Decipherment of the James Odell Estes story (Carousel Club July-Aug 1963)

[Greg Doudna]

Michael I sure don't know where you are getting what you say.

4 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

There's never evidence if you choose to ignore it, including both his and Guinyard's WC testimony. He credits himself with making the first citizen phone call, a lie,

"He credits himself with making the first citizen phone call, a lie"?? Nonsense. Bowley tells of Benavides being first on the Tippit patrol car radio. Bowley:

"When I got there the first thing I did was try to help the officer. He appeared beyond help to me. A man was trying to use the radio in the squad car but stated he didn't know how to operate it. I know how and took the radio from him. I said, "Hello, operator. A police officer has been shot here." The dispatcher asked for the location. I found out the location and told the dispatcher what it was. (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bowley.htm)

The man Bowley refers to above was Benavides, Michael! Here is Benavides telling the same thing. Benavides wasn't telling "a lie", as you put it, at all. He was telling the truth. Benavides:

Mr. BENAVIDES - The gun was in his hand and he was partially lying on his gun in his right hand. He was partially lying on his gun and on his hand, too. 
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - Then I don't know if I opened the car door back further than what it was or not, but anyway, I went in and pulled the radio and I mashed the button and told them that an officer had been shot, and I didn't get an answer, so I said it again, and this guy asked me whereabouts all of a sudden, and I said, on 10th Street. I couldn't remember where it was at at the time. So I looked up and I seen this number and I said 410 East 10th Street. 
Mr. BELIN - You saw a number on the house then? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. 
Mr. BELIN - All right. 
Mr. BENAVIDES - Then he started to--then I don't know what he said; but I put the radio back. I mean, the microphone back up, and this other guy was standing there, so I got up out of the car, and I don't know, I wasn't sure if he heard me, and the other guy sat down in the car. 
Mr. BELIN - There was another passerby that stopped? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir. 
Mr. BELIN - Who was he, do you know? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - I couldn't tell you. I don't know who he was. 
Mr. BELIN - Was he driving a car or walking? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - I don't know. He was just standing there whenever I looked up. He was standing at the door of the car, and I don't know what he said to the officer on the phone ... 

Neither Bowley nor Benavides knew the other's name, but they are clearly giving two versions of the same thing with both of them there, Benavides using the radio first, Bowley using the radio second. 

Why gratuitously fling about charges of lying here when that simply is not accurate?

On the spoofing of Belin's appearance, I mean come on. You give a link to a photo of Belin, and he is similar height and weight to Craford or Oswald. Why assume as categorical conviction that he is describing Belin instead of using Belin as a similar comparison to what he saw?

And he makes clear his comparison is limited to some things but not others, such as Berlin’s face which he said he was not saying was the same, and the killer's "curlier" hair which Belin (and Oswald!) did not have--but which is agreeable to Craford and in agreement with multiple witnesses speaking of the killer's bushy, wavy, windswept hair flying, agreeable with Craford's full head of wavy hair but a stretch to have multiple witnesses see that in Oswald's hair. (Simple explanation: because it wasn't Oswald.)

4 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Benavides' also made first day DPD & FBI reports, both discarded, and engaged in FBI informer activity, but you ignore all this. Why?

Where are you getting "engaged in FBI informer activity"? 

Are you referring to when Benavides went to the FBI appealing for their help because his brother was murdered, and then his father and he believed the murder of his brother was because the murderer(s) had mistaken his brother for him (Domingo), and his father was investigating and now there was some kind of threat to his father they believed was connected--and this with the near-murder of witness Warren Reynolds who worked at the place of business across the street from where Benavides had worked, on everyone's minds?

You mean that contact with the FBI? Where he and his father were afraid for their lives, thought it could be because Domingo was a witness ... and were pleading for the FBI to do something to help them?

That is what you call "engaging in FBI informer activity"?

And the FBI said, perhaps legally properly but not too helpfully, that they could do nothing for him if no crime had yet been committed, and referred him to local police?

I sure am not seeing what you think you are seeing in these things.

On the DPD and FBI first-day written reports, if those were written and exist, I haven't studied that but if so, that says nothing against Benavides but would go to the question of why DPD and FBI (if so) concealed what Benavides may have told. First, can you briefly give the evidence for that. And second, if so (which I need to see the evidence on that first), I would not conclude, as you seem to do, that Benavides was dishonest (!), but my first thought would be it was because Benavides was saying something unwanted, if that happened. 

I would not draw a conclusion from that that Benavides was an agent, in place in employment at Dootch Motors at the crime scene, ready for the setup... 

What setup? Benavides was exculpating Oswald with his testimony when he was allowed to give it!

Look at Belin's tactics. The pro forma "anything else?" wrapup on the physical description, usual answer no. Benavides, unplanned, does give "something else": smoking-gun exculpation of Oswald! Belin then: no followup, immediate change of subject.

Mr. BELIN - ... Is there anything else? 
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back. 
Mr. BELIN - When you put these two shells that you found in this cigarette package, what did you do with them? 

All the photos of Oswald under arrest that weekend show a taper, not block cut, in the hair at the back of Oswald’s head.

Belin couldn't care less. Not in the least bit interested in testimony which exonerated Oswald.

