POLICE CAR IN THE ALLEY? NOPE.

[Bill Brown]

 

@Greg Doudna

The patrol car supposedly at the scene was Dallas Police, not Dallas County Sheriff (I've told you this before).  Courson was NOT Dallas Police.  The "source" who relayed the story to Myers (of the officer having a tryst with a married woman living on Tenth Street) said it was a Dallas police officer; nothing about it being a Sherriff's deputy.  There is a difference.

 

Not to mention... your theory requires the member of law enforcement who was having an affair with a married woman living on Tenth Street to actually pay her a visit while driving a police car.  Come on, man.

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

@Greg Doudna

Quick question, just for verification...

Where do you believe Doris Holan was living on the afternoon of 11/22/63?

 

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

The patrol car supposedly at the scene was Dallas Police, not Dallas County Sheriff (I've told you this before).  Courson was NOT Dallas Police.  The "source" who relayed the story to Myers (of the officer having a tryst with a married woman living on Tenth Street) said it was a Dallas police officer; nothing about it being a Sherriff's deputy.  There is a difference.

 

No nothing about Mrs. Holan's sighting of a patrol car identified that patrol car as Dallas Police rather than Sheriff Department. The story was she saw the cherry on top and recognized it as a patrol car. If she did say "police" (no knowledge that she did since it is all hearsay transmission through Brownlow) that would not be from knowledge but from assumption, what most people would call a patrol car seen from a distance. Red herring.

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

@Greg Doudna

Quick question, just for verification...

Where do you believe Doris Holan was living on the afternoon of 11/22/63?

I do not know why you are even asking this Bill. I have said from the beginning that she was living on the Patton address on the day of the assassination shown convincingly by Myers in his 2020 blog research piece. Have you not been reading all I have written before on your own thread?

Edited September 1, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Bill Brown]

2 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

No nothing about Mrs. Holan's sighting of a patrol car identified that patrol car as Dallas Police rather than Sheriff Department. The story was she saw the cherry on top and recognized it as a patrol car. If she did say "police" (no knowledge that she did since it is all hearsay transmission through Brownlow) that would not be from knowledge but from assumption, what most people would call a patrol car seen from a distance. Red herring.

 

You missed my point.  The "source" from Dale Myers said that the officer having the tryst with a married women who was living on Tenth Street was Dallas Police.  In an attempt to tie in Courson as being suspicious, YOU are switching it to County Sheriff.

 

[Bill Brown]

3 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I do not know why you are even asking this Bill. I have said from the beginning that she was living on the Patton address on the day of the assassination shown convincingly by Myers in his 2000 blog research piece. Have you not been reading all I have written before on your own thread?

 

Thanks for answering.  Yes, I have read every post of yours which I have replied to.  I'm just clarifying a couple things.

Do you believe that Holan, from her apartment on Patton, could see Tippit's stopped patrol car?  Does Holan have a line of sight from her apartment window to Tippit's patrol car?  

 

[Greg Doudna]

2 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

You missed my point.  The "source" from Dale Myers said that the officer having the tryst with a married women who was living on Tenth Street was Dallas Police.  In an attempt to tie in Courson as being suspicious, YOU are switching it to County Sheriff.

I see your point now. I agree the version told to Myers said "police". I am proposing it was Courson of the Sheriff's department, and that that detail as told to Myers was not accurate. 

If there was a coverup and if the coverup was ongoing at the time Myers was told--which is obvious, since all the anonymity of both source and the name of the officer--saying it was Sheriff's Department (if it was) would be way too specific. Saying it was a police officer, Dallas Police, would be safely general and unspecific, maintaining the coverup that the source said was continuing. That's all. You don't have to agree.

[Greg Doudna]

3 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Thanks for answering.  Yes, I have read every post of yours which I have replied to.  I'm just clarifying a couple things.

Do you believe that Holan, from her apartment on Patton, could see Tippit's stopped patrol car?  Does Holan have a line of sight from her apartment window to Tippit's patrol car?  

No, she could not have seen Tippit's patrol car, Tippit's body, etc. from her Patton Street front window. Brownlow channeling Mrs. Holan (and Brownlow mistakenly thinking Mrs. Holan lived on 10th) told her story as if she saw that from her front window, but Mrs. Holan could not have seen that from her front window. Therefore she did not see that from her front window and would not have told Brownlow that.

However Mrs. Holan did describe after seeing from her front window (looking out on Patton and onto a portion of the alley across the street from her window) then got dressed, got her shoes on, etc., went down to the street level and walked around the corner on 10th to the scene of the Tippit patrol car, where she then did see the Tippit patrol car and was among the people gathered there.

I believe that is what Mrs. Holan told--it was true that she saw the Tippit patrol car, but she did not see the Tippit patrol car from her front window. 

