"Were the Tippit crime scene shell hulls fired from the revolver of Lee Harvey Oswald?"

[David Josephs]

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337647/m1/2/?q=fingerprints

 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Greg Doudna was your question to me about the toolmarks about the bullets related to the Tippit shooting or the MC rifle?  

[Greg Doudna]

43 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Greg Doudna was your question to me about the toolmarks about the bullets related to the Tippit shooting or the MC rifle?  

I may have misunderstood, maybe that was the MC, but I would like to know what you might have to say about the test bullets not matching between HSCA and the earlier WC, if you have comment on that. Your comments on biases of experts make sense.  

Edited May 6, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Reflections

David Josephs does have a point that what I outlined, an alternative possible theory of the case, is a scenario which falls far short of proof. For those who do not consider it possible that eyewitnesses could sincerely mistakenly identify a wrong man, or that a police department in a big city in southern USA could "stitch someone up"--give a case that little extra added boost needed to put someone away who police believed needed to be put away--to use the term for it in the United Kingdom ... any question concerning Oswald's guilt in the Tippit case is unthinkable.

And yet in all the scoffing at my proposal that the paper-bag revolver could be the murder weapon of Tippit, I have not heard anyone suggest a viable, reasonable, innocent possible scenario for how a handgun is thrown in a paper bag on a city street in the middle of the night, in which that handgun is not involved in some crime in which shots were fired and someone does not want the gun found in their possession or association (that is why the weapon is ditched). Has there ever been a revolver disposed of in that manner which is known not to have been involved in a serious crime?  And what better recent crime would one look at in this case than the only known recent homicide by handgun in Dallas, the one that occurred a few hours earlier, the killing of officer Tippit?

On the one hand there is that weapon and its disappearance and coverup. On the other hand there is--separately--a certain case for a specific suspect, namely Ruby's recent hire at the Carousel Club, Curtis Craford. (An unusual hire in that, according to Craford's testimony, Ruby never paid him other than in housing and food [obviously there was cash changing hands not reported to the IRS or Texas Employment Commission, what was going on there].)

The only reason to put those two together--the possible murder weapon of Tippit, and the possible suspect, is because they each have independent argument suggestive of involvement in the murder of Tippit, and then I showed plausibility of that suspect being in the location the paper-bag revolver was dropped a couple hours before the paper-bag revolver was found, and also just before that suspect left Dallas later that morning.

But why suspect Craford, apart from what has already been named: that he later said he was a hitman who had been involved with a California mobster; that his brother told Whitmey soberly that he believed the hitman past was true of his brother; that he was employed by Jack Ruby who, to put it mildly, was mixed up in still-unclear ways in things assassination- and Oswald-related from a gangland point of view; and that Craford matches the physical descriptions of the killer of Tippit of witnesses and has a track record of witnesses confusing him with Oswald thus raising the possibility of mistaken eyewitness identifications saying it was Oswald.

But still, Craford made the hitman admission many years later, how does one know it was true, and not tall tale and made up? Let me count a few ways pointing to it being true. First, the rest of what Craford told Whitmey comes across as credible or plausible, not obvious tall tale. Second, as uncontested fact Craford tried to deceive the Warren Commission in his testimony in omitting an entire half-year period from his timeline when he was in California, the period he later said was when he had the mobster/hitman history. Third, his brother believed it of Curtis. 

But some may see that still as weak. That was in 1961 and who knows if it was true, it will be objected--how is that evidence for 1963? And just because someone working for Ruby has an unsavory past or criminal record (probably two-thirds of Carousel Club people working with Ruby had brushes with the law in their past) doesn't mean they killed Kennedy or Tippit. There is also no later crime record of Craford for any serious crime (a couple of later minor offenses in Oregon is all, on his record). If he had been a hitman there is no evidence he continued after he left Dallas in 1963. 

