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

[Bill Brown]

12 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

If I could hear a good explanation of how Oswald came to be walking west from Marsalis prior to encountering Tippit, I would be comfortable with concluding Oswald was the shooter of Tippit. Unless new evidence about the jacket emerged that shows it didn’t fit Oswald or it was somebody else’s.

I don’t buy Myers theory that the killer turned around in mid-block and decided to walk west. If it was Oswald walking from the rooming house, he was hauling ass even with the 1:15 shooting time. Somebody walking that fast has a definite destination, they are not “figuring things out”. The Marsalis/Jefferson area is where Oswald was headed toward if he remained on the bus. It’s also logical to say that the killer would have continued on his original direction of travel (west) after killing Tippit.

But that lineup was bullshit.

 

I don't know of anyone these days who argues that Oswald was walking FROM Marsalis.

Myers put forth a theory that goes something like this... Oswald (trying to get to Marsalis) is walking east on Tenth toward Marsalis.  Oswald goes a block and a half or so (from the area of Tenth and Patton) and notices a Dallas County Sheriff's Deputy car near Tenth and Marsalis (the county Sheriff transcripts shows that Unit 109 reported from near Tenth & Marsalis shortly after the report of the shooting by Bowley on the city police radio).

Oswald, not knowing if his face has been plastered all over television (he has been on a bus, in a taxi and on foot for over forty minutes now) does not want to walk past the Deputy so he turns around and is now walking west on Tenth in the direction he had just came from.

My own little timeline on Myers' theory (with no intention on being specific to the precise second)... Oswald arrives at Tenth & Patton at 1:11, walks the block and a half east on Tenth and, noticing the Deputy car, reverses direction at 1:13.  Oswald walks west on Tenth encountering Tippit at 1:15.

It makes as much sense as anything else, when trying to explain why Oswald would be walking east to west along Tenth Street.

 

[Bill Brown]

13 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Hey, I’m glad you shared it Bill. Your previous explanation was reasonable, but you could have just said that to begin with instead of you, of all people, supposedly getting offended by a “smartass comment” by probably the most polite person on this entire forum. 

Your “reputation” with me is fine. Your logic is not. Do you believe that all police lineup identifications are of equal credibility, and all that matters is if someone picks out the suspect, regardless of how unsure they are, the fairness of the lineup, pressure from police, and anything else imaginable? Cause that’s what it sounds like.

It’s a very simple question. Do you believe Markham’s lineup identification is credible or not? 

I’m amazed I have to spell this out, but the difference between Markham’s lineup ID and her statements about the killer touching the car is 1.) Markham said the killer put his arms on the window from day one; 2) She clarified what she meant in her affidavit in subsequent interviews: hands on the window ledge with arms crossed, and even acted it out; 3) she stated that observation confidently, specifically, and never wavered; and 4) what she described would’ve been clearly visible from her position, and a heck of a lot easier than facial recognition. 

Her lineup identification on the other hand is about as worthless as it gets. Could Markham have been wrong about the killer placing his hands on the car? Sure, but the probability that she saw what she said she saw is a hell of a lot higher than her lineup “identification” of Oswald. Period. 

 

"Hey, I’m glad you shared it Bill. Your previous explanation was reasonable, but you could have just said that to begin with..."

 

I could have just said that to begin with?  Like I have to handle it however you wish?  Again... I don't owe you or anyone else anything at all.

At the end of the day, when it was all said and done, I was going to send Greg the transcripts because he asked me nicely in a private message.  But, I was going to send them to Greg on my own terms, that I was out of town, had them on my laptop and was going to wait until I got back home, where my laptop was.  I do not owe Greg an explanation for why three or four days had passed between his asking for the transcripts and my addressing it.  I don't owe you an explanation for it, either and that is why I didn't "just say so in the first place".  Greg thought I was ignoring him and made a smart ass comment (which he since apologized for in another private message).  You just jumped in where you shouldn't have and made an ass of yourself.