Brownlow just butchered and garbled what Mrs. Holan told him, is what I think happened there. 

[Bill Brown]

4 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I see your point now. I agree the version told to Myers said "police". I am proposing it was Courson of the Sheriff's department, and that that detail as told to Myers was not accurate. 

If there was a coverup and if the coverup was ongoing at the time Myers was told--which is obvious, since all the anonymity of both source and the name of the officer--saying it was Sheriff's Department (if it was) would be way too specific. Saying it was a police officer, Dallas Police, would be safely general and unspecific, maintaining the coverup that the source said was continuing. That's all. You don't have to agree.

 

So we have the switching of "driveway" to "alley" and the switching of "police" to "county sheriff".

 

[Greg Doudna]

3 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

So we have the switching of "driveway" to "alley" and the switching of "police" to "county sheriff".

A switching of (accurately) a detective of the Sheriff's Department to "police", yes, whether on the part of Myers' source or Myers' source's source. That can happen unintentionally in hearsay but in this case there is motive for intention. Also, this is on the assumption my proposed identification, of Courson, is correct. It is of course possible Myers' source story was true and actually was Dallas Police, not Courson. But I am making the case for this identification, giving my reasons.

Now on driveway and alley, we've been through this and Paul explained it well earlier. It is not known what word Mrs. Holan used. Get that straight: it, is, not, known, what Mrs. Holan said exactly, because there is no tape recording and the only information is Brownlow's less-than-reliable hearsay version. 

Mrs. Holan could have said "driveway", though most people would say "alley" and by default it would be most likely Mrs. Holan would probably say "alley", although this is guessing at which word she actually did use. If she said "alley", then the proposal is not that I am changing the word, but that Brownlow did, from what Mrs. Holan said.

That is all there is to that. Not too complicated.

[Bill Brown]

5 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

No, she could not have seen Tippit's patrol car, Tippit's body, etc. from her Patton Street front window. Brownlow channeling Mrs. Holan (and Brownlow mistakenly thinking Mrs. Holan lived on 10th) told her story as if she saw that from her front window, but Mrs. Holan could not have seen that from her front window. Therefore she did not see that from her front window and would not have told Brownlow that.

However Mrs. Holan did describe after seeing from her front window (looking out on Patton and onto a portion of the alley across the street from her window) then got dressed, got her shoes on, etc., went down to the street level and walked around the corner on 10th to the scene of the Tippit patrol car, where she then did see the Tippit patrol car and was among the people gathered there.

I believe that is what Mrs. Holan told--it was true that she saw the Tippit patrol car, but she did not see the Tippit patrol car from her front window. 

Brownlow just butchered and garbled what Mrs. Holan told him, is what I think happened there. 

 

"No, she could not have seen Tippit's patrol car, Tippit's body, etc. from her Patton Street front window."

 

The problem for you is that Brownlow said this...

"So, she ran from the back to the living room and threw the curtain back and looked out the window and she could see this officer – Dallas police officer laying in the street; saw his squad car."

 

Face it, Greg.  When Brownlow told his lie, he fully believed that Holan lived on Tenth Street across the street from the shooting scene.  If Holan lived on Patton, as you have agreed she did, then she could not have seen the patrol car and/or the body, as Brownlow claimed she told him she saw.

 

You really should give up on this entire Holan/Brownlow thing.

 

 

[Bill Brown]

 

Greg Doudna said:

"I have said from the beginning that she was living on the Patton address on the day of the assassination"

""No, she could not have seen Tippit's patrol car, Tippit's body, etc. from her Patton Street front window."

 

Mike Brownlow said (relaying what he claims Doris Holan told him):

""So, she ran from the back to the living room and threw the curtain back and looked out the window and she could see this officer – Dallas police officer laying in the street; saw his squad car."

 

Greg, there's more, but this should be enough to get you to just stop it already.

 

[Bill Brown]

 

Everything one needs to know about the Brownlow/Holan claim can be read right here...

 

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2020/11/doris-e-holan-and-tippit-murder.html

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

The tentative scenario reconstruction proposal emergent as a result of discussion from Paul, which is not an "affair" scenario:

