Shooting From Behind The Fence With A Revolver?

[Bill Brown]

4 hours ago, Donald Willis said:

He would have gotten to the theatre fairly early since Whaley dropped him off opposite the rooming house.

 

Whaley dropped off Oswald three blocks south of the rooming house.

 

[Ron Bulman]

On 7/9/2024 at 3:49 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Thread Topic/Title falls under "Reason for Warning Member" as "Mocking another member" and/or "Mocking another members opinion."  Automatic 15 point penalty.

Bill, it seems you ignored my hint here.  I changed the name of the thread, something I can do as a Moderator but have not to this point, to "McBride's Early Badgeman thoughts."  You changed it back.

Seems you're Mocking Another Member and Treating Admin. Disrespectfully.

[Donald Willis]

On 7/11/2024 at 1:41 PM, Bill Brown said:

 

Whaley dropped off Oswald three blocks south of the rooming house.

 

[Bill Brown]

On 7/13/2024 at 3:22 PM, Donald Willis said:

 

Whaley dropped off Oswald at Beckley and Neely, which is THREE blocks south of the rooming house.

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

7 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Whaley dropped off Oswald at Beckley and Neely, which is THREE blocks south of the rooming house.

 

Just some basic confusion caused by the ´road side, opposite the rooming house´ that only referred to the side of the street, not the distance to the house. Some interpreted this he got off the cab right were the room was.  O.´s intension was further down, didn´t need to, taxi stopped early, leaving O. a shorter distance to walk, yes. But not just on the other side of the street. He had to walk 3 blocks i.s.o. .... (quiz) 🤔

[Gil Jesus]

If Oswald was guilty of murdering J.D. Tippit..........

1. The bullets removed from Off. Tippit’s body would have matched the shells found at the murder scene.

2. Off. J.M. Poe would have found his initials on the shells in evidence.

3. The spent shells would have been described by police in their broadcast as .38 Specials fired from a revolver.

4. Initials of persons not in the chain of custody would not be on the spent .38 shells.

5. The unfired .38 rounds and bus transfer would have been found on Oswald’s person the first time he was searched.

6. Helen Markham would never have hesitated in identifying Oswald as the man she saw kill Tippit.

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

8. The identity of the officer who found the jacket under the Oldsmobile would have been revealed and he would have been required to identify the jacket in evidence as the jacket he found.

9. Once Oswald was known worldwide, the dry cleaner who dry cleaned the jacket would have recognized Oswald as someone who came into his store, come forward and contacted the FBI.

If Oswald was guilty, the case against him legitimate and the evidence authentic........

There would be no conflicts in the evidence.

There would be no problems with the chain of custody.

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

The Commission’s expert on scopes would have given testimony on the accuracy of the scope on the Depository rifle instead of four-power scopes in general.

The Commission’s expert on Oswald’s skill with a rifle would have been someone who spent time on the rifle range with Oswald, instead of an administrator reading from a scorebook.

The wounds tests would have produced a wound to the test skulls similar to the head wound received by the President.

The ammunition test would have produced a bullet similar to CE 399.

The test of the rifle for accuracy would have produced hits in the head area of the silhouette targets.

Authorities would never have altered witness statements and affidavits or threatened and harrassed witnesses.

Evidence would not be missing.

Witnesses like Charles Brehm and William Newman would not have been ignored.

Jack Ruby’s mother’s dental record would never have been an exhibit.

All of the above things would have been true if Oswald was guilty. But the opposite was true.

Everything would have added up. Each piece of evidence would serve to corroborate another. There’d be no questions. And yet you can go through every single piece of evidence in this case and there are questions surrounding it.

The case against Oswald was not legitimate, it was fake. The evidence of that lies in the way the authorities handled Oswald, the way they handled the evidence and the way they handled the witnesses.

The Commission concluded that one shot missed the limousine, one shot hit both Kennedy and Connally and one shot hit the President in the head. And yet not one person who witnessed the assassination described it as having happened that way.

It’s not rocket science, folks. It’s easy to see. They arrested the wrong guy for the crime, then tampered with the evidence to make it look like he was guilty.

That's the way they did things in Dallas. The prosecutory system was corrupt.

One thing is for sure: Oswald was a patsy.

John Kennedy was killed by his political enemies, not Oswald.

Edited July 22 by Gil Jesus

[Bill Brown]

5 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

If Oswald was guilty of murdering J.D. Tippit..........

1. The bullets removed from Off. Tippit’s body would have matched the shells found at the murder scene.

2. Off. J.M. Poe would have found his initials on the shells in evidence.

3. The spent shells would have been described by police in their broadcast as .38 Specials fired from a revolver.

4. Initials of persons not in the chain of custody would not be on the spent .38 shells.

5. The unfired .38 rounds and bus transfer would have been found on Oswald’s person the first time he was searched.

6. Helen Markham would never have hesitated in identifying Oswald as the man she saw kill Tippit.

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

8. The identity of the officer who found the jacket under the Oldsmobile would have been revealed and he would have been required to identify the jacket in evidence as the jacket he found.

