POLICE CAR IN THE ALLEY? NOPE.

[Bill Brown]

7 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

No detours. We're not done with Bowley's parked car, which you said was evidence.

Evidence of what?

 

You made an ignorant statement (basically, that Bowley drove past the patrol car and the body, before parking in the next block down, west of the shooting scene) and I corrected you.  Why can't this be all there is to it?

 

As for "evidence", I didn't say Bowley's parked car was evidence.  However, when attempting to set a Bowley timeline, where he parked matters.

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Michael Kalin]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

As for "evidence", I didn't say Bowley's parked car was evidence.  However, when attempting to set a Bowley timeline, where he parked matters.

You did. Here's your 2/12/23 comment posted to "A Question of Credibility: Tippit Witnesses Can't Agree."

Also, aren't you the same guy who mistakenly believed that T.F. Bowley drove past Tippit's body before getting out and going to the scene? You don't know the case and here you are trying to create these B.S. scenarios. Go back and learn the evidence first.

And here's your 2/22/23 comment this thread.

Bowley did not drive past the stopped patrol car and the body.  He stopped BEFORE he reached the car and walked the rest of the way.

Learn the evidence.

Where he parked does not not establish the time when he looked at his watch. His watch does, and "it said 1:10PM."

This evidence corroborates in an objective way Markham's observation that the murder occurred at 1:06PM. Commit it to memory. It will prevent silly blunders.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Michael Kalin

[David Josephs]

3 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

This evidence corroborates in an objective way Markham's observation that the murder occurred at 1:06PM. Commit it to memory. It will prevent silly blunders.

Oh Michael...  you are not dealing with rational behavior here my friend.  BB is part of a contingency which has only 1 purpose...   Act and post as much nonsense and misdirection as possible to keep others busy so no real information gets passed along.  He's been #9 as long as he's been here and will never change.

This is no longer about a discussion over evidence as you will soon find out if you haven't already.  No matter what you post of how rational and logical your presentation is...  you can't fix adherence to a path of irrational resistance for no other reason but to make up for the huge hole in his life from not getting enough attention as a child.

Sad that BB and others need to validate themselves with arguments they themselves don't even believe or accept...  the more he posts the more obvious it gets...  I feel for you my friend as you are now caught up in a never-ending loop of LNer double-speak...  he aint gonna learn what he dont wanna know...  

Silly blunders is his stock in trade.... 

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work a swell. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.)Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions In place.

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s),group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
 

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by David Josephs

[Michael Kalin]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

Just so -- #9 hits the bullseye, although I think a slight revision is in order, something along the lines of:

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials that do not have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

Thanks!

[Bill Brown]

5 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

You did. Here's your 2/12/23 comment posted to "A Question of Credibility: Tippit Witnesses Can't Agree."

Also, aren't you the same guy who mistakenly believed that T.F. Bowley drove past Tippit's body before getting out and going to the scene? You don't know the case and here you are trying to create these B.S. scenarios. Go back and learn the evidence first.

And here's your 2/22/23 comment this thread.

Bowley did not drive past the stopped patrol car and the body.  He stopped BEFORE he reached the car and walked the rest of the way.

Learn the evidence.

Where he parked does not not establish the time when he looked at his watch. His watch does, and "it said 1:10PM."

This evidence corroborates in an objective way Markham's observation that the murder occurred at 1:06PM. Commit it to memory. It will prevent silly blunders.

 

Do you really want to play this stupid game?

 

I didn't say that Bowley's parked car was evidence.  I did, however, tell you to learn the evidence, i.e. the testimonial record and affidavits.

 

Obviously where he parked does not establish what time he looked at his watch.  I don't know of anyone who claims otherwise.

 

Re: Markham and 1:06, the police tapes and the testimonial record (which you are unaware of) tell you all you need to know about what time it was that the shooting took place.  You just have to be able to use critical thinking.

 

Again, you made an ignorant comment and I corrected you and you have accepted that correction.  So let's move on.

 

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Oh Michael...  you are not dealing with rational behavior here my friend.  BB is part of a contingency which has only 1 purpose...   Act and post as much nonsense and misdirection as possible to keep others busy so no real information gets passed along.  He's been #9 as long as he's been here and will never change.

This is no longer about a discussion over evidence as you will soon find out if you haven't already.  No matter what you post of how rational and logical your presentation is...  you can't fix adherence to a path of irrational resistance for no other reason but to make up for the huge hole in his life from not getting enough attention as a child.

Sad that BB and others need to validate themselves with arguments they themselves don't even believe or accept...  the more he posts the more obvious it gets...  I feel for you my friend as you are now caught up in a never-ending loop of LNer double-speak...  he aint gonna learn what he dont wanna know...  

Silly blunders is his stock in trade.... 

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work a swell. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.)Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions In place.

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s),group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
 

 

 

Shouldn't you be running off somewhere claiming that Ruby and Oswald knew each other and using the faked Bledsoe document as your proof?  Fink.

 

[David Josephs]

34 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

Just so -- #9 hits the bullseye, although I think a slight revision is in order, something along the lines of:

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials that do not have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

Thanks!

