Oak Cliff Time Trials

[Joseph McBride]

INTO THE NIGHTMARE: MY SEARCH FOR THE KILLERS

OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY AND OFFICER J. D. TIPPIT

has never been out of print since it was published in 2013. It can be ordered

through Amazon.com or directly through Vervante, the

fulfillment house. We regularly get many orders from

buyers in the US as well as in other countries.

[Michael Kalin]

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The 1:18 benchmark isn't sham, its the published time, if its not been doctored. Tom Gram may have a point that fixing the times of transmissions in between the time-checks could have more float to it than Myers states by an unknown number of minutes, I don't know, nothing is stopping you from researching and publishing an alternative interpretation of the data and proposed timings if you think you can do better.

On Markham, that's called a difference in interpretation or judgment, not dishonesty. You're not charging him with not quoting or disclosing Helen Markham's testimony accurately, but for not believing a witness on a particular detail. What a crime! To pick and choose testimony from an admittedly somewhat dicey witness on the basis of what one thinks is other evidence! That's a difference in interpretation, not grounds for calling Myers a liar ("gross dishonesty"). And its not as if you believe every jot and tittle of every witness that you seem to consider grounds for condemnation of Myers. 

On the Tatum interview, I doubt Myers intentionally altered a quotation on purpose wilfully. If there were an accumulation of several such instances that might tilt perception the other way, but in a massive tome like Myers' with ten million details with what fairly must be characterized as general consistently high level of accuracy in quotations from documents and reporting of data otherwise, I don't know how Myers made that particular mistake but I would give the benefit of the doubt to Myers' explanation as essentially a typo in genre in its origin, especially on a one-off instance. 

The 1:18 timestamp on channel 2 is merely nominal because of the synchronicity & observer problems you keep ignoring.

The dishonesty relative to Markham consists in using a fraudulent timestamp procedure to give the lie to her testimony. She knew when she left the washateria, same time every day. Nothing that appears on the radio tapes says otherwise.

The manufactured Tatum quotation is not a typo. The related sham forensic analysis proves it was injected with malicious intent to deceive.

Some good news. Into the Nightmare is still in print!

Edited June 19 by Michael Kalin

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

The manufactured Tatum quotation is not a typo. The related sham forensic analysis proves it was injected with malicious intent to deceive.

I don’t think so, because if so it went against interest (ie no motive) and also because Myers so vigorously later attacked and exposed as wrong what you are saying was his own malicious fabrication. 

It’s on p 123 of his 2013. The point-blank coup de grace head shot which Myers there defends in his interpretation agreed with Moriarty of HSCA who argued for that possibility as consistent with or suggestive of the mob execution idea. Here Myers is agreeing with that which adds nothing to any argument for Oswald’s guilt so if that is what you think was motivating Myers to fabricate a quotation it makes no sense that this is what he would pick to do it. 

In the preceding quote from Tatum are the words where Myers has Tatum saying he saw Oswald “shot him in the head” (twice). 

The interpretive paragraph of Myers following that (in agreement with Moriarty/HSCA’s coup de grace idea) only means Myers believed his own preceding quotation was accurate at the time he wrote that analysis or interpretive paragraph. It does not prove malicious or willful intent in fabricating the previous quote, as you reason.

Then years later on his blog Myers ripped to pieces the Moriarty coup de grace idea, blasting to pieces what you say was his own prior deliberate attempt to deceive. What kind of sense does that make. Whereas before, in his book, Myers had argued somewhat favorably though without certainty in favor of Tatum’s story, Myers’ later blog argument argued against the accuracy of Tatum’s story.

As part of that argument as I recall he criticized the Moriarty/HSCA coup de grace idea as being without evidence. Then one of his readers pointed out the quote in Tatum’s own words published by Myers “shot him again in the head”, a contradiction, whereupon Myers said “in the head” should have been in brackets identified as an interpretive or explanatory comment of Myers, not words said by Tatum, but the brackets had been left out by mistake. (I am going from memory on this.) 

