How Oswald was Framed for the Murder of Tippit

[Bill Fite]

On 9/9/2023 at 12:07 AM, Bill Brown said:

 

Obvious confusion during her testimony on exactly what Ball was trying to ask her.  But, I'm curious.  What does any of the above have to do with the fact that she identified Oswald back on 11/22/63?  What if she never testified to the Warren Commission?  Before Markham ever heard of Joseph Ball, she picked Oswald on the afternoon of the murder.

 

"Number two is the one I picked." -- Helen Markham

"Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman." -- Helen Markham

 

She says 6 times during her testimony that she can't identify the murderer then miraculously when she is given the suggestion  that it was 'Number 2' she makes the ID.    LOL

[Bill Brown]

7 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

You can't be serious. Surely you know it is misleading--grossly misleading--to simply claim that Markham "identified" Oswald on the day of the shooting. Surely you know that such a claim would have been destroyed under cross examination in a trial.

For example, in her press interviews, Markham described the gunman as short, a little chunky/kind of heavy, and with bushy black hair. Oswald was 5’9”, downright skinny (if not almost anorexic), and had thinning brown hair.

She told the WC that she did NOT identify Oswald by his face but because he gave her the "chills."

Shall we mention that Markham was at least 90 feet away when the shooting occurred, and that she said that after the killer fled, she spoke with Tippit for several minutes? Tippit, of course, was quite dead when the killer fled.

Shall we mention that the one guy who was actually close to the shooting when it occurred, Domingo Benavides, said that the gunman had a squared-off (blocked) haircut that ended on the back of his neck above his "Eisenhower" jacket, and that photos taken on 11/22/63 clearly show that Oswald’s hair was tapered in the back and would have extended below the neckline on a similar jacket?

And on and on we could go.

 

"Shall we mention that the one guy who was actually close to the shooting when it occurred, Domingo Benavides, said that the gunman had a squared-off (blocked) haircut that ended on the back of his neck above his "Eisenhower" jacket..."

 

Now you're just making stuff up.  Why do you guys continually do things like this?

Benavides said the killer had a squared off haircut, yes.  But he did NOT say the hair was cut "above" the collar of the jacket.  You muddy the waters with this stuff.

Since Benavides did not say that the hair was cut above the collar, it is indeed possible that the jacket's collar itself gave the appearance of a squared off haircut.  The killer could have had a pony tail tucked inside the collar of the jacket and still have the appearance of a squared off haircut.

 

[Bill Brown]

5 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

She says 6 times during her testimony that she can't identify the murderer then miraculously when she is given the suggestion  that it was 'Number 2' she makes the ID.    LOL

 

And how does any of that change the fact that she identified Oswald as the killer on the late afternoon of 11/22/63?

 

[Karl Kinaski]

 

 I always thought Markham saw two men involved in the shooting (Like Aquilla Clemons). 

A.) She saw the actual shooting and the murderer of Tippit.

B. She puts both hands over here face in shock. 

C. When putting the hands back down, she was passed nearby by a man who, according to her own words, puts in his pocket a gun and took a different escape route, than the actually shooter who went down Patton street. That man (not the murderer of Tippit) ran from the crime scene over the vacant property adjected to 10th and Patton. 

In Helen Markhams brain those two men merged into one. 

BTW Markham was by the WC itself dismissed as unreliable if I remember correctly.  

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Karl Kinaski

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Benavides said the killer had a squared off haircut, yes.  But he did NOT say the hair was cut "above" the collar of the jacket.  You muddy the waters with this stuff.

Since Benavides did not say that the hair was cut above the collar, it is indeed possible that the jacket's collar itself gave the appearance of a squared off haircut.  The killer could have had a pony tail tucked inside the collar of the jacket and still have the appearance of a squared off haircut.

Bill you hammer Michael Kalin pretty unmercifully for errors, including ones he made in the past not the topic of current discussion, and indeed you are strong on details. Just remember that when you hit someone too hard when they are down audiences start sympathizing with the one being hit, irrespective even of the issue. Here the tables may be turned. I think you missed it on this one, and perhaps may acknowledge a little humility and that no one, not even yourself, is immune from an occasional mistake.

