Finish The Sentence, Re: Tippit:

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

The long and rambling life story of this drifter named Larry Crafard, which the Warren Commission's Leon Hubert and Burt Griffin probed for hours on end for three days (April 8-10, 1964) and which takes up nearly 200 pages in WC volumes 13 and 14, could have been featured on The Edge Of Night, Guiding Light, and As The World Turns all at the same time, because this guy's constant travels and dozens of different jobs (not to mention a wife who left him twice, and gave birth to Larry's baby boy---or did she?) could probably fill up all three of those soap operas all at once.

Why on Earth all of the details surrounding Crafard's entire life prior to November 1963 were things that Mr. Hubert and Mr. Griffin deemed necessary to place into the Warren Commission's official record, I really have no idea.

Incredibly, Crafard's testimony consumes nearly seven times the number of pages than that of President Kennedy's chief autopsy physician, Dr. James Humes. Humes' testimony takes up only 29 pages in total. Crafard = 197 pages. Unbelievable.

Craford was his correct legal name. The spelling he used in Dallas, “Crafard”, was an alias. 

As for why Hubert and Griffin questioned Craford so extensively, I think that is pretty obvious: they were suspicious of him, especially his sudden no-notice decision to hitchhike to Michigan after the assassination with only $7 in his pocket (so he said), in order, he explained, to check that his sister there was OK (she was fine, as she would have told him over the phone if he had called). Judge Griffin’s recent book tells of Hubert’s and his suspicions of Craford, growing out of their assigned WC staff division of labor to deal with Ruby. However despite all that questioning they couldn’t come up with anything on him.

And Hubert and Griffin were frozen out of the WC interview of Ruby, even though Ruby had been specifically assigned as their sphere.

Griffin is the WC staff counsel I like best, and that’s not just because my Dad’s closest friend in his final years in Akron, Ohio, was a retired U.S. federal marshal who worked federal security in Cleveland and knew and spoke well of Judge Griffin. 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

11 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Crafard left Dallas for Michigan on Sunday morning, Nov. 24th, Greg. Not the 23rd.

David I am quite certain Craford left on Saturday Nov 23, I am not sure where you are getting 24th. Saturday Nov 23 is the date Craford told the FBI, the Warren Commission, and at the Ruby trial where he appeared as a character witness, and it is the date told by Andy Armstrong. I know of nothing substantial in contradiction.

Mr. HUBERT. As I understand it, you never saw Larry afterward [Fri Nov 22]? 
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Right. He left a key at the garage downstairs. 
Mr. HUBERT. When did you first find out about that? 
Mr. ARMSTRONG. About the---- 
Mr. HUBERT. About the key and Larry leaving it? 
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Oh, about 1 o'clock, I guess, I got down again about 1 o'clock. 
Mr. HUBERT. That was on Saturday? 
Mr. ARMSTRONG. On Saturday. 
Mr. HUBERT. All right. 
Mr. ARMSTRONG. I always stopped at the garage to see if there was any mail. 
Mr. HUBERT. Is that where the mail was delivered? 
Mr. ARMSTRONG. That's where the mail was delivered and Ben gave me the key. He said Larry had left it and left a note and just said thank Jack for everything, and that's all. 
Mr. HUBERT. You mean a written note? 
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Right. 
Mr. HUBERT. In other words, Ben, the man at the garage, told you that Larry had left? 
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes. 
Mr. HUBERT. Did he tell you what time he left? 
Mr. ARMSTRONG. He said "Early this morning," that's all he said. 
Mr. HUBERT. He didn't give you any time? 
Mr. ARMSTRONG. No. 

The paper-bag revolver--a modified .38 Special snub-nosed Smith & Wesson found in a paper bag with an orange and an apple--was found near a curb on a downtown Dallas street by a citizen at 7:30 am Sat Nov 23, compatible with Craford physically passing that intersection at about 6 am while in the back seat of Ruby's car with Ruby and George Senator up front, driven northwest by Ruby from the Carousel Club to get on the Stemmons Freeway in order to get to a location of a billboard Ruby had decided he wanted to photograph at that time of night involving waking up two other persons besides himself to do so.

