A Question of Credibility: Tippit Witnesses Can't Agree

[Gil Jesus]

Two of the Warren Commission's key witnesses to the murder of Dallas Police officer J.D. Tippit, Helen Markham and Ted Callaway, give completely different descriptions of the route the murderer took after the killing, the clothing he was wearing and his physical description. Which one is correct ?

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

It's interesting that WC apologists dismiss the important eyewitness accounts in Mark Lane's documentary Rush to Judgment because they claim that Lane manipulated the witnesses into saying what he wanted to hear. Yet, they say nothing about the bald manipulation of witnesses by WC attorneys. 

[Gil Jesus]

29 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

It's interesting that WC apologists dismiss the important eyewitness accounts in Mark Lane's documentary Rush to Judgment because they claim that Lane manipulated the witnesses into saying what he wanted to hear. Yet, they say nothing about the bald manipulation of witnesses by WC attorneys. 

I've always thought of the Warren Commission supporters as a strange group of people willing to convict a defendant of a crime after only hearing the prosecution's case. A case that's weak and full of contradictions. I guess there are people out there who don't need to be convinced, "beyond a shadow of a doubt". For them, if the government said it, you can bet its true.

Harrassment of witnesses, no problem.

Unfair police lineups, no problem.

Denying a defendant a phone call till after 5pm on Friday, no problem.

Falsifying FBI reports on what the witnesses said, no problem.

Threatening of witnesses, no problem.

Lying in their Report about what the witnesses said, no problem.

Rifle tests that showed the rifle was not accurate enough to be the murder weapon, no problem.

Wounds ballistics tests that proved CE 399 had not struck any bone, no problem.

Evidence without a chain of possession, no problem.

Questioning a defendant after he's "lawyered up", no problem.

From their standpoint, "nothing to see here, folks".

But from a legal standpoint, this case was a joke. This wasn't a criminal investigation, this was a gathering of evidence against Oswald. 

[Charles Blackmon]

Don't forget strange, inexplicable early deaths of other witnesses/possible participants. How many suddenly died right before going before the HSCA?

[Joe Bauer]

9 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

I've always thought of the Warren Commission supporters as a strange group of people willing to convict a defendant of a crime after only hearing the prosecution's case. A case that's weak and full of contradictions. I guess there are people out there who don't need to be convinced, "beyond a shadow of a doubt". For them, if the government said it, you can bet its true.

Harrassment of witnesses, no problem.

Unfair police lineups, no problem.

Denying a defendant a phone call till after 5pm on Friday, no problem.

Falsifying FBI reports on what the witnesses said, no problem.

Threatening of witnesses, no problem.

Lying in their Report about what the witnesses said, no problem.

Rifle tests that showed the rifle was not accurate enough to be the murder weapon, no problem.

Wounds ballistics tests that proved CE 399 had not struck any bone, no problem.

Evidence without a chain of possession, no problem.

Questioning a defendant after he's "lawyered up", no problem.

From their standpoint, "nothing to see here, folks".

But from a legal standpoint, this case was a joke. This wasn't a criminal investigation, this was a gathering of evidence against Oswald. 

EXACTLY.  

IT IS DEFINITELY LIKE SEEING AND HEARING ONLY THE PROSECUTION SIDE OF A CASE.

Respected journalist Seth Kantor's testimony about meeting and engaging Jack Ruby in conversation at Parkland Hospital soon after JFK was brought there is dismissed as mistaken. Yet at the same time the WC decides that rambling, contradicting and mentally unstable Jack Ruby's vague account of where he was at that time is accepted?

Over Seth Kantor?

That one crazy conclusion by the WC was so illogical it has to be one of the most exposing ones of their purposeful diversion from the truth.

[Joe Bauer]

Austin Barbeque restaurant waitress states Ruby, Tippit, Oswald knew each other.

DPD officer J.D. Tippit worked at the same restaurant.

Haven't read JM's "Into The Nightmare" however, wondering what McBride's take on this waitress was. She was employed at Austin's for 1 1/2 or more years. She knew Tippit well.

She says Jack Ruby was always trying to get her to work at the Carousel and one assumes as a stripper. She must have been physically attractive.

According to this former waitress her co-worker Austin Restaurant waitress Johnny Maxie Witherspoon was reportedly the woman J.D. Tippit was having an affair with. Witherspoon was married during the affair.

Ms. Witherspoon reportedly denied living on 10th street near where J.D. Tippit was murdered. This interview co-worker waitress stated in this interview that Witherspoon did live on 10th street. Who's lying here?

What an important witness to call to testify for anyone investigating Tippit's murder. But she never was? 

Joe McBride's comments on this Austin Barbeque waitress and her claims of seeing Tippit sitting with Ruby and all three together ( Oswald included ) at least once?

51:48NOW PLAYING

 

 

"Ms. X"—witness who knew that J.D. Tippit, Lee Oswald & Jack Ruby all knew each other

[Evan Marshall]

Before I did two tours at Detroit Homicide, I thought that eyewitnesses were genuinely of value. They often are not and even many cops are not. The key is to keep that separated so they don't crosspollinate their testimony.

