Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tippit Redux


Guest John Gillespie
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest John Gillespie

RE: Mr. Buchanan,...this from a John Simkin posting of January:

"Buchanan claims that JFK was killed by two gunman. One fired from the railroad bridge. Another fired from the Texas School Book Depository. He wore a Dallas Police uniform. Oswald was aware of the conspiracy but did not fire any shots. Oswald believed that Tippit was going to help him escape. However, his real job was to kill him “while resisting arrest”. Oswald, realised what was happening and fired first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I think Buchanan's book was excellent, the first to propose an alternative to the official story, I don't see LHO murdering Tippit, regardless of how alarmed he was of the events as they unfolded and the probability that he had been decieved about what would occur during the motorcade.

Tippit's murder probably occured sometime between 1.06 and 1.14. Police descriptions of LHO were not released until after Tippit's death so Oswald is unlikely to murder a cop before he became aware that he was the subject of a manhunt in connection to JFK's slaying, IMO. The Tippit murder was designed to fit up Oswald with the profile of a desperate assassin on the run. DA Wade confirmed it when he stated that "we know Oswald killed the President because he killed Officer Tippit". Questionable logic from the DA, but that's what he said.

I believe Tippit was murdered by the 'bushy haired' man as per the Acquila Clemons account. Oswald stated while in custody that 'I never shot anybody' and I think he told the truth. In fact, it seems to me that while he was understandably reticent about revealing the nature of his clandestine work, he rarely lied at all. The conspirators knew they couldn't rely on him to lie on their behalf, so he was quickly dispatched. Once Oswald was gone, the lies started flowing thick and fast, rebuttals from the 'assassin' no longer possible. 43 years on, they still haven't stopped.

FWIW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I think Buchanan's book was excellent, the first to propose an alternative to the official story, I don't see LHO murdering Tippit, regardless of how alarmed he was of the events as they unfolded and the probability that he had been decieved about what would occur during the motorcade.

Tippit's murder probably occured sometime between 1.06 and 1.14. Police descriptions of LHO were not released until after Tippit's death so Oswald is unlikely to murder a cop before he became aware that he was the subject of a manhunt in connection to JFK's slaying, IMO. The Tippit murder was designed to fit up Oswald with the profile of a desperate assassin on the run. DA Wade confirmed it when he stated that "we know Oswald killed the President because he killed Officer Tippit". Questionable logic from the DA, but that's what he said.

I believe Tippit was murdered by the 'bushy haired' man as per the Acquila Clemons account. Oswald stated while in custody that 'I never shot anybody' and I think he told the truth. In fact, it seems to me that while he was understandably reticent about revealing the nature of his clandestine work, he rarely lied at all. The conspirators knew they couldn't rely on him to lie on their behalf, so he was quickly dispatched. Once Oswald was gone, the lies started flowing thick and fast, rebuttals from the 'assassin' no longer possible. 43 years on, they still haven't stopped.

FWIW.

Mark, the two people Clemons saw were probably car yard manager, Ted Calloway and cab driver, William Scoggins -"Bushy haired" man being Scoggins. They had grabbed Tippit's pistol and chased after the real killer. A guy named Don Willis has done some great work in this area.

So who was the real killer of Tippit? In my opinion, it was the person seen by Arnold Rowland (slender white male, dark hair, light-coloured shirt open at neck, 30 or early 30s and holding a high powered rifle) and next by Marion Baker* (white man approximately 30 years old, 5"9', 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket).

Compare to broadcast description out of Dealey Plaza: "an unknown white male, about 30, slender build, 5 feet 10 inches, 165 lbs., armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle."

And later from Tippit site: "a white male, approximately 30, 5'8", slender build... 165 pounds."

*That the person encountered by Baker was not Lee Harvey Oswald should be self-evident since he did not finger Oswald as the suspect in his same day affidavit, let alone describe him accurately - despite being in the same room as Oswald when his affidavit was being taken. It was only said to be Oswald the following day, with the setting also being changed from 3rd or 4th floor to 2nd floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Greg,

From Mark Lane's 'Rush to Judgement', Clemons is quoted in an interview with Shirley Martin in August 1964 as saying she saw two men standing near the police car just before the shooting. The fact the WC refused to interview or even mention her gives her a large boost in credibility, IMO. Ditto Domingo Benavides, who refused to identify LHO as the killer and was not shown a lineup by the DP.