That revolver looked like it was tossed in that bag out a car window. For some reason Myers and Bill Brown have taken great exception to the idea of assuming a paper bag of litter found on a city street got there by being tossed from a car, on the grounds that no witness saw anyone toss it out of a car window at 6 am, but whatever. The timing and juxtaposition agrees with Craford, who had no car of his own, as an excellent source of that paper-bag revolver tossed out a back window of Ruby's car. If Craford wanted to toss that weapon out the car window without Ruby and Geoge Senator knowing about it, they would be none the wiser. He eats some fruit in the back seat, then tosses the bag of remaining uneaten fruit out the window (the paper bag also containing, unknown to anyone in the car seeing him toss the bag, a .38 Smith & Wesson he for some reason no longer was pleased to maintain in his possession).

Then "early this morning", that morning, Saturday Nov 23 (according to Ben the garage man cited by Andy Armstrong above), Craford left Dallas for Michigan, the same morning that someone who may have been Craford ditched that .38 Smith & Wesson.

It would be a natural police question to suspect that weapon was disposed of in that manner because it had been used in a crime and its owner did not want to risk having it found on his person or in his belongings or otherwise traced to him. Even if the weapon was found and traced to the crime, provided it was clean of fingerprints and was untraceable by serial number to any record or paper trail leading to the perpetrator, i.e. a gangland or mob hit weapon, the weapon would not be linked to the perpetrator.

The find of the paper-bag revolver at 7:30 am Sat Nov 23 in downtown Dallas raises the question: was there a recent homicide in the Dallas area in which someone was killed with .38 Special bullets?

Maybe that might be worth checking out, if there was--hypothetically-- some recent murder by handgun in the area fitting that description?

There is no record Dallas Police ever investigated their list of recent homicides which occurred prior to 7:30 am Sat Nov 23 for a possible match of that paper-bag revolver to hulls or bullets from the crime scene. There is no evidence I have been able to find that the list of all recent handgun homicides in the Dallas area prior to Nov 23 consisted of more than one single entry: the Tippit killing of Nov 22.

Not only did the Dallas Police make no known check of that weapon against its list of recent area handgun homicides (i.e. the list of one), by a most regrettable accident Dallas Police then lost that weapon. Right while it was in police custody. Disappeared without a trace. No one at DPD has the slightest idea what became of it, even though they are the last ones known to have had it, according to FBI documents brought to light in the 1990s (those FBI records had been released in an earlier document dump but had not been noticed and brought forward to researchers' focus until the 1990s). 

If that wasn't the Tippit murder weapon, what murder was it the weapon of?

Is there a non-far-fetched innocent explanation for tossing a handgun in a paper bag of fruit on to a city street in the middle of the night?

How does a weapon found like that disappear while in Dallas Police custody after it is found and turned in to police on Nov 23, 1963?

And Craford bolts from Dallas immediately after he is the leading candidate for who ditched that weapon. 

The next morning Craford's boss, Ruby, using a different .38 snub-nosed, murdered Oswald.  

Edited December 20, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

David Von Pein--that is impressive you read the ca. 200 pages of Craford WC testimony.

Two other sources of information on Craford essential if you are studying Craford. The first is Peter Whitmey's 1998 article, https://www.jfk-assassination.net/creatingapatsy.htm. It has some speculation you won't agree with (me either), just skip over those parts. What matters is Whitmey did what no one else did--he tracked down Craford in later years and Craford talked quite a bit and Whitmey reports that and it is important. No other article like it for further information on Craford.

And the other, I think (modest bow) I discovered, as additional Craford information. It is the Odell Estes story. Once it is recognized that Odell Estes' "Oswald" he knew at the Carousel Club in July-Aug 1963 was Craford, information concerning Craford is expanded. You can see that discussion here: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29006-decipherment-of-the-james-odell-estes-story-carousel-club-july-aug-1963/.

Happy reading, and merry Christmas to you too.

[Marcus Fuller]

On 12/14/2023 at 12:23 AM, Bill Brown said:

 

Whether you two like it or not, it's foolish to attempt to build a case that the prints must belong to the killer when it is not absolute that the prints belong to the killer.