Here is what I think is a better theory on what could have happened there, if it wasn’t simply the straight accidental typo (twice), of a nature unknown in any of Myers’ other witness quotations: another possibility might be Tatum actually did say that to Myers; Myers original quotation of Tatum there was accurate; Myers later knew the coup de grace was wrong and gave his argument, then when the reader pointed out his own published Tatum quotation, rather than withdrawing his entire argument, he might have explained it as the missing brackets/typo. I don’t know. The fact that Myers’ other witness quotations are not known inaccurate like that, and that this one occurs twice not simply once (same error same words in the Tatum quotation), plus motive (caught in an inadvertent but clear contradiction) could—could—produce something like that response. Which if so would again not have anything to do with an original intent to willfully fabricate a quotation at the outset as you leap to conclude.

Could that quotation of Tatum have been real? Sure why not, doesn’t mean it actually happened that way in that detail even if Tatum in a later interview might have said so (if he did). 

On the fact at issue itself, the bullet hole directly in Tippit’s right temple easily looks like the result of a coup de grace. But it can be known—KNOWN—that that is NOT what happened—a point blank shot from the gun into the temple—no matter ANY dispute over Tatum’s or any other witness’s words, for one simple basic reason: the autopsy found no powder burns on that bullet hole, and that means that shot was not from point blank, but from farther away. 

(I too used to think the temple shot looked like a coup de grace, in agreement with Moriarty/HSCA and Myers in his book. But credit here to Steve Roe for calling my attention to the powder burn detail in the autopsy which excludes that it could have been a coup de grace execution shot. It was a shot from the revolver farther away which hit that perfect right temple hit either by accident or by the shooter being skilled from farther away, but not from point blank or contact range. Just the simple conclusive fact there.) 

So you can go on for your remaining years convinced Myers maliciously and deliberately fabricated at the outset a false witness quotation to serve an argument against interest, then later attacked and exposed his own interpretation and alleged-malicious-fabrication (as if Myers was taking stupid pills that day). 

I think it was either the typo Myers says it was, or the quote from Tatum really was real (ie no typo), one or the other. I think there is ca zero probability Myers started it at the outset as a willful or malicious misquotation. 

Edited June 19 by Greg Doudna

[Michael Kalin]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

As part of that argument as I recall he criticized the Moriarty/HSCA coup de grace idea as being without evidence. Then one of his readers pointed out the quote in Tatum’s own words published by Myers “shot him again in the head”, a contradiction, whereupon Myers said “in the head” should have been in brackets identified as an interpretive or explanatory comment of Myers, not words said by Tatum, but the brackets had been left out by mistake. (I am going from memory on this.) 

Here's what Myers wrote about the coup de grace:

Quote

The paraphrased quote attributed to Tatum in my book, "With Malice" [page 71 (1998 Edition) and page 123 (2013 Edition)] is inaccurate, having survived an early draft of the book in which John Moriarty's speculation about the Tippit head wound influenced my rendering of Tatum's comments about the same.

There is no reason to believe that paraphrasing quotes when rendering comments was not Myers' standard procedure, tainting every direct quote that appears in WM. I have no idea what impelled him to come clean in this instance.

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Michael Kalin said:

Here's what Myers wrote about the coup de grace:

There is no reason to believe that paraphrasing quotes when rendering comments was not Myers' standard procedure, tainting every direct quote that appears in WM. I have no idea what impelled him to come clean in this instance.

Well, a wider practice of paraphrasing quotes if a general practice is troubling if true (and with Myers not having produced tapes or verbatim full transcripts to my knowledge).

But to split a hair here, that is a different charge than that he wilfully planted a dishonest, malicious fabrication, intentionally made up something he knew at the time was not true. 

So while the second charge is troubling, it is not your first one. Are you retracting your first one of wilful dishonesty, or are you adding a second different charge to the first one on the theory that two incompatible accusations in explanation of the same thing will make the person look even worse! 

Like the defense counsel who argued that his client was innocent of the murder because he was 75 miles away at the time, and besides it was self-defense. Except in reverse. 

