The JFK Grand Jury: The Evidence

[Larry Hancock]

In 1967 I was writing forensic science articles for the legal press, notably Bancroft-Whitney's American Jurisprudence Proof of Facts series. One article was on Nuclear Activation Analysis, then a new method developed by General Atomic in San Diego. In he course of a phone conversation with Dr. Vincent Guinn, the project's chief, I raised the question of the JFK forensic evidence. He said that he and Ray Pinker, the founder of the LAPD crime lab, were skeptical of the FBI lab's conclusion that the Carcano's chamber was tightly sealed and would not emit any blowback. So they rodered a Carcano and fired it. NAA detected nitrite deposits in abundance on their cheeks. I recounted this in detail in my 1968 book Invisible Witness: The Use and Abuse of the New Technology of Crime Investigation.

Bill, it gets a lot better than that. Professor Wrone reviewed documents in Weisberg's files (and cites them in his book) which show that the test firings of Oswald's rifle literally left the shooters complaining about the amount of powder/nitrate blowback. Wrone describes this and FBI memoranda which clearly kept this information from being presented to the WC.

[Duke Lane]

... What we need to do is compile a list of living witnesses and suspects.

And thanks to everyone, including Dave Perry and Duke, for responding to this thread,

BK

Thanks for thanking me, Bill, but I don't know why you'd want to single me out from the crowd.

I think the purpose to this exercise is not to provide a list of all the things that can't be proved or whose proof is in dispute (several people who are at least as expert as many of us here - and in many cases much more so - have, for example, provided seemingly sound rationales for why the SBT is at least possible, and the blowback out of the MC rifle that didn't show up on the paraffin tests of LHO's cheek may or may not "prove" that LHO didn't shoot that rifle that day, but exonerating LHO is not the name of the game here ... that will occur ipso facto if someone else is proved guilty), but rather to put together something significant enough that prosecutors will raise a very large eyebrow.

Input from hundreds of people is not going to do it, and will likely confuse the issue if it achieves anything at all. Having 2500 signatures on a petition raising lots of issues is not going to carry any more weight than a single signature on a petition with just one or two soundly argued and well documented points that suggest a conspiracy. If LHO did not act alone (whether or not he acted at all), then there are people who haven't answered for it.

Throwing spaghetti up against the wall - naming lots and lots of obscure names with tangential reasons for wanting Kennedy dead, or having "conspiratorial connections" or having done things that "might" have made them peripherally responsible or complicit - just to see what sticks is not going to fly either.

My personal feeling is that people spend an awful lot of time talking about doing something than actually doing it. While I applaud your efforts to help people understand grand juries and how one might be utilized to reopen the case, it seems as if simply compiling that list of living witnesses, suspects, etc., would be a better use of time. The longer moving forward is delayed, the more of them will be dead.

Likewise, waiting for the release of yet another series of documents can only lead to waiting for the release of more that the first batch suggests bear scrutiny. I'd think that there is enough evidence already released - and has been for years - to provide good cause for looking into this case more closely through legal proceedings. I grant you that it does not include the name(s) of anyone involved in authorizing, funding or planning the assassination, but clearly enough to prove that something beyond LHO's actions was involved, and possibly even who else was taking some sort of action that day to further the plot.

If that were the case, then I'd be all over putting together something for the DA based on what I could show now if I thought it were significant enough. Joe West came reasonably close to making something happen by documenting how many shots people thought they'd heard and from which direction(s) (among other items), tho' eventually he got shot down.

I doubt that West had a full understanding of the technicalities of how a grand jury operates, what it can and cannot do, and how it goes about doing it, and I don't think that that knowledge is an absolute necessity for the principals/petitioners, provided that whever they are have enlisted the assistance of someone who does.

Earlier today, I posted a reply to the story of "Robert MacNeil and the Three Calm Men" that I think goes a long way toward showing the standard of proof (if you will) that would be necessary to capture prosecutors' attention: merely making a statement that shows something you consider "suspicious" is not a satisfactory avenue to pursue. I think the object of the game is to not invite ridicule and claims of frivolity to the detriment of anything truly substantive that may come along later.