 

Yeah but nobody said that those prints are NOT the killers 

[David Von Pein]

17 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Crafard left Dallas for Michigan on Sunday morning, Nov. 24th, Greg. Not the 23rd.

13 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

David I am quite certain Craford left on Saturday Nov 23. I am not sure where you are getting 24th.

Yes, you're right, Greg. I was mistaken about something I read about Crafard on Page 247 of Vincent Bugliosi's book. That page is in the middle of Vince's chronology of events for "Sunday, November 24", but Bugliosi suddenly goes back to talking about the events of Saturday on that page. And that's when the subject of Crafard leaving Dallas comes up.

But it was my error this time, and not Bugliosi's. Vince has it right in his book. Crafard left town on Saturday, Nov. 23rd.

Sorry about the mistake, Greg.

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, you're right, Greg. I was mistaken about something I read about Crafard on Page 247 of Vincent Bugliosi's book. That page is in the middle of Vince's chronology of events for "Sunday, November 24", but Bugliosi suddenly goes back to talking about the events of Saturday on that page. And that's when the subject of Crafard leaving Dallas comes up.

But it was my error this time, and not Bugliosi's. Vince has it right in his book. Crafard left town on Saturday, Nov. 23rd.

Sorry about the mistake, Greg.

No problem David. Before you took the link away I read your page on Bugliosi errors where you had caught mistakes, great page of fact checking and interesting trivia! Speaking of which, one item there caught my eye, on the $13.87 Oswald had on him at the time of his arrest, which you calculated he had to have had at least $15.10 starting the morning.

I am actually interested in this detail, can you say how you arrived at that? $1.00 for the .95 plus .05 tip cab I know. But what was the bus fare paid to McWatters? And what would a vending machine coke go for in those days? (Then there is the question of one or two cokes that day.) Is it possible Oswald bought a sandwich from a food truck mid-morning? (He left Irving that morning on only a cup of coffee, not much to go on for manual labor, and Buell said that is what Oswald sometimes did.)

I think he also paid .90 for a movie fare too 🙂 , one of Julia Postal’s 14 ticket sales that afternoon (though no torn ticket stub on his person was reported). (The 0.90 movie price is from Julia Postal’s testimony.)

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I read your page on Bugliosi errors where you had caught mistakes. Great page of fact checking and interesting trivia! Speaking of which, one item there caught my eye, on the $13.87 Oswald had on him at the time of his arrest, which you calculated he had to have had at least $15.10 starting the morning. I am actually interested in this detail. Can you say how you arrived at that? $1.00 for the .95 plus .05 tip cab I know. But what was the bus fare paid to McWatters?

$13.87 + $0.23 (bus) + $1.00 (cab) = $15.10

Mr. BALL - You let him on the bus, and he paid his fare, how much is that fare?
Mr. McWATTERS - It is 23 cents.

------------

The price of a vending machine Coke was 5 cents thru 1959. Then it went up to 10 cents. So Oswald probably left Ruth Paine's house on Nov. 22 with $15.20 in his pocket. *

* Which assumes he bought just one Coke that day, and it also assumes he didn't merely swipe a bottle of Coke off of one of the tables in the second-floor lunchroom right after his encounter with Officer Baker, instead of buying one himself, which is quite possible, I suppose. I've seen photos of the lunchroom in which we can see bottles of Coke left on the tables ---> such as HERE and HERE.

------------

Here's an interesting hunk of trivia concerning Coca-Cola [copied from this Wiki page]:

The Coca-Cola Company sought ways to increase the five cent price, even approaching the U.S. Treasury Department in 1953 to ask that they mint a 7.5 cent coin. The Treasury was unsympathetic. In another attempt, The Coca-Cola Company briefly implemented a strategy where one in every nine vending machine bottles was empty. The empty bottle was called an "official blank". This meant that, while most nickels inserted in a vending machine would yield cold drinks, one in nine patrons would have to insert two nickels in order to get a bottle. This effectively raised the price to 5.625 cents. Coca-Cola never implemented this strategy on a national scale.