Here is what Benavides said, and the issue is not what a man with a pony tail might have looked like, but whether this is a description of the back of the head of Oswald on Nov 22, 1963. That is the issue.

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 flat in back. 

Now here is a photo of Oswald from the same weekend, and I ask you to say with a straight face that a witness getting a good look at this back of Oswald's head at close range would say twice, with emphasis, that that man's hairline in the back did not taper off: "his hair didn't taper off". "it kind of went down and squared off".

Does Oswald look like that below to you? Yes, this Oswald, right here, the one with the tapered hair in the back.

And a second photo is clearer, showing the back of Oswald's head better, but I am unable to show that photo, only the link to the Dealey Plaza Echo page on the MFF site where you can see it if wished: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146528#relPageId=8 . Same questions on the second photo.

Your suggestion that Benavides from a few feet away saw Oswald's tapered hair going down behind the collar of a jacket and decided to describe that as "his hair didn't taper off" sounds like a bit of a stretch. It is not what one would expect a reasonable witness to report with emphasis if it were Oswald. 

That same Dealey Plaza Echo article notes that Helen Markham "told two patrolmen (J.E. Poe and L.E. Jez), almost certainly within 20 minutes of Tippit's slaying, that the gunman had "bushy hair".

Sergeant Gerald Hill said that as soon as he drove up to the scene a man approached him and described the gunman as having "brown bushy hair" (7H47-48). 

Ted Callaway gave an immediate physical description (before influence from any other factors) to "Patrolman H.W. Summers (the second policeman at the scene of the Tippit killing), who passed on the description to his dispatcher. Included was a reference to the gunman as having 'black, wavy hair'."

Do those repeated descriptions of "bushy", and "wavy" (and the later Benavides' "curly") hair look like Oswald's hair above?

Compare the photo below of the head of hair of Jack Ruby's experienced-contract-killer employee living at the Carousel Club at the time, recently employed by Ruby as a "handyman" paid in cash, Curtis Craford, two years younger than Oswald, about 1.5 inches shorter and about 10-15 pounds heavier than Oswald, not lean or almost skinny looking like Oswald (compare witness Acquilla Clemons' description of the gunman as "short and kind of chunky"). 

This photo of Craford was taken in Michigan a few days after the Tippit killing and may even have been after a haircut though that is unknown. In this photo Craford wears a light zippered jacket similar to, and of exactly the same off-white light tan color as CE 162, the Tippit killer's abandoned jacket, though the two are not the same jackets. They just are exactly the same color and zippered lightweight by an odd coincidence (as if someone liked similar jackets of that particular color, or perhaps wanted to establish that CE 162 wasn't a jacket someone might have seen him wearing at the Carousel Club). This jacket of identical color is worn by a man matching the earliest witness descriptions of the Tippit killer, a man who for no explicable reason quit his handyman job with Ruby with no notice and fled Dallas hitchhiking for Michigan less than 24 hours after Tippit was killed, on the morning of Saturday Nov 23, 1963. Tippit dead, an experienced contract killer bolts from Dallas hours later, a few hours after that the experienced contract killer's boss, Jack Ruby, kills Oswald dead witnessed on national television. Okaaaay.

But notice the full head of hair below. Does it look like Callaway's "black, wavy" hair of the Tippit killer? Sort of does, doesn't it? Can you imagine Craford's hair below, if windblown as the Tippit killer's was according to witnesses, looking "bushy" as witnesses said spontaneously within minutes, before having seen and come under the influence of having seen Oswald on television and in lineups?  

And although it is a little hard to tell from this photo, does it look like Craford's full head of dark brown or near-black wavy hair could have a block rather than tapered hairline appearance in the back, in a way that Oswald's hair did not?

Maybe notice the skin complexion too. Benavides, Latino, said the Tippit killer, although a white male, nevertheless had a skin complexion a little darker-toned than average for a white man, about the same skin tone as himself, Benavides. Of course we don't know the color scale used in this photo of Craford, so it could be illusory. But doesn't he at least look in this photo like he could be a slight bit "darker" in skin tone than average for white males, perhaps compatible with Benavides' description of the Tippit killer?

