1:22pm DPD radio message translates as The Jacket Was Planted, Folks--and that ain't all

[Donald Willis]

1:22pm DPD radio message translates as The Jacket Was Planted, Folks--and that ain't all

First faint clue:  DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee transcribes the first line of the transmission thusly:  "Have a description of the suspect on Jefferson."  Actually, the transmission runs, "We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson."  The omitted "over here" makes it sound like the sender, Officer Roy Walker, is actually on Jefferson. Is there a problem with that?  Oh, yes.
 
Second faint clue:  But, first, continuing the text of the 1:22 transmission:  "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson.  He's a white male, about 30, 5'8", black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt, and dark slacks". (DPD radio logs)  Dale Myers tinkers with the description:  "Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson." ("With Malice" p114)  Note that he adds "block of", making it sound as if Walker is simply indicating a block.  But Walker specified an address, 300, at Jefferson & Beckley, a full block west of the site where the jacket was found, at Jefferson & Crawford.  And if it be thought that dictabelt skips account for the missing words, see below for follow-ups on Myers and Walker.  And note that the dispatcher, at 1:26, has the suspect "going west on Jefferson from the 300 block". (CE 705 p22)

Third faint clue:  At 1:19:05, the dispatcher tells Walker to check out 501 E. 10th at Denver (WMp105).  Then, at 1:19:59, he tells Walker "The suspect's running west on Jefferson from the location" (DPD radio logs/WMp109).  When, at 1:21:37, Walker radios "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet" (DPD radio logs), the dispatcher again directs him to "501 E. 10th at Denver" (CE 705p20/WM p113).  Finally, at 1:22:36, Walker radios his "over here" description.  From his 1:21:37 transmission, we know that Walker was, at the time, on Jefferson.  But we don't know, from his radio transmissions, whether he was ever at 10th & Patton.  He doesn't correct or follow-up the dispatcher's "10th at Denver", after either of the latter's advisories.

Fourth (getting somewhere) clue:  And yet Myers insists that Walker met and talked to Warren Reynolds at the murder scene:  "Reynolds returned to 10th & Patton at about [1:20], despite Reynolds' testimony to the contrary" (p112).  True, in 1983, Walker told Myers that he did meet Reynolds, about 1:22.  However, he adds, "One of the used car lot operators saw the incident... Warren Reynolds" (p114).  The latter never said that he saw the shooting--Walker's memory fails him here.

And Reynolds would hardly have been the one to tell Walker, "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson".  Ruinously for him, Walker told Myers that it was "Reynolds [who] gave me the description of the gunman" (p114).  Walker was apparently unaware that TV film footage has turned up showing Reynolds telling police at the scene that he last saw a suspicious man going into the back of an old house near the Texaco station (WM p131).  Reynolds, then, could not have been Walker's "300 E. Jefferson" witness, a full block west of the house.  (Reynolds' suspicious man may not have been the gunman at all, but a vigilante trailing the gunman.)  Myers, then, with one hand, was simply extending Walker's witness-identity deception, despite his own text and frame grabs which, with the other hand, expose said deception!  Myers giveth and Myers taketh away.

Fifth (gathering steam) clue:  Myers then buttresses the invented Walker/Reynolds confab with yet another out-of-thin-air incident, based on the word of... no one at all:  "Warren Reynolds, who had come with [Sgt. Bud Owens & Assistant DA Bill Alexander] from 10th & Patton, pointed to an old house near the Texaco station..." (p120)  Alexander did not testify to the Warren Commission, and Owens, in his Commission testimony, did not mention bringing along a witness to the Texaco area.  None of the principals, then--Reynolds, Walker, Alexander, Owens--can support Myers' vignettes re Reynolds "returning" to and leaving the scene of the crime circa 1:20 and 1:22.  Thin air.

Sixth (Eureka!) clue:  Relocation, relocation, relocation.  Why would Walker and Myers go to so much trouble to falsely identify and relocate a witness?  Well, what other witness or witnesses were "over here on Jefferson"?  Yes--Robert and Mary Brock, in effect the gatekeepers of the parking-lot suspect.  In fact, the Brocks were the only witnesses who stated that they "last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind" the service station. (WM p551)  In fact, they may have been the last witnesses to have reported seeing the suspect, but not in the parking lot, and certainly not doffing his jacket.  Because at 1:22, he was reported at "about 300 E. Jefferson", a block further west, still wearing his "white jacket".  Certainly worth Walker's false identification of his witness, and Myers' subsequent, false relocation of him elsewhere.  Two wrongs and no right.
  
And the first transmissions re the Texaco location were "Suspect just passed 401 E. Jefferson" and "Subject just passed 401 E. Jefferson" (CE 705pp20-21)

Seventh clue:  At 1:26, Sgt. Gerald Hill reported from 12th & Beckley "Have a man in the car with me that can identify the suspect if anybody gets... one." (CE 1974 p63)  About 1:23, at the Tippit scene, according to Hill's testimony, "Another person came up [and] told us the man had run over into the funeral home parking lot", which was opposite the Texaco station (v7p48).  Sgt. Bud Owens similarly testified that, at the "scene of the shooting... we were informed by a man whom I do not know that the suspect that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson" (v7p79).  Someone, then, from the Texaco-station area--Hill and Owens both garbled the where of it--had run down to where the police were congregating.  And Hill, clearly, immediately, took this man near to where the man had last seen the suspect, Beckley & Jefferson, or 300 E. Jefferson, which is two half-blocks north of 12th & Beckley.  In fact, "300" would be on the south side of Jefferson.  If Walker and his witness were being very very precise, that would mean that the suspect had crossed Jefferson, heading right towards... 12th & Beckley.

Eighth clue:  But there must have been a big problem--retrospectively--with this witness.  In fact, Hill's testimony constitutes an implicit, hapless denial that he even had a witness or that he had even radioed from 12th & Beckley, even though it's on the record.  On the record, Gerald!  Both the FBI transcription (see above) and Myers (p124) acknowledge that Hill sent the 1:26 message.  Hill testified, falsely, that, about 1:25, he left the Tippit scene and "whipped around the block.  I went down to the first intersection east of the block where all this incident occurred and made a right turn and traveled one block and came back up on Jefferson", where he met Owens at the Texaco/old-house site (v7p48).  The poor Warren Commission did not have time to check out every DPD tale. 

Who was Hill's radioactive witness, whom, figuratively, he dare not touch, or acknowledge, let alone name?  Myers apparently knew, hence his totally unsupported relocation of that witness (as well as Officer Walker) from Crawford & Jefferson to 10th & Patton.  This is known as throwing the hounds off the scent.  But by fallaciously drawing a witness away from the Crawford area, Myers ironically draws attention to that area.  Reynolds was looking east from Crawford area.  But Hill's witness was looking west, towards Beckley.  Now who could have gotten a pretty good look at the fleeing suspect, good enough to have estimated height, weight, race, and age, and described the man's clothing?  Who could have seen him that closely--seen him as, say, he passed the Texaco station?  Robert and/or Mary Brock, of course.  Walker doesn't indicate the sex or number of his witnesses ("We have a description"), so it could have been either Mr. or Mrs. Brock, or both. 