------------

I can certainly see why the Coke Company never followed through with that spiteful strategy of literally stealing an extra nickel from 11% of its vending machine customers by dropping an empty bottle into their hands. I have a hard time believing the company would have even considered such a deceptive act of thievery. Customers wouldn't have stood still for only getting what they paid for 9 times out of 10. And can you imagine a 7.5-cent coin?! Just think of the mess that would have caused for all of the nation's cashiers. They'd have to find a way to give back 2.5 cents change for a 5-cent purchase. What a nightmare! 😁

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

$13.87 + $0.23 (bus) + $1.00 (cab) = $15.10

Mr. BALL - You let him on the bus, and he paid his fare, how much is that fare?
Mr. McWATTERS - It is 23 cents.

------------

The price of a vending machine Coke was 5 cents thru 1959. Then it went up to 10 cents. So Oswald probably left Ruth Paine's house on Nov. 22 with $15.20 in his pocket. *

* Which assumes he bought just one Coke that day, and it also assumes he didn't merely swipe a bottle of Coke off of one of the tables in the second-floor lunchroom right after his encounter with Officer Baker, instead of buying one himself, which is quite possible, I suppose. I've seen photos of the lunchroom in which we can see bottles of Coke left on the tables ---> such as HERE and HERE.

------------

Here's an interesting hunk of trivia concerning Coca-Cola [copied from this Wiki page]:

The Coca-Cola Company sought ways to increase the five cent price, even approaching the U.S. Treasury Department in 1953 to ask that they mint a 7.5 cent coin. The Treasury was unsympathetic. In another attempt, The Coca-Cola Company briefly implemented a strategy where one in every nine vending machine bottles was empty. The empty bottle was called an "official blank". This meant that, while most nickels inserted in a vending machine would yield cold drinks, one in nine patrons would have to insert two nickels in order to get a bottle. This effectively raised the price to 5.625 cents. Coca-Cola never implemented this strategy on a national scale.

------------

I can certainly see why the Coke Company never followed through with that spiteful strategy of literally stealing an extra nickel from 11% of its vending machine customers by dropping an empty bottle into their hands. I have a hard time believing the company would have even considered such a deceptive act of thievery. Customers wouldn't have stood still for only getting what they paid for 9 times out of 10. And can you imagine a 7.5-cent coin?! Just think of the mess that would have caused for all of the nation's cashiers. They'd have to find a way to give back 2.5 cents change for a 5-cent purchase. What a nightmare! 😁

This is fascinating David. On the Coca Cola company that's hilarious.

On the $13.87 on Oswald, here is some speculating...

Marina's room in Irving was their "bank", she had their surplus cash. Lee did not have a large amount on his person and no additional coins or currency were found in Lee's room in his rooming house. Lee was paid in cash biweekly at TSBD I think. They didn't have a bank account. Let's suppose the way it worked was every weekend when he saw Marina in Irving he would take $15.00 with him back into Dallas from there, out of their "bank" which Marina physically had. Lee would live on that $15.00, spend down part of it until the next Friday in Irving. Whatever was left of it Lee would empty his pocket change and bills in Marina's room, plus give Marina any lump sum cash such as his TSBD pay for safekeeping, then return to Dallas with a fresh replenished $15.00 in his pocket for the next week. Why $15.00? An arbitrary round number, convenient, enough to live on for a week with some left over until the next weekend's replenishment. 

A TSBD 2nd floor woman employee said Lee often came to her desk to ask her to make change for the coke machine. That could suggest Lee returning to Dallas from his weekends in Irving with simply bills--the $15.00--in his pocket.

Imagine on Thursday night Nov 21 Lee does as usual, empties whatever cash and coins he brought with him, then leaves Fri Nov 22 to return to Dallas with a fresh replenished $15.00 in currency. But that particular day Lee knows it will be the presidential parade and is not sure how that will change his ability to conveniently get change and he likes his cokes, so thinking ahead he adds two dimes from what they have in Marina's room, enough for two cokes if he wanted them Fri Nov 22, so he would need to ask for change that day.

Imagine Lee also has had om hand a special torn (as in torn-off) dollar bill which he has in case of needing to meet someone in a theater as a contingency or in an emergency, for use only if needed. He does not carry it on his person but has it somewhere if it is ever needed. Where would he keep it? Say, in his address book. Then Nov 22, Lee, who is not the assassin and does not realize the rifle he sold on Nov 11 was up on that 6th floor, does realize when JFK is shot something is wrong that could come back on him. Not knowing what is going on Lee gets out of the building evasively out the back, gets to his rooming house on Beckley, evasively all the way, and there picks up that torn dollar bill for its purpose (also changing clothes and picking up his revolver), and goes south on foot to the Texas Theatre for the meeting.   