None of this would have even been an issue if you wouldn't have butted in where you shouldn't have.

 

 

"Do you believe that all police lineup identifications are of equal credibility, and all that matters is if someone picks out the suspect, regardless of how unsure they are, the fairness of the lineup, pressure from police, and anything else imaginable?"

 

Of course, eyewitnesses can be wrong during police lineups.  Only a fool would say otherwise.

Positive eyewitness identifications need to be supported by physical evidence.  In the case of Oswald's guilt in the murder of J.D. Tippit, the physical evidence is overwhelming.  This is a fact.

If you want to make the argument that the physical evidence in this case is questionable, then go ahead.  Start with the names of those who switched out the shell casings, the revolver, the jacket, etc...  But, you won't.

 

 

"Could Markham have been wrong about the killer placing his hands on the car? Sure..."

 

Bingo!  We have a winner.

 

[Gil Jesus]

On 4/15/2024 at 9:05 PM, James DiEugenio said:

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

Another WC zealot.

I once asked the Warren Commission supporters what standard they used to determine a witness' credibility.

I got no answer.

Because the answer is that their standard is this :

any witness who adds to Oswald's guilt is credible and any witness that adds to his innocence is not. Witnesses who have come forward years later ( like Paul Landis and Jack Ray Tatum ) are still measured according to that standard.

That's the standard they use. It doesn't matter if the physical evidence supports the witness or not. It's all about what the witness has to say in relation to the guilt or innocence of Oswald.

These people have their own truth and are not open minded or willing to accept new evidence. You can show them testimony after testimony and document after document and they still won't accept it. Corroborating evidence means nothing to these folks. Witnesses and physical evidence that corrobrates what you say is nothing more to these folks as "kook sh*t".

Many of them are driven by a hatred for "conspiracy theorists". 

They don't care that they've only heard one side of the story. They've only heard the prosecution's side of the case. Many of them haven't even read the 26 volumes, only the Report. That's like being a juror in a murder case, never hearing any of the testimony and only hearing the prosecution's final summation.

What kind of a reasonable and prudent juror ( or judge ) would be satisfied never hearing from the defense and only deciding the guilt or innocence of an accused based solely on the prosecution's summation ?

But, in effect, that's the stand these people have taken. Guilty until proven innocent. And even after you cast a reasonable doubt on his guilt, he's still guilty.

If anyone has any doubt on the success of brainwashing, they only need to engage one of these folks to see it.

The Dallas Police, the FBI and the Warren Commission started with a conclusion ( that Oswald was guilty ) and worked backwards to try to prove that. That's not the way a criminal investigation is conducted.

If this case were legitimate and the evidence authentic, then everything should add up. There should be NO questions.

The bullets that killed Tippit should match the shells found at the scene. The rifle should have been able to hit the sillouette targets in the head. The ammunition tests should have produced a bullet like CE 399. The wounds tests should have produced head wound like the one the President suffered.

Not one of the tests conducted for the Warren Commission produced results that supported its conclusions.

There should be no questions about the chain-of-custody of any of the evidence. The fact that there are nothing but questions about the evidence is troubling. But it's not just about the evidence.

In a normal investigation, witnesses are not harassed into changing their stories, like W.W. Litchfield or Dr. Malcolm Perry. Witnesses are not warned to keep their mouths shut like Richard Randolph Carr or Acquilla Clemmons.  Witnesses are not threatened with deportation like Marina Oswald or with death like Orest Pena.

These are things you would do in a coverup.

In a normal investigation, a suspect would not have been questioned after he asked for a lawyer. He would not have been held incommunicado from his family for 24 hours. He would not have been delayed a phone call until the next day. His lawyer would have been present when he was shown in a lineup. The "fillers" in that lineup would not have been teenagers and a Mexican. They would not have been men whose appearances automatically eliminated them from being chosen. Witnesses would not have told the suspect was in the lineup.