And, just as the WFAA-TV footage of Reynolds exposes the Walker lie, so it exposes the Brocks' lies.  As noted above, Mrs. Brock stated that she informed Reynolds that "she last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station".  Clearly, she did not so inform him, not without some strong input from Reynolds, who had his own story to tell and was telling it to the cops, that day, and would have told it to her.  But she failed to give herself and her husband a lifeline out of the Reynolds morass.  A frame-grab is worth a thousand words.  Moral:  Whatever you do, don't hitch your wagon to Warren Reynolds.
    
Despite their apparent proximity to the suspect, neither Brock was invited either to attend a lineup or to testify for the Commission.  It might have been too easy, then, for people to connect the dots: "over here on Jefferson", "300 E. Jefferson", the Brocks.  As the witnesses both closest to 300 E. Jefferson and to the parking lot, the Brocks had to be downplayed, had to be weaned off Jefferson & Beckley and weaned onto the parking lot.  (Sgt. Hill didn't just downplay them--he vaporized them, or one of them.)  More publicity would have meant more scrutiny, prickly questions.  (On that same day--Jan. 21, 1964--Reynolds himself was slipping further into the morass:  For his part, he misleadingly told the FBI then that he "last observed the individual to turn north" by the service station:  "[The Brocks] informed him the individual had gone through the parking lot." [FBI interview report/WMp544]  Naively, he apparently thought that the WFAA footage had been deep-sixed.)

In sum:  The jacket was planted, the Texaco jacket witnesses were manufactured, Oswald was, beyond doubt, being framed for Tippit's murder, and Dale Myers was last seen imploding.

dcw

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, Donald Willis said:

In sum:  The jacket was planted, the Texaco jacket witnesses were manufactured, Oswald was, beyond doubt, being framed for Tippit's murder, and Dale Myers was last seen imploding.

Very interesting stuff, Mr. Willis-------------------thank you.

Some three years ago, Mr. Myers revealed a fascinating lead he had followed up after being contacted in Nov 2013 by the family of Mrs. Doretha Dean of Dean's Dairy Way, located very close to the furniture store.

Here, according to Mr. Myers, is what the late Mrs. Dean's family members told him:

A few minutes later [i.e. after hearing gunfire, A.F.], Mrs. Dean heard a loud banging on the door of the two-story house next door at 413 E. Jefferson Boulevard. She described it as someone “shaking and banging on the door as if they were ripping off the hinges of the screen door trying to get in.” She stated that the efforts she heard were “hard, fierce, and determined.” That caught her interest.
Immediately after hearing those sounds, she heard someone “running down the rickety stairs that led down from the second floor” of the second-hand store.
This caused her to look up and out the front window in an easterly direction toward the second-hand store. Just as she did, a young man rounded the corner walking briskly in a westerly direction. As he broke into a run, he was tugging at his jacket, as if to take it off.

Mrs. Dean later identified this man (to family members) as Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald.

But what was the man doing at the furniture store, into which Mr. Reynolds had seen White Jacket Man run?

Well, Mr. Myers reads all this as evidence that Mr. Oswald------------'The Shooter of Officer Tippit'-------------was trying to hide. He tried the old furniture store, couldn't get in, and then moved on------finally ending up in the Texas Theatre.

But is he right? I don't mean, 'Was the man Mr. Oswald?' It wasn't: Mr. Oswald was, at this time, already in the Texas Theatre looking for his contact. No, I mean, 'Was the man Mrs. Dean heard banging on the door doing what Mr. Myers thinks he was doing?'

Let's read the description of what Mrs. Dean told family members she heard again. You will I think see that it is actually at least equally suggestive of a man looking frantically for someone. First: the racket at the screen door. Second, and immediately after this, the noise of someone running DOWN stairs from the SECOND floor. Was the person who came down the stairs definitely the man who had just now been shaking and banging on the door? Or might he have been a second man who, hearing this banging coming from the first floor, slipped out a door on the second floor and made off?

Mr. Myers, of course, needs this to be ONE man (a fleeing man by the name of Oswald) trying desperately and failing desperately to break into the furniture store---------and then just giving up on this and walking away to find a more penetrable hiding place. But how likely is that really? Would the old furniture store really have been so killer-defyingly difficult to break into, even if it meant kicking a door in or breaking a window? Not exactly "hard, fierce, and determined", is it? Doesn't wash IMO.

   

Could this have been in fact a chase, a pursuit? White Jacket Man (the guy who went all the way down Patton and then turned on to Jefferson) in pursuit of Tan Jacket Man (the shooter of Officer Tippit, who just before this had turned off Patton into the alley)---------------White Jacket Man having gone all the way down Patton because he erroneously assumed the shooter had done so just before this.

And another thing Mrs. Dean told family members may contain a further crucial piece of information to help us piece together what really happened................

Edited November 3, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

17 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

And another thing Mrs. Dean told family members may contain a further crucial piece of information to help us piece together what really happened................

Mr. Myers was told that Mrs. Dean "stepped out of the store and peeped around the corner" after the man she had just seen. The man "had flung the jacket onto a tire rack of the Texaco station next door". Mrs. Dean "picked it up and came back into the store. Later when the police arrived, my mother turned the jacket over to them telling them she had found it on the tire rack".

Now Mr. Myers, who gives full credence to the earlier part of Mrs. Dean's story, is having none of this: Mrs. Dean simply couldn't have found the jacket, as We All Know the jacket was found by police under a car in the parking lot.

What's curiously missing from Mr. Myers' account is any mention of what color the jacket Mrs. Dean said she found was.

I believe that Tan Jacket Man may have discarded his jacket at the tire rack. If so, then it was his jacket that was found and brought into the Dean's Dairy Way store by Mrs. Dean. He had quietly slipped out of the furniture store just as White Jacket Man was entering it, and---------knowing he'd been pursued to this area----------needed to lose the jacket asap: he needed to make himself less spottable at a distance to whoever this guy was who was pursuing him

Recall this detail from the earlier part of Mrs. Dean's account, as quoted by Mr. Myers: "As he broke into a run, he was tugging at his jacket, as if to take it off." It would make sense that he did in fact take it off just moments after this, and discarded it on the spot.

I submit that Mr. Myers' dual policy of endorsing Mrs. Dean as a terrifically credible and important witness on one phase of her story, whilst dismissing her in effect as a deceptive fantasist on the other, is incoherent--------------and that a WHOLE different analysis of her WHOLE story is available to us.

Edited November 3, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

21 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

White Jacket Man (the guy who went all the way down Patton and then turned on to Jefferson) in pursuit of Tan Jacket Man (the shooter of Officer Tippit, who just before this had turned off Patton into the alley)---------------White Jacket Man having gone all the way down Patton because he erroneously assumed the shooter had done so just before this.

It's not just Tan Jacket Man vs. White (or Gray) Jacket Man.
It's Tan Jacket Man Who Went Down Alley Off Patton + White (Gray) Jacket Man Who Went All the Way Down Patton To Jefferson.

Mr. Callaway, in his WC testimony, gives us a weird composite of both men--------both as to route down Patton and jacket color.

