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.