These are things you would do if you were trying to frame an innocent man for a crime he did not commit.

But none of this matters to people who think that your Constitutional rights are granted by Supreme Court decisions and that those rights are not in effect until the court says so. 

So I'm going to put these people on ignore and post what I post and I'm not going to respond to them. It's a total waste of time that could be better used for something else.

Edited April 18 by Gil Jesus

[Kevin Balch]

10 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

I don't know of anyone these days who argues that Oswald was walking FROM Marsalis.

Myers put forth a theory that goes something like this... Oswald (trying to get to Marsalis) is walking east on Tenth toward Marsalis.  Oswald goes a block and a half or so (from the area of Tenth and Patton) and notices a Dallas County Sheriff's Deputy car near Tenth and Marsalis (the county Sheriff transcripts shows that Unit 109 reported from near Tenth & Marsalis shortly after the report of the shooting by Bowley on the city police radio).

Oswald, not knowing if his face has been plastered all over television (he has been on a bus, in a taxi and on foot for over forty minutes now) does not want to walk past the Deputy so he turns around and is now walking west on Tenth in the direction he had just came from.

My own little timeline on Myers' theory (with no intention on being specific to the precise second)... Oswald arrives at Tenth & Patton at 1:11, walks the block and a half east on Tenth and, noticing the Deputy car, reverses direction at 1:13.  Oswald walks west on Tenth encountering Tippit at 1:15.

It makes as much sense as anything else, when trying to explain why Oswald would be walking east to west along Tenth Street.

 

At the point where Lancaster, Jefferson and 10th converge there is a Dallas County Court building. But it looks very new. I wonder if it replaced a similar facility that was there in 1963. It would explain the presence of a Dallas County Sheriff Deputy being in the area.

Oswald would have to be pretty close to Marsalis to see a police car at 10th and Jefferson. The round trip distance from the Tippit killing site to Marsalis and back is 0.33 miles. At a walking pace of 5 feet per second that adds about 5 minutes to Oswald’s total travel time since leaving the rooming house.

Edited April 18 by Kevin Balch

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

At the point where Lancaster, Jefferson and 10th converge there is a Dallas County Court building. But it looks very new. I wonder if it replaced a similar facility that was there in 1963. It would explain the presence of a Dallas County Sheriff Deputy being in the area.

Oswald would have to be pretty close to Marsalis to see a police car at 10th and Jefferson. The round trip distance from the Tippit killing site to Marsalis and back is 0.33 miles. At a walking pace of 5 feet per second that adds about 5 minutes to Oswald’s total travel time since leaving the rooming house.

 

Kevin, I appreciate your comments.

First, I didn't say Oswald walked all the way to Marsalis.

Second, I said the Deputy reported from near Tenth and Marsalis, not Tenth and Jefferson. 

 

Edited April 18 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

6 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

I once asked the Warren Commission supporters what standard they used to determine a witness' credibility.

I got no answer.

Because the answer is that their standard is this :

any witness who adds to Oswald's guilt is credible and any witness that adds to his innocence is not. Witnesses who have come forward years later ( like Paul Landis and Jack Ray Tatum ) are still measured according to that standard.

That's the standard they use. It doesn't matter if the physical evidence supports the witness or not. It's all about what the witness has to say in relation to the guilt or innocence of Oswald.

These people have their own truth and are not open minded or willing to accept new evidence. You can show them testimony after testimony and document after document and they still won't accept it. Corroborating evidence means nothing to these folks. Witnesses and physical evidence that corrobrates what you say is nothing more to these folks as "kook sh*t".

Many of them are driven by a hatred for "conspiracy theorists". 

They don't care that they've only heard one side of the story. They've only heard the prosecution's side of the case. Many of them haven't even read the 26 volumes, only the Report. That's like being a juror in a murder case, never hearing any of the testimony and only hearing the prosecution's final summation.

What kind of a reasonable and prudent juror ( or judge ) would be satisfied never hearing from the defense and only deciding the guilt or innocence of an accused based solely on the prosecution's summation ?

