document in the Mary Ferrell site, not known in Myers' book of 2013, not known in Myers' 2020 breaking of his research on the Doris Holan story. (Continued.)

 

On the other hand Myers' high-level confidential informant saying there was a police officer there that day at that time, while not certain, is more substantial. It weighs in favor of the Brownlow story could be correct, in the sense of having something to it (not meaning in the sense of every specific of Brownlow's story).

 

Come on, Greg.  Surely you're not saying that if a police officer was there having a tryst with a married woman, that he would have driven a police car to her house?

 

[Bill Brown]

9 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The case for a patrol cruiser in the alley behind E. 10th Street at the time of the Tippit killing, and possible identification of the anonymous "affair" officer of the Myers story, Part 1

Bill, I think there is something to the story of the officer at the scene whose existence and identity was covered up and whose identity remains covered up to the present day. Part of the reason is Myers' report of the senior standing and credibility of who told him that. 

This conceivably could be some kind of intentional planting of a total fabrication (with Myers who has the most standing and credibility on the Tippit case to report), just to create a wild-goose chase. While not knowing for sure, I think Myers' judgment that his source was truthful to him (this from the way Myers' presents the story in With Malice, whether or not it is explicitly stated) weighs in favor of something there to the story. 

But what I see is it is an intentional, very late, leak to Myers. For that reason I do not regard the specifics of the story as obviously correct even if there is something to the story itself. Specifically, suppose an officer was an unknown witness at the scene. Was he really there because he was having an affair with a woman, and his presence at that location therefore completely accidental? That is the story given to Myers. If there was an officer there was that the reason or is this someone's later innocent alibi?

Many times leaks of unusual or sensational true stories happen when it is realized or feared that the true story could leak without one's wishes, so preemptively leak in the most favorable spin. It looks outwardly like someone coming forth on their own initiative. But this is standard PR practice when bad news is about to break (or there is risk of such)--get out front and leak the story yourself and frame it favorably, before hostile journalists who are after your blood leak it in a worse framing of your side. 

With this said, your whole point of this thread comes down to an argument that the Brownlow story of the police car in the alley is a tall tale, but the argument you give in support of that I have shown above is too weak to qualify as much of a significant negative argument. On the other hand Myers' high-level confidential informant saying there was a police officer there that day at that time, while not certain, is more substantial. It weighs in favor of the Brownlow story could be correct, in the sense of having something to it (not meaning in the sense of every specific of Brownlow's story).

By the Brownlow story is meant the Doris Holan story. Doris Holan claimed to be a witness that day and claimed to have seen a police car making strange back-and-forth movements and leaving that alley immediately following the shots. That Doris Holan had such a story, a claim to have been a firsthand witness, is not in dispute, though it is highly frustrating and unfortunate that there is no tape or writing from Doris Holan herself of that story, and the contents of her story are known only through the hearsay retelling of Livingstone, Brownlow, and Pulte, who unfortunately may not be the most scrupulously accurate retellers. So the only form in which Doris Holan's story is known has to be examined critically on the likely assumption that it is garbled. What Doris Holan actually said can only be reconstructed underneath the hearsay retelling of Livingstone, Brownlow, and Pulte. And of course even if there was a perfect reconstruction of what Doris Holan said, what the truth was that day can only be reconstructed underneath the telling of Doris Holan.

The Doris Holan story as Pulte, Livingstone, and Brownlow told it, and as many have believed and promoted for years, one can still find it in books, collapsed in that Myers showed that Doris Holan was not living on 10th Street at the time of the Tippit killing as Pulte, Livingstone and Brownlow had Doris Holan telling it. Myers' evidence on this is unequivocal, it is just fact, that Doris Holan did not live on 10th Street and hence the Pulte et al story of her overlooking and seeing the cruiser and the men and police car in the driveway behind the cruiser, cannot have happened as Pulte et al told it. (Added to that Myers also makes a pretty good argument that the driveway itself was blocked from exit access into the alley making the account not possible on separate grounds, but that is neither here nor there compared to the fact that Doris Holan was not living on 10th St. in the first place.) (https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2020/11/doris-e-holan-and-tippit-murder.html)