 

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Bill Brown]

11 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill you hammer Michael Kalin pretty unmercifully for errors, including ones he made in the past not the topic of current discussion, and indeed you are strong on details. Just remember that when you hit someone too hard when they are down audiences start sympathizing with the one being hit, irrespective even of the issue. Here the tables may be turned. I think you missed it on this one, and perhaps may acknowledge a little humility and that no one, not even yourself, is immune from an occasional mistake.

Here is what Benavides said, and the issue is not what a man with a pony tail might have looked like, but whether this is a description of the back of the head of Oswald on Nov 22, 1963. That is the issue.

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 flat in back. 

Now here is a photo of Oswald from the same weekend, and I ask you to say with a straight face that a witness getting a good look at this back of Oswald's head at close range would say twice, with emphasis, that that man's hairline in the back did not taper off: "his hair didn't taper off". "it kind of went down and squared off".

Does Oswald look like that below to you? Yes, this Oswald, right here, the one with the tapered hair in the back.

And a second photo is clearer, showing the back of Oswald's head better, but I am unable to show that photo, only the link to the Dealey Plaza Echo page on the MFF site where you can see it if wished: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146528#relPageId=8 . Same questions on the second photo.

Your suggestion that Benavides from a few feet away saw Oswald's tapered hair going down behind the collar of a jacket and decided to describe that as "his hair didn't taper off" sounds like a bit of a stretch. It is not what one would expect a reasonable witness to report with emphasis if it were Oswald. 

That same Dealey Plaza Echo article notes that Helen Markham "told two patrolmen (J.E. Poe and L.E. Jez), almost certainly within 20 minutes of Tippit's slaying, that the gunman had "bushy hair".

Sergeant Gerald Hill said that as soon as he drove up to the scene a man approached him and described the gunman as having "brown bushy hair" (7H47-48). 

Ted Callaway gave an immediate physical description (before influence from any other factors) to "Patrolman H.W. Summers (the second policeman at the scene of the Tippit killing), who passed on the description to his dispatcher. Included was a reference to the gunman as having 'black, wavy hair'."

Do those repeated descriptions of "busy", and "wavy" (and the later Benavides' "curly") hair look like Oswald's hair above?

Compare the photo below of the head of hair of Jack Ruby's experienced-contract-killer employee living at the Carousel Club at the time, recently employed by Ruby as a "handyman" paid in cash, Curtis Craford, two years younger than Oswald, about 1.5 inches shorter and about 10-15 pounds heavier than Oswald, not lean or almost skinny looking like Oswald (compare witness Acquilla Clemons' description of the gunman as "short and kind of chunky"). 

This photo of Craford was taken in Michigan a few days after the Tippit killing and may even have been after a haircut though that is unknown. In this photo Craford wears a light zippered jacket similar to, and of exactly the same off-white light tan color as CE 162, the Tippit killer's abandoned jacket, though the two are not the same jackets. They just are exactly the same color and zippered lightweight by an odd coincidence (as if someone liked similar jackets of that particular color, or perhaps wanted to establish that CE 162 wasn't a jacket someone might have seen him wearing at the Carousel Club). This jacket of identical color is worn by a man matching the earliest witness descriptions of the Tippit killer, a man who for no explicable reason quit his handyman job with Ruby with no notice and fled Dallas hitchhiking for Michigan less than 24 hours after Tippit was killed, on the morning of Saturday Nov 23, 1963. Tippit dead, an experienced contract killer bolts from Dallas hours later, a few hours after that the experienced contract killer's boss, Jack Ruby, kills Oswald dead witnessed on national television. Okaaaay.

But notice the full head of hair below. Does it look like Callaway's "black, wavy" hair of the Tippit killer? Sort of does, doesn't it? Can you imagine Craford's hair below, if windblown as the Tippit killer's was according to witnesses, looking "bushy" as witnesses said spontaneously within minutes, before having seen and come under the influence of having seen Oswald on television and in lineups?  

And although it is a little hard to tell from this photo, does it look like Craford's full head of dark brown or near-black wavy hair could have a block rather than tapered hairline appearance in the back, in a way that Oswald's hair did not?