Here is what weighs to me, not all may agree: it depends what you think of the Carroll Jarnagin story. Jarnagin was the Dallas attorney who said on Fri Oct 4, 1963 he was at the Carousel Club and overheard Ruby and Oswald in the next table discussing a contract killing of Governor Connally (no mention of killing President Kennedy, though there was, according to Jarnagin, mention by Ruby of Ruby's mob backers wishing they could get to Robert Kennedy but they could not).

Because the Oswald claim was not credible and because Jarnagin failed a polygraph test, most people dismiss the story entirely, think he made the thing up out of whole cloth. But this was an attorney, who wrote of this seriously to J. Edgar Hoover personally after the assassination, never showed sign of trying to profiteer or monetize his story, and who according to family members was honest and in fear of his life for years after. 

In this as in all witness testimonies judgement calls are made. Here is mine on Jarnagin: the Oswald identification is clearly not correct even though Jarnagin after Nov 22 was convinced it was. It wasn't Oswald, but at the same time I don't think he made it up. I think he misidentified Craford as Oswald, and liberally had memory-manufacturing issues in trying to remember and write down after Nov 22 everything he could about that night of Oct 4, when he was intoxicated and now thought it was Oswald and interpreted his dream-like alcohol-influenced memories of that evening of Oct 4 in that light.

But he wasn't wilfully lying. Well what about the failed polygraph, it will be asked? His classmate from law school, District Attorney Wade, had that polygraph done, and then testified to the Warren Commission that even though Jarnagin failed it, Wade interpreted that as Jarnagin believed what he was saying but the polygraph had found what Jarnagin believed wasn't true.

(Imagine that theory of polygraph testing applied to asking a creationist whether the earth was created 6000 years ago--by Wade's theory the polygraph can find out a claim isn't true even when the person believes it!--an amazing ability of polygraphs according to Wade's interpretation of the Jarnagin polygraph. Or maybe Wade said that to help his old law school classmate save face, a white lie under oath.)

Bottom line: I don't buy that Jarnagin made the whole thing up, or that the polygraph report establishes that Jarnagin did. Polygraphs are not 100% reliable; there was motive to have Jarnagin's story discredited as a simple disposition of his story; there is no known underlying paperwork on that polygraph which could be reviewed by other experts; and last but not least the Jarnagin story understood as a mistaken identification of Craford (unknown to Jarnagin) independently makes a lot of sense.

I found, not recognized before for what it is, an independent account of what I identify as an account of Craford from an employee of the Carousel Club in the summer of 1963, in the James Estes story (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29006-decipherment-of-the-james-odell-estes-story-carousel-club-july-aug-1963/). Estes' story of Craford and Jarnagin's both, I understand as distorted memories of Craford and Ruby.

I don't see James Estes and Jarnagin the way I see Beverly Oliver, who I believe intentionally made some things up and knew it. Neither Estes nor Jarnagin showed indication of wanting to profit, neither known to have ever given even a speech or written an article about it. Both Estes and Jarnagin claimed believably to have lived lives of fear thereafter because of what they thought they had seen.  

In the gangland world of Ruby and the Carousel Club, there just aren't going to be very many "perfect" witnesses. That is going to be a given. Its just like many crime victims are not perfect people, but that doesn't mean they deserve to have crimes done to them. Although others may judge differently, I think Estes and Jarnagin each tried to convey what they believed was true, which must of course be interpreted. 

I see the Estes and Jarnagin stories as adding glimpses of light on Craford beyond what is familiarly known of Craford. (Again for any who have missed it, the later research of Peter Whitmey on Craford: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/creatingapatsy.htm.)

From Estes: Craford knows Ruby more than admitted in his Warren Commission testimony. Craford takes an airplane flight for a couple days to do a job for a large amount of money, unspecified where or what. Craford carries a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver all the time on his person in Dallas. Craford with Ruby has something to do with a contact with Governor Connally (if Connally is not a mistaken identification on Estes' part). 