I'm not here to defend Myers. Tom Gram has in the past called on Myers to make tapes of his interviews available. Its a little difficult for me to imagine that Myers did all his interviews without recording them, though I cannot recall Myers specifically addressing that point.  

Unfortunately probably 90 percent of published witness interviews do rely upon the good faith of the reporter--good faith that there is not knowing wilful fabrication of content in those interview reports by the reporter, that there is attempt at accuracy. Same with the interviews in Joseph McBride and many, many other authors. 

Its an honor system at work, which semi-works because wilful bad actors are in fact a minority of reporters. Also, I suspect probably a good chunk of reported interview quotations inside quote marks in books and magazine articles are not from tape recordings, but reconstructed from notes or memory. All the FBI interview reports on the Mary Ferrell Foundation site reporting what witnesses told the FBI agents are paraphrases, though most of those interview reports do present them as paraphrases, not verbatim quotes. All the accounts of what Oswald said under interrogation, etc.

Bottom line: you have a point re the paraphrase issue. Not in my opinion on your accusation that Myers intentionally fabricated quotation content knowing the person to whom it is attributed never said it. But on the paraphrase issue, yes that is an issue. 

I wrote a book with storytelling from long ago ("Showdown at Big Sandy"). I put lots of reconstructed conversations from memory inside quote marks in that true storytelling, reflecting the sense if not exact words. (In fairness to myself, I think a reasonable reader knows that reading my book.) No doubt the vagaries of memory and all that goes into human error had some mistakes, just as in any witness telling hearsay. But if so it wasn't intentional fabrication of what a person didn't say attributed to them. I wasn't doing that. I doubt Myers was either in his interview reports. That's where your and my perception differs.

I have been told by small-town newspaper type friends about the common problem in local news of people complaining they were misquoted in the newspaper. How it happens is the reporter has a certain storyline in mind, interviews the relevant people. Then in the story writeup the reporter fills in what they think the person would have or should have said if they can't recall the exact words. But, since the reporter is not as expert on the matter as the person, gets it wrong. Not by intention, but because that is how humans screw up. Apparently, happens all the time.

Here is Myers' statement on the matter, from his blog of Nov. 22, 2018 on Tatum (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=740402724246726837&postID=2553597346260411854&bpli=1&pli=1)

<start clip from Myers' blog, comments>

 Anonymous said...

Why in the almighty universe did you write here that “Tatum never said that the final shot was fired into Tippit’s skull”??? IN YOUR VERY BOOK, you quote him telling you: “He didn’t walk back, he hurried back, and cautiously approached him, and then shot him again—in the head.” (WM, p. 71) So what’s going on here?

November 6, 2020 at 1:08 AM

 

 Dale K. Myers said...

The paraphrased quote attributed to Tatum in my book, "With Malice" [page 71 (1998 Edition) and page 123 (2013 Edition)] is inaccurate, having survived an early draft of the book in which John Moriarty's speculation about the Tippit head wound influenced my rendering of Tatum's comments about the same. The phrase " - in the head" should have been in brackets or outside the quotation, as it was a qualifier to what Tatum actually said. Same for the phrase: "After shooting the officer in the head..." In addition, I also wrote in my book: "The bullet fired into Officer Tippit's skull at point blank range..." [page 72 (1998 Edition) and page 123 (2013 Edition)] The phrase "point blank range" is also inaccurate as as there is no medical evidence that specifies the distance at which the head shot (or any of the shots that struck Tippit) were fired. The autopsy report shows that none of the bullet wounds were contact wounds (i.e., the muzzle of the firearm was in contact with the skin at the time the firearm was discharged), nor is there any evidence that the muzzle of the firearm had deposited gunpowder residue, which would have indicated that the muzzle was within approximately 4-5 feet at the time it was discharged. Thus, the evidence (or lack thereof in this case) demonstrates that the muzzle was in excess of 4-5 feet at the time Tippit were struck. All of the above citations are on my list of errata for "With Malice". By contrast, the information contained in the article above is correct.