But the new fact established by Myers in 2020, is that Doris Holan lived at 113-1/2 S. Patton Street. That is the second floor of the apartment building on the northwest corner of Patton and the alley, and although Myers did not realize it, it actually strengthens, not weakens, the plausibility of the claim in the Doris Holan story to have seen a police cruiser in the alley. The Doris Holan story gains, is not diminished, in credibility in light of a realization of Doris Holan's actual, true, correct address. For as Doris Holan put it, when she heard the shots she ran to her front window (which in fact, not known until 2020, overlooked Patton), and the view from her window overlooking Patton looks directly east right straight directly into that alley. Doris Holan told of that alley and said she saw a police cruiser making strange backing up movements and then leaving. That is a description of seeing someone in a parked car in that alley backing up and leaving in a hurry, as it would appear to someone looking out Doris Holan's second-story window with a view looking directly into that alley.

Doris Holan still could have got it wrong, been mistaken, whatever. But her story now, on its face, becomes actually more plausible, nothing implausible about it (cutting through the garbling of the Pulte et al retelling). 

And when that is combined independently with the Myers' high-level confidential leak to Myers re the secret police officer witness there that day, that sounds, not as certain, but it sounds like corroborative support for the Doris Holan claim. So much so that I have wondered if the thing that prompted the late leak to Myers might have been the garbled versions of the Doris Holan story itself kicking around on the internet.

I also have a third independent account to add to this mix, my discovery of an account of an officer in a patrol car at the scene of the crime that day whose patrol car movements evoke that described by Doris Holan, not known on any document in the Mary Ferrell site, not known in Myers' book of 2013, not known in Myers' 2020 breaking of his research on the Doris Holan story. (Continued.)

 

But the new fact established by Myers in 2020, is that Doris Holan lived at 113-1/2 S. Patton Street. That is the second floor of the apartment building on the northwest corner of Patton and the alley, and although Myers did not realize it, it actually strengthens, not weakens, the plausibility of the claim in the Doris Holan story to have seen a police cruiser in the alley. The Doris Holan story gains, is not diminished, in credibility in light of a realization of Doris Holan's actual, true, correct address. For as Doris Holan put it, when she heard the shots she ran to her front window (which in fact, not known until 2020, overlooked Patton), and the view from her window overlooking Patton looks directly east right straight directly into that alley. Doris Holan told of that alley and said she saw a police cruiser making strange backing up movements and then leaving. That is a description of seeing someone in a parked car in that alley backing up and leaving in a hurry, as it would appear to someone looking out Doris Holan's second-story window with a view looking directly into that alley.

 

Greg, No.

 

Holan's supposed account has what you are calling "strange backing up movements" occurring in the driveway between the two houses, NOT in the alley as you are trying to say above.

 

Therefore, your entire point (trying to give credibility to the supposed Holan account of seeing a police car in the alley) is entirely invalid.

 

Sorry buddy, but you're going to have to go back to the drawing board on this one.

 

[Bill Brown]

9 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The case for a patrol cruiser in the alley behind E. 10th Street at the time of the Tippit killing, and possible identification of the anonymous "affair" officer of the Myers story, Part 2

In 1998 an officer, not otherwise known to have been at the Tippit crime scene, gave a firsthand account of driving a cruiser at the crime scene doing strange backing-up movements, told for the first time ever in Sneed, No More Silence (1998). The officer is not a Dallas Police officer but rather a sheriff's deputy, Bill Courson. Bill Courson tells that he was in Oak Cliff, was at the scene of the Tippit crime and was at the Texas Theatre. But unlike as with other sheriff's deputies and officers at those places in Oak Cliff that day, there is no written report from Courson from that day, anywhere to be found. that day. You can search on the Mary Ferrell site and there is practically nothing on this guy. No researcher, no book author, no newspaper reporter, ever interviewed him about his presence in Oak Cliff apart from the Sneed 1998 chapter that I have ever been able to find, even though Courson was prominent enough in the sheriff's department that I believe he actually ran for sheriff in a later election although he lost the election. Roger Craig's manuscript mentions Courson a few times, maybe one or two other sheriff's deputies that day, so his name does pop up in the background here and there. But no official report on or about or from Courson himself. 