And you Michael, on no sound basis at all, have decided to just reject this witness who exonerates Oswald. 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Miles Massicotte]

On 9/6/2023 at 9:14 PM, Greg Doudna said:

 

Hi Greg, hope you are doing well. I had posted on the forum a while ago a minor connection between Mrs. James Willie Walker and Estes' testimony about someone with a distinct snake and dagger tattoo (that post was removed because I voluntarily removed my account here so I can't reference it now), which I remember you commented on. In Walker's testimony that was "Oswald", and in Estes' it was "Nick", though the two bore few other similar physical features. Still, I have not been able to shake that similarity in their otherwise very believable testimonies, and am working on something now regarding that. Do you know: is there any knowledge or reference whether Crafard was right or left-handed? 

[Greg Doudna]

On 9/9/2023 at 11:39 PM, Miles Massicotte said:

Hi Greg, hope you are doing well. I had posted on the forum a while ago a minor connection between Mrs. James Willie Walker and Estes' testimony about someone with a distinct snake and dagger tattoo (that post was removed because I voluntarily removed my account here so I can't reference it now), which I remember you commented on. In Walker's testimony that was "Oswald", and in Estes' it was "Nick", though the two bore few other similar physical features. Still, I have not been able to shake that similarity in their otherwise very believable testimonies, and am working on something now regarding that. Do you know: is there any knowledge or reference whether Crafard was right or left-handed? 

Hi Miles, good to hear from you. I remember your drawing that comparison. Although there is a similar sounding tattoo on Estes' "Nick" and Johnnie Walker's "Mr. Lee", I chalk that up to coincidence of a similar tattoo but not the same persons. "Nick" was a big man age 30s-40s who drove a Cadillac, "Mr. Lee" was a shorter, younger man who did not drive, etc., no other points in common than the similar tattoo description. I made a case that Johnnie Walker's "Mr. Lee" was Herbert Leon Lee, another resident at Oswald's rooming house on N. Beckley (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28541-the-johnnie-walker-of-grand-prairie-story-is-this-its-solution-and-explanation/#comment-484321).

On Craford being left or right-handed, interesting question. Nothing direct to answer that question that I know of, but indirectly: on the one hand a backward argument that if the Tippit patrol car fingerprints are from Tippit's killer (somewhere between likely and practically certain), then the killer would seem to be a left-handed man firing from his left hand, not right-handed, and if Craford was that killer, that would make Craford left-handed. (Those fingerprints cannot make Oswald left-handed since it is excluded that Oswald left those fingerprints.)

I consider it certain that Estes' "Oswald" was Craford, and Estes' description of his "Oswald" wearing a .38 Smith & Wesson in a left waist holster sounds like a left-handed person though that may be questioned on two levels (variability in how a concealed carry is carried; and accuracy of Estes' 14-years later memory).

There is a handwritten letter of Craford to his niece in Michigan on the MFF site. I wish someone knowledgeable could independently check on the efficacy of determining left- versus right-handedness from handwriting, and Craford's as a case study.  

Edited September 11, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Michael Kalin]

18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Mr. BENAVIDES - Then I don't know if I opened the car door back further than what it was or not, but anyway, I went in and pulled the radio and I mashed the button and told them that an officer had been shot, and I didn't get an answer, so I said it again, and this guy asked me whereabouts all of a sudden, and I said, on 10th Street. I couldn't remember where it was at at the time. So I looked up and I seen this number and I said 410 East 10th Street. 

This is false AKA a lie. Benavides' voice does not appear on the radio tapes.

18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Where are you getting "engaged in FBI informer activity"? 

Are you referring to when Benavides went to the FBI appealing for their help because his brother was murdered, and then his father and he believed the murder of his brother was because the murderer(s) had mistaken his brother for him (Domingo), and his father was investigating and now there was some kind of threat to his father they believed was connected--and this with the near-murder of witness Warren Reynolds who worked at the place of business across the street from where Benavides had worked, on everyone's minds?

You mean that contact with the FBI? Where he and his father were afraid for their lives, thought it could be because Domingo was a witness ... and were pleading for the FBI to do something to help them?

That is what you call "engaging in FBI informer activity"?

No. We discussed this activity in your "Reconstruction of the shots in the Tippit killing" thread. I thought you might have remembered it.

 

18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I would not draw a conclusion from that that Benavides was an agent, in place in employment at Dootch Motors at the crime scene, ready for the setup... 

I drew no such conclusion, if that's what you're trying to imply. An informer is not an agent. I bet you could define the difference in 25 words or less.

The discarded FBI & DPD statements were also previously discussed in your "Reconstruction of the shots in the Tippit killing" thread.

 

18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Belin couldn't care less. Not in the least bit interested in testimony which exonerated Oswald.

You can read Belin's mind? Astonishing -- I thought the bugger was dead!

[Greg Doudna]

On Benavides as the first witness to attempt to call in on Tippit's patrol car radio

Michael Kalin:

On your claim that Benavides was not present and the first witness to attempt to use the police radio before Bowley, who do you think was the witness who attempted to use Tippit's radio, encountered problems how to use it (as Benavides said he did), and then Bowley who knew how to use a police radio made the successful call-in of the Tippit killing?

I just relistened to that police radio recording and the one thing you say that is true is I don't hear Benavides' voice talking on the radio, which agrees with both Benavides and Bowley saying that the first man (Benavides) had difficulties in transmission. The only difference is Benavides told the Warren Commission he then did speak to the dispatcher (after first not being heard) and told the dispatcher the address, when on the police radio Bowley is heard telling the address.

That doesn't mean Benavides wasn't there altogether and some other mystery person was instead. 

Here is the recording of the police radio call, in which Bowley's voice is heard, and nothing on this recording from Benavides moments before Bowley, even though Benavides said he said some words into the radio but was having difficulty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnhM42Mr1wM.