And there, again, is my two cents!!

[William Kelly]

I think the purpose to this exercise is not to provide a list of all the things that can't be proved or whose proof is in dispute (several people who are at least as expert as many of us here - and in many cases much more so - have, for example, provided seemingly sound rationales for why the SBT is at least possible, and the blowback out of the MC rifle that didn't show up on the paraffin tests of LHO's cheek may or may not "prove" that LHO didn't shoot that rifle that day, but exonerating LHO is not the name of the game here ... that will occur ipso facto if someone else is proved guilty), but rather to put together something significant enough that prosecutors will raise a very large eyebrow.

Input from hundreds of people is not going to do it, and will likely confuse the issue if it achieves anything at all. Having 2500 signatures on a petition raising lots of issues is not going to carry any more weight than a single signature on a petition with just one or two soundly argued and well documented points that suggest a conspiracy..... it seems as if simply compiling that list of living witnesses, suspects, etc., would be a better use of time. The longer moving forward is delayed, the more of them will be dead.

Likewise, waiting for the release of yet another series of documents can only lead to waiting for the release of more that the first batch suggests bear scrutiny. I'd think that there is enough evidence already released - and has been for years - to provide good cause for looking into this case more closely through legal proceedings. I grant you that it does not include the name(s) of anyone involved in authorizing, funding or planning the assassination, but clearly enough to prove that something beyond LHO's actions was involved, and possibly even who else was taking some sort of action that day to further the plot.

If that were the case, then I'd be all over putting together something for the DA based on what I could show now if I thought it were significant enough. Joe West came reasonably close to making something happen by documenting how many shots people thought they'd heard and from which direction(s) (among other items), tho' eventually he got shot down....I think goes a long way toward showing the standard of proof (if you will) that would be necessary to capture prosecutors' attention.... I think the object of the game is to not invite ridicule and claims of frivolity to the detriment of anything truly substantive that may come along later.

Duke,

I like your idea of sitting down for lunch with a local Texas prosecutor and giving him the necessary information to open a grand jury investigation into JFK. In today's local paper here in Jersey, a State Grand Jury refused to indict six State Troopers in a shooting incident. The paper notes: "The review by a grand jury is routine n shooting cases involving police officers, according to officials in the state Attorney General's Office."

If that is the case in Texas too, then I think it more probably that we could get a local Dallas County or Texas State Grand Jury to investigate the murder of J.D. Tippit, which of course would dovetail with what happened at Dealey Plaza, if the cases are indeed connected.

Duke, if you had fifteen minutes with a DA to make your case, which you want him to take on and present to a grand jury, what evidence would you give him?

Thanks for your interest in this,

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

[Duke Lane]

Duke,

I like your idea of sitting down for lunch with a local Texas prosecutor and giving him the necessary information to open a grand jury investigation into JFK. In today's local paper here in Jersey, a State Grand Jury refused to indict six State Troopers in a shooting incident. The paper notes: "The review by a grand jury is routine n shooting cases involving police officers, according to officials in the state Attorney General's Office."

If that is the case in Texas too, then I think it more probably that we could get a local Dallas County or Texas State Grand Jury to investigate the murder of J.D. Tippit, which of course would dovetail with what happened at Dealey Plaza, if the cases are indeed connected.

Duke, if you had fifteen minutes with a DA to make your case, which you want him to take on and present to a grand jury, what evidence would you give him?

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

I tend to agree with you about shooting a cop: re-opening the Tippit murder might well be easier, and frankly, it seems like a much more reasonable approach than re-opening the whole can of worms. The difference between them is like a lunch at McDonalds (okay: Luby's, then) and a ten-course meal, and the list of suspects - or just those with motives - is substantially shorter.

With 15 minutes, I guess I'd prefer to deal with something "digestible" than something completely satisfying in every regard. One would, as you say, dovetail into the next if the cases are related since, if someone else shot Tippit, it would certainly raise questions about everything else, wouldn't it.