9. Once Oswald was known worldwide, the dry cleaner who dry cleaned the jacket would have recognized Oswald as someone who came into his store, come forward and contacted the FBI.

If Oswald was guilty, the case against him legitimate and the evidence authentic........

There would be no conflicts in the evidence.

There would be no problems with the chain of custody.

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

The Commission’s expert on scopes would have given testimony on the accuracy of the scope on the Depository rifle instead of four-power scopes in general.

The Commission’s expert on Oswald’s skill with a rifle would have been someone who spent time on the rifle range with Oswald, instead of an administrator reading from a scorebook.

The wounds tests would have produced a wound to the test skulls similar to the head wound received by the President.

The ammunition test would have produced a bullet similar to CE 399.

The test of the rifle for accuracy would have produced hits in the head area of the silhouette targets.

Authorities would never have altered witness statements and affidavits or threatened and harrassed witnesses.

Evidence would not be missing.

Witnesses like Charles Brehm and William Newman would not have been ignored.

Jack Ruby’s mother’s dental record would never have been an exhibit.

All of the above things would have been true if Oswald was guilty. But the opposite was true.

Everything would have added up. Each piece of evidence would serve to corroborate another. There’d be no questions. And yet you can go through every single piece of evidence in this case and there are questions surrounding it.

The case against Oswald was not legitimate, it was fake. The evidence of that lies in the way the authorities handled Oswald, the way they handled the evidence and the way they handled the witnesses.

The Commission concluded that one shot missed the limousine, one shot hit both Kennedy and Connally and one shot hit the President in the head. And yet not one person who witnessed the assassination described it as having happened that way.

It’s not rocket science, folks. It’s easy to see. They arrested the wrong guy for the crime, then tampered with the evidence to make it look like he was guilty.

That's the way they did things in Dallas. The prosecutory system was corrupt.

One thing is for sure: Oswald was a patsy.

John Kennedy was killed by his political enemies, not Oswald.

 

Just for starters....

 

1. The bullets removed from Off. Tippit’s body would have matched the shells found at the murder scene.

There is no scientific method which can link spent bullets to spent shell casings.

 

2. Off. J.M. Poe would have found his initials on the shells in evidence.

Poe testified to the Warren Commission that he can't be sure that he marked the shells.

 

3. The spent shells would have been described by police in their broadcast as .38 Specials fired from a revolver.

Gerald Hill later admitted that he made a mistake, that he assumed the shells were automatics because they had been found at the scene.  He said that whenever shells are found at the scene of a shooting, it almost always means that they were automatic shell casings (having been automatically ejected from the weapon as each round was fired off).  He said he couldn't imagine a shooter actually manually unloading the spent shells from a revolver and that he (at the time he made his report on the police radio) was unaware that witnesses at the scene described the shooter doing that exact thing.

In other words, Hill assumed they were automatics because they were found at the scene.  She;;s from a revolver are hardly ever found at the scene.

 

[Donald Willis]

On 7/22/2024 at 8:25 AM, Bill Brown said:

 

Just for starters....

 

1. The bullets removed from Off. Tippit’s body would have matched the shells found at the murder scene.

There is no scientific method which can link spent bullets to spent shell casings.

 

2. Off. J.M. Poe would have found his initials on the shells in evidence.

Poe testified to the Warren Commission that he can't be sure that he marked the shells.

 

3. The spent shells would have been described by police in their broadcast as .38 Specials fired from a revolver.

Gerald Hill later admitted that he made a mistake, that he assumed the shells were automatics because they had been found at the scene.  He said that whenever shells are found at the scene of a shooting, it almost always means that they were automatic shell casings (having been automatically ejected from the weapon as each round was fired off).  He said he couldn't imagine a shooter actually manually unloading the spent shells from a revolver and that he (at the time he made his report on the police radio) was unaware that witnesses at the scene described the shooter doing that exact thing.

In other words, Hill assumed they were automatics because they were found at the scene.  She;;s from a revolver are hardly ever found at the scene.

 

Hill's supposed "assumption" cannot be found in his Warren Commission testimony.  Instead, you find that, when asked if the auto 38 transmission "at 1:40pm" was his, he said "That probably is R.D. Stringer."  (v7p57)  "Later" doesn't count.  His bald-faced lie to the Commission suggests that there was not an innocent explanation for his deception re the shells.

[Donald Willis]

On 7/21/2024 at 10:14 AM, Bill Brown said:

 

Whaley dropped off Oswald at Beckley and Neely, which is THREE blocks south of the rooming house.