And in the comments to that YouTube link, a woman identifying herself as the daughter of Bowley comments, in 2016, using a handle with the name Kathryn Miles. The obituary of Bowley confirms the existence of a daughter of Bowley named Kathryn Miles (https://www.tributearchive.com/obituaries/5409513/Temple-Bowley). This daughter was 12 years old in her father's car at the Tippit crime scene that day when her father, Bowley, driving on 10th Street, saw officer Tippit down on the street and stopped and took over the radio from Benavides and made that radio call. Kathryn Miles was there. And says in 2016:

"When my father and I arrived at the scene there were only two or three other people there. A man was in the police car trying to use the radio but did not know how so my father, who worked for the Western Electric Co as an installer, got into the car and made the first call to the police department reporting Officer Tippit's shooting and the correct address of the shooting. A short statement was made by my father to arriving police and we were allowed to leave even though our Tempest station wagon was loaded with riffles for a Thanksgiving weekend hunting trip to San Antonio. No one even looked at the guns."

Again from Bowley's sworn statement dated Dec 2, 1963:

"A man was trying to use the radio in the squad car but stated he didn't know how to operate it. I know how and took the radio from him. I said, "Hello, operator. A police officer has been shot here." The dispatcher asked for the location. I found out the location and told the dispatcher." (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bowley.htm)

I hear in that police radio recording, in addition to Bowley's voice coming through clear, I hear other voices in the background near Bowley sounding as if they are trying to help Bowley answer the dispatcher's questions. Perhaps Benavides standing next to Bowley was one of those voices trying to help Bowley, after he (Benavides)--by both his own and Bowley's account--tried and, by both accounts, had difficulty getting through himself to the dispatcher and so let Bowley take over. 

When Bowley says that he "found out the location", that could correspond to Benavides' description, who was standing there next to him, telling the Warren Commission that he looked up and saw a street number when the dispatcher asked, and may have assisted by telling Bowley that.

Incidentally I hear more than one voice in the background other than Bowley, one of which I hear is a woman's voice. Helen Markham in her testimony at one point said she also was there and tried to use the police radio to call in. There is nothing on the police radio from Helen Markham. But I bet that is Helen Markham's woman's voice close to Bowley talking on the police radio, Helen Markham apparently also trying to help Bowley tell information to the dispatcher. Helen Markham and Benavides both. Then both later, as they told it, telling that they had talked to the dispatcher on the radio. In Benavides' case, he actually did speak into the police radio and may have thought the dispatcher heard some words from him that did not actually go through.  

Nobody at the crime scene ever identified anyone else other than Benavides as that first attempted caller before Bowley.

Who do you think that crime scene witness was, who tried but did not get through, before Bowley took over and got through?

How do you know that was not Benavides? What makes you so certain that the obvious in this case is not so?

The obvious being that it was Benavides.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Was Benavides interviewed by the FBI on the day of the assassination?

This claim of Michael Kalin (after refreshing my memory from a previous discussion) comes from an FBI Dallas report of March 1, 1967 telling of a phone call to them from Benavides on Feb 20, 1967. In this phone call Benavides told of a visit to him of reporter John Berendt, and Igor Vaganov, to Dallas and what Benavides described as an attempt to get Benavides identify Vaganov as the man of the "red car" Benavides told the Warren Commission he saw driving in front of him at the time of the Tippit killing. Benavides tells the FBI of this in his 1967 call and says he did not identify Vaganov as present at the crime scene. (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/B Disk/Benavides Domingo/Item 01.pdf) 

As told in this FBI report, Benavides said "he had been interviewed by the FBI on a prior occasion, during the assassination investigation because he was a witness to the Oswald-Tippit killing".

There is a record of an FBI interview of Benavides on June 11, 1964 (asking about shell hulls), which occurred about two months after Benavides' testimony to the Warren Commission. (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=211236#relPageId=34)

That June 11, 1964 FBI interview is the only known FBI interview of Benavides in the documents.

In his 1967 phone call to the Dallas FBI, Benavides speaks of one FBI interview.

Reading the above statement alone, it sounds like June 11, 1964 may have been what he meant.

But later in that same Mar 1967 Dallas FBI report of Benavides' phone call, the reporting FBI agent says this, and this is where Michael Kalin is getting a conclusion that there was an earlier, Nov 22, 1963, covered-up interview of Benavides by the FBI:

"It was Benavides belief that Berendt was trying to place Vaganov at the scene possibly as the mand [sic] in the 'red Ford' which he (Benavides) had eluded [sic] to in his statement to the FBI on the date of the assassination."

Was this a poorly worded report of Benavides referring to "the 'red Ford'  ... on the date of the assassination"?

But as Kalin would point out, the natural reading of "on the date of the assassination" is that it modifies the preceding "statement to the FBI", that is, an FBI interview of Benavides on Nov 22, 1963.

There is no known record of an FBI interview of Benavides on Nov 22, 1963.

But the FBI did interview another Tenth and Patton witness on Nov 22, 1963, Helen Markham. As I understand it, that FBI interview of Markham, by Odum, occurred at the Dallas Police station where Markham had been taken to view a lineup. But Benavides was never at the Dallas Police station that day so far as is known.

If there was an unreported FBI interview of Benavides on Nov 22, 1963, an FBI agent would have had to have learned of Benavides' existence as a witness (from Leavelle maybe?) and proactively gone to Benavides' place of work at Dootch Motors on Patton Street and find him there, while at the same time also not interviewing another obvious witness at the same location, Benavides' boss Callaway (since Callaway never told of a visit by the FBI to interview that day at his workplace). 