Unfortunately for Mr. Callaway, Mr. Guinyard contradicts him on both counts. AND Officer Howell Summers, after talking with Mr. Callaway, puts out the following jacket description: "a light gray Eisenhower-type jacket". No mention of 'tannish'.

I suspect Tan Jacket Man (the man who turned off into the alley) had put his gun in his jacket pocket by the time Mr. Callaway noticed him. This led Mr. Callaway afterwards to believe that he was an innocent party running to safety away from Tenth, and that the shooter must have been the second guy--------------the guy in the light gray jacket brandishing a gun. And so that's the man he told the Officer Summers about, leading Officer Summers to put out his suspect description.

 

[Greg Doudna]

Excerpt from my paper "Lee Harvey Oswald's two jackets and why the Tippit killer's jacket was not one of them" (https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/T-Jackets-112.pdf)":

CE 162 as the Tippit killer’s jacket 

A starting point of what follows is that CE 162 was the jacket of the Tippit killer, as a fact of the case. There is little room for question that that identification is correct despite irregularities in the reporting of the find circumstances. That identification is based on these points: 

• The killer of Tippit abandoned a jacket he was wearing in flight (because he was seen by many witnesses wearing a jacket at the Tippit crime scene, then seen by Brewer not wearing a jacket).
•  The location where CE 162 was reported found—in a parking area behind Ballew’s Texaco service station on the corner of Jefferson and Crawford—is on the path the killer was seen running. 
• There is a report of a witness seeing the killer “tugging” at his jacket or looking like he was starting to take the jacket off just before the killer disappeared from that witness’s view onto the property where CE 162 was found.
• There is a report that another witness saw the killer take off his jacket at that location. 
• CE 162 is in exact agreement in color and description with the jacket worn by the killer of Tippit as described by witnesses at the Tippit crime scene (to be discussed below). 
• No one at Ballew’s Texaco claimed the jacket found at their location belonged to another person, such as an employee or customer. 
• An “M” size on the jacket’s label is in agreement with physical descriptions of the killer of Tippit from witnesses, as a young white male, neither tall nor extremely short, not noticeably heavy or thin. 

Police irregularities in the reporting of the find of CE 162 in the light of a surprising back story first reported in the year 2020 

Dale Myers wrote a blog post on Nov 12, 2020, reporting information from a previously-unreported witness, Doretha Dean, part of the husband-and-wife operators of Dean’s Dairy Way at 409 E. Jefferson Blvd., told by surviving family members, the daughters of Doretha (https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/search?q=Mrs.+Dean). Dean’s Dairy Way was located immediately adjoining Ballew’s Texaco. 

The killer of Tippit was seen by witnesses near the crime scene going west on Jefferson after having gone south on S. Patton. The killer was seen by Doretha Dean and other witnesses passing in front of Mrs. Dean’s store. Then the killer turned north, in between the buildings of Ballew’s Texaco and Dean’s Dairy Way close together, before emerging on the other side into an open parking area and alley out back. It was in that parking area behind Ballew’s Texaco that CE 162 was reported found by police, after it had been abandoned by the killer. 

However, Mrs. Dean’s daughters told Myers a different story of the find circumstances of CE 162, according to a story known to the family of Mrs. Dean. 

For Doretha Dean always told her daughters that she—Doretha Dean—had been the first finder of that jacket before the police knew of it. And Doretha Dean said that the jacket was not originally found by a police officer under a car in the parking lot out back, but by her on a tire rack on the east side of Ballew’s Texaco in the narrow corridor between Ballew’s Texaco and the west side of Dean’s Dairy Way. (That is, on the same property of Ballew’s Texaco, but at a different spot at that property.) 

According to Doretha Dean’s daughters’ account of their mother’s story, Doretha saw a man—the Tippit killer—walking west in front of Doretha’s store, tugging on his jacket as if starting to take it off. The man turned right (north), around the corner of her store headed to the parking area in the rear of the stores. Mrs. Dean, curious, walked outside to look around the corner to see where the man had gone, and there found the jacket on the tire rack. As one of the daughters told Myers: 

“My mother stepped out of the store and peeped around the corner. My sister says that he had flung the jacket onto a tire rack of the Texaco station next door. My mother picked it up and came back into the store. Later when the police arrived, my mother turned the jacket over to them telling them she had found it on the tire rack.” 

Despite Myers finding Mrs. Dean’s story as related by her daughters ortherwise credible, Myers rejects this part of Mrs. Dean’s story, of the jacket find, on the grounds that the long-reported traditional version of the find of CE 162 by police under a car in the parking area to the rear has too much support (Myers judges) not to be correct. Myers seems to assume that the two stories are incompatible, such that if one story is true then the other is excluded. 

But it is possible both stories could be correct. First the jacket was found by Mrs. Dean. Then the jacket was given to police and reported found by police in the parking lot. 

The tire rack of Mrs. Dean’s story was in between two buildings’ walls, mostly hidden from view, an opportune place for the killer to have taken off and abandoned the jacket (CE 162) without being seen doing so, before emerging to view again in the open area behind the buildings now of a different physical description, minus the jacket. A still frame from a contemporary news footage posted by Myers shows the tire rack next to Ballew’s Texaco on the day of the Tippit murder, in agreement with that detail of Doretha Dean’s story. 

Longstanding anomalies understood in a new light 

It has long been noted how odd it always was that no officer was willing to remember or be named as the officer who actually first found CE 162. Captain William Westbrook was often credited as the jacket’s discoverer because he reported the discovery of the jacket on police radio and his name is on a paper document turning the jacket over to the crime lab. But Westbrook himself as well as other officers testified it was not Westbrook who first found it. Westbrook said another officer gave him the jacket at the scene but he, Westbrook, did not know who that officer was. 

Mr. WESTBROOK. Actually, I didn’t find it—it was pointed out to me by either some officer that—that was while we were going over the scene in the close area where the shooting was concerned, someone pointed out a jacket to me that was laying under a car and I got the jacket and told the officer to take the license number. 

Mr. BALL. When did this happen? You gave me a sort of a resume of what you had done, but you omitted this incident. 

(...) 

Mr. BALL. Behind the Texaco service station?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes; behind the Texaco service station, and some officer, I feel sure it was an officer, I still can’t be positive pointed this jacket out to me and it was laying slightly under the rear of one of the cars.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a car was it?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That, I couldn’t tell you. I told the officer to take the make and the license number.
Mr. BALL. Did you take the number yourself?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No.
Mr. BALL. What was the name of the officer?
Mr. WESTBROOK. I couldn’t tell you that, sir. 

(...) 

Mr. BALL. I offer this as Exhibit B of Captain Westbrook’s deposition. Now, you don’t know the name of the officer?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No; I probably knew his name, but we see so many things that were happening so fast. 

(...) 

Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that? Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BALL. And you turned it over to whom?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Now, it was to this officer—that got the name.
Mr. BALL. Does your report show the name of the officer?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No, sir; it doesn’t. When things like this happen—it was happening so fast you don’t remember those things. 