It's worth a thought.

[Thomas Graves]

Duke,

I like your idea of sitting down for lunch with a local Texas prosecutor and giving him the necessary information to open a grand jury investigation into JFK. In today's local paper here in Jersey, a State Grand Jury refused to indict six State Troopers in a shooting incident. The paper notes: "The review by a grand jury is routine n shooting cases involving police officers, according to officials in the state Attorney General's Office."

If that is the case in Texas too, then I think it more probably that we could get a local Dallas County or Texas State Grand Jury to investigate the murder of J.D. Tippit, which of course would dovetail with what happened at Dealey Plaza, if the cases are indeed connected.

Duke, if you had fifteen minutes with a DA to make your case, which you want him to take on and present to a grand jury, what evidence would you give him?

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

I tend to agree with you about shooting a cop: re-opening the Tippit murder might well be easier, and frankly, it seems like a much more reasonable approach than re-opening the whole can of worms. The difference between them is like a lunch at McDonalds (okay: Luby's, then) and a ten-course meal, and the list of suspects - or just those with motives - is substantially shorter.

With 15 minutes, I guess I'd prefer to deal with something "digestible" than something completely satisfying in every regard. One would, as you say, dovetail into the next if the cases are related since, if someone else shot Tippit, it would certainly raise questions about everything else, wouldn't it.

It's worth a thought.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Guys,

Just like the Rolling Stone's song says: I know it's only rock 'n roll, but I LIKE it... (The idea of re-opening the Tippit murder investigation, that is. Obviously, figuring out who killed JDT should help prove who killed Kennedy...)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Edited December 24, 2005 by Thomas Graves

[Pat Speer]

I think the purpose to this exercise is not to provide a list of all the things that can't be proved or whose proof is in dispute (several people who are at least as expert as many of us here - and in many cases much more so - have, for example, provided seemingly sound rationales for why the SBT is at least possible, and the blowback out of the MC rifle that didn't show up on the paraffin tests of LHO's cheek may or may not "prove" that LHO didn't shoot that rifle that day, but exonerating LHO is not the name of the game here ... that will occur ipso facto if someone else is proved guilty), but rather to put together something significant enough that prosecutors will raise a very large eyebrow.

Duke, find me this "seemingly sound rationale for why the SBT is at least possible" and I'll sell you some swampland in Florida. The SBT CAN be weakened to the point of invisibility, where no one but the blind could see it as a reasonable possibility. I've attempted to do just that in my presentation, and I believe I've succeeded...

As far as re-opening Tippit, I think that would be a serious mistake. The evidence against Oswald in that case is a lot stronger than in the shooting of the President. The eyewitness testimony is much stronger. The ballistics evidence is stronger (he had the purported murder weapon on his person). And there is a motive (his escape).

We mustn't pull a Belin and see the Tippit slaying as "the Rosetta stone" of the assassination. Oswald may very well have killed Tippit AND been innocent of killing Kennedy.

[Mark Stapleton]

I think the purpose to this exercise is not to provide a list of all the things that can't be proved or whose proof is in dispute (several people who are at least as expert as many of us here - and in many cases much more so - have, for example, provided seemingly sound rationales for why the SBT is at least possible, and the blowback out of the MC rifle that didn't show up on the paraffin tests of LHO's cheek may or may not "prove" that LHO didn't shoot that rifle that day, but exonerating LHO is not the name of the game here ... that will occur ipso facto if someone else is proved guilty), but rather to put together something significant enough that prosecutors will raise a very large eyebrow.

Duke, find me this "seemingly sound rationale for why the SBT is at least possible" and I'll sell you some swampland in Florida. The SBT CAN be weakened to the point of invisibility, where no one but the blind could see it as a reasonable possibility. I've attempted to do just that in my presentation, and I believe I've succeeded...

As far as re-opening Tippit, I think that would be a serious mistake. The evidence against Oswald in that case is a lot stronger than in the shooting of the President. The eyewitness testimony is much stronger. The ballistics evidence is stronger (he had the purported murder weapon on his person). And there is a motive (his escape).