But, in effect, that's the stand these people have taken. Guilty until proven innocent. And even after you cast a reasonable doubt on his guilt, he's still guilty.

If anyone has any doubt on the success of brainwashing, they only need to engage one of these folks to see it.

The Dallas Police, the FBI and the Warren Commission started with a conclusion ( that Oswald was guilty ) and worked backwards to try to prove that. That's not the way a criminal investigation is conducted.

If this case were legitimate and the evidence authentic, then everything should add up. There should be NO questions.

The bullets that killed Tippit should match the shells found at the scene. The rifle should have been able to hit the sillouette targets in the head. The ammunition tests should have produced a bullet like CE 399. The wounds tests should have produced head wound like the one the President suffered.

Not one of the tests conducted for the Warren Commission produced results that supported its conclusions.

There should be no questions about the chain-of-custody of any of the evidence. The fact that there are nothing but questions about the evidence is troubling. But it's not just about the evidence.

In a normal investigation, witnesses are not harassed into changing their stories, like W.W. Litchfield or Dr. Malcolm Perry. Witnesses are not warned to keep their mouths shut like Richard Randolph Carr or Acquilla Clemmons.  Witnesses are not threatened with deportation like Marina Oswald or with death like Orest Pena.

These are things you would do in a coverup.

In a normal investigation, a suspect would not have been questioned after he asked for a lawyer. He would not have been held incommunicado from his family for 24 hours. He would not have been delayed a phone call until the next day. His lawyer would have been present when he was shown in a lineup. The "fillers" in that lineup would not have been teenagers and a Mexican. They would not have been men whose appearances automatically eliminated them from being chosen. Witnesses would not have told the suspect was in the lineup.

These are things you would do if you were trying to frame an innocent man for a crime he did not commit.

But none of this matters to people who think that your Constitutional rights are granted by Supreme Court decisions and that those rights are not in effect until the court says so. 

So I'm going to put these people on ignore and post what I post and I'm not going to respond to them. It's a total waste of time that could be better used for something else.

 

Does this mean I wouldn't have to read any more posts by you where you claim that William Scoggins was literally lying face down in the street beside his cab and therefore never got a good look at the fleeing cop-killer?

Maybe I could let this go if you'd ever FINALLY admit you were wrong to say such a thing. 

 

[Kevin Balch]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Kevin, I appreciate your comments.

First, I didn't say Oswald walked all the way to Marsalis.

Second, I said the Deputy reported from near Tenth and Marsalis, not Tenth and Jefferson. 

 

The transcript in Malice (page 208, 2nd edition Kindle version) has Unit 109 report “10th and Jefferson”. The more straightforward interpretation is that was the deputy’s current location though it could also be interpreted as where he should go to look for the Dallas Police squad car.

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Kevin Balch said:

The transcript in Malice (page 208, 2nd edition Kindle version) has Unit 109 report “10th and Jefferson”. The more straightforward interpretation is that was the deputy’s current location though it could also be interpreted as where he should go to look for the Dallas Police squad car.

Beyond Tenth and Marsalis, I didn't even pay attention to the fact that Tenth does indeed intersect with Jefferson further east.

[Tom Gram]

17 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"Hey, I’m glad you shared it Bill. Your previous explanation was reasonable, but you could have just said that to begin with..."

 

I could have just said that to begin with?  Like I have to handle it however you wish?  Again... I don't owe you or anyone else anything at all.

At the end of the day, when it was all said and done, I was going to send Greg the transcripts because he asked me nicely in a private message.  But, I was going to send them to Greg on my own terms, that I was out of town, had them on my laptop and was going to wait until I got back home, where my laptop was.  I do not owe Greg an explanation for why three or four days had passed between his asking for the transcripts and my addressing it.  I don't owe you an explanation for it, either and that is why I didn't "just say so in the first place".  Greg thought I was ignoring him and made a smart ass comment (which he since apologized for in another private message).  You just jumped in where you shouldn't have and made an ass of yourself.