No other officer at the scene at the time would identify the officer who first found and then handed the jacket to Westbrook. Any specific officer asked if they were that officer would deny and say it was some other unnamed officer whose name could not be recalled. For example motorcycle officer Thomas Hutson was there and told the Warren Commission he saw the jacket picked up by “another officer” whom he claimed he could not identify. Hutson testified that Westbrook was there, “but I don’t know who had it in their hands. The only time I saw it was when the [other unnamed] officer had it.” 

To the present day it is not known which officer first found that jacket (CE 162) in the parking lot prior to Captain Westbrook. Not surprisingly the question has been asked over the years: why the mystery? 

Myers’ reporting of the Doretha Dean story in 2020 may suggest an explanation or solution to this puzzle. For if Mrs. Dean’s story is true, in which she was the original finder of the jacket in a different location, had picked it up, taken it with her into her store until police arrived, and then turned it over to police when she saw them arrive, this could present a problem from the police point of view: because chain of custody establishing provenance had been compromised and perhaps risked rendering that critically important item of physical evidence unusable in court, depending on the judge. 

An officer or officers therefore might have thanked Mrs. Dean, then taken the jacket and proceeded to “discover” it themselves in a location nearby—under one of the cars in the parking area, perhaps near where an officer who received it from Mrs. Dean in her store walked it back to the other officers—without any officer directly falsely claiming to be that jacket’s original finder (if one notices carefully). The testimonies of Westbrook and the other officers at the scene, in which no one could remember which officer had first spotted and picked it up, would be consistent with this reconstruction, in which Mrs. Dean found it before police officers and any officer who knew did not want to volunteer or disclose that, while stopping short of actual perjury. The reporting of the find of CE 162 would be understood in terms of police desire to have physical evidence able to be used by prosecutors in court. 

Possible support for Mrs. Dean’s story in the record 

One item in the contemporary record may support Mrs. Dean’s tire-rack location where the killer abandoned the jacket. In an FBI document of Aug 24, 1964 referring to a statement of witness B.M. Patterson of Reynolds Motor Company of Nov 23, 1963, it is said that Patterson—who along with his coworker Warren Reynolds followed the killer west on Jefferson from the other side (south side) of Jefferson and saw the killer run north between Ballew’s Texaco and Dean’s Dairy Way—“did identify Oswald and also saw him discard his zipper jacket” (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62230#relPageId=109).

From the accounts of Patterson and Reynolds, as they followed the killer on Jefferson they kept some distance behind (for safety). If Patterson did witness (according to the FBI report) the killer remove his jacket, it is sensible that it would have been from a vantage point from across the street on the south side of Jefferson. 

