T.F. Bowley, A Wind-Up Wristwatch & 1:17

[Gerry Down]

3 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Good story teller, but provides no evidence.

This guy's full of baloney.

A police officer picked up Oswald, but he never tells you who. Only that it wasn't Tippit. How does he know ? Who's his source ?

And who is Mr and Mrs. Malcolm, who allegedly witnessed the murder of Tippit but are never mentioned in the official records ?

Who was the blonde in the '62 Ford who smashed into the back of Tippit's cruiser ? Why isn't she mentioned by any of the witnesses ? Why is there no accident report in the Dallas police files ? And why isn't there any damage in the rear of the cruiser ?

He claims that the limo had a glass partition between the front seat and the rest of the car. But it didn't.

This guy tells a good story but it's the official version with some of his BS speculation added in. He interviewed people but he presents no recordings, no videos and no documents  to prove his case.

Mr. Down writes : "JFKA researcher Michael Brownlow investigated the Tippit shooting for many years and interviewed many of the witnesses. He confirmed Oswald shot Tippit."

If he "confirmed Oswald shot Tippit" I'd have no questions.

I guess you have to buy his books to find out the answers to your questions. That should tell you something.

SMH.

Dale Myers, Bill Brown and Michael Brownlow have all spent more time at 10th and Patton than any other researcher. You should give them some credit. They have all confirmed Oswald shot Tippit.

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Dale Myers, Bill Brown and Michael Brownlow have all spent more time at 10th and Patton than any other researcher. You should give them some credit. They have all confirmed Oswald shot Tippit.

“Confirmed” is a bit of a stretch. Myers especially isn’t exactly captain objectivity, to put it mildly. 

All it could take to exonerate Oswald is a confirmed ID of the fingerprints on the cruiser. Those prints alone would’ve probably got Oswald acquitted on the Tippit murder. 

No matter how you swing it the Tippit killer is by far the most likely candidate to have left those prints, and we know for sure the prints were not left by Oswald.

It’s hard to find a more reasonable doubt than that: hard forensic evidence that the killer - who was witnessed physically touching the car in the exact location where prints were lifted twenty minutes later - was not Lee Harvey Oswald. 

Edited April 16 by Tom Gram

[James DiEugenio]

I agree Tom, this Down guy has really come out of the closet of late.

Another WC zealot.

Why was Tippit at the GLOCO for minutes on end watching the viaduct?

Why did he pull over Andrews and look in the back of the car?

Why did he have to make that call at the record store and then run out?

How does one explain the behavior of Nelson if he was replying to the same order, which he was supposed to be doing?

And how does one explain Mentzel?

I wonder, who many wallets does Mr. Down carry?

Oswald had five, including  one at the scene of tenth and Patton.  Which had to be deep sixed because he had another one on his person.

Edited April 16 by James DiEugenio

[Kevin Balch]

54 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

“Confirmed” is a bit of a stretch. Myers especially isn’t exactly captain objectivity, to put it mildly. 

All it could take to exonerate Oswald is a confirmed ID of the fingerprints on the cruiser. Those prints alone would’ve probably got Oswald acquitted on the Tippit murder. 

No matter how you swing it the Tippit killer is by far the most likely candidate to have left those prints, and we know for sure the prints were not left by Oswald.

It’s hard to find a more reasonable doubt than that: hard forensic evidence that the killer - who was witnessed physically touching the car in the exact location where prints were lifted twenty minutes later - was not Lee Harvey Oswald. 

Do we know for sure that Tippit’s killer actually placed his hands on the car? All the witnesses were on the other side of the car. 

[Bill Brown]

15 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Mr. Brown failed to respond when I asked him why the dictabelt indicates that Ted Callaway made a second citizen call for help AFTER the ambulance had already arrived.

 

"Mr. Brown failed to respond when I asked him why the dictabelt indicates that Ted Callaway made a second citizen call for help AFTER the ambulance had already arrived."

 

I wasn't aware that this really required a response.

"I went on up to the squad car and saw the police officer lying in the street. I see he had been shot in the head. So the first thing I did, I ran over to the squad car. I didn't know whether anybody reported it or not. So I got on the police radio and called them, and told them a man had been shot, told them the location, I thought the officer was dead. They said we know about it, stay off the air, so I went back." -- Ted Callaway (Warren Commission testimony)

 

 

[Bill Brown]

6 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Dale Myers, Bill Brown and Michael Brownlow have all spent more time at 10th and Patton than any other researcher. You should give them some credit. They have all confirmed Oswald shot Tippit.

 

Thanks Gerry.  Much appreciated, Buddy.

 

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Kevin Balch said:

Do we know for sure that Tippit’s killer actually placed his hands on the car? All the witnesses were on the other side of the car. 

