Jerry Hill’s lies: the heart of the J.D. Tippit shooting

Jerry Hill lied over and over again. That, I think, is the heart of the story of the killing of Dallas Police Department officer J.D. Tippit on November 22, 1963, shortly after the assassination of President Kennedy and right before the arrest of Lee Oswald.

Hill died in 2011 but there’s not a cop alive or dead who can contradict this story.

I would appreciate thoughtful comments, I spent a lot of time writing this piece as a rebuttal of David Belin, Warren Commission advocate, who argues that Tippit was killed by Lee Oswald. I disagree.

I believe you will find the evidence is reliable– you can review all of it at the end of this article.

The problem of the hulls

Officer Jerry Hill took custody of a revolver at the Texas Theatre where Oswald was arrested. Supposedly, it was handed to him by officer Bob Carroll. The Warren Commission admitted that it is impossible to match the bullets fired at Tippit with the revolver. The only case for matching the gun to the crime scene  left rests on the hulls.

Did the hulls match the weapon? Officer Tippit was struck by four bullets.

The two hulls found by Domingo Benavides at the Tippit crime scene would never be admitted as evidence. Officer J.M. Poe told the FBI that he marked these hulls with his initials “JMP”. When he testified before the Commission, Poe stated under oath that he could not swear that he initialed these hulls. Hence, there was no chain of custody.

Detective Jim Leavelle, a veteran of the force, told author Joe McBride, author of Into the Nightmare, that the hulls were useless as evidence.

The question should be asked, however – did Poe initially lie, or were the hulls switched?

Officer Jerry Hill complicated matters still further by claiming that Poe showed him three hulls. But that’s not the worst of it.

The problem of the radio call

What really threw a spanner into the works was when Jerry Hill made a radio call at 1:40 pm on November 22, 1963 and reported that the hulls came from a 38 automatic, rather than a 38 special. The 38 special bullets were used by the Dallas police and were extremely well-known. Both 38 special and 38 automatic hulls are clearly identified at their base –- Hill’s misidentification cannot be passed off as a simple mistake.

When Hill testified before the Warren Commission, he threw gasoline on the fire. In the face of a very carefully phrased question by David Belin, Hill denied under oath that he made the radio call about the finding of 38 automatic hulls at 1:40 pm. Hill claimed that he wasn’t using his call number “550-2” as much as another officer, and that it was wrong to think that he made the call.

Twenty-two years later, in 1986, Hill admitted to researcher Dale Myers that he made the call. When he was asked how he determined that the hulls were 38 caliber, Hill said, “Thirty-eight’s stamped on the bottom of it. I looked on the bottom.”

Hill’s problem is that the bottom of the hull will spell out for you what type of 38 it is!  (See Dale Myers, With Malice, p. 261).

The problem at the crime scene

It could be argued that the two hulls found by two sisters, Barbara and Virginia Davis should be admitted because of the clear stories about two different officers that received them from the Davis sisters.

However, there are several problems. The hulls provided to the police were not found at the crime scene, but down the street and later in the day -– a good case that they were planted. Furthermore, the Davis sisters said that the marked hulls were not the hulls that they originally provided to the police.

Hill told Dale Myers that all of the shells found within a foot and a half of each other.  The problem with Hill’s story is that the police reports and testimony state that the four shells were found many yards apart.

Oswald and the gun

Finally, did Oswald fire the revolver in the Texas Theatre?

Dallas officer Jerry Hill and other policemen always insisted that Oswald fired his revolver in the theater in an effort to kill, but that the revolver misfired.

Hill wrote in his report that one of the shells had a hammer mark on the primer.

Firearms and toolmark expert Cortlandt Cunningham testified to the Warren Commission, “We found nothing to indicate that this weapon’s firing pin had struck the primer of any of these cartridges.” In other words, Cunningham called Hill a liar.

The Warren Commission agreed with Cunningham’s finding.

The biggest problem is the way that Jerry Hill poisoned the well with his lies and his widely varying stories. The history of alteration would probably result in none of the hulls being admitted into evidence. Hill’s evidence is wholly unreliable, which impeaches the case against Oswald.

Note: To review the documents this analysis is based on, see my piece in Op-Ed News.

293 comments

  1. MDG says:

    There never was, or will be a trial for LHO.