We mustn't pull a Belin and see the Tippit slaying as "the Rosetta stone" of the assassination. Oswald may very well have killed Tippit AND been innocent of killing Kennedy.

Pat,

While I would rather see the JFK murder reopened than the Tippett murder, I doubt if there is much chance of a reinvestigation of Tippitt's murder resulting in the finger of blame pointing in LHO's direction. The opposite would occur, IMO. The evidence against LHO in regard to Tippitt is very weak. Consider:

1. Benavides couldn't ID LHO as the killer, consequently the DPD never took him to a lineup. "We needed identification real quickly", Captain Fritz said.

2. According to Mark Lane, Helen Markham told him the killer was short, heavy and had bushy hair. This ties in with Acquila Clemons' description of the murderer. (Of course the WC acted as if Clemons never existed). Markham then changed her story after being "called to Washington".

3. There's many other inconsistencies. From which direction did the killer approach? Did he really lean into an open window of the police car when two witnesses and a photograph indicate it was closed? And what was the exact time of Tippit's death? All the evidence points to 1.06 (give or take a minute or so) but the WC stretched the evidence beyond believability to bring it up to 1.16 so LHO could make it to the scene on time. It's all too much.

Also, if LHO didn't murder JFK, why would he murder a cop? Even if their paths did cross, Oswald knew what would happen to a cop killer--he wasn't stupid. LHO was in a hurry to meet someone, but since he didn't kill JFK, I don't see why he would kill anyone trying to prevent that meeting--especially a cop.

If the Tippitt case is re-opened, seriously re-opened, the case against LHO would unravel in no time. It could have wider ramifications, resulting in the whole Dealey Plaza imbroglio with its rotting foundation of transparently odious deception being exposed at last. Just my opinion, of course.

[William Kelly]

Duke and Pat,

before you duke it out over the SBT and Tippit, let me mention that the evidence we are talking about is forensic evidence - not like the forensic debating society in school - a spoken or written exercise in argumentation or public debate, but the legal defination of forensic - of or used in a court of law.

As mentioned previous, the standards for such evidence is higher than using just facts and logic in trying to convince someone to change their mind.

If a grand jury is presented with the JFK assassination or Tippit murder, photos and x-rays that have lost their chain of possession - have been tampered with, or were taken by an unknown photographer or technician, will only support the prosecutor's request for the court to order a new, proper forensic autopsy, which none of the victims have ever had. Unlike a normal autopsy, which is to establish the cause of death - bullet(s) to the head. The single bullet was not fatal to either vicitm, if indeed it was only one bullet.

A proper forensic autopsy would follow the back/neck wound of jfk to where ever it goes, and it would go to the throat exit if the bullet's path can be traced.

Besides establishing the SBT or negating it, a forensic autopsy would also determine the direction of the head shot, according to Cyril Wecht, who said that the bone edges contain frays of thread that would indicate the direction of the bullet.

Pat's presentation is the type of presentation that would have to be put together to present to the prosecutors, though tailored to different jurisdictions.

And then there's Tippitt.

Duke, find me this "seemingly sound rationale for why the SBT is at least possible" and I'll sell you some swampland in Florida. The SBT CAN be weakened to the point of invisibility, where no one but the blind could see it as a reasonable possibility. I've attempted to do just that in my presentation, and I believe I've succeeded...

As far as re-opening Tippit, I think that would be a serious mistake. The evidence against Oswald in that case is a lot stronger than in the shooting of the President. The eyewitness testimony is much stronger. The ballistics evidence is stronger (he had the purported murder weapon on his person). And there is a motive (his escape). We mustn't pull a Belin and see the Tippit slaying as "the Rosetta stone" of the assassination. Oswald may very well have killed Tippit AND been innocent of killing Kennedy.