November 6, 2020 at 10:41 AM

<end clip from Myers' blog, comments>

Edited June 19 by Greg Doudna

[Michael Kalin]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

But to split a hair here, that is a different charge than that he wilfully planted a dishonest, malicious fabrication, intentionally made up something he knew at the time was not true. 

So while the second charge is troubling, it is not your first one. Are you retracting your first one of wilful dishonesty, or are you adding a second different charge to the first one on the theory that two incompatible accusations in explanation of the same thing will make the person look even worse! 

Like the defense counsel who argued that his client was innocent of the murder because he was 75 miles away at the time, and besides it was self-defense. Except in reverse. 

I'm done with this pettifogging digression into WM -- too many rambling discussions that lead nowhere with no end in sight. If you wish to pursue the morality angle it might be best to open another thread. Maybe others will requite your tender concern for a surly ogre.

Getting back to the subject of this thread, it's been established that the proposed scenario is untenable. The timestamps are mush. OP doesn't have a factual leg to stand on.

[Bill Brown]

On 6/12/2024 at 6:01 PM, Michael Kalin said:

You ought to tackle the critical time issues you dodged in the Ted Callaway & The 1:15 Shooting "sea lion" thread you resurrected to no effect.

The two big problems are: 1) Markham's evidence that the shooting occurred at 1:06 and 2) deducing times from the radio tapes, in this post presented as if accurate to the second.

Much speculative effort follows from the absurd 1:17:41 time assigned to Bowley's radio call, but none of it merits serious discussion until you deal honestly with the aforementioned deficiencies.

 

Markham's "evidence" that the shooting occurred at 1:06?

If you want to argue that the dispatch time stamps given all throughput the police tapes are off by as much as a minute (or even a minute and a half), then go ahead.

But, in order to believe Markham was standing at that corner at 1:06, you must accept that the police tapes are off by about nine minutes.  That's foolish.  Are you foolish?

 

[Ron Bulman]

I've not read this thread completely, I rarely do Bill's comments.  I skimmed through parts of it.  I still can't help but wonder if "Oak Cliff Time Trials" shouldn't start with: How quickly could Oswald Walk fast/run from his rooming house to where Tippit was killed, then from there to the Texas Theater.  Then consider when he arrived at the boarding house, how long he stayed, and, when he arrives at the Texas Theater and how long afterwards until his arrest.  Altogether, impossible?

[Jonathan Cohen]

12 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I've not read this thread completely, I rarely do Bill's comments.  I skimmed through parts of it.  I still can't help but wonder if "Oak Cliff Time Trials" shouldn't start with: How quickly could Oswald Walk fast/run from his rooming house to where Tippit was killed, then from there to the Texas Theater.  Then consider when he arrived at the boarding house, how long he stayed, and, when he arrives at the Texas Theater and how long afterwards until his arrest.  Altogether, impossible?

Is there any particular reason you feel the need to demean Bill Brown by proclaiming that you "rarely" read his comments?

And if you'd actually read the thread, you'd see that your rhetorical questions are all addressed, including how long Oswald stayed at his rooming house and where he went from there.

[Gil Jesus]

I'm not a worshipper of Dale Myers. All I know is what the evidence says.

Consider this: Helen Markham was on her way to catch her "1:15 bus" that was scheduled to arrive at the corner of East Jefferson and Patton Ave. at 1:12 pm.

If this murder occurred  at 1:17 or 1:18 pm as Mr. Brown suggests, then Helen Markham never saw it. Because she had already caught her bus and was on her way to work.

So either the murder happened before 1:15 and Markham witnessed it, or it happened after 1:15 and Markham never saw it. Since the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Markham was present and witnessed the murder, therefore it had to have occurred BEFORE 1:15.

There is more evidence for a pre-1:15 time of the murder.

In a memo dated 11/28/63, FBI Inspector James R. Malley notified the SAC of the Dallas Office, that the FBI had, "communications from Dallas showing time of death for TIPPETT ( sic ) as 1:13 pm." 