And--boy do I find this detail interesting!--Courson tells of how he was in his yesterday's crumpled clothing all the time he was at the Tippit crime scene, at the Texas Theatre, etc. A deputy sheriff on duty wearing yesterday's clothing! (Yesterday's street clothing, he was plain-clothed.) How normal is that? Sort of sounds like he maybe was in Oak Cliff overnight before unexpectedly called into service Fri Nov 22 because of the assassination, doesn't it? As if he was in yesterday's clothing because he had no chance to get home and into fresh clothing (Courson lived quite a way south of Oak Cliff). Why would an officer wear yesterday's clothing on Fri Nov 22 in Oak Cliff? Maybe he was the officer of the affair of the story told to Myers. That would be one way of explaining why Courson was in yesterday's clothes, and I do not have a very long short list of other good explanations. Courson that day was in plain clothes, street clothes (his normal dress in his work), but in a patrol cruiser.

"As I was coming up Jefferson, running fast with red lights and siren ... As I stepped out of the car, a uniformed officer who had seen the red lights and realized it was an official car, even though I was in the rumpled plain clothes that I had worn the night before, hollered at me..."" (p. 484).

"... I had on some old wrinkled clothes and really didn't look like a police officer" (p. 485)

Here is Courson's description of his driving that police cruiser in a strange backing-up way. In Courson's telling he has this occurring a few minutes after the Tippit killing in the context of all law enforcement arriving in response from elsewhere, even though no other account of the Tippit killing ever heard of Courson's presence at 10th and Patton prior to Courson's 1998 account. No official record, no known report or record in the Dallas Police archives, or on the Mary Ferrel site, mentions Courson present at the Tippit crime scene. Nor does Myers' With Malice contain any mention of Courson's presence at the Tippit crime scene. Notice Courson's description of his patrol car's movements, and compare it with echoes or similarities in the Doris Holan story.

"[I] went to the location where the office, Tippit, had been shot. Tippit's car was on the right hand side of the street facing east while I was on the right side facing west. As I pulled up alongside the car, there was another uniformed officer at the location who was evidently waiting for the wrecker to come and get Tippit's car. I don't recall whether I had heard that he was dead, but I believe I did. As I stepped out of the car, the call came in on Tippit's radio, which was still on, that 'The suspect wearing a white or light colored jacket, has been seen running into the balcony of the Texas Theater.'

"We were only a few blocks from the theater, but I had to back up and turn to get back onto Jefferson. Another officer was headed the same way, so he and I ran a race, my going backward and his going forward to see who could make that turn to get onto Jefferson first. He was in front of me and went on around to the back of the theater. I'm inclined to believe this was McDonald, the one who eventually captured Oswald, but I'm not sure. Anyway, he went on in his squad car around the theater..." (pp. 484-85)

Doris Holan story:

"[Doris Holan] also claimed she saw a Dallas police squad car, that apparently originated from the back of the lot [at 410 or 406 E. 10th], rolling slowly down the driveway toward the street. About half-way down the driveway, the squad car stopped. 'She said, I could see this--on the left side--the cherry--what they called the cherry on top,' Brownlow tells us." (Myers 2020, linked above, citing a transcript of Brownlow and Pulte 2015)

"... the police car, which was continuing to back-up in the driveway" (Myers 2020, same) 

Long story short, I studied the Doris Holan story a while ago and reconstructed what I think happened, and what I think was the same as actually happened with Courson's patrol car. The car was parked off the alley, somewhere in the vicinity of 410 or 406 E. 10th. Within moments of the shots in which Tippit was killed, as Doris Holan looked out her window with line of sight right into that alley, she saw that patrol car back up and leave the alley. The way the patrol car left was not straightforward however. From wherever it was parked, it backed into the alley itself, headed east in the alley, but for some reason was unable to turn the car around to go frontward east. From my interpretation of the accounts I believe the driver of that patrol car backed his car all the way east until coming out on Denver. Then backing into Denver out into the street, the driver was able to drive normally south on Denver the half-block to Jefferson. The reason for backing up the length of the alley east to Denver would be because of the narrowness of the alley, and perhaps because the driver at first backed out thinking he would exit the alley on Patton (closer) but perhaps from seeing persons there changed his mind to just take the longer way east to Denver, backing up the entire length of the alley due to the alley's narrowness and/or not wanting to take the time to get his cruiser turned around. In any case, this is my reconstruction of that car's movements as a match to both the Doris Holan story and Courson's story, because I think there is a very good chance those two stories are the same story.

