How Oswald was Framed for the Murder of Tippit

[David Von Pein]

11 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Learn how to use the forum's built-in quote facility to cleanse away this ugliness...

Well, it would sure help if this forum's "quoting" system wasn't broken. Prior to just recently (within the last few weeks possibly?), we were allowed to break up a quoted post into multiple parts by hitting the "enter" key a couple of times at the exact point where you want to divide it.

But as of this date [Aug. 26, 2023], that task can't be accomplished. Does anybody know why that feature was eliminated? It makes using the Quote feature almost worthless now when responding to long posts.

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Tom Gram]

33 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Well, it would sure help if this forum's "quoting" system wasn't broken. Prior to just recently (within the last few weeks possibly?), we were allowed to break up a quoted post into multiple parts (by hitting the "enter" key a couple of times at the exact point where you want to divide it).

But as of this date [Aug. 26, 2023], that task can't be accomplished. Does anybody know why that feature was eliminated? It makes using the Quote feature almost worthless now when responding to long posts.

 

Can’t you just highlight the portion you want to quote and click “quote selection”? That’s what I do for long posts and it works just fine. Never heard of this enter thing, but I’m usually on mobile unless I need to post images or something. 

[David Von Pein]

11 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Can’t you just highlight the portion you want to quote and click “quote selection”? That’s what I do for long posts and it works just fine. 

I was just testing out the "highlight and quote" option that you were talking about, and it does work for multiple quotes within a single reply. I had only used that method when needing to quote a single passage. But I see now that it can be used when I want to show multiple quotes inside a single post that I'm writing.

The "hitting enter" method was a good way to quote on long posts too. But I guess that method is gone now.

Thanks, Tom.

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Evan Marshall]

Gee, how many other people did they arrest that day with a concealed handgun?

[Michael Griffith]

On 8/19/2023 at 4:24 PM, David Von Pein said:

The only way you can conclude that Oswald did not purchase (and take possession of) "that handgun" (i.e., S&W Revolver No. V510210) is to totally ignore all the evidence that tells us he did purchase it:

DVP's JFK Archives ---> Lee Harvey Oswald's Revolver

And the only way you can conclude that Oswald shot Tippit is to ignore all the evidence that someone else shot Tippit and to ignore the severe problems with the alleged evidence of Oswald's guilt. 

From my review of Myers' book With Malice:

          An experienced policeman and a former combat Marine both said an automatic pistol was used (not Oswald's revolver). Moreover, the policeman, Sgt. Gerald Hill, based his automatic-pistol identification on the shell casings. As any firearms expert can attest, it is very easy to distinguish between automatic shells and revolver shells. Additionally, in a 1986 interview, Hill said he knew the shells were .38-caliber shells because he picked one of them up and examined it. This is significant because .38 automatic shells are marked ".38 AUTO" on the bottom. Hill specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined. It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said, "the shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38."

          In reading Myers' book, one finds good documentation of the fact that two witnesses said the killer's hair was "bushy" (pp. 117, 118, 487, 636). The problem is that Oswald's hair certainly was not bushy, as any number of photos of him readily prove.

          Buried in one of Myers' endnotes is the fact that a key witness to the Tippit shooting, William Smith, initially said the killer was not Oswald (p. 615 n 390). An anonymous person informed the FBI that Smith had been at the Tippit scene, that he'd seen the killer, and that Smith had said the man was "not Oswald." Like some other witnesses, when Smith was questioned by the FBI, he changed his tune and gave a story more in keeping with the lone-gunman scenario.

          Smith told the FBI he initially did not think the gunman was Oswald because when he first saw Oswald on TV after the assassination it looked like Oswald had light-colored hair. This strikes me as a dubious explanation for Smith's change of story. I've watched much of the post-assassination TV footage of Oswald, and I would invite anyone to find a clip from that footage in which Oswald seems to have light-colored hair.

          Of course, Smith might not have said this--we have only the word of the FBI agent who interviewed him that he in fact gave this explanation. Numerous witnesses complained that the FBI agents who interviewed them misrepresented what they said or only mentioned selected parts of their accounts. This is not to say that all FBI agents did this, but we know that some did. 

          Furthermore, what about the killer's facial features, and his height, weight, and so forth? Given the fact that Smith got a good look at the killer, one would think he should have been able to base his initial opinion on more than just the appearance of hair on a
black-and-white TV screen.

          Myers admits the slugs from Tippit's body do not match the missile shells in evidence. To explain this, Myers posits a fifth shot (pp. 269-271). Yet, there is no physical evidence of such a shot, and only four shells were found on the day of the shooting.