He also warned them to, "make sure our times jibe."

Does "make sure our times jibe" mean altering evidence if necessary ?

The point I'm making is that you can't have Helen Markham on the corner of 10th and Patton and the murder occurring at 1:17 or 1:18. It makes no sense because she's already missed her bus before Tippit was even shot.

All of this evidence has been shown to Mr. Brown in his previous post on the time of the murder, but he seems determined to ignore it.

Edited Monday at 08:55 PM by Gil Jesus

[Jean Ceulemans]

Did they question that specific busdriver about (perhaps) a possible delay? 

 

[Michael Kalin]

On 6/30/2024 at 4:01 PM, Bill Brown said:

But, in order to believe Markham was standing at that corner at 1:06, you must accept that the police tapes are off by about nine minutes.  That's foolish.  Are you foolish?

Not so foolish as to accept the validity of another unsupported assertion, subject to Hitchens Razor same as before.

Put down your blunderbuss and produce some on-target evidence to back up your statements.

Or pray for an epiphany that you are not Father Time. The whole world will rejoice at your self-revelation.

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

Consider this: Helen Markham was on her way to catch her "1:15 bus" that was scheduled to arrive at the corner of East Jefferson and Patton Ave. at 1:12 pm.

If this murder occurred  at 1:17 or 1:18 pm as Mr. Brown suggests, then Helen Markham never saw it. Because she had already caught her bus and was on her way to work.

So either the murder happened before 1:15 and Markham witnessed it, or it happened after 1:15 and Markham never saw it. Since the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Markham was present and witnessed the murder, therefore it had to have occurred BEFORE 1:15.

Gil I understand your point but there is another way to look at this. The fact is there was no “1:15” bus yet that is what Helen Markham said. “1:15” could be the time Helen had in mind she should be there, in time for the 1:22 actual bus time. 

Since the time she gave is not any actual bus time, either she was mistaken (which could agree with either 1:12 or 1:22 actual bus times) or she had in mind a time she needed to be there (which would be for the 1:22, not the 1:12).

I realize interpreting her “1:15” as referring to 1:12 is a better fit with the time she says she left her apartment. That would seem to be the real argument for her “1:15” meaning the 1:12 bus. 

Against that however are the other arguments in favor of the ca 1:15 time of the shooting, and the more recent information reported by McMahon from the Markham family that she was at 10th and Patton earlier than normal that day due to being asked by her son (the gang leader) to be present to witness something happening of a meeting of Tippit with gang members. 

Because much of the hearsay collected by McMahon from these family members is difficult to believe at face value, it is easy to blow this one off as family urban legend in genre. However there is this: (1) Jimmy Burt, one of the gang associates, told the FBI of a peculiar way he parked his car next to Tippit’s, which independently agrees with credible witness Frank Wright reporting seeing that same car parked the same odd way at the Tippit crime scene there at the time of the killing; and I don’t think (going from memory) McMahon relates or mentions that; and (2) independent argument that Tippit had been lured into an ambush, rather than it being the random accidental stop of a pedestrian that turned out badly of the WC/Myers interpretation.

I believe these two things correlate and explain each other. The ambush was set up for Tippit based on a fixed meeting time for which Tippit appeared. The car of Burt parked the wrong way on the wrong side of the street becomes the helpful signal to Tippit of where to pull over. Tippit pulls over, a man (his killer) appears from the sidewalk gesturing to him, says something through the vent window enough to get Tippit out of his car, then professionally and cold-bloodedly kills Tippit.

Jimmy Burt and William Smith in Burt’s car I believe saw this from only feet away outside Burt’s car, not being party to or having advance knowledge of the murder. They drove off, then both came to deny they and Burt’s car was ever there (except for when Burt told the FBI it was). Not only did Frank Wright see Burt’s car there but a lady in a house across the street also said she witnessed Tippit’s car pull up behind a parked sounding like another witness of Burt’s car there at the time of the killing.