It is known that someone from the Dallas Police--Leavelle I think it was--did talk to witness Benavides the afternoon of Nov 22, 1963, at Benavides' place of work, after the Tippit killing. Leavelle (if I have that right) said so, said he did. But there is no written report of that, and Benavides was not taken downtown to view a lineup with Oswald in it.

Nothing was taken down from Benavides in any form--no statement in writing, no viewing of a lineup with Oswald, no media interview, nothing--until Benavides' first known testimony which was to the Warren Commission in April 1964.

I'm with Kalin partway on one thing here: that does look a little odd. 

But its how to interpret that oddity is the difference.

Benavides, as no other Tenth and Patton witness, and as the most important Tenth and Patton witness, in terms of proximity and accuracy in physical description of the Tippit killer--absolutely exculpated Oswald! (If his testimony is true.)

He did! 

Through the three specific details of physical description I have described earlier: 1. block cut hairline at the back of the killer's head. 2. darker than average skin complexion even though the killer was a white man. 3. curly hair (non-straight hair). 

Each of those three are very specific, from witness Benavides from how close he was in excellent position to accurately see each of these three details, none of which of those details match to Oswald, they exclude Oswald, whereas Benavides' physical description of the killer is consistent with a physical description of Curtis Craford.

If Benavides was a law enforcement "plant" belatedly in April 1964 to further a framed case against Oswald, the FBI sure had a funny way of going about it!-- planting a witness who exonerates Oswald so devastatingly as no other witness--in his testimony in those ways! 

Of course I am being ironic in the above sentence, not serious. The serious conclusion is that, yes, it is odd that the Dallas Police for sure, and maybe the FBI too, talked to witness Benavides, the single witness closest to, with the closest and best view of, the Tippit killer, on Nov 22, 1963, and seemed to not want to take down his statement, or touch him thereafter further. 

All that has to be supposed is that what Benavides told the Warren Commission in April 1964, exculpatory to Oswald as the killer in his testimony then, Benavides earlier told, or tried to tell, on Nov 22, 1963, to Dallas Police and/or FBI if the FBI also talked to him.

Then the oddity might become, just maybe, a little less odd?

Benavides' account as a witness was so credible--he saw from only a few feet away, and exonerated Oswald in what he was telling--there could be a possible reason for not taking down a statement or taking him down to view a lineup and risk having him give an emphatic denial that Oswald was the killer he had seen? (However the other possibility is no less plausible--Benavides was telling some version on Nov 22 of "I don't know nuthin'"--the innocent explanation for why Leavelle did not take his statement or take him down to see a lineup, though perhaps still leaving the question why Leavelle would not write up a written witness report.)

As for why Benavides would be called by the Warren Commission to testify in 1964 if (perhaps) FBI would have preferred he not be called to testify, that may be explained in that there was knowledge that Benavides was a witness, an important witness due to where he was at the time of the shooting and his being the first to the Tippit body and try to call in on the radio, such that it would look bad if he were not called, plus some staff on the Warren Commission did want to take testimony from relevant witnesses. It was necessary to take Benavides' testimony. But look who took it: the ace Warren Commission pit bull counsel, Belin, bane of unhelpful witnesses. It was the best way to handle a witness not particularly helpful to one's prosecution case that cannot be avoided.

And all this time Benavides' details on the killer's physical description have received passing mentions, its not that they have gone completely unnoticed, but they have not received the attention front and center for their exculpatory impact on the matter of Oswald's guilt or innocence, that Benavides' testimony should have received. This was largely because the case against Oswald was regarded as so overwhelmingly incriminating of Oswald on other grounds, that Benavides' contrary information was just not "heard" or "seen" for what it was, even though in plain view.

Just like the 1990s finding of an absolute non-match or exclusion of Oswald as the source of the fingerprints on the Tippit patrol car that were somewhere between likely and practically certain as from the killer that day. Reported, not secret as such, but not "heard" or "seen" for its significance or given the focus of attention it deserved. 

The case was closed, wrapped up on a dead man who was also believed to have been the assassin of JFK. Hardly a sympathetic figure to try to resurrect to an exoneration in the Tippit case. 

Better to let sleeping dogs lie.

What point if Oswald was innocent on Tippit? Who cares.

As Kurt Vonnegot would say, so it goes.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Michael Kalin]

15 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

On your claim that Benavides was not present and the first witness to attempt to use the police radio before Bowley, who do you think was the witness who attempted to use Tippit's radio, encountered problems how to use it (as Benavides said he did), and then Bowley who knew how to use a police radio made the successful call-in of the Tippit killing?

I made no such claim. Here's what I actually wrote in reply to Joseph McBride --

Joseph McBride: Bowley told me Benavides was at the scene and tried to call the police before he managed to do so.

MK: Bowley said as much to Moriarty but this does not put Benavides at the scene when the shooting occurred. There is a four minute gap between Markham's observation of the murder and Bowley's arrival after which Benavides fumbled with the radio. During this interval Markham was observed by Cimino but Benavides was not. None of this alters the fact that Benavides lied in his WC testimony.

This exchange occurred on page 3 of the "POLICE CAR IN THE ALLEY? NOPE." thread. You should have known this because you participated in this thread.

As I told another procrustean member of this forum, do not feel free to misrepresent my arguments.

Straighten out your thoughts if you want to have an honest discussion and exchange of ideas. If not, here's a Mencken quote to ponder:

"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it."

