Finish The Sentence, Re: Tippit:

[Greg Doudna]

UPDATE on fingerprints

Helen Markham said she saw the killer's hands ON--TOUCHING--the Tippit patrol car at the right front door, moments before she saw him shoot and kill Tippit ... one of the two locations from the car from which fingerprints from one single individual were lifted from two locations corresponding to the two locations where the killer was seen standing at that car. 

Those fingerprints appear to have been left by that killer.

The Dallas Police did not disclose what is now known, that those fingerprints left at the precise spot of the killer's hands in witnessed direct contact with the car, were not--repeat NOT--a match to Oswald. That is an uncontested finding of fact first reported in 1998. 

This suggests that although that killer may have looked similar enough to Oswald to be mistakenly confused with Oswald by witnesses, that killer may not have been Oswald.

At 0:45 in the video below Helen Markham graphically illustrates, accompanying her words, what the killer's hands and arms looked like and his posture as she saw him lean onto the Tippit patrol car's right front door moments before killing officer Tippit.

It was not a posture of arms crossed leaning into and onto the door at the right front window (as I had supposed in the absence of knowledge of this testimony). It was a posture of elbows outstretched and hands clasped, with the clasped BARE HANDS ON the top of the car door with body weight resting on those outstretched arms and hands exactly--EXACTLY--where the fingerprints were lifted.

(See the photo of Sergeant Barnes dusting for those prints at the top of the right front door of the Tippit patrol car on page 210 of Myers, With Malice, 2013 edn.) 

The exclusion of Oswald as a non-match to those fingerprints was unconscionably not disclosed by Dallas Police. The FBI, Warren Commission, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations all failed to discover and/or disclose that factual finding which is not in dispute today. 

I did not know that Helen Markham's description of what she saw was that explicit in this video interview--of telling of having witnessed direct contact of the killer's hands with the patrol car where the prints were lifted--until today. Maybe Bill knew it was there all along but I did not.

The video interview is below following my transcription of the first part. Note the specificity in detail.

Note also Helen Markham's physical description of the killer as "short, kind of short".

Oswald at 5'9" and lean was average height. 5'9" for a man is not considered "short". Oswald was not called "short".  

(Curtis Craford was shorter and heavier than Oswald. Craford was called "short".)

"Well this man was walking along the sidewalk on Tenth Street. This police car was driving very slow down Tenth Street. And what happened? Well the man kept walking, just like I say with his hands down and his head. He had no intent in mind, he didn't care. And this police car kept coming on, coming on, and finally he stopped. And the man stopped. And whether the man, the policeman say come over to the car, talk to him, I don't know but he went. Was he on the driver's side or on the other side? On the other side. And did he stick his head in the window? Yes sir, he folded his hands like this [here Mrs. Markham raises her arms with outstretched elbows horizontally with hands joined clasping each other]. He put them in through the window--up on the window, and he leaned over like this [here Mrs. Markham leans forward as if resting her weight on her hands and arms on the top of a car door]. 

"What do you remember about this man? Was he a big man? Or a small man? No, he wasn't a very big man. He was short, kind of short, <as far as I can remember>. Well now was he still standing there when Officer Tippit got out of the police car? Well, he got up, you know had taken out--had got out of the window, put his hands back down to his side and stepped back up two steps. The policeman calmly opened the door, he calmly climbed out. And uh me, I didn't pay no attention because I was, you know--talked, friendly--and he, the policeman walked to, got to even to the front wheel on the driver's side. And this man shot him in the wink of the eye, just bang, bang, bang." 

 

 

Edited January 10 by Greg Doudna

[Tom Gram]

13 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

UPDATE on fingerprints

Helen Markham said she saw the killer's hands ON--TOUCHING--the Tippit patrol car at the right front door, moments before she saw him shoot and kill Tippit ... one of the two locations from the car from which fingerprints from one single individual were lifted from two locations corresponding to the two locations where the killer was seen standing at that car. 

Those fingerprints appear to have been left by that killer.

The Dallas Police did not disclose what is now known, that those fingerprints left at the precise spot of the killer's hands in witnessed direct contact with the car, were not--repeat NOT--a match to Oswald. That is an uncontested finding of fact first reported in 1998. 