Markham isn’t the best witness overall obviously, but she was very consistent that she saw the killer lean down and put his hands on the car by the window, and it would’ve clearly visible from her position across the street. (Incoming Bill Brown to tell us that since her affidavit said “arms” that somehow means something - even though she clarified what she meant in her WC testimony and CBS interview i.e. “hands”, not to mention that someone putting their arms on the window ledge and somehow avoiding their hands to lean in from that position is ridiculous.) 

Hell it’s possible if not likely that Markham’s statement at the scene was a big part of why they dusted the window ledge in the first place. 

There were other witnesses to the same thing with varying levels of credibility and plausible view, but Markham absolutely would’ve been able to see someone leaning on the car from her position. It was broad freaking daylight. 

Even without the witnesses, the Tippit killer is still by far the most likely candidate to have left those prints. The prints were left by a single individual, and lifted from the exact two positions where the killer had been observed literally twenty minutes earlier right next to the patrol car. 

EDIT: To answer your question, no, of course we don’t know for sure. No one videotaped it, but the evidence overall suggests a very, very strong probability that the killer did indeed touch the car; and if the killer touched the car, the killer was not Lee Oswald. 

Edited April 16 by Tom Gram

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

“Confirmed” is a bit of a stretch. Myers especially isn’t exactly captain objectivity, to put it mildly. 

All it could take to exonerate Oswald is a confirmed ID of the fingerprints on the cruiser. Those prints alone would’ve probably got Oswald acquitted on the Tippit murder. 

No matter how you swing it the Tippit killer is by far the most likely candidate to have left those prints, and we know for sure the prints were not left by Oswald.

It’s hard to find a more reasonable doubt than that: hard forensic evidence that the killer - who was witnessed physically touching the car in the exact location where prints were lifted twenty minutes later - was not Lee Harvey Oswald. 

 

There is nothing to suggest that the prints MUST have been left by the killer.

Partial prints lifted from the patrol car that don't belong to Oswald does not in any way create reasonable doubt about Oswald's guilt.  To do so, you'd have to show that the prints MUST belong to the killer.

Are you even aware of where the partial prints were found on the car?  No witness describes the killer touching the car in a location where one of the two prints were lifted from.  If the prints were left by the same person, then this would rule out the killer as the one responsible for leaving the prints.

 

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I agree Tom, this Down guy has really come out of the closet of late.

Another WC zealot.

Why was Tippit at the GLOCO for minutes on end watching the viaduct?

Why did he pull over Andrews and look in the back of the car?

Why did he have to make that call at the record store and then run out?

How does one explain the behavior of Nelson is he was replying to the same order, which he was supposed to be doing?

And how does one explain Mentzel?

I wonder, who many wallets does Mr. Down carry?

Oswald had five, including  one at the one at the scene of tenth and Patton.  Which had to be deep sixed because he had another one on his person.

 

"Why did he pull over Andrews and look in the back of the car?

Why did he have to make that call at the record store and then run out?"

 

Why do you automatically believe stories that came out of the woodwork decades later?  The Top Ten story came out in 1981 and the Andrews story didn't come out until the very early 1990's.  Why did these people wait so long to tell their stories?

 

 

[Tom Gram]

1 minute ago, Bill Brown said:

 

There is nothing to suggest that the prints MUST have been left by the killer.

Partial prints lifted from the patrol car that don't belong to Oswald does not in any way create reasonable doubt about Oswald's guilt.  To do so, you'd have to show that the prints MUST belong to the killer.

Are you even aware of where the partial prints were found on the car?  No witness describes the killer touching the car in a location where one of the two prints were lifted from.  If the prints were left by the same person, then this would rule out the killer as the one responsible for leaving the prints.

 

So reasonable doubt is the same as conclusive proof now? I think we can all be grateful that you aren’t a defense attorney.

Also that’s some impressive logic Bill. Since witnesses only saw the killer physically touch one of the two locations where prints were lifted, and the prints were left by a single individual, the killer couldn’t have touched the right front fender… mind = boggled. 

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

Do we know for sure that Tippit’s killer actually placed his hands on the car? All the witnesses were on the other side of the car. 

 

Great question; one that I've discussed here many times.  No.  We don't know that for sure at all.

Helen Markham said the killer placed his hands on the car but there is no way she could see that from her position.  She made an assumption, a natural one to make, though incorrect.

Jimmy Burt said the killer touched the car but he was about 300 feet east of the scene.

 

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

Do we know for sure that Tippit’s killer actually placed his hands on the car? All the witnesses were on the other side of the car. 

Nobody disputes the killer was leaning down in to speak to Tippit through that front vent window, sort of hard to do so without resting hands on the car. Try to replicate that, lean down to talk through a cracked-open passenger vent window so that the driver can hear clearly ... without resting against the car for balance, or positioning one's hands for balance as one puts one's face near the glass to speak through the vent. 