Counting the torn dollar bill which was part of the $13.87 on him at the time of his arrest, that is $16.20 total before what he spent. He buys two cokes that morning, one to eat with his lunch before the parade passed, then a second one after the parade only because his purpose of going up on the second floor after the shooting of JFK was to go out and down the rear stairs to exit the rear in a circuitous way but was stopped by seeing officer Baker when he got to the NW door on the 2nd floor and backpedaled, seen by Baker. He was not there for a coke that time but he buys a second coke due to his accident of being there, as his pretend reason why he was there then. So that's two cokes, $0.20.

He takes the bus, 0.23, the taxi, 1.00, and buys an admission to the movie at the Texas Theatre, 0.90.

There you have it, $13.87 exactly on his person when arrested in the theatre. (No popcorn bought.)

This speculation is more whimsical than serious David but its one way of interpreting those numbers that I thought you might enjoy. It was your Bugliosi page on these numbers which prompted this, so don't think your labors and research on your website don't produce results. 🙂 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

This speculation is more whimsical than serious David but it's one way of interpreting those numbers that I thought you might enjoy. It was your Bugliosi page on these numbers which prompted this, so don't think your labors and research on your website don't produce results. 🙂 

It's fun to play around with stuff like this from time to time, isn't it?

Here's another question for you to ponder, Gregory.....

If, as you have suggested, Oswald purchased a movie ticket at the Texas Theater, then why wasn't the ticket stub found on his person after his arrest? And I can only assume that all Texas Theater patrons are, indeed, given a stub after their tickets are torn by somebody at the door who does that sort of thing, like we find at most U.S. theaters. Which, I guess, brings up another question: If Oswald didn't buy a ticket, how did he manage to slip past the "ticket taker" who should have been posted just inside the front door? ~shrug~*

* And the "ticket taker" on 11/22/63 would have been Butch Burroughs (who also sold the candy and popcorn at the theater)....

Mr. BALL -- "During the afternoon of the week, do you take tickets too?"
Mr. BURROUGHS -- "Yes, I take tickets every day."

[Later in Burroughs' WC testimony....]

Mr. BALL -- "If anybody comes in there without a ticket, what do you do, run them off?"
Mr. BURROUGHS -- "I make it a point to stop them and ask them to go out and get a ticket. I just failed to see him when he slipped in."

Oswald, of course, if he had purchased a ticket, could have just thrown his stub in a trash can inside the theater. But I'm wondering why he'd want to do that?

Because by keeping the ticket stub, he could then prove that he didn't "sneak" into the theater without paying. Which would certainly make him look at least a little bit less guilty of any crime --- because by simply being willing to take the extra time and pay for the cheap ticket at the outside box office, it makes him look a bit less desperate to get off the sunny streets in order to get inside that dark theater as fast as he possibly can get in there.

But if he didn't pay for that movie ticket (which I certainly don't think he did), it does indeed make him look mighty anxious (desperate perhaps?) to get off that police-filled Jefferson Boulevard and inside the darkened theater as quickly as possible.

And why would Lee Harvey Oswald be so anxious (even desperate perhaps?) to get inside that movie theater at about 1:40 PM CST on November 22, 1963?

The answer to that last question is, in my opinion, fairly obvious.

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

10 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

If, as you have suggested, Oswald purchased a movie ticket at the Texas Theater, then why wasn't the ticket stub found on his person after his arrest? And I can only assume that all Texas Theater patrons are, indeed, given a stub after their tickets are torn by somebody at the door who does that sort of thing, like we find at most U.S. theaters.

The absence of a reported ticket stub on Oswald's person when searched after his arrest I agree at first glance seems to run counter to expectations if he had bought a ticket, however I do not regard that as decisive. If one does not anticipate needing to leave and reenter the theater again--most patrons do not--there is no need to hang on to the ticket. Has a study been done to find out what percentage of theater patrons have their ticket stubs on their person after a movie has begun? I am pretty sure it would be under 100 percent and it would not surprise me if it were well under 100 percent.