This suggests that although that killer may have looked similar enough to Oswald to be mistakenly confused with Oswald by witnesses, that killer may not have been Oswald.

At 0:45 in the video below Helen Markham graphically illustrates, accompanying her words, what the killer's hands and arms looked like and his posture as she saw him lean onto the Tippit patrol car's right front door moments before killing officer Tippit.

It was not a posture of arms crossed leaning into and onto the door at the right front window (as I had supposed in the absence of knowledge of this testimony). It was a posture of elbows outstretched and hands clasped, with the clasped BARE HANDS ON the top of the car door with body weight resting on those outstretched arms and hands exactly--EXACTLY--where the fingerprints were lifted.

(See the photo of Sergeant Barnes dusting for those prints at the top of the right front door of the Tippit patrol car on page 210 of Myers, With Malice, 2013 edn.) 

The exclusion of Oswald as a non-match to those fingerprints was unconscionably not disclosed by Dallas Police. The FBI, Warren Commission, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations all failed to discover and/or disclose that factual finding which is not in dispute today. 

I did not know that Helen Markham's description of what she saw was that explicit in this video interview--of telling of having witnessed direct contact of the killer's hands with the patrol car where the prints were lifted--until today. Maybe Bill knew it was there all along but I did not.

The video interview is below following my transcription of the first part. Note the specificity in detail.

Note also Helen Markham's physical description of the killer as "short, kind of short, sort of a fat(?) man".

Oswald at 5'9" and lean was average height. 5'9" for a man is not considered "short". Oswald was not called "short".  

(Curtis Craford was shorter and heavier than Oswald. Craford was called "short".)

"Well this man was walking along the sidewalk on Tenth Street. This police car was driving very slow down Tenth Street. And what happened? Well the man kept walking, just like I say with his hands down and his head. He had no intent in mind, he didn't care. And this police car kept coming on, coming on, and finally he stopped. And the man stopped. And whether the man, the policeman say come over to the car, talk to him, I don't know but he went. Was he on the driver's side or on the other side? On the other side. And did he stick his head in the window? Yes sir, he folded his hands like this [here Mrs. Markham raises her arms with outstretched elbows horizontally with hands joined clasping each other]. He put them in through the window--up on the window, and he leaned over like this [here Mrs. Markham leans forward as if resting her weight on her hands and arms on the top of a car door]. 

"What do you remember about this man? Was he a big man? Or a small man? No, he wasn't a very big man. He was short, kind of short, sort of a fat(?) man. Well now was he still standing there when Officer Tippit got out of the police car? Well, he got up, you know had taken out--had got out of the window, put his hands back down to his side and stepped back up two steps. The policeman calmly opened the door, he calmly climbed out. And uh me, I didn't pay no attention because I was, you know--talked, friendly--and he, the policeman walked to, got to even to the front clear on the driver's side. And this man shot him in the wink of the eye, just bang, bang, bang." 

 

 

Good find. Markham seems to have been very consistent in stating that she observed the killer’s hands ON the patrol car. Her affidavit says arms but it seems clear that she was referring to the scene described above, which she clarified in her WC testimony: 

Mrs. MARKHAM. That is right. And the man went over to the car, put his hands on the window-- 
Mr. DULLES. The window was open? 
Mrs. MARKHAM. Leaned over like this. 
Mr. DULLES. Let me see. Was that on the right-hand side of the car, or where the driver was? 

One question. You put a question mark next to your transcription of “fat” - I can’t tell what she’s saying at all but I’m not sure she says “sort of a fat man”. After the alleged “fat” there seems to be another syllable in there somewhere, but it’s hard to tell. 

Is it too much of a stretch to say that Markham’s testimony combined with the prints would’ve got Oswald acquitted in any court in America? Bring in Markham, Barnes/Bentley, then the fingerprint expert and that’s enough for reasonable doubt right there. Heck I wonder if Markham’s statement at the scene is why they dusted the window in the first place. 