None of this would have even been an issue if you wouldn't have butted in where you shouldn't have.

 

 

"Do you believe that all police lineup identifications are of equal credibility, and all that matters is if someone picks out the suspect, regardless of how unsure they are, the fairness of the lineup, pressure from police, and anything else imaginable?"

 

Of course, eyewitnesses can be wrong during police lineups.  Only a fool would say otherwise.

Positive eyewitness identifications need to be supported by physical evidence.  In the case of Oswald's guilt in the murder of J.D. Tippit, the physical evidence is overwhelming.  This is a fact.

If you want to make the argument that the physical evidence in this case is questionable, then go ahead.  Start with the names of those who switched out the shell casings, the revolver, the jacket, etc...  But, you won't.

 

 

"Could Markham have been wrong about the killer placing his hands on the car? Sure..."

 

Bingo!  We have a winner.

 

Your apparent obsession with needing to “owe” something and resulting attitude led two people to think you were pulling a Myers - not an unreasonable assumption - but you did eventually share the transcript so I apologize too for hassling you about it. If anyone’s made an ass out of themselves on here though it’s you for your ludicrous comments on Johnny Cairns. 

I’m glad you don’t think every lineup ID is created equal, but why are you still avoiding commenting on Markham specifically? Do you think her lineup identification is credible or not? It’s a simple question. 

No one is disputing there is physical evidence against Oswald. The relevant question however is not who specifically was involved in evidence tampering i.e. who switched the shells, but whether there is reason to suspect that any evidence tampering occurred. As Greg and many others have shown, the answer to that question is most certainly “yes”. The DPD were also historically corrupt and are known to have fabricated evidence in other cases to nail a suspect. It’s not like we’re going to get a freaking videotape of an officer swapping evidence, Bill. 

With all the chain of custody holes, evidence identification issues, unanswered questions, etc., a reasonable suspicion is more than warranted here. Combined with exculpatory evidence like the fingerprints we have reasonable doubt that Oswald killed Tippit. 

On the fingerprints, no one has claimed that Markham’s observations are infallible, but you seem to think it is an absolute certainty that she was incorrect about seeing the killer touch the car. You know that how, exactly? Her statements on this were very consistent and credible, and prints were lifted from that exact spot twenty minutes later. This is speculation, but the apparent lift from the window ledge even kinda looks like the hand posture she described. Do we know what types of prints we’re looking at in the bottom right card? 

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

You seem to avoid the concept of probability at all costs, but try to consider the fingerprints in isolation for a minute. If you weren’t already fully convinced that Oswald did it, what would you say is the probability that Markham saw exactly what she said she saw? You seem to be operating under the illusion that she must have been wrong, and must have made an assumption, but you really have no idea, and neither do I. All we can do is try to evaluate the evidence objectively, and the facts are as follows: 

1. Prints from a single individual were lifted from the exact spots where the killer was observed in close proximity to the car twenty minutes earlier.

2. There are eyewitnesses to the killer physically placing his hands on the car in one of the two spots where prints were lifted. 

Who is the most likely person to have left those prints? Your token strawman response is that there is no proof the prints “MUST” belong to the killer. Ya don’t say. That’s not the question. 

Edited April 18 by Tom Gram

[Bill Brown]

51 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Your apparent obsession with needing to “owe” something and resulting attitude led two people to think you were pulling a Myers - not an unreasonable assumption - but you did eventually share the transcript so I apologize too for hassling you about it. If anyone’s made an ass out of themselves on here though it’s you for your ludicrous comments on Johnny Cairns. 

I’m glad you don’t think every lineup ID is created equal, but why are you still avoiding commenting on Markham specifically? Do you think her lineup identification is credible or not? It’s a simple question. 