But what I think happened is Oswald entered that theater wearing his blue jacket, the heavier or warmer of his two jackets, the one sometimes called a "coat", the one Earlene described as "dark" in color and (because she was color-blind) "gray". As my jackets study brings out, those are the only two adjectives Earlene Roberts ever used in description of the color or shade of the jacket, which she called a "coat", which she saw Oswald leaving the rooming house newly putting on and zipping up going out the door at 1 pm, and neither of Earlene's adjectives agree with the color of the Tippit killer's off-white light tan jacket, CE 162, but both agree with Oswald's blue jacket or coat.

The ticket stub went into the pocket of his coat as Oswald entered. Inside the warm theater Oswald took off his coat and set it somewhere. In his moving around of seating positions next to persons told by Jack Davis as he looked to find someone he expected to meet, he became separated from his coat, with the ticket stub in it. When Oswald was arrested he was not wearing his coat and was taken from the theater without it.

In that scenario (see my "jackets" study https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/T-Jackets-112.pdf) Oswald's blue jacket would have been found elsewhere in the theater perhaps not realizing who it belonged to. At some point somebody might wonder if it could have been Oswald's and turned it over to the police, who would then have turned it over to the FBI, who reported a couple weeks later it had been found at the TSBD. 

The positive argument that Oswald bought a ticket is that of the inside-the-theater witnesses--staff and patrons that day--only three gave information on when Oswald arrived into that main seating area, and all three said Oswald was there before or during the opening credits at 1:15-1:20, when ticket purchasers entered the theater. Those three are Burroughs (Burroughs later, differing from his earlier Warren Commission testimony); the credible witness Jack Davis; and George Applin according to an unpublished interview of him by reporter Earl Golz in Earl Golz's papers (Applin told Golz Oswald was already in the theater when Applin entered).

If that timing of those three witnesses is correct, that is Oswald's alibi--he was not the man who ran up into the balcony at 1:35 (after that man had killed Tippit). Brewer saw that man in front of his store through his glass doors and from the stage in the darkened theatre identified Oswald who had stood up in the back of the theater as that man, to police, who arrested Oswald, but that could easily have been a mistaken identification on the part of Brewer, given the other Craford/Oswald identification confusions.

And the man who ran into the balcony probably was the man seen walking out of the balcony down the front stairs passing by deputy sheriff Courson at about 1:40 who Courson also, like Brewer, thought was Oswald, even though in Courson's case that man cannot have been Oswald since Oswald was at that time in the main seating area below. 

Now you ask:

10 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Which, I guess, brings up another question: If Oswald didn't buy a ticket, how did he manage to slip past the "ticket taker" who should have been posted just inside the front door? ~shrug~*

Who says he "slip[ped] past" the ticket taker? Why assume that? Was the ticket taker ever asked? 

I know both Julia Postal and Burroughs referred to Burroughs taking tickets, Burroughs doing so at "slow" times (such as that 1:20 matinee film) while running the concession at the same time.

But while that would normally be the case, and would have been the case after the first rush of persons came in and after the movie started that day, I read the testimony below as indicating a different person took the tickets from the bulk of the ticket purchasers who bought and entered the theater before the movie started at 1:20: general manager of the chain of theaters, John Callahan.

Mr. BALL. Now, did many people go into the theatre from the time you opened at the box office until about 1:15 or so? 
Mrs. POSTAL. Some. 
Mr. BALL. How many? Can you give me an estimate? 
Mrs. POSTAL. I believe 24. 
Mr. BALL. Twenty-four? 
Mrs. POSTAL. Fourteen or twenty-four. I believe it was 24. Everything was happening so fast. 
Mr. BALL. You had sold about that many tickets? 
Mrs. POSTAL. That's right. 
Mr. BALL. What was the price of admission? 
Mrs. POSTAL. We had three. Adults 90 cents, teenager with a card is 50 cents, and a child is 35, and you have a pass ticket. 
Mr. BALL. It is cheaper that time of day than other times of day? 
Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir; we don't change prices. Used to, but we don't. 
Mr. BALL. Same price? 
Mrs. POSTAL. Uh-huh. 
Mr. BALL. Now, did you see anybody go in the theatre well, did you see any activity on the street? 
Mrs. POSTAL. Now, yes, sir; just about the time we opened, my employer had stayed and took the tickets because we change pictures on Thursday and want to do anything, he----and about this time I heard the sirens----police was racing back and forth.  