Scoggins: Like Helen Markham, another star WC witness. Doesn't see the shooting because of shrubbery between himself and the police car, but witnesses Tippit crashing to the ground on being shot. Testifies that Tippit's assailant was walking west (contradicting Markham and making it difficult to believe it could have been LHO, who was apparently heading east to the Texas Theatre). Then he identifies LHO as the gunman after an agent of either the FBI or SS shows him some pictures of Oswald beforehand. "I think I picked the wrong picture", Scoggins tells the WC, "he told me the other one was Oswald", he adds. Low credibility, IMO.

Alas, I don't agree with you on the description of Tippit's killer. I go for the "kind of short, kind of heavy" man described by Clemons. Your description fits Oswald and I don't think he shot anybody.

p.s. Where can I locate some of Don Willis's research--maybe he'll sway me. Great to have met you and John in Sydney earlier this month--wish I could've stayed longer.

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Greg,

From Mark Lane's 'Rush to Judgement', Clemons is quoted in an interview with Shirley Martin in August 1964 as saying she saw two men standing near the police car just before the shooting. The fact the WC refused to interview or even mention her gives her a large boost in credibility, IMO. Ditto Domingo Benavides, who refused to identify LHO as the killer and was not shown a lineup by the DP.

Mark, yeah, I'm aware she claims to have seen them before the shooting. But it all happening pretty quickly. I think she was just confused because there were indeed, others "near" - whatever that may have meant to her.

Scoggins: Like Helen Markham, another star WC witness. Doesn't see the shooting because of shrubbery between himself and the police car, but witnesses Tippit crashing to the ground on being shot. Testifies that Tippit's assailant was walking west (contradicting Markham and making it difficult to believe it could have been LHO, who was apparently heading east to the Texas Theatre). Then he identifies LHO as the gunman after an agent of either the FBI or SS shows him some pictures of Oswald beforehand. "I think I picked the wrong picture", Scoggins tells the WC, "he told me the other one was Oswald", he adds. Low credibility, IMO.

It's pretty obvious most witnesses buckled under pressure. DB, it seems, held out the longest.

Alas, I don't agree with you on the description of Tippit's killer.I go for the "kind of short, kind of heavy" man described by Clemons.

A description no one else gave (that I know of, anyway), and one that does fit Scoggins.

Your description fits Oswald and I don't think he shot anybody.

How does the description fit Oswald? Oswald had only recently turned 24 (description: 30 yo). Oswald was 145 pounds (description: 165) Oswald had light brown hair (description: dark hair). I agree though that Oswald never shot anyone. In fact, I don't believe he even had a pistol on him, and quite possibly was never at or near the scene. FWIW, I believe the real killer was holed up in the church.

p.s. Where can I locate some of Don Willis's research--maybe he'll sway me.

Suggest a google groups search using "donald willis". He tends to specialise in the Tippit killing, and all his work is worth perusing.

Great to have met you and John in Sydney earlier this month--wish I could've stayed longer.

Same here, Mark. Wish someone had thought to bring some big fat Cuban cigars, though :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Greg,

From Mark Lane's 'Rush to Judgement', Clemons is quoted in an interview with Shirley Martin in August 1964 as saying she saw two men standing near the police car just before the shooting. The fact the WC refused to interview or even mention her gives her a large boost in credibility, IMO. Ditto Domingo Benavides, who refused to identify LHO as the killer and was not shown a lineup by the DP.

Mark, yeah, I'm aware she claims to have seen them before the shooting. But it all happening pretty quickly. I think she was just confused because there were indeed, others "near" - whatever that may have meant to her.

Scoggins: Like Helen Markham, another star WC witness. Doesn't see the shooting because of shrubbery between himself and the police car, but witnesses Tippit crashing to the ground on being shot. Testifies that Tippit's assailant was walking west (contradicting Markham and making it difficult to believe it could have been LHO, who was apparently heading east to the Texas Theatre). Then he identifies LHO as the gunman after an agent of either the FBI or SS shows him some pictures of Oswald beforehand. "I think I picked the wrong picture", Scoggins tells the WC, "he told me the other one was Oswald", he adds. Low credibility, IMO.

It's pretty obvious most witnesses buckled under pressure. DB, it seems, held out the longest.

Alas, I don't agree with you on the description of Tippit's killer.I go for the "kind of short, kind of heavy" man described by Clemons.

A description no one else gave (that I know of, anyway), and one that does fit Scoggins.