No one is disputing there is physical evidence against Oswald. The relevant question however is not who specifically was involved in evidence tampering i.e. who switched the shells, but whether there is reason to suspect that any evidence tampering occurred. As Greg and many others have shown, the answer to that question is most certainly “yes”. The DPD were also historically corrupt and are known to have fabricated evidence in other cases to nail a suspect. It’s not like we’re going to get a freaking videotape of an officer swapping evidence, Bill. 

With all the chain of custody holes, evidence identification issues, unanswered questions, etc., a reasonable suspicion is more than warranted here. Combined with exculpatory evidence like the fingerprints we have reasonable doubt that Oswald killed Tippit. 

On the fingerprints, no one has claimed that Markham’s observations are infallible, but you seem to think it is an absolute certainty that she was incorrect about seeing the killer touch the car. You know that how, exactly? Her statements on this were very consistent and credible, and prints were lifted from that exact spot twenty minutes later. This is speculation, but the apparent lift from the window ledge even kinda looks like the hand posture she described. Do we know what types of prints we’re looking at in the bottom right card? 

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

You seem to avoid the concept of probability at all costs, but try to consider the fingerprints in isolation for a minute. If you weren’t already fully convinced that Oswald did it, what would you say is the probability that Markham saw exactly what she said she saw? You seem to be operating under the illusion that she must have been wrong, and must have made an assumption, but you really have no idea, and neither do I. All we can do is try to evaluate the evidence objectively, and the facts are as follows: 

1. Prints from a single individual were lifted from the exact spots where the killer was observed in close proximity to the car twenty minutes earlier.

2. There are eyewitnesses to the killer physically placing his hands on the car in one of the two spots where prints were lifted. 

Who is the most likely person to have left those prints? Your token strawman response is that there is no proof the prints “MUST” belong to the killer. Ya don’t say. That’s not the question. 

 

Allow me to dumb this down for you...

Partial prints were lifted from the patrol car in two locations.  One, the passenger front door.  Two, just above the wheel near the passenger-side front fender/quarter panel.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that these prints MUST belong to the killer.

Also (and I'm typing slow so you can follow), the two prints most likely came from the same person and no one ever said they saw the killer touch the patrol car near the wheel of the passenger-side front fender/quarter panel.

If indeed the two prints belong to the same person and the killer did not touch anywhere near the wheel near the passenger-side front fender/quarter panel, then the prints on the passenger side front door are also not the killer's.

But none of that matters.  What matters is what I said in the first place.  There is absolutely nothing to suggest that these prints MUST belong to the killer.

 

Edited April 18 by Bill Brown

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Who is the most likely person to have left those prints? Your token strawman response is that there is no proof the prints “MUST” belong to the killer. Ya don’t say. That’s not the question. 

How did I guess? 

And your logic never ceases to amaze me Bill. You don’t think the most likely person to touch the car, is the only person seen right next to the car, who was witnessed physically touching the car? I thought you might just be avoiding it but now I’m not sure you understand the concept of probability at all. 

I’ll type this slow, so you can follow. Just because no eyewitness said they saw the killer physically touch the front fender of the car, doesn’t mean the killer MUST - a term you should be able to comprehend - have NOT touched the front fender of the car. Do you honestly think that’s what witnesses would’ve focused on or noticed, especially if the fender contact occurred during the actual shooting? 

The killer was witnessed physically touching one of two locations on the car where prints were lifted twenty minutes later, and in direct proximity to the other. There is zero evidence that anyone else was in proximity to either of those two locations. Yet to Bill Brown, some imaginary phantom person is more likely to have left the prints than the killer? 

[Greg Doudna]

Tom I believe Bill’s reasoning is since no witness said they saw the killer who was at the right front fender, physically touch that front fender inches from where he was standing next to that fender, logically that PROVES somebody ELSE who nobody saw touch it left those prints. 

Makes perfect sense.