Edited January 9 by Tom Gram

[James Keane]

13 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

UPDATE on fingerprints

Helen Markham said she saw the killer's hands ON--TOUCHING--the Tippit patrol car at the right front door, moments before she saw him shoot and kill Tippit ... one of the two locations from the car from which fingerprints from one single individual were lifted from two locations corresponding to the two locations where the killer was seen standing at that car. 

Those fingerprints appear to have been left by that killer.

The Dallas Police did not disclose what is now known, that those fingerprints left at the precise spot of the killer's hands in witnessed direct contact with the car, were not--repeat NOT--a match to Oswald. That is an uncontested finding of fact first reported in 1998. 

This suggests that although that killer may have looked similar enough to Oswald to be mistakenly confused with Oswald by witnesses, that killer may not have been Oswald.

At 0:45 in the video below Helen Markham graphically illustrates, accompanying her words, what the killer's hands and arms looked like and his posture as she saw him lean onto the Tippit patrol car's right front door moments before killing officer Tippit.

It was not a posture of arms crossed leaning into and onto the door at the right front window (as I had supposed in the absence of knowledge of this testimony). It was a posture of elbows outstretched and hands clasped, with the clasped BARE HANDS ON the top of the car door with body weight resting on those outstretched arms and hands exactly--EXACTLY--where the fingerprints were lifted.

(See the photo of Sergeant Barnes dusting for those prints at the top of the right front door of the Tippit patrol car on page 210 of Myers, With Malice, 2013 edn.) 

The exclusion of Oswald as a non-match to those fingerprints was unconscionably not disclosed by Dallas Police. The FBI, Warren Commission, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations all failed to discover and/or disclose that factual finding which is not in dispute today. 

I did not know that Helen Markham's description of what she saw was that explicit in this video interview--of telling of having witnessed direct contact of the killer's hands with the patrol car where the prints were lifted--until today. Maybe Bill knew it was there all along but I did not.

The video interview is below following my transcription of the first part. Note the specificity in detail.

Note also Helen Markham's physical description of the killer as "short, kind of short, sort of a fat(?) man".

Oswald at 5'9" and lean was average height. 5'9" for a man is not considered "short". Oswald was not called "short".  

(Curtis Craford was shorter and heavier than Oswald. Craford was called "short".)

"Well this man was walking along the sidewalk on Tenth Street. This police car was driving very slow down Tenth Street. And what happened? Well the man kept walking, just like I say with his hands down and his head. He had no intent in mind, he didn't care. And this police car kept coming on, coming on, and finally he stopped. And the man stopped. And whether the man, the policeman say come over to the car, talk to him, I don't know but he went. Was he on the driver's side or on the other side? On the other side. And did he stick his head in the window? Yes sir, he folded his hands like this [here Mrs. Markham raises her arms with outstretched elbows horizontally with hands joined clasping each other]. He put them in through the window--up on the window, and he leaned over like this [here Mrs. Markham leans forward as if resting her weight on her hands and arms on the top of a car door]. 

"What do you remember about this man? Was he a big man? Or a small man? No, he wasn't a very big man. He was short, kind of short, sort of a fat(?) man. Well now was he still standing there when Officer Tippit got out of the police car? Well, he got up, you know had taken out--had got out of the window, put his hands back down to his side and stepped back up two steps. The policeman calmly opened the door, he calmly climbed out. And uh me, I didn't pay no attention because I was, you know--talked, friendly--and he, the policeman walked to, got to even to the front wheel on the driver's side. And this man shot him in the wink of the eye, just bang, bang, bang." 

 

 

Very interesting and compelling Greg, thank you for posting this. 
 

With regard to the transcribing of ‘sort of a fat man’ that Tom Gram has also questioned above, I am not hearing that. I hear Markham say ‘he was short, kinda short, as far as I can remember’.
 

Aware this is more syllables than appears spoken, but Markham kind of trails off and the final words kind of collapse on themselves. Just my interpretation anyway. Most important thing is the link between the killer’s hands and the fingerprints - which you present a compelling case for using her interview. Again - great find!

[Pete Mellor]

1 hour ago, James Keane said:

Most important thing is the link between the killer’s hands and the fingerprints - which you present a compelling case for using her interview. Again - great find!

I agree James.