 

So why did Whaley say that he turned left from the viaduct at the "500 block" of Beckley?  

[Greg Doudna]

28 minutes ago, Donald Willis said:

Hill's supposed "assumption" cannot be found in his Warren Commission testimony.  Instead, you find that, when asked if the auto 38 transmission "at 1:40pm" was his, he said "That probably is R.D. Stringer."  (v7p57)  "Later" doesn't count.  His bald-faced lie to the Commission suggests that there was not an innocent explanation for his deception re the shells.

I disagree on no innocent explanation for Hill. The innocent explanation is he blundered on the "automatic" initial report claim (easy mistake to make based on ejected hulls found near where the gun was fired, except for the detail the hulls were not exactly at where the gun was fired; also, Callaway viewing the killer from across the street on Patton holding the gun in a certain way assumed the killer was reloading an automatic but clearly wrongly); then Hill distanced himself from the blunder by denying he made the radio transmission. Contrary to some others, I don't see any cause to suppose Hill was a liar in a wilful or premeditated sense that day. He was a talker and a bit sloppy with recounting facts is all. He did not purposely deceive on Nov 22 regarding the shells. He never saw a marking on them, assumed they were automatics but did not know that, and got it wrong. 

Here is the proof they were not automatics: none of the other officers who saw the identical hulls that Hill refers to, noticed any "automatic" marking or identification, e.g. Poe, etc. 

And the second proof: the hulls were found from good witness testimony removed from where the killer fired the revolver at Tippit, without a single witness testimony putting the finds of the hulls near the Tippit patrol car where they all would have been if fired from an automatic.

And since they were not automatics, then Hill goofed, an embarrassing goof in retrospect, accounting for his later dissembling. 

Edited July 25 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

On 7/22/2024 at 8:25 AM, Bill Brown said:

Just for starters....

1. The bullets removed from Off. Tippit’s body would have matched the shells found at the murder scene.

There is no scientific method which can link spent bullets to spent shell casings.

Bill, I think Gil's point was the 3 + 1 counts of Winchester/Remington makes of bullets in Tippit's body, versus the 2 + 2 Winchester/Remington makes of shell hulls found at the crime scene. I don't think Gil was meaning anything other than that.

I agree that the discrepancy is well resolved on the assumption of a 5th bullet fired which missed Tippit (3 Winchesters and 2 Remingtons fired). But at least be accurate in responding to what Gil meant.

Edited July 25 by Greg Doudna

[Bill Brown]

30 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill, I think Gil's point was the 3 + 1 counts of Winchester/Remington makes of bullets in Tippit's body, versus the 2 + 2 Winchester/Remington makes of shell hulls found at the crime scene. I don't think Gil was meaning anything other than that.

I agree that the discrepancy is well resolved on the assumption of a 5th bullet fired which missed Tippit (3 Winchesters and 2 Remingtons fired). But at least be accurate in responding to what Gil meant.

 

"I agree that the discrepancy is well resolved on the assumption of a 5th bullet fired which missed Tippit (3 Winchesters and 2 Remingtons fired). But at least be accurate in responding to what Gil meant."

 

I'll respond to what members actually say, not what they may have meant.

 

[Bill Brown]

56 minutes ago, Donald Willis said:

So why did Whaley say that he turned left from the viaduct at the "500 block" of Beckley?  

 

Whaley says he "turned left, to the 500 block of North Beckley", i.e. he turned left with the intention of going to the 500 block of North Beckley (which is the destination given by his passenger).

From the viaduct, one cannot turn left at the 500 block of North Beckley.

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

"I agree that the discrepancy is well resolved on the assumption of a 5th bullet fired which missed Tippit (3 Winchesters and 2 Remingtons fired). But at least be accurate in responding to what Gil meant."

I'll respond to what members actually say, not what they may have meant.

Anyone who has read Gil in the past knows the point is what I said he has made with that, that that is what he meant. Your reply suggests either you do too, but purposely chose to respond as if you understood him differently, or you don't care. That is not fair play or helpful to productive discussion. You are playing on an ambiguity over his use of the word "match". It certainly does matter what someone means. It makes it sound like you care more about making Gil look bad than the substance of the issue.

[Bill Brown]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Anyone who has read Gil in the past knows the point is what I said he has made with that, that that is what he meant. Your reply suggests either you do too, but purposely chose to respond as if you understood him differently, or you don't care. That is not fair play or helpful to productive discussion. You are playing on an ambiguity over his use of the word "match". It certainly does matter what someone means. It makes it sound like you care more about making Gil look bad than the substance of the issue.

 

Look.  The bottom line is he said the bullets didn't match the shells.  He said nothing about manufacturer.  There is no scientific method which can link spent bullets to spent shell casings.  Perhaps he should have been more clear and less lazy.