As far as I'm aware, there were only three witnesses to the actual shooting of Tippit: Helen Markham, Domingo Benavides and Acquila Clemons. Benavides stated from the outset that he was unable to identify the killer. Clemons stated he was 'kind of fat, kind of heavy' and had bushy hair. Markham identified LHO as the killer from a lineup (according to the WC). However, the inconsistencies in her testimony are many (don't need to go into them here), and on March 2, 1964 she was interviewed by Mark Lane by telephone and described the killer as 'a short man, somewhat on the heavy side, with slightly bushy hair'. Markham subsequently denied saying this but Lane submitted the tape recording of the conversation to the WC.

On the balance of probabilities ( two-zero, with one abstension), I'll stick with Clemons description of Tippit's killer.

Your description fits Oswald and I don't think he shot anybody.

How does the description fit Oswald? Oswald had only recently turned 24 (description: 30 yo). Oswald was 145 pounds (description: 165) Oswald had light brown hair (description: dark hair). I agree though that Oswald never shot anyone. In fact, I don't believe he even had a pistol on him, and quite possibly was never at or near the scene. FWIW, I believe the real killer was holed up in the church.

Right you are, Greg. Sorry, I was a bit hasty--the description differs from LHO. I'm drowning in a sea of Oswalds here B)

p.s. Where can I locate some of Don Willis's research--maybe he'll sway me.

Suggest a google groups search using "donald willis". He tends to specialise in the Tippit killing, and all his work is worth perusing.

Just had a brief look at some of Willis's stuff. The argument in favor of a semi-automatic over a revolver is compelling, IMO. There may have been confusion over whether the killer was removing shells and dropping them as he was running. Some of those who testified might have been "persuaded" that this is what occurred. It fits Ossie up nicely.

Great to have met you and John in Sydney earlier this month--wish I could've stayed longer.

Same here, Mark. Wish someone had thought to bring some big fat Cuban cigars, though :)

Duly noted. I'll bring some hand-rolled Havanas next time. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
While I think Buchanan's book was excellent, the first to propose an alternative to the official story, I don't see LHO murdering Tippit, regardless of how alarmed he was of the events as they unfolded and the probability that he had been decieved about what would occur during the motorcade.

Tippit's murder probably occured sometime between 1.06 and 1.14. Police descriptions of LHO were not released until after Tippit's death so Oswald is unlikely to murder a cop before he became aware that he was the subject of a manhunt in connection to JFK's slaying, IMO. The Tippit murder was designed to fit up Oswald with the profile of a desperate assassin on the run. DA Wade confirmed it when he stated that "we know Oswald killed the President because he killed Officer Tippit". Questionable logic from the DA, but that's what he said.

I believe Tippit was murdered by the 'bushy haired' man as per the Acquila Clemons account. Oswald stated while in custody that 'I never shot anybody' and I think he told the truth. In fact, it seems to me that while he was understandably reticent about revealing the nature of his clandestine work, he rarely lied at all. The conspirators knew they couldn't rely on him to lie on their behalf, so he was quickly dispatched. Once Oswald was gone, the lies started flowing thick and fast, rebuttals from the 'assassin' no longer possible. 43 years on, they still haven't stopped.

FWIW.

Oswald, according to the official story, shot and killed Tippit at 1:18.

I have found a second document which states Tippit was pronounced dead at 1:15.

It's impossible to kill Tippit at 1:18, when he has already been pronounced dead at 1:15,

wouldn't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswald, according to the official story, shot and killed Tippit at 1:18.

I have found a second document which states Tippit was pronounced dead at 1:15.

It's impossible to kill Tippit at 1:18, when he has already been pronounced dead at 1:15,

wouldn't you think?

DOA @ 1:15 = shooting around ten munites earlier? Can't be true. No, what it really means is that the ambulance broke the speed of light. Yeah... that's it. :blink:

Great find, Chuck! One minor and inconsequential correction. The WCR put the shooting at 1:16.

Has anyone seen or heard of this document before? If it's accurate, it clearly exonerates Oswald in the shooting - which the evidence in toto tends toward doing, also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswald, according to the official story, shot and killed Tippit at 1:18.

I have found a second document which states Tippit was pronounced dead at 1:15.

It's impossible to kill Tippit at 1:18, when he has already been pronounced dead at 1:15,

wouldn't you think?

DOA @ 1:15 = shooting around ten munites earlier? Can't be true. No, what it really means is that the ambulance broke the speed of light. Yeah... that's it. :blink:

Great find, Chuck! One minor and inconsequential correction. The WCR put the shooting at 1:16.

Has anyone seen or heard of this document before? If it's accurate, it clearly exonerates Oswald in the shooting - which the evidence in toto tends toward doing, also.