....and 'just one more thing', I've long thought that Greg Doudna is the nearest thing to Lieutenant Columbo that we have in this Forum!

[Bill Brown]

 

This interview with Markham was for the Sept. 27, 1964 broadcast of "November 22, 1963: The Warren Report" (CBS).  Yes, it has been there all along, nothing new here.

Markham says: "He wasn't a very big man. He was short - kind of short - so, as I can remember."

What she does NOT say is he was short, kind of short, sort of a fat(?) man, as incorrectly attributed to her by Greg Doudna.  Therefore, Markham's description does NOT rule out Oswald, since she doesn't use the word fat.

We also know that her description doesn't rule out Oswald because she positively identified Oswald (the #2 man) during a police lineup a couple hours after the shooting.

"Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman." - Helen Markham (Warren Commission testimony)

Markham was absolutely positive that the man she saw shoot Tippit was Lee Oswald when she said this (also from her testimony to the Warren Commission): "When we looked at each other, he just stared, just like that. I just don't know. I just seen him, I would know the man anywhere, I know I would."

 

As for the partial fingerprints lifted from the driver's side door, this entire thing is foolish.

It does not take a Lieutenant Columbo to understand that Markham was standing about 150 feet west of the patrol car and on the other side of the street, i.e. the other side of the car from where Oswald was.  All it takes is a basic understanding of the Tippit case.  From her position across the street and 150 feet west of the car, there is no way she could see whether or not Oswald touched the door.  All she could determine was that Oswald walked over to the car and leaned down to talk to Tippit.  Jack Tatum drove by at about this same instant, saw Oswald from ten to fifteen feet away and said Oswald had his hands in his jacket pockets and he was leaning down to talk to Tippit.

Maybe part of the problem here is that some of you are completely unaware of where Markham was standing in relation to the stopped patrol car.

This is simple stuff as long as one doesn't choose to jump through hoops in an effort to make it difficult.

There is no way Markham can be relied upon as a witness to whether or not the killer touched the passenger side door.  We know this because she incorrectly said: "The window was down, and I know it was down, I know, and he put his arms and leaned over."  The problem here is that window was NOT down during the conversation between Tippit and Oswald, unless one wants to believe that Tippit rolled the window up before getting out of the car, which would be complete nonsense.  Crime scene photos show the window clearly rolled up.

In addition to Markham, earlier in this thread, Greg Doudna relied on Jimmy Burt as a witness to Tippit's killer touching the passenger door of the patrol car.  This is also faulty.  First, Jimmy Burt was about 300 feet east of the stopped patrol car.  Second, and perhaps more importantly, Burt also said that Tippit, siting in the driver seat, "reached over and rolled the window down".  Since the window was NOT down, Burt is making a mistaken assumption (as was Markham).  Since we know Burt was making a mistaken assumption regarding Tippit reaching over and rolling the window down, then why can't Burt be making another mistaken assumption when he said the killer placed his hands on the car?  This statement by Burt is proof that he cannot be relied upon as to whether or not the killer touched the car.  Again, crime scene photos show the window rolled up.

Markham and Burt saw Tippit's killer walk over to the passenger side of the patrol car and lean down to talk to Tippit through the opened tiny vent window.  Is it really all that unreasonable for both to later make the simple but yet mistaken assumption that the killer actually touched the car?  Of course not.

Sometimes you see an event unfold without seeing the complete picture.  Your mind then fills in the blanks; a perfectly natural thing to do.

Edited January 9 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

7 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Good find. Markham seems to have been very consistent in stating that she observed the killer’s hands ON the patrol car. Her affidavit says arms but it seems clear that she was referring to the scene described above, which she clarified in her WC testimony: 

Mrs. MARKHAM. That is right. And the man went over to the car, put his hands on the window-- 
Mr. DULLES. The window was open? 
Mrs. MARKHAM. Leaned over like this. 
Mr. DULLES. Let me see. Was that on the right-hand side of the car, or where the driver was? 

One question. You put a question mark next to your transcription of “fat” - I can’t tell what she’s saying at all but I’m not sure she says “sort of a fat man”. After the alleged “fat” there seems to be another syllable in there somewhere, but it’s hard to tell. 