"ignore member" is your best friend in this case...

Nothing like the smile you get when you see this on a thread you follow...  like the sun breaking thru on a cloudy day

You've chosen to ignore content by Bill Brown. Options 

[Michael Kalin]

8 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

"ignore member" is your best friend in this case...

Sound advice.

There's an old saying on point: Don't kick against the pricks.

[David Josephs]

1 minute ago, Michael Kalin said:

Sound advice.

There's an old saying on point: Don't kick against the pricks.

You can go to his profile and see all the posts he's made as well.  The pattern is ridiculously obvious...  

There are 5 or so others with exactly the same agenda... can you imagine a life where you wake up only to defend the WCR on a forum full of members who know better?  

To be so unaware of history as to make an argument in favor of the DPD, CIA, ONI, MID and FBI of 1963?

What a sad, depressing and pathetic little life that must be...  

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

What a sad, depressing and pathetic little life that must be...  

Much like believing in doppelgängers.

[Paul Jolliffe]

On 10/11/2022 at 4:01 PM, 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.)

Greg,

I tend to find your version of the Doris Holan story as retold by Michael Brownlow, Bill Pulte and Harrison Livingstone compelling.

I agree with you that from her 2nd story window at 113 1/2 Patton she would have seen the alley right in front of her, any police car in that alley, the fleeing gunman on Patton, and the confrontation between Callaway and the gunman. 

She would have been close enough to the Tippit murder scene that she could have then been out there in a matter of a couple of minutes, and her details of what she then saw were later accidentally garbled by Brownlow, et al. 

So, I think you've done a terrific job of clearing up exactly where Doris Holan was, and the basic gist of what she really did see on November 22, 1963.

(Of course, in the absence of any transcript or taped recording, we can't know exactly what she claimed to have seen.)

Now as to the identity of the mystery law enforcement officer at the Tippit scene at the time of the murder, well maybe it was Dallas Sheriff's Deputy Bill Courson. "Yesterday's clothes" could fit with the story told by the senior Dallas official to Dale Myers.

Or maybe it wasn't Courson. We don't know.

Without any written statement from Courson or anyone else, it's just impossible to say for certain. But the fact that Courson never claimed or implied that he was the first law enforcement officer on the scene is significant. (Not definitive, but significant.)

But we can say for certain that DPD officer Kenneth Croy was at the Tippit site before any other documented law enforcement officer, from any department.

Croy swore under oath that he saw no other law enforcement officer at the scene. 

Croy swore under oath that he was at the scene when Tippit's body was loaded into the ambulance. (Within just a couple of minutes of the shooting.)

John F. Kennedy Assassination Homepage :: Warren Commission :: Hearings :: Volume XII :: Page 201 (jfk-assassination.eu)

No one has ever come forward to contradict Croy, probably because it's true.

He was at the scene within just a couple of minutes of Tippit's murder. And he handled the mystery wallet at the scene, the one FBI agent Bob Barrett later asserted contained "Oswald's" identification.

Was the vehicle in which Croy arrived at the Tippit scene the same one seen by Doris Holan?

We can't say.

Why not? Because (incredibly) Croy never made a written police report of his activities and whereabouts on November 22, 1963!

Greg, you've already voiced your suspicion that the late arriving cover story from the unnamed Dallas official to Dale Myers could be a cover story to explain the impossible presence of a second Dallas law enforcement officer on the Tippit scene.

I agree.

We just disagree about who it might have been.

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Nice one Paul.

[Greg Doudna]

Thanks Paul J. I agree the issue of existence of a police cruiser (Doris Holan)/police officer having an affair (Dale Myers’ anonymous judged credible source), at the Tippit killing scene who left hurriedly after the shots without coming forward as a witness, is a distinct issue from the identity of such. 

The main problem I have with Croy being that officer is Croy was in uniform but driving his own car and not a patrol car. But the Doris Holan story has her seeing a police cruiser leaving hurriedly following the shots, telling of seeing the cherry or light on top. Whereas Courson was in plain clothes (yesterdays plain clothes by his own account) but was driving a police cruiser.

Edited August 21, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Paul, how many officers report for duty in a town far from where they live, driving a patrol car wearing yesterday’s clothes? Think about it. How does that happen? Sounds like it supports the affair explanation? Read Coursons explanation in Sneed for why he was wearing yesterday’s shirt and clothes in his patrol car in oak cliff on Nov 22 and see if it makes sense (it doesn’t).

The juxtaposition of the positive case that an officer took flight in a cruiser from the Tippit murder scene in the moments following that murder (even though evidently not the murderer due to the witnessed gunman being someone else on foot), no other known officer identity known, and the multiple oddities in Courson’s sole known written or reported account of his actions on Nov 22 ever in his life—in Sneed— … makes Courson a candidate for the identification?

[Bill Brown]

Neither Brownlow nor Pulte are credible.  Having said that, their claim is that a police car was seen in the DRIVEWAY between the houses of 404 E. 10th and 410 E. 10th.  You guys are then, for some unknown reason, switching DRIVEWAY to ALLEY.  Nope.