Two of the witnesses who observed the killer talking to Tippit that way directly said the killer's arms (Markham) or hands (Jimmy Burt) were on that front passenger door touching. Helen Markham said that in her same-day Nov 22, 1963 Dallas Police written signed affidavit, and Jimmy Burt said that to Al Chapman. And Jimmy Burt for reasons I have given elsewhere probably was not viewing from a block away, but from a few feet away sitting in his car next to Tippit's patrol car at the time, in other words, unless he was lying or fabricating about seeing the killer's hands on the car, he was in an extremely good position to have seen and know that. 

And the prints conclusively were found not to be Oswald's--in 1994, first publicly disclosed in 1998--by an examiner who said it was easy to see that, though the Dallas Police appear to have covered up that little detail at the time. To this day, nobody knows who in the Dallas Police crime lab did the print examination that concluded there was no information in those prints such as the 1994 negative identification (not-Oswald). Officer Barnes told the Warren Commission as hearsay that that had been such a Dallas Police finding that the prints were worthless, but did not say who, and no document tells who, nobody signed anything or admitted they decided that, re those Tippit patrol car passenger door and right front bumper prints at DPD. No record DPD sought or FBI sought FBI's assistance in examining those prints. If a Michigan examiner in 1994 could easily find a negative-identification (exclusion of) Oswald, surely the FBI in 1963 could have found that and maybe more. It looks like once both DPD and the FBI realized those prints couldn't be used to incriminate Oswald, all interest was gone in them, including, perhaps especially including, the threat that it might possibly lead to identification of some killer other than Oswald.

If Oswald had gone to trial for the murder of officer Tippit, and a jury was presented with this, how could this alone not raise "reasonable doubt" that Oswald was certainly the killer. Jurors are instructed not to convict only because they think someone is probably guilty, but have "no reasonable doubt" that that is the case. 

If those prints were not Oswald's left where one would expect the killer to leave prints, where two crime scene witnesses said they directly saw physical contact of the killer's arms/hands on the car at that location, where prints were found, from someone who was not Oswald ... what should an honest juror think?

Convict Oswald because "he could still be guilty" even so?

What about in the eyes of history? 

No one lifts a finger to examine those prints further even today, which could still be done. Myers responded abusively to me when in the most polite manner possible I sought his assistance. Bill Brown has said at various times that he has not the least interest in having an examination done to find out who those fingerprints match to since he is certain they did not come from the killer (absurdly, he thinks he knows that). 

(I'm not totally negative on Myers--he got the prints' finding done by Lutz of 1994 and reported and published it, which was important and nobody else had gotten that done, and that is something and to be honored.)

I don't know how to get a fingerprint examination for match to Curtis Craford done, but I would put $500 into it if someone else was capable of getting it done competently in a blind examination which would be guaranteed to be published no matter what the findings. I would put $250 into an examination that was not blind. I don't pretend that would necessarily underwrite the full costs of such, but I am offering to put some money where my mouth is to that extent. 

I see just now Tom Gram's above--very right. 

And Bill Brown trying to frame this as a question of whether the negative exclusion of Oswald from those prints is absolute proof of innocence, as distinguished from reasonable cause to question Oswald's guilt. 

Edited April 16 by Greg Doudna

[Bill Brown]

14 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Markham isn’t the best witness overall obviously, but she was very consistent that she saw the killer lean down and put his hands on the car by the window, and it would’ve clearly visible from her position across the street. (Incoming Bill Brown to tell us that since her affidavit said “arms” that somehow means something - even though she clarified what she meant in her WC testimony and CBS interview i.e. “hands”, not to mention that someone putting their arms on the window ledge and somehow avoiding their hands to lean in from that position is ridiculous.) 

Hell it’s possible if not likely that Markham’s statement at the scene was a big part of why they dusted the window ledge in the first place. 

There were other witnesses to the same thing with varying levels of credibility and plausible view, but Markham absolutely would’ve been able to see someone leaning on the car from her position. It was broad freaking daylight. 

Even without the witnesses, the Tippit killer is still by far the most likely candidate to have left those prints. The prints were left by a single individual, and lifted from the exact two positions where the killer had been observed literally twenty minutes earlier right next to the patrol car. 

EDIT: To answer your question, no, of course we don’t know for sure. No one videotaped it, but the evidence overall suggests a very, very strong probability that the killer did indeed touch the car; and if the killer touched the car, the killer was not Lee Oswald. 

 

"Even without the witnesses, the Tippit killer is still by far the most likely candidate to have left those prints. The prints were left by a single individual, and lifted from the exact two positions where the killer had been observed literally twenty minutes earlier right next to the patrol car."