Is it too much of a stretch to say that Markham’s testimony combined with the prints would’ve got Oswald acquitted in any court in America? Bring in Markham, Barnes/Bentley, then the fingerprint expert and that’s enough for reasonable doubt right there. Heck I wonder if Markham’s statement at the scene is why they dusted the window in the first place. 

 

"Markham seems to have been very consistent in stating that she observed the killer’s hands ON the patrol car. Her affidavit says arms but..."

 

I find this comical.  Claim Markham was consistent about how the killer touched the car and then provide an example of her inconsistency.

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

Thanks to Tom Gram, James Keane, and Bill Brown, you are all right on "fat(?)" not being what Helen Markham said. The quality of the recording is too poor for me to know whether James Keane's or Bill Brown's exact wording is correct between the two but the meaning is the same in either case and there is no "fat".

11 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Is it too much of a stretch to say that Markham’s testimony combined with the prints would’ve got Oswald acquitted in any court in America? Bring in Markham, Barnes/Bentley, then the fingerprint expert and that’s enough for reasonable doubt right there. Heck I wonder if Markham’s statement at the scene is why they dusted the window in the first place. 

Not much of a stretch I wouldn't think Tom, in the hands of a competent attorney. 

Edited January 10 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

"Markham seems to have been very consistent in stating that she observed the killer’s hands ON the patrol car. Her affidavit says arms but..."

I find this comical.  Claim Markham was consistent about how the killer touched the car and then provide an example of her inconsistency.

Not comical Bill. Inconsistent would be if Markham ever denied the killer's hands touched after saying they did touch. She did not. You are claiming inconsistency improperly.

5 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

This interview with Markham was for the Sept. 27, 1964 broadcast of "November 22, 1963: The Warren Report" (CBS).  Yes, it has been there all along, nothing new here.

 And yet you never enlightened me when I was struggling to go to a lot of work to show Helen Markham's other testimony was sounding like the killer touched even if Helen Markham did not say so directly. You knew all along she said so directly here. Why did you not say so and save me that energy? You never mentioned it before. 

Of course it really doesn't matter much whether she did or didn't say she saw hands in contact. Either way, she saw the killer leaning over onto the car when talking through what we know was the vent window. A killer leaning over onto the top of a car door is prima facie an obvious candidate for who left fingerprints lifted from the top of that car door twenty minutes later. And Helen Markham from where she was standing was in excellent position to see the killer leaning over onto the car door as she described in a manner that would have left prints. She wasn't making that up. She did not get that wrong. That happened.

And the reason we know that happened (apart from Helen Markham looking right at it has directly told us that happened)? Because of that vent window being the only way one could talk through to the officer inside.

The killer had to lean down to talk through that vent, which Tippit inside the car may have reached over to crack open to make that possible.

Think it through--how easy is it to lean down to talk through a cracked right front vent window to a police officer sitting inside that car, without resting one's hands on the patrol car for balance? Wouldn't that be awkward and almost painful after only a few seconds to be leaned down like that without resting hands on the car door?

And after all that, I'm not as persuaded as you that Helen Markham could not have seen hands on the car as she said, even if it did involve seeing through glass windows through the cabin of the patrol car at 150 feet. Are you sure that's impossible? 

Edited January 10 by Greg Doudna

[Tom Gram]

Bill is blowing smoke. I’m sure we’ll get a condescending “explanation” why this isn’t accurate, but I encourage anyone to look at CE525 and say with a straight face that you couldn’t tell if someone was leaning forward and resting their hands on the car to talk through the passenger window: 

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0128b.htm

Bill’s acting like 150 feet is 150 miles. It was broad daylight. Markham said she saw the killer put his “arms” on the car that same day. She clarified what she meant in her WC testimony and CBS interview. Not rocket science. 

On the window being open, Bill is perfectly content coming up with imaginable scenarios with zero supporting evidence for the fingerprints involving gas station attendants, unidentified witnesses, etc. Anyone but the Tippit killer: the only person for whom there is actual, credible evidence connecting them to the prints.

So let’s do the same sort of thing with the window. 