Pat, Tippit is a prime case for a local Texas grand jury for a number of reasons. For one, there never has been one, and two, there's numerous evidence of Tippit's death being part of a broader conspiracy, witnesses of confederates at the scene, possible get-a-way driver and questionable associates of Tippit who have never been questioned.

Indeed, I'm not afraid of Belin's challenge that the Tippit murder is the "Rosetta Stone" of the assassination, indeed it is if the connections between Tippit and his death and JFK and his death are established, especially if they are in a court of law.

Bill Kelly

[John Dolva]

order a new, proper forensic autopsy,

__________

Anything that can result in a form of exhumation of Kennedy must be encouraged. There are some non invasive techniques developed since 1963 that may persuade the Kennedy family to permit it. It may even be possible to do a deep scan of the coffin contents without even moving the coffin at all.

I don't know the composition of the coffin itself but there are such things as sonar and other technologies that may be used to build up a remarkably detailed 3d map of the entire contents.

Using various triangulation points and different scanning techniques perrhaps amongst many other things some detail of metallic contents can be established.

I think the expertise exists that will allow people like Clyde Snow to in a short time analyse the results and give good answers about things like trajectories and bevelling.

Various questions about the lower body need attention as well. For example if the throat wound was from a fragment from the head there might very well be fragments below the lungs that were never discovered. etc.

(toroid cavity imager, nmr, neutron interrogation technology

"The most common nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methods used to characterize materials and inspect products are visual, operator-dependent, subjective, and qualitative. Those methods can be slow, imprecise, and inconsistent--and quite unsuited for inspections required during the course of Lawrence Livermore's scientific projects. That's why researchers in the Laboratory's Nondestructive and Materials Evaluation Section develop specially tailored evaluation methods that deliver exact, quantitative results. The methods use automated, digital, breakthrough technologies implemented through such techniques as computed tomography, digital radiography, ultrasonics, machine vision, and infrared thermography. Because the data are digital, the information can be processed and reconstructed into images that are amenable to computational analysis. These NDE methods are more quantitative and sensitive than human sensory perception; they provide researchers a precise look inside the object of interest.

Digital NDE systems have these components in common: an energy source used to probe an object; a receiver or detector that measures how the energy has been changed by the object; and a way to record, process, and interpret the measurement data. To configure this basic system for specific applications, system designers must solve a plethora of problems. Among them are how to deal with interfering noise and nonlinear effects when energy is being delivered and detected; how to acquire data for the best spatial and contrast resolution (that is, how small and how clearly resulting images can be seen); how to mathematically describe features and objects for detection as well as how to distinguish among variations in their size, shape, and intensity; and how to reconstruct digital data into images that can be easily understood and used."

+For the production phase, a different inspection technology was needed, one that is fast, inexpensive to implement, and requires no shielding to protect workers (as the radiographic technique does). Thomas is adapting ultrasonic sources to send out pulses of high-frequency sound waves, which then radiate into the material of interest. Detectors measure how much sound attenuates using specially designed transducers, devices that convert sound pulses into electrical signals. The resulting pulses--the detected electrical signals--are processed and interpreted.

One manufacturing-line inspection study, still under way, will determine how to implement an ultrasonic system to detect porosity defects in pistons. Such defects cause piston surfaces to deteriorate during finish machining. If defective pistons could be culled before the machining process, production costs would be reduced.

Another inspection occurs after machining. Especially critical are the grooves in the piston walls, into which metal piston rings must fit snugly for efficient operation. Grooves containing pits or other low-density spots provide a pathway for combustion gases to leak around the rings.

NDE researchers experimented with a prototype ultrasonic scanning system (Figure 2) for this inspection. The ultrasonic evaluation of metal-matrix castings presents many technical challenges. Very small defects must be detected reliably and, once detected, must be characterized to distinguish benign or noncritical attributes (such as reflections of solid masses) from critical defects (such as air-filled bubbles). Development is under way for advanced signal-processing algorithms and a transducer design that will provide the required spatial and depth resolutions. The NDE researchers have, in the meantime, used the prototype system to demonstrate the feasibility of a computer-controlled, automated inspection on the manufacturing floor. Thomas will work with his private-industry collaborators and a private ultrasonic system manufacturing company to design and build the production version of the Lawrence Livermore prototype system.