And since the same individual person left prints in two places on the Tippit patrol car, both places of which the killer was seen standing near to, but ONLY ONE of those two places—only ONE! Tom—did eyewitnesses of the Tippit killing directly see the killer with arms and hands touching there exactly where the prints were lifted twenty minutes later … that PROVES Bill’s point, does it not—PROVES that the killer did NOT leave prints in EITHER location!

Is that clearer now Tom? 

Bill is citing absence of a witness seeing touching by the killer in one of those two locations as evidence that the prints were left by somebody who nobody saw touch it. 

Bills logic is an interesting line of logic: your honor my client cannot possibly have left these prints right next to where he was standing, definitive proof of that being no witness saw him touch. 

(But who put those prints there then?)

Obviously, some one ELSE that was not seen to touch! How many times do I have to repeat this blindingly clear logic? 

Bill serious point here is you’re overstating your claim that lack of eg Helen Markham seeing the killer touch the right front fender, therefore you reason the killer conclusively did not, and therefore conclusively did not at the passenger door either (no matter what witnesses and common sense say).

You fail to see your point, if true, rules out any human on earth from having left the right bumper prints since no one saw anyone touch there.

since that is not true (that no one left prints which do exist), your assumed premise is mistaken. 

Namely, you should correct and admit that it is reasonable that a human with hands inches from and standing next to something at a crime scene may be the source of prints there even if not seen by somebody else doing so. Probably 98% of prints were left by people whom no one saw leave those prints. 

Maybe the Tippit killer was among that 98% of cases in the case of the right bumper prints, where no one saw the person leave the print.

The positive argument that the Tippit killer did is because the killer was seen touching at the passenger door and the right bumper ones come from the same guy, plus the killer was there too. 

I do think if the killer left those prints from the same individual in both locations (even if the killer was seen doing so in only one of those), that the killer probably was left handed, gun in left hand, right bumper prints from a free right hand. 

And Oswald was right-handed. Plus, Oswald is excluded as source of those prints anyway. Plus, that exclusion was unconscionably covered up and went undisclosed for three decades. 

[Greg Doudna]

Although I admit a cognitive dissonance here on the fingerprints suggesting a left-handed killer, since my prime suspect, Craford, I have looked at his handwriting and it is how most right-handed writers rather than left-handed writers cross their “t”’s. That’s not absolute but it is something. 

Bill, on Jimmy Burt, how do you interpret the sighting of Burt-like car descriptions next to the Tippit patrol car from two witnesses, and Burt told the FBI he drove his car next to the Tippit patrol car though he said after the shooting, with plenty of understandable motive of Burt to distance his car’s presence next to Tippits at the crime scene at the moment Tippit was killed? 

The reason for asking is obviously it matters whether Burt was witnessing from a block away or only feet away when Tippit was murdered, in assessment of weight to what Burt says he saw or may have seen. 

I wrote the specifics of my case on that before and I don’t think you commented.

If Burt did not drive his car to be in a position next to Tippits patrol car, why do you suppose he told the FBI in Dec 1963 that he did, and the two witnesses saw it there at the time Tippit was killed, after which Wright saw it take off in a hurry? Any thoughts?

 

[Greg Doudna]

On 4/17/2024 at 8:26 PM, Bill Brown said:

Please list the witness who stated that Tippit rolled the window back up after rolling it down to talk to the guy who was walking.  Greg, this is what you do.  You literally make up scenarios in your head and try to insert them into reality with no evidence backing yourself up, only supposition.

Crime scene photos show the passenger door window up and the VENT WINDOW OPENED.

Tippit didn't reach over to roll the window down.  Burt and Markham were wrong about this.  If they're wrong about that (they were), then they could also be wrong about the killer touching the car with his hands.

Both vent windows were open, that may have been how Tippit liked to drive. You don't know that the man talked through the vent. You might as well ask yourself where's your witness to the man talking through the vent and why you are making up that scenario when no witness said they saw that.