Bill implies it is impossible that the window was open and closed afterwards, but is it really impossible? Could the window have been closed by the officers dusting for fingerprints? What about by an officer trying to keep nosy onlookers from poking around the cruiser? What about the multiple witnesses who were in the patrol car before police arrived? With all the commotion, could it have been easier to hear the radio with a closed window? 

Any one of these scenarios is just as likely to be true as Bill’s phantom fingerprint theory, if not more so - cause who the hell tries to have a conversation through a closed car window?

Also, Bill claims it is nonsense, but it is really that crazy to think that Tippit leaned over, cracked the window, and rolled it back up before he got out of the car?

Edited January 10 by Tom Gram

[Bill Brown]

10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Not comical Bill. Inconsistent would be if Markham ever denied the killer's hands touched after saying they did touch. She did not. You are claiming inconsistency improperly.

 And yet you never enlightened me when I was struggling to go to a lot of work to show Helen Markham's other testimony was sounding like the killer touched even if Helen Markham did not say so directly. You knew all along she said so directly here. Why did you not say so and save me that energy? You never mentioned it before. 

Of course it really doesn't matter much whether she did or didn't say she saw hands in contact. Either way, she saw the killer leaning over onto the car when talking through what we know was the vent window. A killer leaning over onto the top of a car door is prima facie an obvious candidate for who left fingerprints lifted from the top of that car door twenty minutes later. And Helen Markham from where she was standing was in excellent position to see the killer leaning over onto the car door as she described in a manner that would have left prints. She wasn't making that up. She did not get that wrong. That happened.

And the reason we know that happened (apart from Helen Markham looking right at it has directly told us that happened)? Because of that vent window being the only way one could talk through to the officer inside.

The killer had to lean down to talk through that vent, which Tippit inside the car may have reached over to crack open to make that possible.

Think it through--how easy is it to lean down to talk through a cracked right front vent window to a police officer sitting inside that car, without resting one's hands on the patrol car for balance? Wouldn't that be awkward and almost painful after only a few seconds to be leaned down like that without resting hands on the car door?

And after all that, I'm not as persuaded as you that Helen Markham could not have seen hands on the car as she said, even if it did involve seeing through glass windows through the cabin of the patrol car at 150 feet. Are you sure that's impossible? 

 

Do you believe Tippit leaned over and rolled down the passenger's side window of the patrol car?

 

[Greg Doudna]

9 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Bill is blowing smoke. I’m sure we’ll get a condescending “explanation” why this isn’t accurate, but I encourage anyone to look at CE525 and say with a straight face that you couldn’t tell if someone was leaning forward and resting their hands on the car to talk through the passenger window: 

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0128b.htm

Bill’s acting like 150 feet is 150 miles. It was broad daylight. Markham said she saw the killer put his “arms” on the car that same day. She clarified what she meant in her WC testimony and CBS interview. Not rocket science. 

On the window being open, Bill is perfectly content coming up with imaginable scenarios with zero supporting evidence for the fingerprints involving gas station attendants, unidentified witnesses, etc. Anyone but the Tippit killer: the only person for whom there is actual, credible evidence connecting them to the prints.

Right Tom, I couldn’t say it better. 

And it’s not only the fingerprints. There are other basic things suggesting Oswald’s actual innocence re Tippit. Why would Oswald have gone from his rooming house to Tenth and Patton in the first place? It makes no sense, has never been well explained. Whereas if the killer was a professional carrying out a contract execution that anomaly is removed.

And if it was Oswald randomly walking there (despite no sensible reason why he would be there), and Tippit stops him because he looks suspicious, especially in light of the president’s assassination and a police radio reported killer at large, it makes no sense that Tippit would not call in that stop to the dispatcher. What makes sense is that the killer on the sidewalk flagged Tippit down to speak to him, not vice versa, that it was not Tippit checking out a suspicious person. 

Then the killer spoke to Tippit through that open vent window, we don’t know what he said, but he said something which lured Tippit out of the car, which was so that the killer could shoot him dead as a contract execution. But he had to get Tippit out of the car first. 