This technical know-how is also used for other Laboratory projects. For example, the NDE researchers are now applying ultrasonic evaluation to inspect and characterize castings of special nuclear materials."

"Nuclear physicist/chemist Harry Martz and his NDE colleagues have developed hardware and software technology to perform quantitative, noninvasive assays of waste drums. They use a two-step approach called gamma-ray active and passive computed tomography, or A&PCT.

Like radiographic techniques, which produce the familiar medical x rays, computed tomography measures radiation energy that travels from a source through an object to a detector and records the intensities that result from the interaction of the energy with the object. But unlike radiography, tomographic measurements require the acquisition of many different images of an object. In medical tomography (i.e., CAT scans), the source and the detector move around the patient; in industrial tomography, the object is usually rotated, elevated, and translated (moved in parallel motion).

Martz's A&PCT system takes two different tomographic measurements. For the first, called the active measurement, an external radiation source emits gamma rays (instead of x rays), and a gamma-ray spectrometer system measures the gamma radiation that passes through and outside the object being measured. Gamma-ray spectroscopy offers several advantages for waste characterization, one being that gamma rays are emitted at discrete energies, making it possible to determine the attenuated gamma-ray energy for each volume element in the three-dimensional space of the object. This information is vital for an accurate waste assay (Figure 3).

The second measurement is a passive measurement. The gamma-ray source is shuttered, and the waste container is moved through the same positions used to collect the active measurements. This time, the detector records gamma-ray emissions from the radioactive material inside the waste container. The passive measurement localizes the radioactivity distribution in the container.

By combining active and passive measurements, corrections can be made to account for the effect that the waste contents have on the internal radioactive emissions. The corrected gamma-ray spectra can be used to identify, localize, and assay all measured radioisotopes present in the container, and the wastes can thus be categorized and certified for disposition.

This waste assay system is mobile as well as accurate. The technology has now been adapted for a commercial mobile waste inspection system developed by BIR Inc. of Lincolnshire, Illinois, that is providing services at waste sites throughout the U.S. "

Surely amongst this and others must be techniques for non invasive 'exhumation' acceptable to those who would be called on to give permission.

[William Kelly]

order a new, proper forensic autopsy,

Anything that can result in a form of exhumation of Kennedy must be encouraged. There are some non invasive techniques developed since 1963 that may persuade the Kennedy family to permit it.

John,

If a DA gets a grand jury to begin proceedings, and they order a forensic autopsy, the family of the victim doesn't have a say in the matter, even if there name is Kennedy.

Bodies are dug up for forensic autopsies every day.

In fact, JFK was already exhumed and moved, in a secret, night time military operation in 1968.

I believe it was kept secret so as to prevent Garrison from learning about it since the New Orleans Grand Jury was in session and could have used that as an opportunity to request the forensic autopsy.

Bill Kelly

[John Dolva]

order a new, proper forensic autopsy,

Anything that can result in a form of exhumation of Kennedy must be encouraged. There are some non invasive techniques developed since 1963 that may persuade the Kennedy family to permit it.

John,

If a DA gets a grand jury to begin proceedings, and they order a forensic autopsy, the family of the victim doesn't have a say in the matter, even if there name is Kennedy.

Bodies are dug up for forensic autopsies every day.

In fact, JFK was already exhumed and moved, in a secret, night time military operation in 1968.

I believe it was kept secret so as to prevent Garrison from learning about it since the New Orleans Grand Jury was in session and could have used that as an opportunity to request the forensic autopsy.

Bill Kelly

True, I suppose, but Presidents, particularly those who are probably regarded by some as best left in the ground are not dug up every day. With difficulty, perhaps once every 100 years.

________________

I suspect it could be a case of orders overriding family wishes. However, if a Kennedy family approval could be got then an order would not be necessary and/or accompanying controversies would be minimized.