There is no vantage point from the south side of Jefferson by which a person could see another person remove a jacket at its reported find spot in the parking lot out back, due to no line of sight through the Ballew’s Texaco building. But from across the street on the south side of Jefferson, Patterson could be in a perfect line of sight to have seen the killer discard the jacket in the space between the buildings, at the tire rack told by Mrs. Dean. In other words the FBI understanding of Patterson’s story may support the Mrs. Dean story. In Mrs. Dean’s story, she saw the killer “tugging at his jacket” as he passed in front of her store and turned north. This would be when Patterson, watching from across the street on the other side of Jefferson, could see the killer discard the jacket as he went between Ballew’s Texaco and Dean’s Dairy Way where Mrs. Dean told her family she found the jacket. 

~~~ 

Another detail in Mrs. Dean’s story discussed by Myers concerns Mrs. Dean hearing an attempted forced entry into an abandoned building next door on the other, east side of Dean’s Dairy Way. Here is the daughters’ retelling as told in Myers’ blog post. Mrs. Dean is inside her store, Dean’s Dairy Way... 

“[Mrs. Dean] heard a loud banging on the door of the two-story house next door at 413 E. Jefferson Boulevard. She described it as someone ‘shaking and banging on the door as if they were ripping off the hinges of the screen door trying to get in.’ She said that the efforts she heard were ‘hard, fierce, and determined.’ 

“Immediately after hearing those sounds, she heard someone ‘running down the rickety stairs that led down from the second floor’ of the second-hand store. 

“This caused her to look up and out the front window in an easterly direction toward the second-hand store. Just as she did, a young man rounded the corner walking briskly in a westerly direction. As he broke into a run, he was tugging at his jacket, as if to take it off. In those days, the Dairy Way had an overhead door so it made the store fully open rather than windowed, and the cashier’s counter was close to the sidewalk. Mrs. Dean got a good look at the man who passed her at less than ten feet and positively identified him as Lee Harvey Oswald. She stepped outside the store and peered around the corner at the area in between the store and the Texaco service station next door. She saw Oswald continue behind the service station and into the parking lot.” 

Based on this account from Mrs. Dean, Myers believes the killer ran up the stairs of the vacant building next door to try to break into a locked abandoned building. When that failed, Myers reconstructs, the killer raced down the stairs again and continued west on the sidewalk in front of Mrs. Dean’s store. 

Although that is the sequence in the story as told by the daughters, that makes little sense as the movements of a fleeing killer. A simpler and surely correct explanation is that those sounds from next door of Mrs. Dean’s memory were not from the killer (even if Mrs. Dean or her daughters may have thought so), but rather were the sounds of police who did exactly what Mrs. Dean heard, stormed up those outside stairs to a second-story door to beat on the door, then raced back down again, shaking down that vacant building because police mistakenly believed the killer might have gone into that building. The retelling by Mrs. Dean’s daughters simply had two distinct things (which both happened) told out of order. Mrs. Dean saw the killer go by her store (that happened first). And Mrs. Dean heard the storming of the abandoned building next door—later told to Myers by the daughters, out of order, as if it had been the killer who made those noises that the officers did, noisily stormed up those stairs and banged and beat on the door. 

Reporter Hugh Aynesworth of the Dallas Morning News was there and described the police storming of that building, which was a vacant antique store next to Dean’s Dairy Way: 

“‘Some [officers] went upstairs,’ Aynesworth remembered. ‘And all these cops were peeking behind things and hollering, ‘Come out of there you son-of-a-bitch, we’ve got you now!’” (Myers, With Malice, 184) 

Reporter James Ewell of the Dallas Morning News was also there and echoes the same: 

“[I] saw [Dallas County assistant district attorney] Bill Alexander up on the second-floor balcony of the house next door [to Dean’s Dairy Way], with his gun drawn, in the middle of a house to house search.” 

This then is what Mrs. Dean heard at that house, without necessarily understanding what it was she was hearing. 

Therefore the killer did not try to hide by leaving the sidewalk of Jefferson to run up a flight of stairs of a random building to beat on a door noisily trying to break it in, then when finding the random door locked ran back down the stairs to the sidewalk to continue west again. It was police shaking down the house, not the killer, that Mrs. Dean heard as the cause of those noises. 

The back story to the CE 162 jacket find told by the daughters of Mrs. Dean adds context to some facts. The true circumstances of the find of that jacket were not volunteered by the Dallas Police, but technically not denied either. This does not affect that CE 162 was the Tippit killer’s jacket. 

[Alan Ford]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Therefore the killer did not try to hide by leaving the sidewalk of Jefferson to run up a flight of stairs of a random building to beat on a door noisily trying to break it in, then when finding the random door locked ran back down the stairs to the sidewalk to continue west again. It was police shaking down the house, not the killer, that Mrs. Dean heard as the cause of those noises. 

Interesting suggestion, Mr. Doudna, but tbh I think to go from "Later when the police arrived, my mother turned the jacket over to them telling them she had found it on the tire rack" to the above is a bit of a reach. If the noise of banging came from police storming the building, Mrs. Dean would surely have noticed their presence.

Your June paper on the jackets is a superbly interesting & informative document btw-----------the kind of serious, comprehensive long-form research we need more of! 👍 

Edited November 3, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Donald Willis]

14 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Very interesting stuff, Mr. Willis-------------------thank you.

Some three years ago, Mr. Myers revealed a fascinating lead he had followed up after being contacted in Nov 2013 by the family of Mrs. Doretha Dean of Dean's Dairy Way, located very close to the furniture store.

Here, according to Mr. Myers, is what the late Mrs. Dean's family members told him:

A few minutes later [i.e. after hearing gunfire, A.F.], Mrs. Dean heard a loud banging on the door of the two-story house next door at 413 E. Jefferson Boulevard. She described it as someone “shaking and banging on the door as if they were ripping off the hinges of the screen door trying to get in.” She stated that the efforts she heard were “hard, fierce, and determined.” That caught her interest.
Immediately after hearing those sounds, she heard someone “running down the rickety stairs that led down from the second floor” of the second-hand store.
This caused her to look up and out the front window in an easterly direction toward the second-hand store. Just as she did, a young man rounded the corner walking briskly in a westerly direction. As he broke into a run, he was tugging at his jacket, as if to take it off.

Mrs. Dean later identified this man (to family members) as Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald.

But what was the man doing at the furniture store, into which Mr. Reynolds had seen White Jacket Man run?

Well, Mr. Myers reads all this as evidence that Mr. Oswald------------'The Shooter of Officer Tippit'-------------was trying to hide. He tried the old furniture store, couldn't get in, and then moved on------finally ending up in the Texas Theatre.

But is he right? I don't mean, 'Was the man Mr. Oswald?' It wasn't: Mr. Oswald was, at this time, already in the Texas Theatre looking for his contact. No, I mean, 'Was the man Mrs. Dean heard banging on the door doing what Mr. Myers thinks he was doing?'

Let's read the description of what Mrs. Dean told family members she heard again. You will I think see that it is actually at least equally suggestive of a man looking frantically for someone. First: the racket at the screen door. Second, and immediately after this, the noise of someone running DOWN stairs from the SECOND floor. Was the person who came down the stairs definitely the man who had just now been shaking and banging on the door? Or might he have been a second man who, hearing this banging coming from the first floor, slipped out a door on the second floor and made off?

Mr. Myers, of course, needs this to be ONE man (a fleeing man by the name of Oswald) trying desperately and failing desperately to break into the furniture store---------and then just giving up on this and walking away to find a more penetrable hiding place. But how likely is that really? Would the old furniture store really have been so killer-defyingly difficult to break into, even if it meant kicking a door in or breaking a window? Not exactly "hard, fierce, and determined", is it? Doesn't wash IMO.

   

Could this have been in fact a chase, a pursuit? White Jacket Man (the guy who went all the way down Patton and then turned on to Jefferson) in pursuit of Tan Jacket Man (the shooter of Officer Tippit, who just before this had turned off Patton into the alley)---------------White Jacket Man having gone all the way down Patton because he erroneously assumed the shooter had done so just before this.