Maybe notice the skin complexion too. Benavides, Latino, said the Tippit killer, although a white male, nevertheless had a skin complexion a little darker-toned than average for a white man, about the same skin tone as himself, Benavides. Of course we don't know the color scale used in this photo of Craford, so it could be illusory. But doesn't he at least look in this photo like he could be a slight bit "darker" in skin tone than average for white males, perhaps compatible with Benavides' description of the Tippit killer?

 

 

 

Greg, my post to Michael Griffith corrected Griffith's mistaken claim that Benavides said the killer's hairline squared off ABOVE the collar.  Benavides never said such a thing and your quote of Benavides supports my statement to Griffith that he (Griffith) was wrong.

Nothing in your above post changes any of that.

Now, we can argue back and forth over whether or not the killer's collar line squared off or tapered off 'til the cows come home, but that wasn't even remotely close to the point of my post to Griffith.  My post was about Griffith's misquote of Benavides and I thought I was pretty clear on that.

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Michael Griffith]

11 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"Shall we mention that the one guy who was actually close to the shooting when it occurred, Domingo Benavides, said that the gunman had a squared-off (blocked) haircut that ended on the back of his neck above his "Eisenhower" jacket..."

 

Now you're just making stuff up.  Why do you guys continually do things like this?

Benavides said the killer had a squared off haircut, yes.  But he did NOT say the hair was cut "above" the collar of the jacket.  You muddy the waters with this stuff.

Since Benavides did not say that the hair was cut above the collar, it is indeed possible that the jacket's collar itself gave the appearance of a squared off haircut.  The killer could have had a pony tail tucked inside the collar of the jacket and still have the appearance of a squared off haircut.

Oh, sheesh. Can you guys ever just go where the evidence leads? So even though Benavides said the killer had a blocked haircut in the back of his head, since Benavides did not specify that "the hair was cut above the collar," maybe the killer's haircut was really tapered but just looked blocked because of the jacket's collar!

IOW, even though, according to your theory, Benavides supposedly could not see the hairline because of the collar, he merely guessed that the hair was squared off. Is it not much more likely and logical that Benavides could see the hairline and could see that the hair was blocked? Oh, but you can't go there because Oswald undeniably had a tapered haircut. 

Obviously, if you could not see a person's hairline because of his coat collar, you couldn't see whether he had a blocked or a tapered haircut. Naturally, therefore, you would not just guess about what kind of haircut he had. You'd say, "As for his hair style, I don't know because I couldn't see his hairline, so I don't know if his hair was blocked or tapered." This is just common sense. 

11 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

And how does any of that change the fact that she identified Oswald as the killer on the late afternoon of 11/22/63?

The answer to this silly question is self-evident. Do you really need someone to explain to you why the facts regarding her "identification" of Oswald raise serious questions about the validity of that "identification"? Let's review those facts:

The fact that she was at least 90 feet away. The fact that she described the killer as a bit heavy and with dark bushy hair. The fact that she admitted to the WC that she did not "identify" Oswald based on his face but on how he made her feel when she looked at him. The fact that the lineups were grossly rigged to make Oswald the only possible choice to "identify." The fact that she said she spoke with Tippit for several minutes after he was killed. 

Don't you think it's misleading and disingenuous to keep saying that Markham "identified Oswald as the killer" given these facts?

Edited September 14, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Oh, sheesh. Can you guys ever just go where the evidence leads? So even though Benavides said the killer had a blocked haircut in the back of his head, since Benavides did not specify that "the hair was cut above the collar," maybe the killer's haircut was really tapered but just looked blocked because of the jacket's collar!

IOW, even though, according to your theory, Benavides supposedly could not see the hairline because of the collar, he merely guessed that the hair was squared off. Is it not much more likely and logical that Benavides could see the hairline and could see that the hair was blocked? Oh, but you can't go there because Oswald undeniably had a tapered haircut. 

Obviously, if you could not see a person's hairline because of his coat collar, you couldn't see whether he had a blocked or a tapered haircut. Naturally, therefore, you would not just guess about what kind of haircut he had. You'd say, "As for his hair style, I don't know because I couldn't see his hairline, so I don't know if his hair was blocked or tapered." This is just common sense. 