In my experience, when strangers approach the passenger side of a car wanting to speak, the most common response as a driver (if one does not ignore them altogether) is roll the window down a crack. Not roll down a lot (at least in urban America today) for safety reasons. Enough to enable hearing but not enough to allow an arm to come in.

I don't know if a police officer in 1963 Oak Cliff would instinctively be as cautious as such habits today, but this has been my experience. I can imagine police officers being instinctively cautious in 1963 Dallas. Never know what any given person is going to be like, from an officer's point of view, I imagine.  

But I don't need a witness on rolling the window back up a crack if the witness (Jimmy Burt) saw Tippit reach over to roll down the window a crack or two.

If the witness was correct on that, then the window WAS rolled back up, evidence being it was found rolled up, therefore it was rolled back up.

This is not making stuff up. This is evidence-based if the witness statement is correct that the window was rolled down a crack or two or three. If so, it was rolled back up because it was found up, therefore it had been rolled back up.

I don't drive around with my passenger window down, whether or not my driver's side window is down which can vary. I think of how I react when people occasionally flag me down or tap seeking to speak through the passenger window. Sometimes its panhandlers. Other times it might be someone asking a question of a location, or being helpful offering some information or advice, whatever. 

And if I roll down the window a crack to talk, find out what the person wants, when the person leaves I'm gonna roll it back up again. (Because as noted, I like the passenger window rolled up when I drive alone.) 

This strange, strange notion you keep repeating that if no witness such as Helen Markham or Jimmy Burt saw the killer do a hand movement it didn't happen (also if Helen Markham or Jimmy Burt did see a hand motion it also didn't happen), is no less arbitrary than what you characterize me as doing. 

Very simply: if the witness is correct that Tippit rolled down the passenger window a crack or partway, then he did roll it back up because the window was found up. That's all there is to it on that. 

And there's nothing that doesn't make sense about Tippit cracking the passenger window down partway for the man flagging him down, find out what he wants (unaware the man is about to kill him), the only issue is how far to roll the window down for personal security and safety reasons. 

Now maybe Tippit just sat there and looked and the man did awkwardly speak through the vent which he already found open, without Tippit making a move. Maybe it did happen that way. Maybe Jimmy Burt was just blowing smoke saying so very specifically and repeatedly that he witnessed Tippit reach over, and roll down the window. I don't know. Do you? 

You may think you know, but I know you don't. 

I will agree with you on one thing. If Jimmy Burt was a block away, I wonder how he could claim to see that precision of movement of Tippit inside the car. If it can be settled conclusively that Jimmy Burt was a block away (as distinguished from Wm Smith and Jimmy Burt saying they were a block away), then I would not pay much attention to it (and would still consider it open that Tippit could have cracked the passenger window, then raised it back up again, before being killed, in the absence of direct witness testimony). 

But if Jimmy Burt was inside his car where two witnesses claim to have seen his car next to Tippit's patrol car at the moment Tippit was killed, then its a different matter. In that case, Jimmy Burt could have seen it very clearly.

If Jimmy Burt's claim to what he said he saw is true, that Tippit rolled down the window a crack or two, THEN Tippit did roll it back up, because the window was found up. 

Edited April 19 by Greg Doudna

[Tom Gram]

12 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bills logic is an interesting line of logic: your honor my client cannot possibly have left these prints right next to where he was standing, definitive proof of that being no witness saw him touch. 

(But who put those prints there then?)

Obviously, some one ELSE that was not seen to touch! How many times do I have to repeat this blindingly clear logic? 

 

Your entire comment is spot on, but this scene is just hysterical. Thanks for the laugh. 

I don’t really have anything else to add on the prints or Burt. You said it all already much better than I could. I do have one question though I asked Bill a few comments up. I’m assuming the bottom right card here is the window lift, but I don’t really know: 

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

Do we know what types of prints those are, like right palm, left index finger, etc.? I have the Myers book but my kindle is dead at the moment. I just thought it kinda resembled Markham’s described hand posture, but it’s hard to tell without scale, etc.