And another thing Mrs. Dean told family members may contain a further crucial piece of information to help us piece together what really happened................

I've always thought that the Reynolds/old-house story involved a pursuit, but somewhat reversed:  The killer (or his accomplice) went down Patton to Jefferson; the vigilante took the alley, cut through the store to get to Jefferson.  This would assume, I realize, that the tracker could get out the front as well as in the back of the house/store.  

[Alan Ford]

46 minutes ago, Donald Willis said:

I've always thought that the Reynolds/old-house story involved a pursuit, but somewhat reversed:  The killer (or his accomplice) went down Patton to Jefferson; the vigilante took the alley, cut through the store to get to Jefferson. 

Hmmm..... interesting thought.

MAN A: Went into alley off Patton.

Mr. Jimmy Burt:

Mr. Frank Cimino:

Patrolmen Poe & Jez:

MAN B: Seen by multiple witnesses going all the way down Patton & turning onto Jefferson

I suspect that

----------------Mr. Callaway saw both men & later merged them into one (protecting his heroic ego)

----------------Mr. Guinyard only saw the second man.

I believe MAN A was in a tan jacket; MAN B a white/gray one.

As for what really happened at the furniture store, it's a pity Mr. Myers hasn't released audio of his interview(s) with the family of Mrs. Dean. We are (as ever with him) rather at the mercy of his Warren Gullible-agenda presentation of what was said!

Edited November 3, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

CALLAWAY VS. GUINYARD

1. 
Mr. CALLAWAY: I could see this taxicab parked down on Patton. I saw the cabdriver beside his cab, and saw a man cutting from one side of the street to the other. That would be the east side of Patton and over to the west side of Patton. And he was running.

2. 
Mr. GUINYARD: [H]e come down Patton until he got to about 5 feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he turned across and went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. BALL. What side of the street did you see him coming down on?
Mr. GUINYARD. He was on the left side--when he come down--it would be the east side.

Two starkly different stories!

Here's CE537, with Mr. Callaway's markings showing the route down Patton he saw the gunman take:

And here, in added red, is Mr. Guinyard's recollection of the route down Patton he saw the gunman take:

Mr. Callaway: opposite side of the street to us-------WEST side
Mr. Guinyard: same side of the street to us-------EAST side

Mr: Callaway: the closest distance he was to us: ~56 feet.
Mr. Guinyard: closest distance: ~10 feet

Question! How do we reconcile these two recollections?

Answer! We can't. Something is wrong with one of these recollections.

And that something gives us a very important clue IMHO as to how the weird brown jacket/white jacket + alley/Patton-to-Jefferson dualities are to be resolved.

[Michael Kalin]

The item of particular interest is Hill's 1:26 radio message from "Twelfth and Beckley" (Kimbrough/Shearer #1065). Why was he there? It was the location of the sheriff's substation which to my way of thinking cannot be merely coincidental, and much of the constabulary had been deployed to the library. Whether or not Hill actually had an eyewitness on board, the purpose of his radio call may have been to alert the sheriff's dispatcher to his presence at the substation, who would presumably broadcast the message to deputies also deployed to the vicinity of library. No such message appears in Decker's transcript (CE705), but that is a defective document, sparse to the vanishing point, time out of order [375], and confirmation at 1:31PM of the location of Tippit's murder as 501 E. 10th St. [375-6].

There are ramifications/possibilities, but I realize this line of inquiry may be merely tangential (or irrelevant) to Don's argument, letting it slide for now.

Edited November 24, 2023 by Michael Kalin
corrected CE705

[Greg Doudna]

On 11/3/2023 at 2:39 PM, Alan Ford said:

CALLAWAY VS. GUINYARD

1. 
Mr. CALLAWAY: I could see this taxicab parked down on Patton. I saw the cabdriver beside his cab, and saw a man cutting from one side of the street to the other. That would be the east side of Patton and over to the west side of Patton. And he was running.

2. 
Mr. GUINYARD: [H]e come down Patton until he got to about 5 feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he turned across and went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. BALL. What side of the street did you see him coming down on?
Mr. GUINYARD. He was on the left side--when he come down--it would be the east side.

Two starkly different stories!

Here's CE537, with Mr. Callaway's markings showing the route down Patton he saw the gunman take:

And here, in added red, is Mr. Guinyard's recollection of the route down Patton he saw the gunman take:

Mr. Callaway: opposite side of the street to us-------WEST side
Mr. Guinyard: same side of the street to us-------EAST side

Mr: Callaway: the closest distance he was to us: ~56 feet.
Mr. Guinyard: closest distance: ~10 feet

Question! How do we reconcile these two recollections?

Answer! We can't. Something is wrong with one of these recollections.

And that something gives us a very important clue IMHO as to how the weird brown jacket/white jacket + alley/Patton-to-Jefferson dualities are to be resolved.

Reconciling witness testimonies as to when the gunman/killer of Tippit crossed from the east to the west side of Patton

Alan Ford, I think you are overstating when you and others say:

"Question! How do we reconcile these two recollections?

"Answer! We can't. Something is wrong with one of these recollections."

Both Callaway and Guinyard saw the same single man with a gun.

Both Callaway and Guinyard saw the same man with the same gun on both sides of Patton, first on the east side, then on the west side. 

The only apparent discrepancy--and this discrepancy only arises internal to Guinyard's testimony--is when the gunman crossed from east to west, on Patton.

Rather than reconstruct two men seen carrying guns as the solution to the apparent discrepancy internal to Guinyard's testimony, a simpler and correct resolution is those are Guinyard's variant witness testimonies of the same gunman, in this way: Callaway is accurate and needs little or no modification. Guinyard gave three apparently different recollections as to when the gunman crossed to the west side, which taken literally are in disagreement with one another, even though Guinyard is clearly telling of the same gunman in all three.

I list Guinyard's three versions below. You have focused on #3 to the exclusion of all else, which is in disagreement with Callaway and Guinyard's #1 and #2, as if that is evidence Guinyard's #3 refers to a different man than Callaway's. That is an incorrect conclusion from the data cited. The solution is Guinyard saw the same gunman as Callaway and simply described him in three variant ways, of which either Guinyard's #1 (in agreement with Callaway) or possibly a modified Guinyard's #2 (with a slight error in Callway's description) would be the actual truth. This is assuming Guinyard was transcribed accurately and not misunderstood at the level of transcription of what he said, which could be a possible alternative explanation for the apparent confusion in Guinyard's testimonies. 

Here are the three different places on Patton of crossover of the gunman from east to the west side, according to Guinyard.

#1: immediately after rounding the Davis sisters-in-laws' house on the southeast corner, to the southwest corner then.

Mr. BALL. And where was he with reference to the corner of Patton and 10th when you saw him? 
Mr. GUINYARD. Where was he? 
Mr. BALL Yes. 
Mr. GUINYARD. Just as he come around the corner on Patton, he cut through the yard and missed the corner on 10th and Patton and cut through the yard. 
Mr. BAIL. He cut through the yard of the house on the corner of 10th and Patton? 
Mr. GUINYARD. That's right. 
Mr. BALL. That would be the southeast corner, wouldn't it? 
Mr. GUINYARD. The west--southwest corner--the southeast corner is where he started across, but he come out on Patton on the southwest corner. 

#2: midway on Patton after the gunman passed the alley (where Guinyard was) and the car lot's driveway (where Callaway said he was when he shouted across the street to the gunman). Bolded italics in brackets below are comments from me.

Mr. BALL. Now, where was Oswald when he passed you going south toward Jefferson? 
Mr. GUINYARD. Well, he was between the alley and the driveway coming off Patton. 
Mr. BALL. And he was across the street from you, wasn't he? 
Mr. GUINYARD. No; he was on this side of the street. 
Mr. BALL. You were on the east side of the street? 
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir; and he was too--he was on the east side of the street until he got across our driveway and then he got onto the west side.

(. . .) 

Mr. BALL. What side of the street did you see him coming down on? [after he turned on to Patton]
Mr. GUINYARD. He was on the left side--when he come down--it would be the east side. 
Mr. BALL. Did you see Mr. Callaway there? 
Mr. GUINYARD. We was together; yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL. You were together? 
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir; he was at the front and I was at the back. 
Mr. BALL. You and Callaway were standing at the alleyway? Mr. GUINYARD. Yes. [That disagrees with Callaway who said he was at the driveway, but it is possible, as Guinyard says below, that the gunman seeing Callaway on the sidewalk crossed over to the west side at that point, and Callaway went "after" the gunman south on the sidewalk a few feet from where Callaway remembered then shouting at the gunman by now across the street]