    All the lies and inconsistencies between witness testimony contributed conveniently to the Coverup.

    “The history of alteration would probably result in none of the hulls being admitted into evidence. Hill’s evidence is wholly unreliable, which impeaches the case against Oswald.”
    From Bill Simpich’s Comments of Jan. 29.

    It is sometimes fascinating to think about the Oswald Trial That Never Was. I suspect Oswald would have been convicted despite evidence not admitted into evidence.

    Oswald in the TSBD, death of Tippit, arrest of LHO and his elimination on Sunday morning ….there was something going on from the very beginning.

    People were talking about possible conspiracy from the point when Ruby shot Oswald.

    • Fearfaxer says:

      If Oswald had been convicted, it would presumably have been a capital crime for which he would have been executed. Executions at that time often happened much sooner after verdict than is the case today. Depending on how the trial went, it’s not hard to imagine a scenario wherein the state of Texas tried to kill him as fast as possible, while a controversy similar to those attending the executions of Sacco/Venzetti and the Rosenbergs took place. And Earl Warren might again have been involved, as appeals of the guilty verdict made their way to the Supreme Court. I wonder if, under those circumstances, Warren or one of the other justices would have had to the guts to hear the appeal?

  2. DG Michael says:

    This is a great article. I just wanted to add two other items to the narrative – the throwdown wallet found at the scene and the jacket LHO supposedly threw down on his wild man’s sprint from the Tippit scene to the theater.

    The fake wallet found at the scene – as if he would have said, “Oops, I just shot a police officer 6 times and now I can’t forget to throw my wallet down before I leave so everyone knows it was me!” would have ended up being the third(!) Oswald wallet owned by a supposed low-income warehouse worker.

    The jacket, supposedly owned by LHO, had a dry cleaning tag in it where no such cleaner was ever located in the Dallas area. And his wife confirmed that the Oswalds never did dry cleaning.

    I’ll always believe that without the Tippit killing, getting the police to Oswald the patsy to blame him for Kennedy’s murder would have been exceedingly difficult. They didn’t just want to find him somewhere sitting in a coffee shop sipping a cup to arrest him. They wanted him to look like a wild man, going around waving a revolver, shooting a policeman, having his wallet “spill out” at the crime scene, ejecting shells and throwing his jacket down, then dashing into a movie theater to “hide” and without paying for his ticket.

    Remember, he’s supposed to be the fanatical, left-wing, ex-defector, ex-Marine, “krazy kid” loner that the WC and lone-nut believers have always painted him out to be. Not the man who left his job at the TSBD, got on a bus, got off, hailed a cab but politely gave it up for a lady, and then got in another cab, arriving at his rooming house way too late to have dashed down the street, on foot, to have shot Tippit.

    Jacket and wallet links:

    http://harveyandlee.net/November/November_22.htm

    http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/33005-the-murder-of-jfk-part-2-counterfeit-id-planted-in-oswalds-wallet

    • Russ Tarby says:

      pretty sure Bill Simpich has also studied that wallet situation.
      he gave a mesmerizing presentation at the 2015 JFK Lancer conference focusing on Capt. Pinky Westbrook and the aforementioned Sgt. Jerry Hill. he showed how these two administrative officers commandeered the crime scene at the Texas Book Depository Building.
      Why Wesbtbrook and Hill? Why not the DPD’s best forensic detectives?
      Westbrook and Hill were like human resources and PR guys for the DPD, not at all experienced in evidence collection.
      no wonder the “evidence” found on the Sixth Floor was such a mess!
      and then Hill showed up at the Tippit murder scene AND then at the Texas Theater. Jerry sure knew how to be at the right place at the right time, especially if the evidence had to look a “certain” way…

  3. Steve Stirlen says:

    Oh Photon,

    Better crank up the “let’s smear Jefferson Morley machine” because he DARED to question the “honorable men” who “investigated” the murder of JFK… . Gas is cheap in America right now, so you should be able to keep the engine running long enough to outlast this latest, yet not new, FACT that the DPD was incompetent at its best, and downright corrupt at its worst.

    Let me help a little more: “Jerry Hill lied over and over.” Gee, Photon, change the name from Jerry Hill to Gerald Ford or Allen Dulles or James Angleton, and the same sentence can be used to infinity to describe the “honorable men” who were out to “settle the dust.”