Then, if that is true, Courson would become the unnamed officer of the story that was leaked to Myers, which was said to involve an affair.

His rumpled day-old street clothing would be consistent with his having been overnight in Oak Cliff, not at his home where he would have put on fresh clothes if so.

His failure to turn in a report or be asked to turn in a report is consistent with what Myers was told years later, that high-level insiders to Dallas law enforcement covered up that officer's presence at the scene of the crime.

The immediate leaving of the officer, instead of running out to assist Tippit and/or call for backup and/or attempt to apprehend the killer in hot pursuit, would be accounted for in terms of his not wanting his presence and the affair to come out. (It could also be accounted for in terms of his having been part of the killing itself, but I reason that is not the case, since in that case it is unlikely he would openly park his police cruiser in the alley right there. The affair is how it was told to Myers, and although it is hard to know for sure, the story at least hangs together with Courson's day-old clothing.) 

Courson's 1998 story in Sneed would be Courson's alibi version, in which a careful reading could show Courson was covering all major points of a story giving his explanations, not all of which should be assumed to be accurate as Courson tells it. For example: Courson claims he was sleeping at home, way to the south of Oak Cliff, with his wife gone at work and no one at home but himself, when he claims his wife called him and told him of the assassination, whereupon he put on all his same street clothes from the day before evidently not believing there was a moment to spare to put on fresh clothes, and headed in to Dallas to assist officers there. 

"At first, I just couldn't believe it [what his wife told him over the phone re JFK shot] and that it had happened in Dallas. So I dressed, put on the old rumpled clothes that I had worn the night before, and within five minutes, since the squad car was at the house, I was on the way to downtown Dallas and checked into service about halfway between DeSoto and Oak Cliff ... I just listened to the radio until I was about halfway into Oak Cliff. I didn't try to break in and check in sooner because of the traffic..." (Sneed, p. 482) 

I do not believe Courson was at home. I think he had on his old clothes because he was in Oak Cliff overnight. When the Tippit killing occurred he fled, drove just enough south of Oak Cliff or reported his location as such, to report in to service as if he was newly arriving to Oak Cliff from his home from the south. Then Courson returned (or remained) in Oak Cliff to be present at the Texas Theatre et al. Courson's claim that he was at home, as well as other claims which can be similarly examined in his Sneed account, is his alternative storyline or alibi narrative, a counter-narrative to what may have been the actual truth, that he was that mystery officer witness told high-level to Myers, present at the scene of the Tippit killing when it happened, identity covered up. 

And Doris Holan did see that patrol car in that alley. 

So that's my reconstruction Bill. What do you think? 

 

Greg, again... No.

 

Neither Holan nor Courson describe any strange backing-up movements in the alley.

 

How do you continue to make the leap from supposed backing-up movements in the driveway (the actual claim) to these movements taking place in the alley?

 

The supposed Holan claim has this action taking place in the driveway (not the alley).  Based on the fact (per Myers) that she lived pretty much halfway down Patton, she couldn't have seen anything going on in the driveway between the second and third houses on Tenth.

 

The supposed Courson claim doesn't say anything about the alley at all.  How do you make the leap from Courson describing pulling up to the scene on Tenth Street to being in the alley?  Courson is saying he drove in reverse on the street, not in the alley.