Yes , this is additional evidence in the exoneratation of Lee Harvey Oswald. Which, as Harold Weisburg put it " should not have been believed in the 17th century" Look at the backyard photos, take note of these timelines, listen to the Grassy Knoll eye (ear) witnesses.

Even a cursory look at the evidence supposedly linking Oswald to the two murders quickly makes it obvious that this was a snow job. Let's get on to why Kennedy was killed.

Peter

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswald, according to the official story, shot and killed Tippit at 1:18.

I have found a second document which states Tippit was pronounced dead at 1:15.

It's impossible to kill Tippit at 1:18, when he has already been pronounced dead at 1:15,

wouldn't you think?

DOA @ 1:15 = shooting around ten munites earlier? Can't be true. No, what it really means is that the ambulance broke the speed of light. Yeah... that's it. :blink:

Great find, Chuck! One minor and inconsequential correction. The WCR put the shooting at 1:16.

Has anyone seen or heard of this document before? If it's accurate, it clearly exonerates Oswald in the shooting - which the evidence in toto tends toward doing, also.

Yes , this is additional evidence in the exoneratation of Lee Harvey Oswald. Which, as Harold Weisburg put it " should not have been believed in the 17th century" Look at the backyard photos, take note of these timelines, listen to the Grassy Knoll eye (ear) witnesses.

Even a cursory look at the evidence supposedly linking Oswald to the two murders quickly makes it obvious that this was a snow job. Let's get on to why Kennedy was killed.

Peter

Why was Kennedy killed?

I don't think there is only one reason why Kennedy was killed. But, there is one group which is tied to all of

those who were threatened by Kennedy and his politics.

What was his planned course of action in his next term? Withdrawal from Viet-Nam, Dismantling the CIA,

getting rid of the Federal Reserve and making changes to the oil depletion allowance (stopping corporate

welfare). These are all plans that were sure to piss off the most powerful (wealthy and military) people in America who were either already getting more rich and powerful or, through the coming war, were going to

become more rich and powerful, or, through the destruction of their group, whether the Fed or the CIA,

were going to lose their cash cow or their jobs.

The Fed, despite it's government sounding name, is a privately held company. This company prints our

money and provides it to our government. Simple, right? Wrong. This company buys paper and ink, pays

individuals to print the money, and then takes the finished product, which are promissory notes, and then

provides them to our govt., for which our govt. promises to pay this company the full face value plus

interest.

Think about it. How can any govt. exert any true control over itself when it does not control it's own supply

of money? Why has our govt. allowed a privately held company to take control of our nation's money

supply? Why do we, as citizens, have to pay interest on something, a promissory note, that is, basically,

worthless? Since the source of power is inevitably money, or who controls the money, when it comes right down to it, the group that controls this country is the group in control of the Federal Reserve Board.

Don't be confused by the name. There is no Federal Govt. control or ownership of this company that prints

our money for virtually nothing, which they then provide to us at face value, for which our country agrees to

"repay" at face value, plus interest.

Is it no wonder that our national debt has continued to soar in a never ending spiral? This is the ultimate

Ponzi scheme and we are it's victims. I am sure that somewhere there is a huge pile of true wealth, which

would be gold and silver, bought with the proceeds of this phony money we call the dollar.

We are a nation of fools who care more about what is on TV than we do about who is "placed" into the White

House for us by our highest court. If our TV's were to all suddenly stop working our nation would be in an

uproar, but, when our process to elect a President stops working...it's all good, we understand, you know,

xxxx happens, right? WRONG! This is just the most recent symptom of the disease which infected our govt.

on 11/22/1963 when our last truly independent President was removed from office via public execution.

What we have sitting in place of our two-party govt. is a two-headed monster.

If, or when, people get wise to what has been happening, and get angry enough to do something, we will

see the true face of this monster. I predict we will, in our lifetimes, see acts which will rival those of Nazi

Germany, only these acts will be done against our fellow Americans. We, on this forum, are, I'm sure,

already on their long list of "undesirables" who are to be rounded up and dealt with.

The feelings I have just expressed may not sit well with some of you, and for that I am sorry, but, I am a

citizen of these United States, and as such, I am compelled to speak out and say I feel our form of Govt.

was destroyed on 11/22/1963. The two-headed monster, with one voice, that sits in it's place has been

bleeding us dry ever since. We, as a people, had better wake up soon... if not, the worst is yet to come.

This rant is done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswald, according to the official story, shot and killed Tippit at 1:18.

I have found a second document which states Tippit was pronounced dead at 1:15.

It's impossible to kill Tippit at 1:18, when he has already been pronounced dead at 1:15,

wouldn't you think?