          Myers seeks to explain the fact that not one of the shells in evidence has Sergeant W. E. Barnes' or Patrolman J. M. Poe's initials on it, even though both men said they marked two of the shells (pp. 260-265). Myers quotes two former DPD officers as saying marking evidence was not viewed as vital at the time (which I seriously doubt). However, Sergeant Gerald Hill testified he told Poe to be "sure" to mark two of the shells. If the Dallas police did not think marking evidence was important at the time, why did Sgt. Hill tell Poe to be "sure" to mark the two shells he had received from an eyewitness?

          Myers quotes a former DPD detective as saying, decades after the fact, that Poe told him he really did not mark the shells. However, Poe adamantly maintained in his Secret Service and FBI statements, and in his interview with Henry Hurt, that he marked the shells. He said he was certain he had marked the shells. Even in his WC testimony he indicated he believed he had marked them.

          Of course, the absence of Poe's initials on the extant shells suggests those shells are not the same shells that were found at the crime scene on the day of the shooting. But Myers can have none of this. So, he must argue that Poe somehow, for some reason, "failed" to mark any of the shells, even though Sgt. Hill had told him to be "sure" to mark two of the shells, and even though Poe initially said he was certain he had marked them.

          Speaking of Sgt. Hill, it is worth repeating that Hill, an experienced policeman, initially said an automatic pistol was used in the shooting (as opposed to Oswald's revolver). Hill based his identification on the shell casings. As noted earlier, any firearms expert can attest that it is very easy to distinguish between automatic shells and revolver shells. In a 1986 interview, Hill said he knew the shells were .38-caliber shells because he picked one of them up and examined it. This is significant because .38 automatic shells are marked ".38 AUTO" on the bottom. Hill specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined. It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said "the shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38." (LINK)

Edited August 30, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Benjamin Cole]

11 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

And the only way you can conclude that Oswald shot Tippit is to ignore all the evidence that someone else shot Tippit and to ignore the severe problems with the alleged evidence of Oswald's guilt. 

From my review of Myers' book With Malice:

          An experienced policeman and a former combat Marine both said an automatic pistol was used (not Oswald's revolver). Moreover, the policeman, Sgt. Gerald Hill, based his automatic-pistol identification on the shell casings. As any firearms expert can attest, it is very easy to distinguish between automatic shells and revolver shells. Additionally, in a 1986 interview, Hill said he knew the shells were .38-caliber shells because he picked one of them up and examined it. This is significant because .38 automatic shells are marked ".38 AUTO" on the bottom. Hill specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined. It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said, "the shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38."

          In reading Myers' book, one finds good documentation of the fact that two witnesses said the killer's hair was "bushy" (pp. 117, 118, 487, 636). The problem is that Oswald's hair certainly was not bushy, as any number of photos of him readily prove.

          Buried in one of Myers' endnotes is the fact that a key witness to the Tippit shooting, William Smith, initially said the killer was not Oswald (p. 615 n 390). An anonymous person informed the FBI that Smith had been at the Tippit scene, that he'd seen the killer, and that Smith had said the man was "not Oswald." Like some other witnesses, when Smith was questioned by the FBI, he changed his tune and gave a story more in keeping with the lone-gunman scenario.

          Smith told the FBI he initially did not think the gunman was Oswald because when he first saw Oswald on TV after the assassination it looked like Oswald had light-colored hair. This strikes me as a dubious explanation for Smith's change of story. I've watched much of the post-assassination TV footage of Oswald, and I would invite anyone to find a clip from that footage in which Oswald seems to have light-colored hair.

          Of course, Smith might not have said this--we have only the word of the FBI agent who interviewed him that he in fact gave this explanation. Numerous witnesses complained that the FBI agents who interviewed them misrepresented what they said or only mentioned selected parts of their accounts. This is not to say that all FBI agents did this, but we know that some did. 

          Furthermore, what about the killer's facial features, and his height, weight, and so forth? Given the fact that Smith got a good look at the killer, one would think he should have been able to base his initial opinion on more than just the appearance of hair on a
black-and-white TV screen.

          Myers admits the slugs from Tippit's body do not match the missile shells in evidence. To explain this, Myers posits a fifth shot (pp. 269-271). Yet, there is no physical evidence of such a shot, and only four shells were found on the day of the shooting.

          Myers seeks to explain the fact that not one of the shells in evidence has Sergeant W. E. Barnes' or Patrolman J. M. Poe's initials on it, even though both men said they marked two of the shells (pp. 260-265). Myers quotes two former DPD officers as saying marking evidence was not viewed as vital at the time (which I seriously doubt). However, Sergeant Gerald Hill testified he told Poe to be "sure" to mark two of the shells. If the Dallas police did not think marking evidence was important at the time, why did Sgt. Hill tell Poe to be "sure" to mark the two shells he had received from an eyewitness?