Bill, Michael Griffith is clearly correct on this point. It is clearly the natural reading. The fact that Benavides spoke of the killer's hair "went down and squared off" means it "went down" to where it "squared off", which implies it did not go down below where he saw it "squared off", i.e. he saw skin under where he saw the hair "squared off". 

You can say Benavides remembered it wrong in his testimony six months later, or misunderstood what he saw, or whatever. But you can't say that skin under a "squared off" hairline in back is not what Benavides was claiming he saw, thought he saw. 

[Bill Brown]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill, Michael Griffith is clearly correct on this point. It is clearly the natural reading. The fact that Benavides spoke of the killer's hair "went down and squared off" means it "went down" to where it "squared off", which implies it did not go down below where he saw it "squared off", i.e. he saw skin under where he saw the hair "squared off". 

You can say Benavides remembered it wrong in his testimony six months later, or misunderstood what he saw, or whatever. But you can't say that skin under a "squared off" hairline in back is not what Benavides was claiming he saw, thought he saw. 

 

This is real simple.  Michael Griffith misquoted Benavides.

 

[Michael Kalin]

On 9/13/2023 at 1:10 AM, Bill Brown said:

I was fully aware of Jack Myers' source (since anyone who knows anything about the Tippit case is fully aware of the Tatum interview for the 1993 Frontline special).  Also, I discussed this specific point with Jack Myers long before I ever posted here on the Ed Forum.  Seriously, stop trolling.

 

By the way, Once I pointed it out to him, Jack Myers accepted that he was wrong and that Tatum is saying that he noticed the curling of Oswald's mouth as he passed within ten to fifteen feet of Oswald as Oswald and Tippit were talking through the window. 

 

The Jack Myers article appeared three weeks before your comment. This is not "long before" posting "here on the Ed Forum." Did you discuss the article with him before it was published?

If Jack Myers agreed with you, why didn't you say so?

Still waiting -- how long were you ignorant of the fallacy of Dale Myers' quote that Tatum said Tippit was shot "in the head?"

Edited September 15, 2023 by Michael Kalin

[Michael Griffith]

On 9/13/2023 at 2:56 PM, Bill Fite said:

She says 6 times during her testimony that she can't identify the murderer then miraculously when she is given the suggestion that it was 'Number 2' she makes the ID.    LOL

Yes, that is astounding. How someone can pretend that this doesn't change "the fact that she identified Oswald as the killer" is hard to comprehend. In any normal case, nobody would take her "identification" seriously.

Anyway, yes, it seems rather obvious that Markham knew or strongly suspected that Oswald was not the man she had seen shoot Tippit. After all, she was at least 90 feet away. I believe the description of the killer that she gave in interviews was her genuine recollection: that the guy was a bit heavy and had dark bushy hair.

17 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

This is real simple.  Michael Griffith misquoted Benavides.

It is very simple: It is hopeless trying to reason with you or to get you to deal credibly with evidence. 

If I say, as Benavides did of the killer's hair, that John Doe's hair "went down and squared off," that would logically mean that I could see his hairline; otherwise, how would I know if his hair "squared off" when it "went down"? How? How? X-ray vision? If I could not see his hairline because it was covered by a coat collar, I would have no idea how his hair looked when it "went down."

If Benavides could not see the guy's hairline, one would logically think he would have said so and would have qualified his description of the guy's hair accordingly. This is just logic and common sense. Ah, but you can't go there because Oswald's hair was indisputably tapered in the back.

[Bill Brown]

9 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

 

The Jack Myers article appeared three weeks before your comment. This is not "long before" posting "here on the Ed Forum." Did you discuss the article with him before it was published?

If Jack Myers agreed with you, why didn't you say so?

Still waiting -- how long were you ignorant of the fallacy of Dale Myers' quote that Tatum said Tippit was shot "in the head?"

 

You don't get it.  Do you think I'm lying?

Jack Myers sent me the article for feedback long before it was ever posted.

 

[Bill Brown]

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Yes, that is astounding. How someone can pretend that this doesn't change "the fact that she identified Oswald as the killer" is hard to comprehend. In any normal case, nobody would take her "identification" seriously.