According to McMahon’s article and research (going from memory), according to the Markham family the Markham son’s gang knew Ruby. And separately McMahon found Scoggins’ grandson with his grandfather’s story that a Ruby person asked Scoggins to be where he was at the time he was that day. 

In this reconstruction neither Helen Markham nor Jimmy Burt or Scoggins would know in advance there was to be a murder, but also would be terrified in the aftermath. If they recognized the killer (not necessarily but unknown) there would be motive not to say so, out of fear for their lives. (Recall Ruby stopping by Helen’s workplace at a counter later that day asking for her. Helen wasn’t there at the time but would have been told.) 

Then the fractured echoes of that come through the generations and decades later in the Markham family stories of what Helen privately told of that day. 

If so, this could explain two other minor details: either time, 1:12 or 1:22, seems “early” compared to when her shift began; and her “1:15” not matching any actual bus time possibly could be because that day she was walking earlier than she was used to. 

I also think I have an idea why Tippit was killed in a contract killing that day.  It was because Tippit was a contact or conduit for Oswald to convey something regularly—written, recording, something—to someone with whom Mather at Collins Radio was a courier or contact. Mather enlisted his friend Tippit to be the one actually meeting Oswald or receiving whatever from Oswald, via both being at the Dobbs House in mornings, that being where Tippit was regularly even though out of his district and no obvious reason why he would be a regular there—except it was next to Oswald’s rooming house and Oswald went there for coffee too.

Tippit was killed because of his knowledge of contacts with Oswald. At one of the meetings in which courier Mather had driven in to meet Tippit, the bad people spotted that and borrowed Mather’s license plate off his car without his knowledge, substituting another for it, and used those plates of Mather on Vaganov’s car. Which sounds outlandish except it happened with the changed license plate witnessed. I do not think Vaganov was at the scene of the crime but was set to be a driver for the car-less killer of Tippit, Craford, though that did not happen. 

And I think Tippit, far from being involved in either the assassination or any intention to kill Oswald, following the assassination of JFK, which came as a surprise, tried his level best, frantically but unsuccessfully, to find Oswald and head him off before Oswald went to the Texas Theatre where Tippit may have known Oswald’s life would be in extreme danger. 

[Gil Jesus]

Markham's reference to the "1:15 bus" is for the bus that was scheduled to arrive at 1:12. IMO, it makes no sense to call a bus arriving at any other time, the "1:15 bus". It does make sense, however, to refer to a bus arriving at 1:12 and leaving the bus stop at 1:15 to be called the 1:15 bus. Again, that's my opinion based on the evidence.

Markham knew damned well that the shooting occurred before 1:15 and testified to that fact.

MR BALL. You think it was a little after 1 ?

MRS MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet that it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1.

MR BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you ?

MRS MARKHAM. 1:15.

MR BALL. So it was BEFORE 1:15 ?

MRS MARKHAM. Yes it was. ( 3 H 306 )

Markham wasn't the only witness who put the time of the shooting before 1:15. Multiple witnesses put the time of the shooting bewteen 1:06 and 1:10. The permit for autopsy shows that Tippit arrived at Methodist Hospital DOA at 1:15. ( Dallas Police Box 3, pg. 307 ) The Davenport/Bardin report says that Tippit was pronounced dead at 1:15. ( Dallas Police Box 1, pg. 80 )

IMO, the evidence says that the shooting occurred before 1:15. This means that 5 minutes has been added to the official record in order to make it possible for Oswald to have been the shooter. Without that extra 5 minutes, it was physically impossible for Oswald to be at the scene of the murder while travelling on foot.

And to quote Rhett Butler in Gone With the Wind, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" what Dale Myers says. Or for that matter, what some witness' relative says who wasn't even there. It may be interesting, but it's still hearsay and there's no way to corroborate it.

I'm interested in the evidence.

The Dallas Police produced call sheets for every phone call received. They were cards that were stamped by a timeclock. ( 13 H 91-92 )

Why did the Commission fail to produce the Dallas Police call sheets for the phone calls made by Mary Wright and someone at Ted Callaway's car lot ? In all the confusion, both their addresses were broadcast as locations for the shooting, ( 501 E Tenth and 501 East Jefferson ) proof that those calls were received.