Mr. BALL. The alleyway that runs along the north side of the lot? 
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes. 
Mr. BALL. Now, where was Oswald when he passed you going south toward Jefferson? 
Mr. GUINYARD. Well, he was between the alley and the driveway coming off Patton. [Guinyard appears to be responding to what he thought was a question asking where the gunman was when the gunman crossed the street, misunderstanding the question?]
Mr. BALL. And he was across .the street from you, wasn't he? 
Mr. GUINYARD. No; he was on this side of the street. [when he passed Guinyard, before he crossed to the west side]
Mr. BALL. You were on the east side of the street? 
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir; and he was too--he was on the east side of the street until he got across our driveway and then he got onto the west side. [Guinyard now locates the gunman's crossing at the "driveway" instead of after the alley and before the driveway]
Mr. BALL. How close was he to you when you saw him? [when the gunman passed Guinyard at the alley]
Mr. GUINYARD. I guess he was about 10 feet from me---maybe. 
Mr. BALL. About 10 feet? 
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL. Mr. Callaway has told us and we measured it with a tape measure, that Oswald was on the west side of the street [after the gunman crossed over, yes], and we measured it and he figured it was about 55 feet from him when he passed. [55 feet from Callaway at the point Callaway standing at the driveway shouted across the street to the gunman headed south now on the west side]
Mr. GUINYARD. Well, he crossed over after he crossed the driveway. [again Guinyard has the gunman crossing over "after" he crossed the driveway, which if correct would have had the gunman running right through Callaway on the sidewalk there, which did not happen; Guinyard has that slightly mistaken]
Mr. BALL. Well---- 
Mr. GUINYARD. Mr. Callaway followed him, you see, we was together--he was my boss at that time and he followed him. [this is important--missing in Callaway's testimony but here is where Guinyard may be accurate on this detail--in remembering Callaway moving a little southward in the gunman's direction as the gunman raced south, following the gunman, prior to Callaway shouting at him.]
Mr. BALL. Callaway? 
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; trying to see which way was he going. 
Mr. BALL. And then, which way did he go after he got to Jefferson? 
Mr. GUINYARD. He went west on Jefferson--on the right-hand side---going west. 
Mr. BALL. And what did Callaway do?  
Mr. GUINYARD. He turned around and run back to the street and we helped load the policeman in the ambulance. 
Mr. BALL. He ran back up to 10th Street, did you say? 
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes.  

#3: five feet before reaching Jefferson. 

Mr. BALL. In other words, when you first saw him he was cutting across the yard of the house on the southeast corner? 
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL. That's the white house? 
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; the big two-story white house. 
Mr. BALL. Did he cross Patton? [Guinyard hears the question as meaning "did he cross Patton THEN?"]
Mr. GUINYARD. No, sir; he come down Patton until he got to about 5 feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he turned across and went across to the west corner on Jefferson. [This must be a mistake, either in Guinyard's estimation of distance or in the stenographer's or transcriber's hearing of Guinyard, in light of Guinyard's other testimony] 

There is confusion and error in Guinyard's testimonies, yes, but that is to be resolved in terms of witness fallibility and Guinyard giving imperfect descriptions of a single gunman, not in terms of a two-fleeing-gunmen theory of whom neither Callaway nor Guinyard reported seeing other than one, the same one.

Two additional witnesses to the Tippit killer/gunman crossing from east to west on Patton

Although it is rarely--as in almost never--given consideration, there are actually two additional witness testimonies to the gunman fleeing south on Patton and crossing from east to west on Patton, in addition to and independent of Callaway and Guinyard. The first is Acquilla Clemons who saw and described the Callaway-gunman shouting exchange across the street (across Patton), telling that as she remembered it. Acquilla explicitly said (although it has been widely ignored) that that exchange did not happen at the location of the Tippit patrol car, and Acquilla never said what she saw occurred on Tenth Street (that is a mishearing of her words, an error). Acquila Clemons saw the gunman and another person without a gun (= Callaway) shouting at each other across the street from each other on Patton, then going in opposite directions on Patton, from her vantage point looking southward standing on the northwest corner of Tenth and Patton. Her testimony supports Callaway's testimony that at the time of the shouting back and forth, Callaway and the gunman were on opposite sides of Patton. 

The other is the hearsay story of Doris Holan who saw the gunman run by her apartment on Patton as she looked out the front window of her second-story apartment on the northwest corner of the alley on Patton (across the street from Guinyard's position), her front window overlooking Patton. In part of the garbled hearsay of Doris Holan's story, she was reported to have said she saw the gunman on Patton run in the direction of her window (on the west side of Patton), claimed the gunman looked up at her in her window making eye contact, before the gunman continued past her apartment near her window (southward on Patton on the west side) out of sight. 

So that is four, not just two, versions of witness testimonies recounting seeing the Tippit killer/gunman cross from east to west on Patton.

It is all the same single gunman, seen and told four ways by four witnesses. 

Edited November 6, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Alan Ford]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Mr. BALL. In other words, when you first saw him he was cutting across the yard of the house on the southeast corner? 
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL. That's the white house? 
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; the big two-story white house. 
Mr. BALL. Did he cross Patton? [Guinyard hears the question as meaning "did he cross Patton THEN?"]
Mr. GUINYARD. No, sir; he come down Patton until he got to about 5 feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he turned across and went across to the west corner on Jefferson. [This must be a mistake, either in Guinyard's estimation of distance or in the stenographer's or transcriber's hearing of Guinyard, in light of Guinyard's other testimony] 

With respect, Mr. Doudna, the parenthetical glosses here seem to me to be sponsoring a rather tendentious reading. Mr. Guinyard clearly and consistently states that the man stayed on the east side of Patton until just before Jefferson. He is flatly contradicting Mr. Callaway.

As for Mr. Callaway's account, it cannot--------------I submit------------be rendered intelligible unless we start with a well-attested double fact:

1----- A man was seen coming on to Patton from Tenth, crossing Patton east-to-west, and then turning off into the alley.

2----- A man was seen coming on to Patton from Tenth, then going all the way down Patton to Jefferson.

Mr. Callaway has combined elements of both men to form a single story of just one man:

I saw a man coming on to Patton from Tenth [fits both #1 and #2], crossing Patton east-to-west [#1], then going all the way down Patton to Jefferson [#2].

Perhaps he only actually saw Man #2. Later, hearing that other witnesses had seen an earlier man turning off into the alley, he realized there had been a Man #1 whom he had missed. And so-------to be helpful to the 'investigation' as well as to his own Have-A-Go-Hero-On-The-Scene ego--------he merged the two men into one.

Two things expose him as either a l-i-a-r or a witness with hopelessly muddled recall:

One: Mr. Guinyard's contradiction of his story.

Two: His on-the-scene description of the 'shooter's' jacket as "light-gray" versus his WC testimony attempt to add a touch of tan to the jacket. Funny how he never mentioned the tan to the on-the-scene officer, only recalling it afterwards.

IMO he's trying to neutralize the danger from the tan jacket/alley witnesses he knows about. His later media interviews/appearances suggest a man relishing a little too much the role of Tippit Star Witness. Mr. Guinyard, by contrast, had no desire for the limelight: he just told his story, and it was one quietly devastating to Mr. Callaway's.

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

With respect, Mr. Doudna, the parenthetical glosses here seem to me to be sponsoring a rather tendentious reading. Mr. Guinyard clearly and consistently states that the man stayed on the east side of Patton until just before Jefferson. He is flatly contradicting Mr. Callaway.

As for Mr. Callaway's account, it cannot--------------I submit------------be rendered intelligible unless we start with a well-attested double fact:

1----- A man was seen coming on to Patton from Tenth, crossing Patton east-to-west, and then turning off into the alley.

2----- A man was seen coming on to Patton from Tenth, then going all the way down Patton to Jefferson.

Mr. Callaway has combined elements of both men to form a single story of just one man:

I saw a man coming on to Patton from Tenth [fits both #1 and #2], crossing Patton east-to-west [#1], then going all the way down Patton to Jefferson [#2].