Anyway, yes, it seems rather obvious that Markham knew or strongly suspected that Oswald was not the man she had seen shoot Tippit. After all, she was at least 90 feet away. I believe the description of the killer that she gave in interviews was her genuine recollection: that the guy was a bit heavy and had dark bushy hair.

It is very simple: It is hopeless trying to reason with you or to get you to deal credibly with evidence. 

If I say, as Benavides did of the killer's hair, that John Doe's hair "went down and squared off," that would logically mean that I could see his hairline; otherwise, how would I know if his hair "squared off" when it "went down"? How? How? X-ray vision? If I could not see his hairline because it was covered by a coat collar, I would have no idea how his hair looked when it "went down."

If Benavides could not see the guy's hairline, one would logically think he would have said so and would have qualified his description of the guy's hair accordingly. This is just logic and common sense. Ah, but you can't go there because Oswald's hair was indisputably tapered in the back.

 

Again, this is real simple.  You said that Benavides said the hair squared off ABOVE the collar.  But, Benavides never said that.  This matters.  The argument could be made that the straight-edge collar caused the collar line (the hair) to give the appearance of being squared off.  That argument could not be made if Benavides had actually used the word ABOVE.

Just stop misquoting witnesses.

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Michael Kalin]

On 9/15/2023 at 5:48 PM, Bill Brown said:

Jack Myers sent me the article for feedback long before it was ever posted.

Extraordinary -- if I'm getting the drift -- even after agreeing with you, Jack Myers failed to modify his article to reflect this agreement.

At this point I'm bowing out. I'll leave it to Jack Myers to explain why he ignored your advice after agreeing with you, if that is what actually happened.

So the dark cloud lifts, and the silver linings to our discussion remain:

1. The discovery that Tatum told another interviewer that "he watched as the gunman turned up the street and up an alley." Bill Brown, this should dispel your blind faith in Callaway.

2. Dale Myers belated correction to his misquote of Tatum relative to the shot "in the head."

Quote

The paraphrased quote attributed to Tatum in my book, "With Malice" [page 71 (1998 Edition) and page 123 (2013 Edition)] is inaccurate, having survived an early draft of the book in which John Moriarty's speculation about the Tippit head wound influenced my rendering of Tatum's comments about the same. The phrase " - in the head" should have been in brackets or outside the quotation, as it was a qualifier to what Tatum actually said. Same for the phrase: "After shooting the officer in the head..." In addition, I also wrote in my book: "The bullet fired into Officer Tippit's skull at point blank range..." [page 72 (1998 Edition) and page 123 (2013 Edition)] The phrase "point blank range" is also inaccurate as as there is no medical evidence that specifies the distance at which the head shot (or any of the shots that struck Tippit) were fired. The autopsy report shows that none of the bullet wounds were contact wounds (i.e., the muzzle of the firearm was in contact with the skin at the time the firearm was discharged), nor is there any evidence that the muzzle of the firearm had deposited gunpowder residue, which would have indicated that the muzzle was within approximately 4-5 feet at the time it was discharged. Thus, the evidence (or lack thereof in this case) demonstrates that the muzzle was in excess of 4-5 feet at the time Tippit were struck. All of the above citations are on my list of errata for "With Malice". By contrast, the information contained in the article above is correct.
November 6, 2020 at 10:41 AM
https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2018/11/jack-ray-tatum.html

Note DM's dishonest interview reporting technique of presenting paraphrased content as if literal quotation. His many interviews are worthless as reported.

[Jean Ceulemans]

On 8/22/2023 at 3:10 AM, James DiEugenio said:

I have never found any evidence that the FBI went to REA.

Have you Evan, or you Michael?

If this is true, why would they not go there?

Maybe I am wrong.

 

@James DiEugenio

It's confusing who did what first... There was the report dated 11/30/1963 by SA James Wood (= CE3088), next the SS/Protective Research was informed and they stated said Rose was to be contacted (again ?) by LA cfr. "undevelopped leads", but that was already done, not ? In the end Michaelis provides the REA doc, but there it pretty much stops when Michaelis provided the REA doc (I'm still looking so...). 

Now, ALL information and docs on the sale and shipping was handed to the FBI by Mr. Michaelis, Heinz W. (see WC Records, Key persons, file containing his questioning by BALL)

 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans
correction