The J.D. Tippit Shooting Evidence

J. Raymond Carroll · May 12, 2006

Therefore a mere look at the rim quickly identifies the type...no reading required. A
police officer would NOT MISTAKE the type.

Jack

That makes two types of people who are infallible, Popes and Policemen.

Jack White · May 12, 2006

Therefore a mere look at the rim quickly identifies the type...no reading required. A

police officer would NOT MISTAKE the type.

Jack

That makes two types of people who are infallible, Popes and Policemen.

I doubt that the Pope would know the difference in the two types

of cartridges. A police officer would. They are not interchangeable.

Like anyone could tell the difference between a poodle and a collie.

Jack

Mark Stapleton · May 12, 2006

Is there ANY evidence or testimony in this case which is rock solid and irrefutable? Every aspect seems laden with "COULDA, WOULDA, SHOULDA" - EITHER/OR, NOT QUITE, VERY SIMILAR, IN THE SAME BALLPARK, NOT CONCLUSIVE, HE SAID SHE SAID, CAME UP MISSING, ACCIDENTALLY DESTROYED, NO NOTES TAKEN, NO RECORDS KEPT, NO RECOLLECTION, INACCURACIES ATTRIBUTED TO, LOCKED AWAY FOR YOUR OWN GOOD, ETC., ETC., ETC. ...

I couldn't agree more. That's the main theme. In regards to the Tippet slaying, you don't need to become a ballistics expert to know the whole thing was a clumsy frameup by the conspirators to implicate LHO in the assassination by extension.

Chuck Robbins · May 13, 2006

Is there ANY evidence or testimony in this case which is rock solid and irrefutable? Every aspect seems laden with "COULDA, WOULDA, SHOULDA" - EITHER/OR, NOT QUITE, VERY SIMILAR, IN THE SAME BALLPARK, NOT CONCLUSIVE, HE SAID SHE SAID, CAME UP MISSING, ACCIDENTALLY DESTROYED, NO NOTES TAKEN, NO RECORDS KEPT, NO RECOLLECTION, INACCURACIES ATTRIBUTED TO, LOCKED AWAY FOR YOUR OWN GOOD, ETC., ETC., ETC. ...

The ballistics evidence is rendered moot when you read the report made by two DPD officers who witnessed Tippit being pronounced dead at 1:15 p.m. 11/22/63.

The ride to the hospital and life saving efforts camwe first...

the time of the shooting was well before it was possible for LHO to be in position to do the shooting.

Chuck

J. Raymond Carroll · May 17, 2006

I doubt that the Pope would know the difference in the two types
of cartridges. A police officer would. Jack

From Sylvia Meagher, Accessaries After the Fact, P. 273: 'Gerald Hill signalled the dispatcher with the following message: The shell at the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol (CE 1974, P. 78)

Hill did get a chance to examine the shells, but that was long after he sent this broadcast. I challenge Jack White (or anyone else) to provide evidence that Hill had actually examined the cartridge(s) when he sent this broadcast.

Knowing that there were spent cartidges at the scene, it was a perfectly logical assumption for any policeman to make that the murder weapon was an automatic.

I propose that the most sensible way to read the issue is:

"The [fact that there is a ] shell at the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol" (CE 1974, P. 78)

J. Raymond Carroll · May 17, 2006

The ballistics evidence is rendered moot when you read the report made by two DPD officers who witnessed Tippit being pronounced dead at 1:15 p.m. 11/22/63.
Chuck

Can you provide the source(s) for this statement?

Trent Adams · May 17, 2006

I doubt that the Pope would know the difference in the two types

of cartridges. A police officer would. Jack

From Sylvia Meagher, Accessaries After the Fact, P. 273: 'Gerald Hill signalled the dispatcher with the following message: The shell at the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol (CE 1974, P. 78)

Hill did get a chance to examine the shells, but that was long after he sent this broadcast. I challenge Jack White (or anyone else) to provide evidence that Hill had actually examined the cartridge(s) when he sent this broadcast.

Knowing that there were spent cartidges at the scene, it was a perfectly logical assumption for any policeman to make that the murder weapon was an automatic.

I propose that the most sensible way to read the issue is:

"The [fact that there is a ] shell at the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol" (CE 1974, P. 78)

Not that I reject the notion that there may have been honest confusion regarding the reports of the "automatic .38" instead of a pistol. However, based on my understanding of where the shells were found (I could be mistaken), I am hard pressed to believe that by looking at "the scene", that the shells in evidence were laying around "the scene". In other words, that "automatic" must have had bionic ejection skills for those shells to wind up where they were eventually found.

Now, after saying this, I am going to look for the locations of the shells, because I don't think I would have been able to conclude that the shells were ejected from an automatic, based on where they were found. I could be mistaken.....but I don't think so.

J. Raymond Carroll · May 17, 2006

Now, after saying this, I am going to look for the locations of the shells, because I don't think I would have been able to conclude that the shells were ejected from an automatic, based on where they were found. I could be mistaken.....but I don't think so.

Hill's original radio report refers to a singular "shell", not a plural "shells," if the transcript is accurate. In the heat of the moment I don't think it is unreasonable for a policeman to jump to the conclusion that the presence of an ejected caridge is an indication that the murder weapon was an automatic.

This issue, like the issue of Poe's supposed marking two of the shells, has been a blind alley for researchers for over 40 years, and it is time to get over it and look at the real evidence, IMO.

Trent Adams · May 17, 2006

Now, after saying this, I am going to look for the locations of the shells, because I don't think I would have been able to conclude that the shells were ejected from an automatic, based on where they were found. I could be mistaken.....but I don't think so.

Hill's original radio report refers to a singular "shell", not a plural "shells," if the transcript is accurate. In the heat of the moment I don't think it is unreasonable for a policeman to jump to the conclusion that the presence of an ejected caridge is an indication that the murder weapon was an automatic.

This issue, like the issue of Poe's supposed marking two of the shells, has been a blind alley for researchers for over 40 years, and it is time to get over it and look at the real evidence, IMO.

To be honest, I'm not debating what someone might assume, especially in the heat of the moment. Based on what I know of the DPD at the time, I hope this was just a poor assumption, because I know A LOT of the officers who were on duty that day and who are often mentioned/criticized in books and on this forum, and I don't feel they were ALL involved in sinister dealings that day.

But just to clarify my point and the record a bit:

Hill's actual radio transmission is as follows: "The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with a automatic 38, rather than a pistol." So, the mention was "shells" and not a singular shell.....just to clarify.

The reason I made the sarcastic comment about the "bionic" ejection of the mentioned shells was based on where they were found. They were found around the corner on the East side of Patton. That type of ejection, if it were claimed as fact, would make the SBT seem like the gospel in comparison. Not only would that have caused them to be ejected more than 100 feet, but then they would have turned around the corner from the shooting.

Therefore, it is for that reason that I don't think there were shells at "the scene" for Hill to make his assumption from. I know Hill's explanation for his error, but still it doesn't make sense to me how he reached his conclusion based on shells at "the scene". There weren't any shells at the shooting scene!

Although I might believe he made an honest mistake/assumption, I still keep it in the back of my mind that there is a possibility of some shenanigans with the shells and the murder weapon.

Other than that, I agree that there are too many things researchers get caught up in, trying to make something out of nothing. At least this one didn't appear out of thin air.

I hope that clears up my comments a bit.

Chuck Robbins · May 17, 2006

The ballistics evidence is rendered moot when you read the report made by two DPD officers who witnessed Tippit being pronounced dead at 1:15 p.m. 11/22/63.

Chuck

Can you provide the source(s) for this statement?