Because the call sheets would have been stamped with the time the calls were received. They would have narrowed down the time of the shooting. Are they the "information from Dallas" referred to by the FBI that showed the shooting occurred prior to 1:13 ? Where are those call sheets ? I've never seen them.

Keep in mind that if the case against Oswald was legitimate and the evidence was authentic:

1. There would be no conflicts in the evidence.

2. There would be no problems with the chain of custody.

3. People not connected with the case, like Dean Rusk, would never be called to testify.

4. Authorities would never have altered witness statements and affidavits, threatened and harrassed witnesses and ignored tests results that disproved the Commission's conclusions.

5. Evidence would not be missing.

6. Witnesses would not have been ignored.

7. Ted Callaway would have never asked Benavides which way the shooter went.

8. The bullets removed from Tippit's body would have matched the shells found at the scene.

9. There would have been proof Oswald received the rifle.

10. The rifle found on the sixth floor would have been 36 inches.

11. The paper gunsack would have been in the crime scene photos.

12. Jack Ruby's mother's dental records would never have been an exhibit.

This was not a criminal investigation. This was a joke. This was a gathering of evidence against one suspect and I feel sorry for those who can't or won't see it for what it was.

[Greg Doudna]

1) The Dallas Police tapes have Bowley's radio call at 1:18, which overrides transcription discrepancies. Unless the police radio tapes themselves--the copies from the dictabelts--are from forged substituted original dictabelt police tapes, that overrules and practically renders irrelevant any and all conflicting witness claims of a time earlier than 1:15 give or take a minute or two at most. 

2) Both Dallas newspapers as well as newspapers across the nation drawing from wire services were reporting in their Sat Nov 23 print editions that Tippit's time of death was 1:15 based on the 1:18 timed police transmission of Bowley. This means any theory of forgery or substitution in the originals of the police tapes, in order to create a false time compatible with incrimination of Oswald (i.e. to remove an exonerating ca 1:10 true time), had to have been done by Friday night when those stories were filed and put into print.  

And that would be before anyone had actually walked and timed from the Beckley rooming house to Tenth and Patton to know for sure there was a problem that forgery of the police tapes would be needed to solve. 

(That seems like a bit of a stretch to me.)

3) Bowley's memory of his watch reading 1:10 is first attested Dec 2, fourteen days later. Helen Markham's "1:15" bus she would walk to, the more I think about that I doubt she was referring to any specific bus time. Since the buses came every ten minutes, she did not need to remember or time in terms of which bus. Just be there at 1:15, catch the next bus, arrive at the Eatwell Cafe downtown in good time for her shift starting 2 pm.

I have taken buses, and if the bus pickups at the stop are 30 or 60 minutes apart, then I pay attention to the times. But if it is a bus that comes by every 10 minutes, who cares about the times, just show up and get on the next one. "1:15", a time in mind to show up at the bus stop in order to ensure getting to work on time.

The ca 1:15 pm time of death of Tippit from the police tapes does not prove Oswald's innocence or guilt either way.  

Some possible points in support of an alteration argument: 

• Scally's outstanding article, encyclopedic breakdown of the copies and chain of custody of the originals, "The Dallas Police Department's Channel 1 Radio Dictabelts: The chain of possession," https://www.jfk-assassination.net/scally.htm
• Washburn, "The Tippit Tapes: A reexamination", https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-tapes-a-re-examination  

Additional witnesses and documents in support of the 1:15 time in addition to the police tapes.

• Myers, "When J.D. Tippit was gunned down", https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2017/11/when-jd-tippit-was-gunned-down.html

In a sense, arguments for alteration of the Dallas Police tapes are analogous to the debates over alteration of the Zapruder film: arguments from anomalies plus motive, combined with weak but conceivable possibility of means and opportunity for alteration.

Edited 4 hours ago by Greg Doudna