You may be a tack-sharp theologian but I'm a blunt instrument as a philosopher, so let's not go there.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Michael Kalin

[Greg Doudna]

Michael K., could you explain what exactly you are proposing re Benavides in simple form in 1-2 paragraphs, the whole scenario or reconstruction you have concerning Benavides, or give a link to where that is told in full in one piece, rather than make your allusions without explanation or links? That would be the simplest way to avoid guesswork and the risk of being misrepresented. I feel like it is shadow boxing trying to respond without knowing what you mean and trying to go from memory.

I saw this from you and took this to be a claim from you that Benavides was lying about being the first on Tippit's police radio attempting to call the dispatcher: "[Benavides] credits himself with making the first citizen phone call, a lie".

Thank you for clarifying you are not disputing that Benavides was truthful in saying he was the first on Tippit's police radio, mashing the button, telling of being replaced by Bowley who was standing there taking over control of the radio. That is what I thought you were saying was "a lie".    

On 9/9/2023 at 9:32 AM, Michael Kalin said:

There's never evidence if you choose to ignore it, including both his and Guinyard's WC testimony. He credits himself with making the first citizen phone call, a lie, then spoofs Belin's appearance.

And when you attack me for saying you "made no such claim" that "Benavides was not present", could you clarify that? Do you accept that Benavides was present meaning where he said he was at the time of the shooting, in position to see what he says he saw from about the distance he said? 

I said: "On your claim that Benavides was not present..."

You said: "I made no such claim. Here's what I actually wrote in my reply to Joseph McBride--

Joseph McBride: Bowley told me Benavides was at the scene and tried to call the police before he managed to do so.

MK: Bowley said as much to Moriarty but this does not put Benavides at the scene when the shooting occurred. 

Do you see why this is like shadow boxing? 

Please say your reconstruction, here in 1-2 paragraphs, or link to where it is summarized in one piece somewhere else. The previous discussion you link to is also scattered comments, not a coherent single full statement of your scenario or explanation, and confusing. Have you written an article on this somewhere?

12 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

On your claim that Benavides was not present and the first witness to attempt to use the police radio before Bowley, who do you think was the witness who attempted to use Tippit's radio, encountered problems how to use it (as Benavides said he did), and then Bowley who knew how to use a police radio made the successful call-in of the Tippit killing?

6 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

I made no such claim. Here's what I actually wrote in reply to Joseph McBride --

Joseph McBride: Bowley told me Benavides was at the scene and tried to call the police before he managed to do so.

MK: Bowley said as much to Moriarty but this does not put Benavides at the scene when the shooting occurred. There is a four minute gap between Markham's observation of the murder and Bowley's arrival after which Benavides fumbled with the radio. During this interval Markham was observed by Cimino but Benavides was not. None of this alters the fact that Benavides lied in his WC testimony.

 

[Michael Kalin]

14 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Kalin has some idea that Benavides was some sort of plant or used for disinformation purposes to falsely frame Oswald in Benavides' belated first appearance to the Warren Commission. 

 

Wrong. Stop misrepresenting my statements.

 

14 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Benavides' account as a witness was so credible--he saw from only a few feet away, and exonerated Oswald in what he was telling--there could be a possible reason for not taking down a statement or taking him down to view a lineup and risk having him give an emphatic denial that Oswald was the killer he had seen? (However the other possibility is no less plausible--Benavides was telling some version on Nov 22 of "I don't know nuthin'"--the innocent explanation for why Leavelle did not take his statement or take him down to see a lineup, though perhaps still leaving the question why Leavelle would not write up a written witness report.)

 

Someone at DPD took an affidavit from Benavides on 11/22/63. See Leavelle's Supplementary Offense Report of 11/22/63.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Michael Kalin

[Greg Doudna]

11 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Wrong. Stop misrepresenting my statements.

I am asking you to give a short comprehensive summary of what you are saying about Benavides, or a link to somewhere that does. You give hints and allusions which can be read in different ways and then hammer me for misunderstanding (which I assure you is not intentional if so).

Here, you say "stop misrepresenting" and don't even give the correction. 

And you do this after I asked you to explain "what exactly you are proposing re Benavides in simple form in 1-2 paragraphs ... or give a link to where that is told in full in one piece" rather than this shadow boxing. 

Would you say what you are talking about, your points and conclusions, your scenario or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it, in plain language: a, b, c. Spell it out so an idiot can understand it please. (Or give a link if you've done that somewhere else.)

If you won't do this, I don't suppose there can be a discussion. 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

The Tippit patrol car fingerprints, the killer of Tippit was left-handed, and Curtis Craford

Miles Massicotte, I did some further research on this. The short answer is Craford is indicated to have been left-handed from Estes' testimony, and Craford's handwriting is indeterminate between being left- or right-handed. The long answer follows. 

The following are working facts and conclusions concerning the fingerprints: 

• A single gunman shot and killed officer Tippit, first talking into the patrol car through the right front passenger vent window, then fired and killing Tippit across the front hood from a position near the right front fender (witnesses; in agreement with an open passenger window vent).
• Fingerprints were lifted from the Tippit patrol car about 20 minutes after the killing of officer Tippit, from the top of the right front passenger door and from the right front fender, the two positions where the killer was witnessed either touching or within inches.
• All of the fingerprints were left by a single individual in both locations (Lutz finding, reported Myers 1998).
• The fingerprints were likely or practically certainly from the killer (from the locations of the fingerprints; from the single individual leaving those prints at both locations matching the positions of the gunman).
• The fingerprints at the right front fender were a handprint from a right hand (Lutz finding, reported Myers 1998).
• The killer was therefore left-handed (the killer must have been holding and firing the gun in his left hand leaving his right hand free in order to leave a right-hand handprint on the right front fender, immediately below or to the right of where the killer was standing and shooting, touching the fender with the free right hand either for balance for reaching down or ducking, or from an involuntary stumble)
• Any suspect known to have been right-handed (90% of the population) is exonerated from being the killer of Tippit. This includes Craford, if so. 