 

No.

Other than the prints lifted from the passenger front door, who said the killer touched the patrol car near the front passenger fender just above the tire?

 

[Bill Brown]

6 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

So reasonable doubt is the same as conclusive proof now? I think we can all be grateful that you aren’t a defense attorney.

Also that’s some impressive logic Bill. Since witnesses only saw the killer physically touch one of the two locations where prints were lifted, and the prints were left by a single individual, the killer couldn’t have touched the right front fender… mind = boggled. 

Look. It's real simple.

Two partial prints were lifted from the patrol car.  One from the passenger front door.  The other from the right front fender just above the tire.  The prints most likely belong to the same person.  Who said the killer touched the right front fender just above the tire?

 

[Bill Brown]

4 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Nobody disputes the killer was leaning down in to speak to Tippit through that front vent window, sort of hard not to do so without resting hands on the car. Try to replicate that, lean down to talk through a cracked-open passenger vent window so that the driver can hear clearly ... without resting against the car for balance, or positioning one's hands for balance as one puts one's face near the glass to speak through the vent. 

Two of the witnesses who observed the killer talking to Tippit that way directly said the killer's arms (Markham) or hands (Jimmy Burt) were on that front passenger door touching. Helen Markham said that in her same-day Nov 22, 1963 Dallas Police written signed affidavit, and Jimmy Burt said that to Al Chapman. And Jimmy Burt for reasons I have given elsewhere probably was not viewing from a block away, but from a few feet away sitting in his car next to Tippit's patrol car at the time, in other words, unless he was lying or fabricating about seeing the killer's hands on the car, he was in an extremely good position to have seen and know that. 

And the prints conclusively were found not to be Oswald's--in 1994, first publicly disclosed in 1998--by an examiner who said it was easy to see that, though the Dallas Police appear to have covered up that little detail at the time. To this day, nobody knows who in the Dallas Police crime lab did the print examination that concluded there was no information in those prints such as the 1994 negative identification (not-Oswald). Officer Barnes told the Warren Commission as hearsay that that had been such a Dallas Police finding that the prints were worthless, but did not say who, and no document tells who, nobody signed anything or admitted they decided that, re those Tippit patrol car passenger door and right front bumper prints at DPD. No record DPD sought or FBI sought FBI's assistance in examining those prints. If a Michigan examiner in 1994 could easily find a negative-identification (exclusion of) Oswald, surely the FBI in 1963 could have found that and maybe more. It looks like once both DPD and the FBI realized those prints couldn't be used to incriminate Oswald, all interest was gone in them, including, perhaps especially including, the threat that it might possibly lead to identification of some killer other than Oswald.

If Oswald had gone to trial for the murder of officer Tippit, and a jury was presented with this, how could this alone not raise "reasonable doubt" that Oswald was certainly the killer. Jurors are instructed not to convict only because they think someone is probably guilty, but have "no reasonable doubt" that that is the case. 

If those prints were not Oswald's left where one would expect the killer to leave prints, where two crime scene witnesses said they directly saw physical contact of the killer's arms/hands on the car at that location, where prints were found, from someone who was not Oswald ... what should an honest juror think?

Convict Oswald because "he could still be guilty" even so?

What about in the eyes of history? 

No one lifts a finger to examine those prints further even today, which could still be done. Myers responded abusively to me when in the most polite manner possible I sought his assistance. Bill Brown has said at various times that he has not the least interest in having an examination done to find out who those fingerprints match to since he is certain they did not come from the killer (absurdly, he thinks he knows that). 

(I'm not totally negative on Myers--he got the prints' finding done by Lutz of 1994 and reported and published it, which was important and nobody else had gotten that done, and that is something and to be honored.)

I don't know how to get a fingerprint examination for match to Curtis Craford done, but I would put $500 into it if someone else was capable of getting it done competently in a blind examination which would be guaranteed to be published no matter what the findings. I would put $250 into an examination that was not blind. I don't pretend that would necessarily underwrite the full costs of such, but I am offering to put some money where my mouth is to that extent. 

I see just now Tom Gram's above--very right. 

And Bill Brown trying to frame this as a question of whether the negative exclusion of Oswald from those prints is absolute proof of innocence, as distinguished from reasonable cause to question Oswald's guilt. 

 

"Two of the witnesses who observed the killer talking to Tippit that way directly said the killer's arms (Markham) or hands (Jimmy Burt) were on that front passenger door touching."

 

Burt also said Tippit reached over and rolled down the passenger window.  That didn't happen though, unless you believe Tippit rolled the window back up before getting out.  So, what now?

If Burt is wrong about that, then why can't he be wrong about the killer placing his hands on the car?