DOA @ 1:15 = shooting around ten munites earlier? Can't be true. No, what it really means is that the ambulance broke the speed of light. Yeah... that's it. :blink:

Great find, Chuck! One minor and inconsequential correction. The WCR put the shooting at 1:16.

Has anyone seen or heard of this document before? If it's accurate, it clearly exonerates Oswald in the shooting - which the evidence in toto tends toward doing, also.

Yes , this is additional evidence in the exoneratation of Lee Harvey Oswald. Which, as Harold Weisburg put it " should not have been believed in the 17th century" Look at the backyard photos, take note of these timelines, listen to the Grassy Knoll eye (ear) witnesses.

Even a cursory look at the evidence supposedly linking Oswald to the two murders quickly makes it obvious that this was a snow job. Let's get on to why Kennedy was killed.

Peter

Why was Kennedy killed?

I don't think there is only one reason why Kennedy was killed. But, there is one group which is tied to all of

those who were threatened by Kennedy and his politics.

What was his planned course of action in his next term? Withdrawal from Viet-Nam, Dismantling the CIA,

getting rid of the Federal Reserve and making changes to the oil depletion allowance (stopping corporate

welfare). These are all plans that were sure to piss off the most powerful (wealthy and military) people in America who were either already getting more rich and powerful or, through the coming war, were going to

become more rich and powerful, or, through the destruction of their group, whether the Fed or the CIA,

were going to lose their cash cow or their jobs.

The Fed, despite it's government sounding name, is a privately held company. This company prints our

money and provides it to our government. Simple, right? Wrong. This company buys paper and ink, pays

individuals to print the money, and then takes the finished product, which are promissory notes, and then

provides them to our govt., for which our govt. promises to pay this company the full face value plus

interest.

Think about it. How can any govt. exert any true control over itself when it does not control it's own supply

of money? Why has our govt. allowed a privately held company to take control of our nation's money

supply? Why do we, as citizens, have to pay interest on something, a promissory note, that is, basically,

worthless? Since the source of power is inevitably money, or who controls the money, when it comes right down to it, the group that controls this country is the group in control of the Federal Reserve Board.

Don't be confused by the name. There is no Federal Govt. control or ownership of this company that prints

our money for virtually nothing, which they then provide to us at face value, for which our country agrees to

"repay" at face value, plus interest.

Is it no wonder that our national debt has continued to soar in a never ending spiral? This is the ultimate

Ponzi scheme and we are it's victims. I am sure that somewhere there is a huge pile of true wealth, which

would be gold and silver, bought with the proceeds of this phony money we call the dollar.

We are a nation of fools who care more about what is on TV than we do about who is "placed" into the White

House for us by our highest court. If our TV's were to all suddenly stop working our nation would be in an

uproar, but, when our process to elect a President stops working...it's all good, we understand, you know,

xxxx happens, right? WRONG! This is just the most recent symptom of the disease which infected our govt.

on 11/22/1963 when our last truly independent President was removed from office via public execution.

What we have sitting in place of our two-party govt. is a two-headed monster.

If, or when, people get wise to what has been happening, and get angry enough to do something, we will

see the true face of this monster. I predict we will, in our lifetimes, see acts which will rival those of Nazi

Germany, only these acts will be done against our fellow Americans. We, on this forum, are, I'm sure,

already on their long list of "undesirables" who are to be rounded up and dealt with.

The feelings I have just expressed may not sit well with some of you, and for that I am sorry, but, I am a

citizen of these United States, and as such, I am compelled to speak out

and say I feel our form of Govt.

was destroyed on 11/22/1963. The two-headed monster, with one voice, that sits in it's place has been

bleeding us dry ever since. We, as a people, had better wake up soon... if not, the worst is yet to come.

This rant is done.

On page 459 of JFK and Vietnam John M Newman writes: "The American people have never been satisfied with the official explanation of the Kennedy assassination, nor has the Congress for that matter. Nevertheless, it is psychologically less troubling to believe that Johnson carried on Kennedy's Vietnam policy than to acknowledge the reverse. If that premise, and the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, are dispelled, where , then, does honest inquiry lead? Until now, such inquiry has been off-limits for serious political scientists and historians because of the conspiritorial presumptions that appear inherent in the material. The implication seems to be that any study that dares examine the possibility of a recent conspiracy is somehow un-American. Yet, IN FACT, it is THAT idea that is un-American. That we the people have not only THE RIGHT but THE DUTY to examine such questions is a basic assumption of our most treasured political institutions. ( emphasis added , Newman only emphasises THAT)

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...