[Joe Bauer]

4 hours ago, Evan Marshall said:

Before I did two tours at Detroit Homicide, I thought that eyewitnesses were genuinely of value. They often are not and even many cops are not. The key is to keep that separated so they don't crosspollinate their testimony.

Could you watch the interview video I posted and tell me what your thoughts are regarding the claims of the former waitress at Austin Barbeque restaurant in Oak Cliff during her almost 2 years of employment there, right up to Tippit's death?

Her employment there is easily provable.

I am sure you can believe many aspects of her recounting her restaurant being a very popular hangout for Dallas police from the Oak Cliff precinct which Tippit was often stationed at?

She mentioned many officer's names which could easily be verified as stationed in that area as well.

If she made up these following parts of her story you would have to wonder why.

She sure didn't do this for money and/or attention. She did this sharing what...40 years later? And she still didn't want her face or name shown for the interview.

She recalled Oswald coming in (twice) with another person and they spoke in a foreign language?

Ruby came in often enough she knew him by sight. She adds that Ruby tried to get her to work at her club. As a stripper one would imagine.

She seemed strong in her recollection that Ruby knew Tippit and would sit with him at a table.

She clearly knew young waitress Johnny Witherspoon who was having an affair with Tippit.

IMO too many details for someone making this all up or even embellishing and with no typical motivation to do so. ie money, attention, bragging, grudge etc.

If half of her recollections are true we definitely have at least some connection between Ruby and Tippit. In and of itself that is important. The Warren Commission stated there was "no" connection between Ruby and Tippit at all.

 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Guest]

On 1/10/2023 at 7:48 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Austin Barbeque restaurant waitress states Ruby, Tippit, Oswald knew each other.

DPD officer J.D. Tippit worked at the same restaurant.

Haven't read JM's "Into The Nightmare" however, wondering what McBride's take on this waitress was. She was employed at Austin's for 1 1/2 or more years. She knew Tippit well.

She says Jack Ruby was always trying to get her to work at the Carousel and one assumes as a stripper. She must have been physically attractive.

According to this former waitress her co-worker Austin Restaurant waitress Johnny Maxie Witherspoon was reportedly the woman J.D. Tippit was having an affair with. Witherspoon was married during the affair.

Ms. Witherspoon reportedly denied living on 10th street near where J.D. Tippit was murdered. This interview co-worker waitress stated in this interview that Witherspoon did live on 10th street. Who's lying here?

What an important witness to call to testify for anyone investigating Tippit's murder. But she never was? 

Joe McBride's comments on this Austin Barbeque waitress and her claims of seeing Tippit sitting with Ruby and all three together ( Oswald included ) at least once?

51:48NOW PLAYING

 

 

"Ms. X"—witness who knew that J.D. Tippit, Lee Oswald & Jack Ruby all knew each other

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Evan Marshall]

Watching a filmed interview is not the same as being there AND interviewing and interrogation are two different processes.  Why do people lie many years after the event? My pop was a documented witness for a dramatic event and 50 years later other claimed to be there too and their lies were easily dismissed.

 

She sounds credible but the key would be to be in the room.

[Joe Bauer]

8 hours ago, Evan Marshall said:

She sounds credible but the key would be to be in the room.

So you would not dismiss her claims out of hand?

What about her makes you say..."She sounds credible." ?

[Evan Marshall]

Sounds credible does not mean IS credible. Without the opportunity to sit down face to face and go over her story repeatedly looking for changes and inconsistencies are critical. What motivates people to lie is the question.

[Joe Bauer]

3 minutes ago, Evan Marshall said:

Sounds credible does not mean IS credible. Without the opportunity to sit down face to face and go over her story repeatedly looking for changes and inconsistencies are critical. What motivates people to lie is the question.

But there must be "something" in her statements and her claimed connection to the main characters involved through probable verifiable employment  documentation that is motivating you to at least say she sounds credible? And not dismissing her right off the bat...correct?

Seems to me someone with your long career experience in interrogation can make an immediate determination whether a witness is even worth  your valuable time interviewing?

IMO, if I could verify her employment claims for the specific times she states and cross check to see if anyone else knew that Jack Ruby visited her restaurant as well as the officers she mentions and found they did? I would really have wanted to speak to her as you stated ... face to face.

One thing I feel is that she doesn't seem to have some questionable motivation to share her recollections like seeking fame and attention, money, revenge etc.

 

 

[Evan Marshall]

I did two separate tours in Homicide interrupted by being the original training Sgt for Detroit SWAT. The more experience I got at Homicide the less I was motivated not to rush in and make instant conclusions. Interviewing is a job while interrogating is an art that is slowly learned. The guys who broke me in at Homicide were experts at interrogation and told me rather firmly to watch and listen!

Edited January 19, 2023 by Evan Marshall