(The Lutz finding reported by Myers 1998 also found additionally a new finding of fact not previously reported: Lee Harvey Oswald was negatively excluded as a match to those fingerprints, rendering irrelevant whether he was left- or right-handed, although he also was right-handed.)

(No known check has ever been reported run on those fingerprints to see whether a positive match can be found against extensive fingerprint databases maintained by law enforcement agencies. No such check, which normally can be done in a few minutes now with computers, has ever been reported or known to have been requested or sought for those fingerprints in the past 60 years to the present day.)

Was Curtis Craford left- or right-handed?

There is no known direct testimony or record telling whether Curtis Craford was right- or left-handed.

There is an indication that James Odell Estes' "Oswald" in July-Aug 1963, who was Craford, was left-handed, based on Estes' account that "Oswald" (sic; Craford) had a waist holster on his left side where he always carried a .38 Smith & Wesson revolver (which was the kind of weapon that murdered officer Tippit).  

The only other source of information relative to right- or left-handedness for Craford known to me is his handwriting. 

There is a sample of Craford's handwriting: a two-page handwritten "Dear Gail" letter he wrote in 1963 to his niece in Michigan, Gail Eaton (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=379).

Determining handedness from handwriting: the data

The question of whether it is possible to determine whether a person is left- or right-handed from handwriting alone has been studied. I consulted three studies of this question. I preferred actual studies, rather than quoting subjective opinions of online articles, which have mixtures of claims that it is possible to tell left- from right-handedness by xyz means, and that it is not possible to know for sure. I wanted studies with data--science--not unquantified soundbites and opinions from online articles. 

The three studies I consulted were:

• Franks et al, "Variability of Stroke Direction between Left- and Right-handed Writers" (Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 1985)
• Saran et al, "Differentiation of Handedness of Writer Based on their Strokes and Characteristic Features" (Psychology Education, 2013)
• Sahu et al, "Differentiation and Comparison of Left handed and Right handed writing on teh basis of Strokes and Slope of a letter" (Psychology, 2017)

Each of these studies examined samples of handwriting from large groups of left-handed writers, and right-handed writers, did counts of features and characteristics, and crunched data and did analysis of the results. 

The article abstracts and many of the tables with the data can be seen here with links to all three of the articles: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Differentiation-and-Comparison-of-Left-handed-and-Sahu-Kujur/1022d6f2521e3c27cd7f7692c5c3166639d2590e.

I found in these studies: A first fact is that there are significant differences statistically in features of handwriting of left-handers and right-handers that are measurable.

A second fact is there is at least one reliable trait which, if found, can positively identify left-handedness; however, it is not used by all left-handed writers so its absence does not positively identify going the other way, of right-handedness. (The trait: direction of cross-strokes of cursive and capital letter "t" and "T", always L to R in right-handers; commonly but not always R to L in left-handers.) 

And a third fact is, with the exception of that one characteristic which can diagnose left-handedness where it appears, the studies do not confirm any method capable of determining with high confidence (e.g. better than 90 or 95% confidence) right- or left-handedness. In other words, apart from the subset of left-handers using that one trait, there is no way to know for sure in any individual handwriting case, as distinguished from some basis for an informed guess.

If you check for certain things you can guess right about 70% of the time. But you can't get to 90% or 95%. (Except in cases of about half of left-handers, that is, for that 5% of the population.) That was my basic takeaway from these studies.

Focus on the crossbar of "t"

Although the studies crunched data for similar crossbar strokes of letters such as f, A, I, E, and F, in addition to t, the date is roughly similar with all these crossbar cases. I focused on "t" because what applies to "t" is representative of the other crossbars, and I found "t" the most common and easiest to examine in the Curtis Craford "Dear Gail" letter writing sample.

The "Dear Gail" letter has a forward slant consistent with most RH writers and some LH writers. The cross stroke of the "t" is fairly easy to tell direction, by noticing where the heaviest part of the stroke is (that is the start of the stroke), then the lighter end of the stroke typically will trail off as the pen is lifted up at the end of the stroke. 

All of the "t"'s in the two pages of the "Dear Gail" letter I checked were either L to R (most), or consistent with L to R (some were indeterminate), with no exceptions (R to L) that I could see. 

Citing the data from the three studies:

• Franks et al 1985. 58% to 76% of LH samples wrote R to L. (all cross strokes)
• Saran et al 2013. 70% of LH wrote R to L. 100% of RH wrote L to R. (t's)
• Sahu et al 2017. 30% of LH wrote R to L. 100% of RH wrote L to R. (t's)

Conclusion of case study of the Craford "Dear Gail" letter

The conclusion is Craford's "Dear Gail" letter is compatible with either a right-handed or left-handed writer. 

Craford wrote his "t" strokes L to R the way 100% of right-handers write, but also the way 24-42% (Franks et al), 30% (Saran et al), or 70% (Sahu et al) of left-handers also write.

Craford could be either from this data.

Therefore Craford is not exonerated from being the Tippit killer on the grounds of being known to have been right-handed.

And if Estes' account is right, his "Oswald" (Craford) carried a weapon of the kind that killed Tippit in a holster on his left side, the most common side carried by left-handers, in agreement with the fingerprints on the Tippit cruiser indicating his killer was left-handed.   