From Jarnagin: Craford knows Ruby more than admitted in his Warren Commission testimony. Craford discusses carrying out a contract killing--of the same Governor Connally of Estes' story--in exchange for money from mob sources with Ruby as conduit. Is talk of assassination of Connally "code" for the Kennedy assassination in the works? Or did Ruby and Craford really mean Connally? (Assuming Jarnagin did not mishear or misinterpret the parts identified as references to Connally.)

Both Estes and Jarnagin stories have that curious "Connally" theme (and neither have anything about an assassination of JFK). Both Estes and Jarnagin independently remember their Craford figures as going by the same name, "Lee", which I interpret as misremembering of "Larry" but it is odd that both have the same error. Both Estes' and Jarnagin's timeline of their Craford figures' associations with Ruby agree, against the standard timeline of Craford only becoming first acquainted with Ruby at the Texas Fair. One difference: I don't believe Estes mixed in anything to his story itself from reading information about Oswald, whereas Jarnagin clearly did so in his story of what actually was Craford and Ruby.

And so from these two--imperfect and flawed as they are as witnesses, but attempted to tell the truth the best they could--there is additional information on Craford than in his Warren Commission testimony: Craford on Oct 4, 1963 was overheard talking of participation in the contract killing business. Craford carried a .38 revolver the same kind of weapon that killed Tippit and was found abandoned in the paper bag 18 hours later and then Craford left town. Craford was mixed up with Ruby in shady things.  

That is background which makes Craford a suspect more than some others may consider. This is what I see. 

The killer of Oswald may have been in that theater when the police arrested the wrong man by mistake in the killing of Tippit. Deputy sheriff Courson at the Theatre, there in Oak Cliff wearing yesterday's plain clothes (by his own account in Sneed), was probably the unidentified officer Myers seems to think is credibly told by a high-level source to have been at the Tippit crime scene when Tippit was killed, allegedly involved in an affair (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27362-tippit-a-second-officer-present-at-the-tippit-killing/). Courson knew Ruby, his job for the sheriff's department was to go to night clubs and socialize with known criminals, and he spent time, getting paid to do so, in the Carousel Club. He tells of that in Sneed.

It was Courson, by his own account in Sneed, who let the "man in the balcony" in the Texas Theatre, who Courson said he thought looked like Oswald (though it wasn't), go by him scot-free. 

Courson for all we know could have recognized Craford and let him go. Courson though in Oak Cliff where all the other officers were that day--at the Tippit crime scene; at the Library; at the Texas Theatre--never wrote a written report like the other officers and deputy sheriffs did; never was called to testify; never gave a known speech or interview about it in all the years until his story in Sneed only (that is the only known firsthand account from Courson, ever). 

Maybe Ruby was not innocent in the events of the assassination which included an execution of officer Tippit, and maybe Craford working for Ruby wasn't either, is the idea. 

That's all.  

Edited May 6, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[David Josephs]

35 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

And yet in all the scoffing at my proposal that the paper-bag revolver could be the murder weapon of Tippit, I have not heard anyone suggest a viable, reasonable, innocent possible scenario for how a handgun is thrown in a paper bag on a city street in the middle of the night, in which that handgun is not involved in some crime in which shots were fired and someone does not want the gun found in their possession or association (that is why the weapon is ditched). Has there ever been a revolver disposed of in that manner which is known not to have been involved in a serious crime?  And what better recent crime would one look at in this case than the only known recent homicide by handgun in Dallas, the one that occurred a few hours earlier, the killing of officer Tippit?

Greg, I genuinely appreciate the level of time, detail and research you put into these posts.  I hope our disagreeing on their ultimate meaning and my critique of your speculations/hypothesis is not taken personally.

Your request about alternatives which you can accept as reasonable sounds eerily like Dulles demanding alternate explanation "if not OSWALD".   That is not necessary to disprove a hypothesis...  only the examination and authentication of the truths on which the hypothesis is based.

Of course it is possible THAT was the gun used by Crafard, or Braden - depending on whose story you choose.  Just like when we delve into the story about the origin of the information that Oswald was a paid FBI informant.  The information appears credible coming from both credible, and a bit less so, sources.