  4. I have very little add except to praise Mr Simpich for the time and effort to put together such a cogent and fact filled rational presentation.

    Thank you again Bill!
    \\][//

  5. Charles says:

    Mr. Simpich

    I support your reasoning here. If the Tippet and JFK shootings were connected, there is a consistent pattern of planted evidence related to bullets and cartridges as I accept beyond a shadow of a doubt that CE399 had to have been a plant.

    As for the confusion between .38 special and .38 auto, I have severe difficulty accepting that a misidentification could have occurred. The two cartridges vary significantly in length but most importantly, the special is rimmed and auto is rimless. The rim is required to hold the cartridge in place in a revolver’s cylinder while the rimlessness of a 38 auto is needed to allow the cartridges to stack, without interference, on top of each other in the magazine of a pistol.

    The visual and haptic differences between the two cartridges are very striking without even looking at the fine print on their bases. If you have not examined the two types in person I strongly recommend you do so. I find it almost impossible that a police officer could confuse the two.

    Once fired, the spent .38 special cartridges are retained within the cylinder of the revolver unless the shooter performs an action to unload them. The cartridges of a .38 auto are automatically (get it?) ejected from a pistol once fired.

    I never found it logically credible that someone would shoot a policeman in broad daylight in the street and then take the time to remove the spent cartridges from the revolver and dump them on the street then and there, only to provide helpful forensic evidence for investigators to link the weapon to the crime.

    If a .38 auto was used I would expect to find the spent cartridges on the street as their automatic ejection would require the shooter considerable time to locate them on the ground and pick them up. If the cartridges hit the pavement or sidewalk, the hard surfaces would likely make them bounce in all sorts of inconsistent directions.

    • “The visual and haptic differences between the two cartridges are very striking without even looking at the fine print on their bases. If you have not examined the two types in person I strongly recommend you do so. I find it almost impossible that a police officer could confuse the two.”~Charles

      I have pointed this out several times in several threads here. The Dallas PD were issues .38 Special revolvers as standard issue in 1963. Any officer that could confuse a .38 SP bullet with what is actually termed a .380 Auto bullet, would not be considered at proficient professional and would not have maintained a position in any police force in the country.

      I have before me on my desk at this very moment a .38 Sp and a .380 auto bullet.

      The .38 SP is: 1 and 6/10ths inches in length.

      The .380 auto is: 9/10ths inch long.

      This difference is simply unmistakable.

      The entire length of a .380 auto is a quarter inch shorter than just the husk of a .38 Sp.
      \\][//

      • Jean Davison says:

        If the “real” killer used an automatic weapon, how is it that a policeman planted a non-automatic revolver in Oswald’s hand, Willy? Somebody didn’t get the memo?

        • “If the “real” killer used an automatic weapon, how is it that a policeman planted a non-automatic revolver in Oswald’s hand, Willy?”~Jean Davison

          I didn’t say “the “real” killer used an automatic weapon” Jean. I am dealing with the report that Jerry Hill made about finding .38 auto hulls.

          There seems to have been two shooters, and the one firing the automatic missed, or was firing as a distraction for the real murderer.

          There was one bullet found in the body of Tippit that was too mangled to identify at all. It may have been fired by the .38 automatic.

          All supposition of course. But I am not the one who radio’d in a report about .38 automatic shells; Hill did, ask him why he screwed up so bad – not me.
          \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            How is it that this “second gunman” was invisible to all six witnesses closer to the scene — Markham, Scoggins, the Davis women, Benavides and Jack Tatum, who was driving by?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Well, Willy, can you explain why the six witnesses closest to the Tippit shooting didn’t see Acquilla Clemmons’ “second gunman”?

          • “How is it that this “second gunman” was invisible to all six witnesses closer to the scene — Markham, Scoggins, the Davis women, Benavides and Jack Tatum, who was driving by?”
            ~Jean Davison

            Because the shooting happened several minutes before it is reported to have happened. That is how Tippits body arrive DOD at Mercy Hospital at 1:06 PM.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Because the shooting happened several minutes before it is reported to have happened.”

            Wait! So Aquilla saw two men shoot Tippit several minutes before the six other people saw one man shoot him….AGAIN? Oh please, tell me what you think happened, Willy.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy, would you please explain how the Tippit shooting’s happening “several minutes earlier” would make Acquilla Clemmons’s second gunman invisible to six people?