• start from the phone number of Virginia Davis in Ruby's notebook of phone messages often written down by Craford answering the phone. Take this as the starting point. How and why is that phone number there, and why is it in the name of a woman acquaintance of Ruby who has nothing to do with Virginia Davis, that phone number, or that address? 
• Paul gave what I regard as the key insight: that that phone number/message in Ruby's notebook is, just as Craford testified he thought it was, a phone callin from a woman inquiring about employment. The scenario would be Ruby runs an ad for the Carousel Club, and one of the two sisters-in-law associated with Virginia Davis's phone, calls in inquiring about the job, perhaps as a waitress or "champagne girl" (less likely stripper if the caller did not already have stripping experience, which probably neither of the Davis sisters-in-law did)
• Although the call could have come from either one of the Davis sisters-in-law, I am assuming Barbara, the older of the two with the two children, though the reconstruction would work the same if it were the younger Virginia, who was only age 16. 
• The baffling puzzle of why Virginia Davis's phone number has "Leona Miller", a known woman acquainted with Ruby who has nothing to do with Virginia Davis's phone number or address, is explained in that the caller, Barbara Davis (calling from Virginia's phone), wants to keep this communication confidential, planning on having a first conversation with her husband about working afternoons as a waitress at the Carousel Club only if there was a firm job offered. But on this phone call, Craford answers, cannot answer her questions, offers to take a message to give to Ruby and politely asks for her name and phone number so Ruby, or someone on Ruby's behalf, can call her back. But Barbara does not want to give her name and phone number for the obvious reason of not wanting, at this stage, either of the brothers/husbands of the sisters-in-law living in two units at 400 E. 10th to find out. Craford learns this concern from Barbara calling and (perhaps not the first time this kind of issue has arisen) suggests a simple workaround: he picks a name out of the air at random--which is the name of a woman in Ruby's circle, and tells Barbara that will be who the return call will ask for, and by that means Virginia and Barbara (Virginia, whose phone is being used, is witting to this with Barbara) will know it is the Carousel Club calling back. If by mistake Virginia's husband answers the phone asking for "Leona Miller" the call will be assumed to be a wrong number.
• This explains what has previously eluded solution, how that phone number from 400 E. 10th, the scene of the Tippit killing, ended up in Ruby's notebook with the fictitious name. It was all about a job inquiry from one or the other of the two Davis sisters-in-law, with a bit of subterfuge based on not wanting the husbands to know about that job inquiry at that time. 
• And the location of the Tippit crime scene being associated with the same address (one house away from where Tippit stopped his patrol car when shot) is caused by the address of Virginia Davis's phone number in Ruby's phone book, and not a freak coincidence, as follows.
• There is a planned hit on officer Tippit. Not known why, but Tippit was executed in an ambush (argued fact), meaning it was planned (follows from argued fact). Presumed Tippit had some deadly knowledge, as the most likely reason, in the absence of a specific known reason. It may possibly be relevant that Tippit was in contact with Oswald (argued fact) and was seen two days earlier at the same time in the same restaurant as Oswald also there at a different table (known fact). The reason for suspecting relevance is the killer of Tippit immediately next set out to kill Oswald in the Texas Theatre minutes later. Therefore Tippit and Oswald contacts prior to Nov 22 take on interest in this light.  
• The killer of Tippit was Craford, not Oswald (case independent grounds).
• Craford could have been in Ruby's apartment the night of Nov 21/22 and morning of Nov 22, following Ruby giving Craford a ride home from work at the Vegas Club and an after-work meeting of Ruby and Craford in a restaurant where they were seen together at about 2 am Nov 22. He could have been in Ruby's apartment the morning of Nov 22 after George Senator left (who would not necessarily know Craford was sleeping in Ruby's separate room) and after Ruby left that morning. This puts Craford within several blocks walking distance to the scene of the Tippit killing, at the time just before the Tippit killing. 
• And here is the crux of everything--the breakthrough--why Tippit was set up for an ambush and execution at that particular location: it all goes to that original phone number and address of Virginia Davis, contact with Ruby. 
• Barbara or Virginia Davis, whichever one it was (if Barbara, Virginia was witting and assisting her older sister-in-law), is called and an appointment fixed responsive to the job inquiry--at say set for 1:30 pm on Nov 22--the planned visit to be carried out by Craford.
• Ruby/Craford also asks for the presence at that location of their contact Courson (whom they know from his hanging out evenings in plain clothes at the Carousel Club in performance of his job duties with the Sheriff's Department). (One could conjecture several reasons for this, not excluding the possibility of a setup "framing" of Courson as a suspect in the Tippit killing? In any case some purpose in the interests of the planned hit on Tippit, although Courson would be unwitting to intention of the killing itself. Unwitting is established by his driving his own marked patrol car to park in the alley near the scene.)
• Now Craford has an alibi for why he walks to Virginia Davis's apartment, and a good excuse to hang around there for any amount of time allowance for variability in Tippit's time of arrival to the planned meeting. In the event, that was not necessary (Craford saw Tippit's cruiser pull up just as he arrived by walking on 10th Street), but if Tippit had been delayed or showed up a few minutes late, Craford has an alibi for why he might be seen sticking around that location. 
• The intended location of the meeting of Barbara Davis was in Virginia Davis's apartment, vacant from Virginia's husband gone to work. Virginia herself is over in Barbara's apartment already by prearrangement, to babysit Barbara's children while Barbara goes around to Virginia's apartment for the planned meeting appointment.
• Tippit is killed in an ambush and execution in this matter after having been lured to that spot at a particular time, say 1:15 pm, by prearrangement, and that spot was what it was because that was the Davis's address of the phone call inquiry to the Carousel Club from Virginia Davis's phone and address. 
• Courson successfully flees the scene upon hearing the shots without his presence becoming publicly known. A witness who saw Courson leaving in the alley in a marked patrol cruiser in addition to seeing the gunman on Patton from her front window that day after running to her front window upon hearing the shots, never came forward, a fortuitous accident favorable to Courson's presence remaining unknown.
• The gunman, Craford, after killing Tippit, immediately reloads and proceeds to the Texas Theatre for the purpose of killing Oswald there next. He goes into the balcony, goes right past Courson who does not stop him coming out of the balcony even though Courson knows the suspect is said to be in the balcony. Following Julia Postal's phone call instigated by gunman-witness Brewer, police and sheriff's deputies swarm the Texas Theatre and arrest the wrong guy by mistake (in terms of the Tippit killing, the point of the suspicion and arrest at that time)--the killer's intended victim in the Texas Theatre (Oswald seated on the ground level) instead of the killer (Craford in the balcony). It happens that the arrestee, Oswald, turned out to be the leading suspect in the assassination of JFK, resisted arrest, and had a concealed gun on his person of the same type that shot Tippit (the most common type of concealed carry, so that in itself is not completely inexplicable if Oswald was innocent and also scared at the time). So Oswald was "cooked" in terms of perceived guilt. The man in the balcony, the killer of Tippit (and almost killer of Oswald that day if the police had not arrived and interrupted saving Oswald's life), Craford, got away from the theater without so much as a single officer even reporting his name written down. Scot-free. 
• Courson privately tells Sheriff Decker, his immediate superior and good working relationship, the true facts as Courson knows and understands.
• Upon decision of Decker, Decker and Courson cover up Courson's presence at the Tippit crime scene at the time of the Tippit killing. As part of this cover up, Courson is not asked, and does not submit, a written report of what he saw and did that day, as nearly all other relevant law enforcement officers did, even though Courson was actively involved at the Texas Theatre at the time of Oswald's arrest.
• The coverup had nothing to do with any "affair". It had to do with awareness of a mob/Ruby connection to the killing of Tippit being covered up inconsistent with the narrative closing the case and solving the crime in the name of the dead man, Oswald, a "satisfactory" closing of the case in the best interests of all concerned: the widow's pension, the honor of the slain officer, the good name of the Sheriff's Department, and the good of the country in keeping with the wishes of higher authority (LBJ and Hoover). 