When another president dead a century or so was exhumed (on Family permission) to test for arsenic poisoning, controversy ensued and a rather clandestine operation was had to avoid press etc.

I often get a sense that what is cast in concrete in courts becomes rather rubbery in the hands of politicians and lawyers and the possible accompanying delays and court shifts etc could make taking the suggestion of an approval from Kennedy Family as a reasonable suggestion. A non-invasive scan would answer some of their concerns.

Even after 100 years family of the other presidents were very concerned for the peaceful rest of their ancestor irrespective of the good evidence that he may have been assassinated and their approval andthat of the community at large was not easily gotten. (in this case the verdict was no, he hadn't been poisoned.)

This is not to say that a court ordered exhumation should not be pursued. Of course it should. But it seems to place a big trust in 'the ass' to leave it solely to that.

Edited December 26, 2005 by John Dolva

[Duke Lane]

Duke, find me this "seemingly sound rationale for why the SBT is at least possible" and I'll sell you some swampland in Florida.

Oceanfront in Arizona is much more appealing to me, but thanks, Pat! The key word is "seemingly." Some people who are much more intelligent than I am believe it. Which means what?

As far as re-opening Tippit, I think that would be a serious mistake. The evidence against Oswald in that case is a lot stronger than in the shooting of the President. The eyewitness testimony is much stronger. The ballistics evidence is stronger (he had the purported murder weapon on his person). And there is a motive (his escape).

We mustn't pull a Belin and see the Tippit slaying as "the Rosetta stone" of the assassination. Oswald may very well have killed Tippit AND been innocent of killing Kennedy.

Pat, if he didn't kill Kennedy, then what did he have a motive of "escaping" from? Escaping, perhaps, a crime he hadn't committed yet (killing a cop)? About that swampland ...!

My point re the Tippit case is simply that it's a much smaller can of worms than the JFK murder. Someone assisting Ruby to kill Oswald falls in the same category. I'm fairly confident that the mob and CIA and Castro and Hoover and Big Oil and the "Military-Industrial Complex" and LBJ really couldn't have cared less whether Tippit or Oswald lived or died. The list of those who might have wanted either of them dead - for whatever reason - is considerably smaller.

I am, however, simply voicing my own two cents' worth: I'm not running for DA and won't be trying either case anytime soon! Ruby insisted that he was a lone nut. Oswald insisted that he didn't know what anybody was talking about, him shooting anybody, which clearly made him a nut too. Tho' he lost an insanity plea, Ruby may have almost been certifiable, don't you think?

[Duke Lane]

... ramifications resulting in the whole Dealey Plaza imbroglio with its rotting foundation of transparently odious deception being exposed at last ....

Wow. Can you do that again?

[Pat Speer]

While I still feel that the evidence for Oswald killing Tippit is much stronger than for him killing Kennedy, it could very well be true that it will be easier to get someone to re-open the case if at first it is limited to the Tippit killing. As stated, there are a number of gray areas regarding the killing... the timing, the number of shooters, the direction the shooter was walking, the description of the shooter, the missing marks on the casings... the messiness of the evidence could indeed confirm someone--even a lone-nutter--that the case is worth looking into. I do believe there is a real problem with connecting the two killings, however. It makes perfect sense to me that Oswald, even if innocent of killing Kennedy, would nevertheless be smart enough to understand that he'd been set up as Kennedy's assassin, and would not willingly surrender. Oswald had read quite a bit and would probably have een aware of the assassinations of Carlos Castillo-Armas and Huey Long, etc. If he'd believed himself to have been set up, he would also probably have believed he was going to be killed before reaching trial. As a result, I think it's possible Oswald killed Tippit. Both his wife and his brother felt he was lying about something...

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I think it's possible Oswald killed Tippit. Both his wife and his brother felt he was lying about something...

Even if they reached that opinion it would not be evidence against him. But unless I am mistaken, the fact is that they only reached that opinion AFTER every single newspaper, radio and television station in the country had declared him guilty.

Of course his wife (widow) has long ago changed her opinion.