Later in her testimony Julia Postal identifies who that was by name:

Mr. BALL. Who is your boss? 
Mrs. POSTAL. Mr. John A. Callahan. 

Callahan was not just the boss of that theater but over all in the entire region--but he was there that afternoon and I read Julia Postal's testimony as Callahan was at the door taking the tickets. After the movie started, Burroughs would take over from Callahan in taking tickets from later arrivals, which would have been his job all the time that day if it had not been for Callahan's presence.

I think Oswald bought a ticket from Julia Postal at the front window before 1:20, gave that ticket to Callahan taking tickets at the door, and entered the theater as a fully legitimate paid-ticket customer. 

The guy who ran past Brewer's store and up into the balcony at 1:35 wasn't Oswald, notwithstanding Brewer. Brewer, and police, got the wrong guy. The right guy--the guy who ran into the balcony at 1:35--was still in that balcony, but Brewer couldn't see anyone there when he looked and missed him. Brewer didn't see anyone there, but he was there. Police talked to that guy in the balcony that day, but let him go and then lost their written record of and their memories of his name. 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

On 12/14/2023 at 11:52 PM, Bill Brown said:

Thirteen REAL witnesses saw Tippit's killer fire the shots or run from the scene holding a gun.

Eyewitnesses who said the man was Lee Oswald:

Helen Markham, Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, William Scoggins, Sam Guinyard, Ted Callaway, Warren Reynolds, Pat Patterson and Harold Russell.

Eyewitnesses who could not say if the man was Lee Oswald or not:

Jimmy Burt, Bill Smith, Domingo Benavides & L.J. Lewis.

Eyewitnesses who stated that the man they saw was in fact NOT Lee Oswald:

(NONE)

Minor point Bill, but why isn't Acquila Clemons in your database of "thirteen REAL witnesses who saw Tippit's killer ... run from the scene holding a gun"?

Oversight? She would make fourteen and add one more to your subset of "eyewitnesses who [did] not say if the man was Lee Oswald or not". 

She described seeing the gunman (from her 1966 interview on YouTube):

• "reloading his gun"
• "kind of chunky"
• "kind of heavy"
• "not a very big man"
• "kind of a short guy"
• "he unloaded and reloaded"
• "he was short and kind of heavy"

But she did not say whether or not she thought that man was the medium-height, thin, 5'9", 140 lb Oswald. 

(Craford was ca. 5'7-1/2" which qualifies as "short" and weighed ca. 150-160 which would be medium weight for his height, not skinny. The light jacket worn by the gunman if it was loose or billowing might assist in her having seen him as "chunky" for his size.)

Acquila Clemons was definitely a "REAL" witness, and there is no justification not to consider her so and list her among the others in your database.

[Bill Brown]

20 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Minor point Bill, but why isn't Acquila Clemons in your database of "thirteen REAL witnesses who saw Tippit's killer ... run from the scene holding a gun"?

Oversight? She would make fourteen and add one more to your subset of "eyewitnesses who [did] not say if the man was Lee Oswald or not". 

She described seeing the gunman (from her 1966 interview on YouTube):

• "reloading his gun"
• "kind of chunky"
• "kind of heavy"
• "not a very big man"
• "kind of a short guy"
• "he unloaded and reloaded"
• "he was short and kind of heavy"

But she did not say whether or not she thought that man was the medium-height, thin, 5'9", 140 lb Oswald. 

(Craford was ca. 5'7-1/2" which qualifies as "short" and weighed ca. 150-160 which would be medium weight for his height, not skinny. The light jacket worn by the gunman if it was loose or billowing might assist in her having seen him as "chunky" for his size.)

Acquila Clemons was definitely a "REAL" witness, and there is no justification not to consider her so and list her among the others in your database.