Supporting discussions: "Were the Tippit crime scene shell hulls fired from the revolver of Lee Harvey Oswald?" (28 pp.), https://www.scrollery.com/?page_id=1581; "Lee Harvey Oswald's two jackets and why the Tippit killer's jacket was not one of them" (117 pp.), https://www.scrollery.com/?page_id=1581. 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Greg Doudna said:

"I have said from the beginning that she was living on the Patton address on the day of the assassination"

""No, she could not have seen Tippit's patrol car, Tippit's body, etc. from her Patton Street front window."

Mike Brownlow said (relaying what he claims Doris Holan told him):

""So, she ran from the back to the living room and threw the curtain back and looked out the window and she could see this officer – Dallas police officer laying in the street; saw his squad car."

Greg, there's more, but this should be enough to get you to just stop it already.

Bill, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. 

Here are seven questions for you. I have answered yours, please answer these.

(1) Do you agree with Myers' 2020 argument for the Patton Street address for Mrs. Holan on Nov 22, 1963, as convincing to you?

(2) Do you agree that that Patton Street address's front window of the living room had a wide-angle almost "perfect" view overlooking most if not all of that block of Patton Street and looked over across the street into part of the alley?

(3) Do you agree with Myers' reasons argued in his 2020 analysis for concluding Mrs. Holan was home on Nov 22, 1963?

(4) Do you think Mrs. Holan upon hearing shots in her home, would run to her front window to look?

(5) Do you think Mrs. Holan saw any of the things Brownlow told that she saw, from her front window on Patton?

(6) Do you think Professor Pulte was lying when he attested that Mrs. Holan had spoken to Brownlow and him, and that she had claimed to them that she was a witness of certain things Nov 22, 1963?

(7) Do you think it is conceivable that Brownlow could garble something a witness told him, in retelling, if that witness spoke to Brownlow?

Simple, straight "yes" or "no" answers will suffice, followed by optional brief comments supporting the "yes" or "no". Thanks. Please do not skip any of the questions, thanks.