[Greg Doudna]

45 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

Someone at DPD took an affidavit from Benavides on 11/22/63. See Leavelle's Supplementary Offense Report of 11/22/63.

This is very interesting Michael. It wasn't easy to find (couldn't find it on MFF, or in Myers' book) but I finally found the Supplementary Offense Report you mention here: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340218/m1/1/ .

And I dropped my jaw when I read this, you are right, it does say Benavides gave an affidavit on Nov 22, 1963, which has no known existence today.

The Report tells of witnesses Callaway, Guinyard, and Benavides ("another witness who saw the officer lying in the street, but did not see suspect, was Domingo Benavides ... He was at the scene and picked up 2 spent .38 hulls and turned over to Officer J. M. Poe...")

Then at the end: "All of the above witnesses, with the exception of Scoggins, made affidavits." (Leavelle, Nov 22, 1963)

I also noted on a different report of Leavelle, "Report on Officer's Duties in Regards to the President's Murder", undated, Leavelle tells of talking to Callaway, Guinyard, and Benavides at Callaway's used car lot. Then this (note the inclusion of Benavides):

We then returned to our office where Captain Fritz told me to call the above people [Callaway, Guinyard, Benavides] to come down for a lineup. I called Mr. Callaway who came down and brought Sam Guinyard with him..." (https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/001/1137/images/img_1137_521_200.jpg)

Captain Fritz wants "the above people", meaning three, to come down for a lineup. Who was responsible for Benavides not coming down with the other two?

In rereading Benavides' testimony, the way he tells it, he went home early that day after Leavelle and another officer had stopped at Callaway's place of business and talked to all of them. Then Benavides only learned the next day at work that Callaway and "the kid" (Guinyard?) had gone downtown to the police station the previous day. 

There is nothing in Benavides' WC testimony about his giving a written statement. Yet Leavelle's Nov 22 Supplementary Report says there was one, and if that report is accurate it had to have been on Nov 22 since that is the date on that Supplementary Report. And it would be very odd if there wasn't a statement taken from Benavides then or later, given Benavides' role at the crime scene.

All it would take would be for Benavides to have told Leavelle on Nov 22 that although he may not have seen or didn't think he could identify the face, he saw the back of the killer's head with wavy or curly hair, and maybe the block cut hairline in back ... 

It looks like there was suppression of Benavides' testimony from the outset, and at the time of his WC testimony that earlier suppression did not come out in his testimony from the questions Belin asked. 

I don't see in the WC testimony that Belin ever asked Benavides if he had given a written statement (on a day different than Nov 22), or had he been talked to by the FBI.

Belin asked narrowly construed questions, getting on the record what was wanted, and not asking questions that would elicit what was not wanted. Benavides answered what was asked him, and got in one or two "unwanted" extra details.

An early written affidavit from Benavides appears to have been deep-sixed from Benavides.

Through no fault of Benavides, and I hope the sad murder of his brother truly was unrelated.

Benavides: the witness who, when his testimony did come to see the light of day--in his Warren Commission testimony--exculpated Oswald in physical description.

If anyone had been listening all these years ... 

~ ~ ~

(Credit where credit is due: thanks Michael Kalin for pointing out the FBI interview and DPD affidavit details re Benavides. Any other disputes aside, you got those two points of interest, well done.)

[Michael Kalin]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Would you say what you are talking about, your points and conclusions, your scenario or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it, in plain language: a, b, c. Spell it out so an idiot can understand it please. (Or give a link if you've done that somewhere else.)

If you won't do this, I don't suppose there can be a discussion. 

The following quotes sum up my thinking well enough for the purpose of discussion. Context can be provided by reading the "POLICE CAR IN THE ALLEY? NOPE." thread.

Quote

Evidence that Benavides was not present at the Tippit murder scene at the time of the shooting:
1. Leavelle's Supplementary Offense Report states explicitly that Benavides "did not see suspect."
2. Leavelle's Case Report omits Benavides altogether.
3. DPD's arraignment papers omit Benavides altogether.
4. A Secret Service Report (12/1/63) omits Benavides from a list of "WITNESSES TO THE
SHOOTING."
5. An FBI letter to Rankin (3/26/64) omits Benavides from a list of those "who observed Lee Harvey
Oswald during and subsequent to the shooting of Patrolman J. D. Tippit."
What all this means is much of Benavides' WC testimony is bogus. His tale that places himself 15
feet away as shots were fired is false. It follows that the entire narrative commencing with the
disabled vehicle on Patton is nonsense.
Since he did not see the suspect it also follows that his description of same to Belin is more
nonsense. So what's left? Not much more than a red Ford, and even that does not pass muster. He
later told journalist Berendt it was a red Ford with a white top.
With a witness such as this it is futile to discuss where he was at the time of the murder, although
my money says he was home eating lunch with mother.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28214-police-car-in-the-alley-nope/?do=findComment&comment=474439

From the same thread:

Quote

Joseph [McBride], #1 (Leavelle's Supplementary Offense Report) is the key item for two reasons. One, that Benavides "did not see suspect," and two, that Benavides gave a statement to DPD which never saw the light of day.

Easy enough to equivocate both into insignificance even when not totally ignored, but there are other circumstances that point to a subornation.

1. Big lie by Benavides to WC regarding the phone call from Tippit's squad car (6H449). Bowley made this call, but he was not called as a witness.
2. Benavides also gave a statement to the FBI on 11/22/63. It too is missing.
3. Weird interlude of Benavides walking toward his mother's house before turning back (6H449).
4. Guinyard's observation of Benavides arriving by truck about the time of #3 (7H398).