 

Oversight? LOL You're a cute kid. 

 

I don't include Acquilla Clemons because she's after the fact.  It's the same reason I don't include Jack Tatum (who would only help my case).

 

Edited December 22, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

38 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

I don't include Acquila Clemons because she's after the fact.  It's the same reason I don't include Jack Tatum (who would only help my case).

Wait a minute Bill. You have William Smith on your list, he was after the fact.

You have Benavides on your list. He was after the fact. 

It is true you did not include Tatum.

But back to Benavides. Why Benavides but not Acquilla Clemons?

Acquilla Clemons said she was visited early on by an officer bearing a sidearm, which sounds like some law enforcement talked to her, knew she was a witness but made a decision not to use her. I hope that decision at the time was not because her witness description was not deemed useful to what was wanted, or because she was deemed less important because she was black. I suspect both of those were factors. 

There is no question she was a witness, and her story is firsthand on videotape. For a late-breaking additional confirmation of Acquilla Clemons as a witness, Myers in 2020 of Mary Little who told of Acquilla Clemons at 10th and Patton that day, https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2020/11/emory-austin-his-daughter-mary-and.htm.

Perhaps your unstated criterion was witnesses who became publicly identified no later than the time of the Warren Commission.

But going by actual witnesses, not simply by an arbitrary dividing line based on who was known to the Warren Commission, is there any reason for excluding Acquilla Clemons as a witness in studying the Tippit case? 

Incidentally Acquilla Clemons' story is not materially different than what the other witnesses saw and told. She echoes what the other witnesses told, she saw what the others saw. But that is beside the point from establishing, do you agree, that she was a witness.     

[Bill Brown]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Wait a minute Bill. You have William Smith on your list, he was after the fact.

You have Benavides on your list. He was after the fact. 

It is true you did not include Tatum.

But back to Benavides. Why Benavides but not Acquilla Clemons?

Acquilla Clemons said she was visited early on by an officer bearing a sidearm, which sounds like some law enforcement talked to her, knew she was a witness but made a decision not to use her. I hope that decision at the time was not because her witness description was not deemed useful to what was wanted, or because she was deemed less important because she was black. I suspect both of those were factors. 

There is no question she was a witness, and her story is firsthand on videotape. For a late-breaking additional confirmation of Acquilla Clemons as a witness, Myers in 2020 of Mary Little who told of Acquilla Clemons at 10th and Patton that day, https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2020/11/emory-austin-his-daughter-mary-and.htm.

Perhaps your unstated criterion was witnesses who became publicly identified no later than the time of the Warren Commission.

But going by actual witnesses, not simply by an arbitrary dividing line based on who was known to the Warren Commission, is there any reason for excluding Acquilla Clemons as a witness in studying the Tippit case? 

Incidentally Acquilla Clemons' story is not materially different than what the other witnesses saw and told. She echoes what the other witnesses told, she saw what the others saw. But that is beside the point from establishing, do you agree, that she was a witness.     

 

Bill Smith and Domingo Benavides aren't after the fact.  They both testified to the Warren Commission.  Clemons did not.

The FBI was completely unaware of Clemons until after the Warren Report was released.  Clemons was visited by Vincent Salandria, Shirley Martin, as well as George & Patricia Nash in the summer of '64.  Martin's recorded interview with Clemons proved that Lane was telling porky pies, regarding a mysterious 2nd female witness to the Tippit murder.

Because Smith and Benavides testified to the Warren Commission and Clemons refused/was reluctant, it is faulty to place Clemons in the same category of witnesses as Smith, Benavides, Burt, Markham, B. Davis, V. Davis, Scoggins, Guinyard, Callaway, Reynolds, Patterson, Russell and Lewis.

 

[Bill Brown]

 

By the way, Greg...

I wonder if you could clear something up for me.

Earlier in this thread, while you and I were discussing the partial prints lifted from the car by Barnes, I stated that Jimmy Burt (over 300 feet away and on the other side of the street) is not credible, regarding whether or not the killer touched the patrol car.

I asked you if you agreed with me or if you feel Burt is credible, re: whether or not the killer touched the car.

Do you feel Burt is credible when he discusses what happened down at the patrol car even though he was over 300 feet away?