Yet things are not true just because speculation about them can be organized in such a manner to make the most sense.  The other thing we seem to overlook is that the people you are quoting were professional XXXXX of the first order.  Even to the point of lying about anything and everything just for the sake of lying - these men were Mafia and mafia related...  

Over the couple of decades posting there are a few red flags in arguments that stand out:

1. "why would they"'s - being incredulous is not an argument
2. "Has there ever been anything like..." - the lack of precedent does not preclude the creation of a new one
3. "what better explanation is there?" - the burden of proof lays in the presenter of the hypothesis.  A "better" explanation does not negate the validity of the original hypothesis.  Occum's razor is not always the sharpest tool in the bag.
4. The complete lack of source material reference links/images/docs - unlike many others, you do provide snips and pieces to help a reader understand from where you derive your conclusions, yet how hard is it really to give credit where it is due with a link or a mention? 
   
   Most of us are standing on the shoulders of those who came before and just trying to raise the bar even farther.  More than likely someone has offered the same thoughts with the expectation that the future would pick up the cause when new and more revealing information is unearthed.

We'd get nowhere here without intelligent discourse among members and the challenging of things put forth as facts..  it is only those who seek to disrupt for the pleasure of it that we need to beware of, identify and censure.

In the earliest days of my foray into the JFK malaise I was sure the SBT was possible given what I initially saw in frames 224-230 and set out to better understand why so many said is was not so.  

What a long, strange trip it's been.  And it ain't over by a long shot.

I look forward to further discussions - and thanks as I had not been aware of this other pistol story before and find it fascinating.  TBH, and secretly, I kinda hope you're right about it.  Time may tell, if we're lucky.

[David Josephs]

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Greg, I genuinely appreciate the level of time, detail and research you put into these posts.  I hope our disagreeing on their ultimate meaning and my critique of your speculations/hypothesis is not taken personally.

Your request about alternatives which you can accept as reasonable sounds eerily like Dulles demanding alternate explanation "if not OSWALD".   That is not necessary to disprove a hypothesis...  only the examination and authentication of the truths on which the hypothesis is based.

Of course it is possible THAT was the gun used by Crafard, or Braden - depending on whose story you choose.  Just like when we delve into the story about the origin of the information that Oswald was a paid FBI informant.  The information appears credible coming from both credible, and a bit less so, sources.

Yet things are not true just because speculation about them can be organized in such a manner to make the most sense.  The other thing we seem to overlook is that the people you are quoting were professional XXXXX of the first order.  Even to the point of lying about anything and everything just for the sake of lying - these men were Mafia and mafia related...  

Over the couple of decades posting there are a few red flags in arguments that stand out:

1. "why would they"'s - being incredulous is not an argument
2. "Has there ever been anything like..." - the lack of precedent does not preclude the creation of a new one
3. "what better explanation is there?" - the burden of proof lays in the presenter of the hypothesis.  A "better" explanation does not negate the validity of the original hypothesis.  Occum's razor is not always the sharpest tool in the bag.
4. The complete lack of source material reference links/images/docs - unlike many others, you do provide snips and pieces to help a reader understand from where you derive your conclusions, yet how hard is it really to give credit where it is due with a link or a mention? 
   
   Most of us are standing on the shoulders of those who came before and just trying to raise the bar even farther.  More than likely someone has offered the same thoughts with the expectation that the future would pick up the cause when new and more revealing information is unearthed.

We'd get nowhere here without intelligent discourse among members and the challenging of things put forth as facts..  it is only those who seek to disrupt for the pleasure of it that we need to beware of, identify and censure.

In the earliest days of my foray into the JFK malaise I was sure the SBT was possible given what I initially saw in frames 224-230 and set out to better understand why so many said is was not so.  

What a long, strange trip it's been.  And it ain't over by a long shot.

I look forward to further discussions - and thanks as I had not been aware of this other pistol story before and find it fascinating.  TBH, and secretly, I kinda hope you're right about it.  Time may tell, if we're lucky.

Thanks David!