It's not much of a stretch to conclude Benavides was subbed in for Bowley with a role suitably augmented by the suborners. If this reasoning is sound, and two missing statements that were given the day of the murder support the argument, some kind of corroboration is required to substantiate his claim that he was at the murder scene when it occurred.

You talked with Leavelle. I do not remember reading about the SOR in "Into the Nightmare," which I am now rereading, so far not seeing anything on point. Did you discuss the implications of the SOR with him?

My guess is Benavides wanted to talk about the spent shells which meant little to Leavelle's tight case, so he was handed off to give statements and sent home. Benavides did not tell Leavelle or anyone else at HQ anything that might be construed as conferring eyewitness status on himself. Both statements reflected this.

You've been into this far longer and much deeper than I. Give me something solid to dispel my doubt about Benavides' veracity and I'll let it go.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28214-police-car-in-the-alley-nope/?do=findComment&comment=474533

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Michael Kalin

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Joseph [McBride], #1 (Leavelle's Supplementary Offense Report) is the key item for two reasons. One, that Benavides "did not see suspect," and two, that Benavides gave a statement to DPD which never saw the light of day.

Easy enough to equivocate both into insignificance even when not totally ignored, but there are other circumstances that point to a subornation.

1. Big lie by Benavides to WC regarding the phone call from Tippit's squad car (6H449). Bowley made this call, but he was not called as a witness.
2. Benavides also gave a statement to the FBI on 11/22/63. It too is missing.
3. Weird interlude of Benavides walking toward his mother's house before turning back (6H449).
4. Guinyard's observation of Benavides arriving by truck about the time of #3 (7H398).

It's not much of a stretch to conclude Benavides was subbed in for Bowley with a role suitably augmented by the suborners. If this reasoning is sound, and two missing statements that were given the day of the murder support the argument, some kind of corroboration is required to substantiate his claim that he was at the murder scene when it occurred.

You talked with Leavelle. I do not remember reading about the SOR in "Into the Nightmare," which I am now rereading, so far not seeing anything on point. Did you discuss the implications of the SOR with him?

My guess is Benavides wanted to talk about the spent shells which meant little to Leavelle's tight case, so he was handed off to give statements and sent home. Benavides did not tell Leavelle or anyone else at HQ anything that might be construed as conferring eyewitness status on himself. Both statements reflected this.

You've been into this far longer and much deeper than I. Give me something solid to dispel my doubt about Benavides' veracity and I'll let it go.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28214-police-car-in-the-alley-nope/?do=findComment&comment=474533

Thank you for the two excerpts explaining your argument and position Michael.

In defense of my good name, I wrote, 

"Kalin has some idea that Benavides was some sort of plant or used for disinformation purposes to falsely frame Oswald in Benavides' belated first appearance to the Warren Commission."

You answered, "Stop misrepresenting," without any further comment or explanation. Now you say, 

"...circumstances that point to a subornation"

"It's not much of a stretch to conclude Benavides was subbed in for Bowley with a role suitably augmented by the suborners."

I ask any reasonable reader to judge if my characterization above (which was based on my memory of your earlier) is a material misrepresentation. 

Again, when I wrote: 

"On your claim that Benavides was not present..."

You replied, making me look like I was putting words in your mouth: 

"I made no such claim."

Here you say (which is what I remembered and was referring to):

"some kind of corroboration is required to substantiate his claim that he was at the murder scene when it occurred"

"What all this means is much of Benavides' WC testimony is bogus. ... With a witness such as this it is futile to discuss where he was at the time of the murder, although my money says he was home eating lunch with mother."

If those kinds of paraphrases from me are going to get me publicly accused of misrepresenting (something I do not wish to do), I think I would like to steer clear of further discussion with you, and just let your contributions stand here. You at least have explained your case and argument. I don't find it convincing in terms of the conclusions drawn from the facts cited, but everyone can assess and evaluate for themselves.

3 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Evidence that Benavides was not present at the Tippit murder scene at the time of the shooting:
1. Leavelle's Supplementary Offense Report states explicitly that Benavides "did not see suspect."
2. Leavelle's Case Report omits Benavides altogether.
3. DPD's arraignment papers omit Benavides altogether.
4. A Secret Service Report (12/1/63) omits Benavides from a list of "WITNESSES TO THE
SHOOTING."
5. An FBI letter to Rankin (3/26/64) omits Benavides from a list of those "who observed Lee Harvey
Oswald during and subsequent to the shooting of Patrolman J. D. Tippit."
What all this means is much of Benavides' WC testimony is bogus. His tale that places himself 15
feet away as shots were fired is false. It follows that the entire narrative commencing with the
disabled vehicle on Patton is nonsense.
Since he did not see the suspect it also follows that his description of same to Belin is more
nonsense. So what's left? Not much more than a red Ford, and even that does not pass muster. He
later told journalist Berendt it was a red Ford with a white top.
With a witness such as this it is futile to discuss where he was at the time of the murder, although
my money says he was home eating lunch with mother.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28214-police-car-in-the-alley-nope/?do=findComment&comment=474439

 

[Michael Kalin]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

If those kinds of paraphrases from me are going to get me publicly accused of misrepresenting (something I do not wish to do), I think I would like to steer clear of further discussion with you, and just let your contributions stand here. You at least have explained your case and argument. I don't find it convincing in terms of the conclusions drawn from the facts cited, but everyone can assess and evaluate for themselves.

Shame on you for a cowardly refusal to own up to the distortions you inflicted on my arguments.

Why, let the stricken deer go weep,
The hart ungalled play;
For some must watch, while some must sleep:
So runs the world away.