          Myers quotes a former DPD detective as saying, decades after the fact, that Poe told him he really did not mark the shells. However, Poe adamantly maintained in his Secret Service and FBI statements, and in his interview with Henry Hurt, that he marked the shells. He said he was certain he had marked the shells. Even in his WC testimony he indicated he believed he had marked them.

          Of course, the absence of Poe's initials on the extant shells suggests those shells are not the same shells that were found at the crime scene on the day of the shooting. But Myers can have none of this. So, he must argue that Poe somehow, for some reason, "failed" to mark any of the shells, even though Sgt. Hill had told him to be "sure" to mark two of the shells, and even though Poe initially said he was certain he had marked them.

          Speaking of Sgt. Hill, it is worth repeating that Hill, an experienced policeman, initially said an automatic pistol was used in the shooting (as opposed to Oswald's revolver). Hill based his identification on the shell casings. As noted earlier, any firearms expert can attest that it is very easy to distinguish between automatic shells and revolver shells. In a 1986 interview, Hill said he knew the shells were .38-caliber shells because he picked one of them up and examined it. This is significant because .38 automatic shells are marked ".38 AUTO" on the bottom. Hill specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined. It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said "the shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38." (LINK)

For me, the Sgt. Hill situation is the most troubling.

How could Sgt. Hill, at the scene of a murder of a brother officer, get on the mike and sa Tippit shot by an automatic, after Hill looked at the shells?

This reminds me of the "steel-jacketed" slug found at the Walker home, according to written reports of the four DPD officers that were there on April 10, but which now a copper-jacketed bullet, according to the WC. 

I understand witness statements are unreliable. 

But something else might be going on here.....

 

[Bill Brown]

On 8/19/2023 at 12:07 PM, James DiEugenio said:

 

Jack Myers follows up on his original article on the Tippit case.  Please note the alleged transaction at REA about the handgun.  That would have never flown at a trial.  He also goes after Calloway.

 

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/how-oswald-was-framed-for-the-murder-of-tippit

 

A lot of errors and mistakes in this "article", not to mention the act of stealing graphics and images from others without credit given.  For example, Jack Myers uses a graphic from Dale Myers without ever giving Dale Myers credit or asking Dale for permission.  Now, Dale will survive; he will not lose any sleep.  But, Jack is wrong to do so, nevertheless.

In the article, Jack Myers states that Jack Tatum said the killer came within ten to fifteen feet of him AFTER shooting Tippit.  Jack Myers uses this in an attempt to discredit Tatum, saying that "a quick check of the murder scene and known escape path of the gunman shows clearly that the gunman never came closer than 100 feet to Jack Tatum.".  Jack Myers is saying that the killer did not come close enough to Tatum for Tatum to notice they way the killer's "mouth curled up".

Jack Myers' mistake is that when Tatum says he was "within ten to fifteen feet" of the killer, Tatum is referring to the moment he (Tatum) drove past the stopped patrol car at the time Tippit and his killer were having their brief conversation.  This is when Tatum noticed the way the killer's "mouth curled up"; not as Tatum saw the killer running from the scene moments later after the shooting.

This is J.D. Tippit 101.

 

[Michael Kalin]

On 9/1/2023 at 1:14 PM, Bill Brown said:

Jack Myers' mistake is that when Tatum says he was "within ten to fifteen feet" of the killer, Tatum is referring to the moment he (Tatum) drove past the stopped patrol car at the time Tippit and his killer were having their brief conversation.  This is when Tatum noticed the way the killer's "mouth curled up"; not as Tatum saw the killer running from the scene moments later after the shooting.

This is J.D. Tippit 101.

The problem with "J.D. Tippit 101" is that the syllabus consists entirely of WR content plus HSCA add-ons supplied mainly by master sleuth Moriarty. His invention, Jack Tatum as driver of the red Ford observed by Benavides, was devised to overlay the contradictions between WR content and WC testimony. No surprise there's nothing on record to indicate what steps Moriarty took to verify Tatum's statements. Most obviously, he should have arranged a meeting with Benavides, the only witness who might have actually seen Tatum at the murder scene.

The author of the Esquire article on Vaganov (John Berendt) did exactly that, i.e. arrange a meeting between Benavides & Vaganov. Result was a lack of recognition but it was established that the car observed by Benavides had a "white top." This knocked Tatum's red Galaxie out of contention. Moriarty should have been aware of this. Berendt's article predated his involvement by ten years.