Perhaps he only actually saw Man #2. Later, hearing that other witnesses had seen an earlier man turning off into the alley, he realized there had been a Man #1 whom he had missed. And so-------to be helpful to the 'investigation' as well as to his own Have-A-Go-Hero-On-The-Scene ego--------he merged the two men into one.

Two things expose him as either a l-i-a-r or a witness with hopelessly muddled recall:

One: Mr. Guinyard's contradiction of his story.

Two: His on-the-scene description of the 'shooter's' jacket as "light-gray" versus his WC testimony attempt to add a touch of tan to the jacket. Funny how he never mentioned the tan to the on-the-scene officer, only recalling it afterwards.

IMO he's trying to neutralize the danger from the tan jacket/alley witnesses he knows about. His later media interviews/appearances suggest a man relishing a little too much the role of Tippit Star Witness. Mr. Guinyard, by contrast, had no desire for the limelight: he just told his story, and it was one quietly devastating to Mr. Callaway's.

Yes Guinyard does disagree with Callaway, it is the conclusion to be drawn from that that is at issue. Both Acquilla Clemons and Doris Holan's stories support Callaway's, and Guinyard's cannot be correct that a gunman ran southward on the east side of Patton directly through where Callaway was on that sidewalk. Guinyard's testimony is months after the fact to the Warren Commission, disagrees with all three of the others including the credible Callaway, and Guinyard's testimony contains known other anomalies. I think Guinyard's story as just partly skewed or mistaken in his memory is the simplest explanation. On the colors of the jacket, the same jacket was called "tan" (or light tan or light brown) by most witnesses and "light gray" by a couple. The jacket that was recovered at Ballew's Texaco identified (correctly) as dropped by the Tippit killer is called "gray" in Warren Commission exhibits and routinely in discussions to the present day even though it is actually light tan. Light tan is its most accurate color description, but the record shows some witnesses, such as the writers of the Warren Report, described that light tan colored jacket as "gray" or "light gray". I don't think a theory will work that those variations in color namings become evidence of two distinct jackets, since they demonstrably are applied to the same jacket (more on that: https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/T-Jackets-112.pdf).

Edited November 6, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Alan Ford]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Yes Guinyard does disagree with Callaway, it is the conclusion to be drawn from that that is at issue. Both Acquilla Clemons and Doris Holan's stories support Callaway's, and Guinyard's cannot be correct that a gunman ran southward on the east side of Patton directly through where Callaway was on that sidewalk. Guinyard's testimony is months after the fact to the Warren Commission, disagrees with all three of the others including the credible Callaway, and Guinyard's testimony contains known other anomalies. I think Guinyard's story as just partly skewed or mistaken in his memory is the simplest explanation. On the colors of the jacket, the same jacket was called "tan" (or light tan or light brown) by most witnesses and "light gray" by a couple. The jacket that was recovered at Ballew's Texaco identified (correctly) as dropped by the Tippit killer is called "gray" in Warren Commission exhibits and routinely in discussions to the present day even though it is actually light tan. Light tan is its most accurate color description, but the record shows some witnesses, such as the writers of the Warren Report, described that light tan colored jacket as "gray" or "light gray". I don't think a theory will work that those variations in color namings become evidence of two distinct jackets, since they demonstrably are applied to the same jacket (more on that: https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/T-Jackets-112.pdf).

The problem, Mr. Doudna, is that we have two men in the mix. A man who was seen by multiple witnesses going all the way down Patton to Jefferson; and a man who was seen turning off into the alley off Patton

Basically, the official story disappeared the alley guy.

I reckon Mr. Callaway played an enthusiastic role in the official disappearing of him.

[Michael Kalin]

I guess the library is still out of bounds, but what value is there in reiterating assertions that were not well supported in previous posts and remain on shaky grounds?

Myers' interview of Dodie Dean's descendants is not trustworthy for reasons discussed in Greg's "Lee Harvey Oswald's two jackets and why the Tippit killer's jacket was not one of them" thread. Nothing in the present thread offers a firm foundation for conclusions based on this voice from the long dead. My 6/8/23 comment:

Quote

So why didn't DPD take a statement from Dodie of Dean's Dairy Way? Myers quotes the survivors:

According to her daughters, Mrs. Dean knew many Dallas policemen because they had come into her store in the past and they knew her. She never gave an affidavit because she felt they knew her and would know where to find her if they needed further information.

Sounds good but DPD did not take statements from any of the purported principal witnesses in the vicinity of the jacket, and none of them shows up in the Tippit murder case papers. Two months later the FBI interviewed Reynolds, Patterson, the Brocks & Roger Ballew. Dodie is conspicuously absent. Why? Surely they knew where she was and at some point decided to consign her to oblivion. Most likely they did not consider her a credible source.

Likewise Myers shows scant confidence in much of the information provided by the daughters, rewriting part & rejecting another part. Why bother at all with them and their story? Here's the payload:

This caused [Mrs. Dean] to look up and out the front window in an easterly direction toward the second-hand store. Just as she did, a young man rounded the corner walking briskly in a westerly direction. As he broke into a run, he was tugging at his jacket, as if to take it off. In those days, the Dairy Way had an overhead door so it made the store fully open rather than windowed, and the cashier’s counter was close to the sidewalk. Mrs. Dean got a good look at the man who passed her at less than ten feet and positively identified him as Lee Harvey Oswald. She stepped outside the store and peered around the corner at the area in-between the store and the Texaco service station next door. She saw Oswald continue behind the service station and into the parking lot.

The goal was to produce a witness who could directly link the throwdown jacket to Oswald, same goal the FBI had when it put words into Patterson's mouth as discussed in a previous post. But this is thin stuff, relying on a juicy element extracted from a stale family memory that is otherwise rejected, cherry picking for the sake of fleshing out a pet theory.

Myers also freely subs in a preferred identity for another that was explicitly reported by a witness, going so far as to claim Kinsley actually saw Reynolds instead of Oswald cross Jefferson in front of the Dudley Hughes ambulance driven by Butler. Nothing if not bold but Reynolds bore about as much resemblance to Oswald as Sergeant Hill, who may have paused at Dean's Dairy Way for a hot fudge sundae, flinging the jacket onto a tire rack and leaving suddenly when sirens sounded nearby, not before giving instructions to Dodie to have someone dump the jacket under an Olds in the back lot. He then rushed across Jefferson to prowl car 207 idling on the opposite side of the street, passing directly in front of the ambulance.

 

We also discussed Patterson's dubious purported witnessing of the jacket throwdown event. This was an FBI parlay of one agent's gloss into another's attribution as explained in the same thread. My 6/7/23 comment:

Quote

The key to avoid getting bamboozled by FBI reports is to realize that they seldom if ever contain direct quotations. Patterson's original statements were made to the FBI on 1/22/64, and the subsequent 1/23/64 report by SAs Mitchem & Kesler is typical in terms of fudged content. Toward the bottom of the main paragraph these words appear, "the individual made a turn in a northerly direction and proceeded behind Ballew’s Texaco Service Station where the individual discarded a jacket which was later recovered by the Dallas Police." The clause beginning with "where" is an FBI interpolation designed to imply that Patterson witnessed an event he couldn't possibly observe. It doesn't even rise to the level of indirect quotation.

It's a cagey attempt to produce an eye-witness to the throwdown jacket, echoed in the internal 8/24/64 document, and necessary to defeat the obvious "planted" nature of the jacket, but there is no basis for attributing the words to Patterson. The clincher is the 1/22/64 FBI report of an interview conducted with Warren Reynolds. Reynolds accompanied Patterson and lost sight of the same individual after he turned north at Ballew's, without reference to the disposition of the jacket either directly, indirectly, inferentially, implicitly, or by loose interpretation, vague paraphrase or creative interpolation.

 

In another thread, "How Oswald was Framed for the Murder of Tippit," Myers' "dishonest interview reporting technique of presenting paraphrased content as if literal quotation" was mentioned, including his practice of "rendering...comments." Why not just quote them (accurately)?  Any interviewer who injects third party content into material presented as direct quotation of what the person being interviewed actually said is not worth a second thought. The first was one too many.  See my 9/17/23 comment.

 

If one must revisit thin material at least some effort should be made to deal effectively with previous objections.