 

Edited October 12, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

As you know from what I wrote, I am proposing to interpret the discrepancies in the Holan and Courson stories in terms of, in the case of Holan, transmission garbling from Livingstone/Pulte/Brownlow's retelling (i.e. I am proposing that Holan told of the alley but her transmitters, influenced by thinking she lived on 10th, had her saying driveway), and in the case of Courson, purposeful changing of details on the part of Courson (i.e. his referring to backing in his car all the way on 10th back to Denver, rather than backing in the alley all the way back to Denver). I am explaining the differences those ways, while interpreting the distinctive commonalities in the two accounts, combined with the lack of any other known information on Courson at the Tippit crime scene supporting Courson's version, as the argument for the match of the two stories.

Would an officer not drive a cruiser in his off-duty hours to have an affair? Good question. If it was off-duty, and would not get back to his wife, why not? Didn't Virginia Davis make some reference in her Warren Commission testimony to thinking a police officer lived at about 410 E 10th? Which could be explained by seeing a cruiser parked there enough times to think that. And yet there was no police officer living on that block of 10th, so there could be a patrol car and an affair, on 10th Street, perhaps the same patrol car Doris Holan saw, perhaps Courson's patrol car with the man in it who had not changed his clothes overnight. 

But carry on! I appreciate your critique.

(And believe it or not I am not being ironic. Please continue.) 

[Bill Brown]

2 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

As you know from what I wrote, I am proposing to interpret the discrepancies in the Holan and Courson stories in terms of, in the case of Holan, transmission garbling from Livingstone/Pulte/Brownlow's retelling (i.e. I am proposing that Holan told of the alley but her transmitters, influenced by thinking she lived on 10th, had her saying driveway), and in the case of Courson, purposeful changing of details on the part of Courson (i.e. his referring to backing in his car all the way on 10th back to Denver, rather than backing in the alley all the way back to Denver). I am explaining the differences those ways, while interpreting the distinctive commonalities in the two accounts, combined with the lack of any other known information on Courson at the Tippit crime scene supporting Courson's version, as the argument for the match of the two stories.

Would an officer not drive a cruiser in his off-duty hours to have an affair? Good question. If it was off-duty, and would not get back to his wife, why not? Didn't Virginia Davis make some reference in her Warren Commission testimony to thinking a police officer lived at about 410 E 10th? Which could be explained by seeing a cruiser parked there enough times to think that. And yet there was no police officer living on that block of 10th, so there could be a patrol car and an affair, on 10th Street, perhaps the same patrol car Doris Holan saw, perhaps Courson's patrol car with the man in it who had not changed his clothes overnight. 

But carry on! I appreciate your critique.

(And believe it or not I am not being ironic. Please continue.) 

 

To the point of this thread and my original post...

 

I have spoken to Mike Brownlow at least a half dozen times in person.  I know for a fact that he is full of lies and "tall-tales".  I can give examples if you really do insist.  He'll say anything to make a buck or two.  It is my opinion that Doris Holan never said any of this to him or Livingstone or Pulte.  I also do not believe that Sam Guinyard ever told Brownlow (supposedly in 1970, if I recall correctly) that he (Guinyard) saw a police car in the alley.

 

[Greg Doudna]

7 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

To the point of this thread and my original post...

I have spoken to Mike Brownlow at least a half dozen times in person.  I know for a fact that he is full of lies and "tall-tales".  I can give examples if you really do insist.  He'll say anything to make a buck or two.  It is my opinion that Doris Holan never said any of this to him or Livingstone or Pulte.  I also do not believe that Sam Guinyard ever told Brownlow (supposedly in 1970, if I recall correctly) that he (Guinyard) saw a police car in the alley.

Interesting. You are serious that you think Doris Holan never said any of that to Brownlow or Pulte? But Pulte was sitting right there with and agreeing with Brownlow in a video of Brownlow telling the story, and Pulte was with Brownlow one of the times visiting Doris Holan when she was dying of cancer. Is it believable that Pulte too would agree to endorse a total fabrication of Brownlow?

Do you accept or question that they visited her when she was dying of cancer as they said?

That Brownlow and Pulte could distort or embellish what Doris Holan said I do not doubt. But that there never was a Doris Holan story at all, that's a bit much. Why is that more likely than that they had a story of Doris Holan and just told it their way? It seems a bit much to me that both Brownlow and Pulte would collude in a total fabrication and Doris Holan never had any such story in some form. Please say more. Explain?