No point in discussing Tatum's observation of the "mouth curled up." He didn't see anything because he wasn't there.

J.D. Tippit 102 filters out the uncorroborated witness statements assumed to be valid that plague this case. Very few have taken this course.

 

[Bill Brown]

3 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

The problem with "J.D. Tippit 101" is that the syllabus consists entirely of WR content plus HSCA add-ons supplied mainly by master sleuth Moriarty. His invention, Jack Tatum as driver of the red Ford observed by Benavides, was devised to overlay the contradictions between WR content and WC testimony. No surprise there's nothing on record to indicate what steps Moriarty took to verify Tatum's statements. Most obviously, he should have arranged a meeting with Benavides, the only witness who might have actually seen Tatum at the murder scene.

The author of the Esquire article on Vaganov (John Berendt) did exactly that, i.e. arrange a meeting between Benavides & Vaganov. Result was a lack of recognition but it was established that the car observed by Benavides had a "white top." This knocked Tatum's red Galaxie out of contention. Moriarty should have been aware of this. Berendt's article predated his involvement by ten years.

No point in discussing Tatum's observation of the "mouth curled up." He didn't see anything because he wasn't there.

J.D. Tippit 102 filters out the uncorroborated witness statements assumed to be valid that plague this case. Very few have taken this course.

 

 

Whether or not Jack Tatum was really there is another topic entirely.

As for my comments above, you didn't change anything.  Jack Myers misrepresented what Tatum said.

 

[Michael Kalin]

16 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Whether or not Jack Tatum was really there is another topic entirely.

As for my comments above, you didn't change anything.  Jack Myers misrepresented what Tatum said.

Tatum's 5/13/86 interview confirms what you say. Problem is Jack Myers' source is the 2003 PBS Frontline television show. I can't find a link. Can you provide one?

Aside: check the curriculum for the inclusion of this from Tatum's 3/18/86 interview:

"He saw the last shot only, and then watched as the gunman turned up the street and up an alley."

Think about it the next time you're tempted to pontificate on the subject of the assassin's flight path.

[Evan Marshall]

Again, we should simply ask ourselves how many folks did the DPD arrest on 11/22/63 with concealed weapons?

 

Talked to a detective who was there in 63 and he said that Dallas homicide seemed to "Solve" murders done by people of color but weren't near as successful with white ones. Additionally, he said it never made any sense to him why Oswald would acquire weapons that could be traced back to him when Texas was full of nontraceable guns!

Edited September 5, 2023 by Evan Marshall

[John Deignan]

On 9/1/2023 at 10:14 AM, Bill Brown said:

 

A lot of errors and mistakes in this "article", not to mention the act of stealing graphics and images from others without credit given.  For example, Jack Myers uses a graphic from Dale Myers without ever giving Dale Myers credit or asking Dale for permission.  Now, Dale will survive; he will not lose any sleep.  But, Jack is wrong to do so, nevertheless.

In the article, Jack Myers states that Jack Tatum said the killer came within ten to fifteen feet of him AFTER shooting Tippit.  Jack Myers uses this in an attempt to discredit Tatum, saying that "a quick check of the murder scene and known escape path of the gunman shows clearly that the gunman never came closer than 100 feet to Jack Tatum.".  Jack Myers is saying that the killer did not come close enough to Tatum for Tatum to notice they way the killer's "mouth curled up".

Jack Myers' mistake is that when Tatum says he was "within ten to fifteen feet" of the killer, Tatum is referring to the moment he (Tatum) drove past the stopped patrol car at the time Tippit and his killer were having their brief conversation.  This is when Tatum noticed the way the killer's "mouth curled up"; not as Tatum saw the killer running from the scene moments later after the shooting.

This is J.D. Tippit 101.

 

It sure sounds like he is talking about noticing Oswald"s mouth while he is looking at him in the rear view mirror  

[Michael Kalin]

5 hours ago, John Deignan said:

It sure sounds like he is talking about noticing Oswald"s mouth while he is looking at him in the rear view mirror

Just so. Thanks, John.

@Bill Brown Tatum could not have seen the killer's mouth through the rear view mirror "the moment he (Tatum) drove past the stopped patrol car at the time Tippit and his killer were having their brief conversation."

Learn the faux evidence.

[Bill Brown]

 

You guys need to use your heads.

 

"I realized that there was one thing that made him stand out; and that was his mouth that curled up.  I couldn't mistake that.  Kind of a smile.  And I was within ten to fifteen feet of that individual." -- Jack Tatum

 

[Sean Coleman]

Yeah guys, use your heads!! All witnesses are reliable omg am I surrounded by fools…

 

 

Edited November 15, 2023 by Sean Coleman