Perhaps the reason Tippit didn’t radio it in was because it was not a stop of a suspicious person from Tippit’s point of view. It could even be the killer was someone Tippit recognized and trusted, the way mob hits sometimes worked. 

And the killer’s back and forth in different directions on that sidewalk seen by the witnesses: Myers went to a lot of work to argue that was a person changing directions when seeing a police car. Then, that theory goes per Myers’ argument, Tippit noticed that, and that is why Tippit became suspicious and decided to check him out. 

But that doesn’t explain the lack of radioing in that he was making a stop of a potentially armed and dangerous person who conceivably could have assassinated the president.

A better interpretation is the killer from the sidewalk flagged down Tippit and not vice versa. As the killer saw Tippit’s car approaching and slowing, the killer on the sidewalk changed walking directions to go to the slowing patrol car until it stopped. That accounts for the witnesses’ differences on movements and directions of the killer as Tippit’s patrol car arrived and stopped. 

All of this happened only a couple of blocks from Ruby’s apartment, where a confessed hitman employee of Ruby could have slept there, then walked to the Tippit crime scene, after having been last seen the night before in the company of Ruby at about 2 or 3 am with Ruby driving him home. 

And the killer of Tippit got to the crime scene by walking there, seen walking west there on Tenth Street, as if he had started from Ruby’s apartment that couple of blocks east of the Tippit crime scene. 

Oswald meanwhile was witnessed in the main level of the Texas Theatre at the time Tippit was killed, Oswald sitting down in seats directly next to individuals sitting alone in that theater because he was looking for an expected person he was meeting there. That behavior of Oswald in a practically empty theater, witnessed by theater patron Jack Davis who told of Oswald sitting briefly in a seat directly next to him and then another person before moving again, is difficult to interpret otherwise. 

Rather than Oswald being the killer of Tippit, Oswald like Tippit was slated for death that day by the same killers. (“Killers” in plural because the gunman did not act on his own even though he was the only gunman.)

When the intent to kill Oswald in the Theatre failed on Friday due to the rapid police arrival and arrest of Oswald, the same interests had Oswald killed while in police custody on Sunday morning.

There was overwhelming police motivation to pin Tippit on Oswald, close that case right there, even before Oswald was dead but even more so after he was dead. 

But there are grounds for calling into question that he did it.

Edited January 10 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

15 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Do you believe Tippit leaned over and rolled down the passenger's side window of the patrol car?

No.

[Tom Gram]

28 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

No.

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but doesn’t this crime scene photo show the passenger vent window cracked open?: 

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49421/?q=Tippit photo

If so, that settles it. The killer leaned down to talk through the cracked vent, just like you said. 

Random question regarding the fingerprints. This might be in Myers’ book, but are any of these cards the prints lifted from the window frame?: 

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337647/?q=Tippit photo

The card in the bottom right is described elsewhere on UNT as Tippit’s prints, but I got curious cause the configuration sort-of looks like two partial handprints. I have no idea what I’m looking at, though. 

[Bill Brown]

2 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but doesn’t this crime scene photo show the passenger vent window cracked open?: 

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49421/?q=Tippit photo

If so, that settles it. The killer leaned down to talk through the cracked vent, just like you said. 

Random question regarding the fingerprints. This might be in Myers’ book, but are any of these cards the prints lifted from the window frame?: 

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337647/?q=Tippit photo

The card in the bottom right is described elsewhere on UNT as Tippit’s prints, but I got curious cause the configuration sort-of looks like two partial handprints. I have no idea what I’m looking at, though. 

 

"Correct me if I’m wrong here, but doesn’t this crime scene photo show the passenger vent window cracked open?: 

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49421/?q=Tippit photo

If so, that settles it. The killer leaned down to talk through the cracked vent, just like you said."

 

I mentioned the tiny vent window being opened.  Greg simply replied to my mention of it.

And YES, it's nothing new that the vent window was open in the crime scene photos.

 

[Bill Brown]

On 1/10/2024 at 7:45 AM, Greg Doudna said:

No.

 

But Markham said the window was down.  You're basically admitting she was simply making an assumption.  She did the same when she said Oswald put his hands/arms on the passenger door.

 

Edited January 12 by Bill Brown