          • “Wait! So Aquilla saw two men shoot Tippit several minutes before the six other people saw one man shoot him….AGAIN? Oh please, tell me what you think happened, Willy”~Jean Davison

            How many people actually ‘SAW’ one man shoot Tippit? Most people heard the gunshots and then looked out the window. Others only arrived on the scene later. There are simply no clear and reliable witnesses to this event.

            I think two gunmen were involved, one went one way – one went the other, some witnesses saw one of the gunmen…who that was is still conjecture.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            Did you know that at least nine witnesses ID-ed Oswald as the man they saw either shooting Tippit or fleeing the scene gun in hand?

            Markham, Benavides and Jack Tatum witnessed the shooting. Scoggins saw Oswald and Tippit immediately before and immediately afterwards. The Davis women heard the shots, ran to the door and saw Oswald emptying his revolver in their yard.

            Scroll down a bit for a drawing showing the location of these witnesses, who had a view of the scene from all sides:

            https://books.google.com/books?id=IdnhAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT165&dq=%22in+1964+frank+wright+described%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm-rv44t7KAhXMMyYKHYRtA5kQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=%22in%201964%20frank%20wright%20described%22&f=false

            Acquilla Clemmons was at a house just below where Markham was standing, if I remember correctly, further away than any of the others.

            This is the account Jack Tatum gave the HSCA:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=84&relPageId=45&search=“jack_tatum”

            Here’s the WR list of the Tippit witnesses:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=190&tab=page

            Willy, I keep asking for a scenario because scenarios reveal the weaknesses of a theory like nothing else. We’re looking for the most plausible explanation for the evidence, aren’t we? So what’s more likely here?

            1. Acquilla Clemmons saw a second man none of these other witnesses saw.

            2. Clemmons saw two other men near Tippit’s car immediately after the shooting and misunderstood what they were doing there.

            Come on, Willy, this is an easy question.

          • “Did you know that at least nine witnesses ID-ed Oswald as the man they saw either shooting Tippit or fleeing the scene gun in hand?”~Jean Davison

            I know that is what is claimed Jean. And I know that with close inspection none of the ones I investigated were reliable for various reasons.

            Benavides is always cited as one of the best witnesses, when in fact he refused to ID Oswald with absolute certainty.
            We have been through this before Jean. Don’t act “shocked” or pretend you haven’t read the counter arguments before. It is getting redundant and tiresome.
            \\][//

          • Jean, Jack Tatum’s account does NOT positively ID Oswald. He said he “saw a young man”. That is explicit as his account is.

            “Although I did not remember the exact time I remember it was early in the afternoon on Friday, November 22, 1963. I was driving XXXX north on Denver and stopped at 10th St. when I first saw the squad car and men walking on the sidewalk near the squad car. Both the squad car and this young white male were coming in my direction(East on 10th Street). At the time I was just approaching the squad car, I noticed this young white male with both hands in the pockets of his zippered jacket leaning over the passenger side of the squad car. This young white male was looking into the squad car from the passenger side. The next thing I knew I heard something that sounded like gun shots as I approached the intersection. (10th & Patton). I heard three shots in rapid (illegible)I went right through the intersection, stopped my car and turned to look back. I then saw the officer lying on the street and saw this young white man standing near the front of the squad car. Next. this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street. At that point this young man looked around him and then started to walk away in my direction and as he started to break into a small run in my direction, I sped off in my auto. All I saw him to the intersection and run south on Patton towards Jefferson.”

            Q. Did you know Lee Harvey Oswald, Officer Tippit or anyone else at the scene.

            A. “No”
            * * * * * *
            And you count this as a “solid witness” Jean?
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            I didn’t claim that Benevides ID-ed Oswald, Willy. The point is that he saw one man, not two.

            You are changing the subject instead of answering the question.

          • “I didn’t claim that Benevides ID-ed Oswald, Willy. The point is that he saw one man, not two.
            You are changing the subject instead of answering the question.”~Jean Davison

            The subject converges thus. These witnesses saw the action from a distance. If there was another shooter who had already ducked for cover and ran off, they would not have noticed him in the excitement of seeing the other “young man” finishing off Tippit.
            \\][//

          • “Did you know that at least nine witnesses ID-ed Oswald as the man they saw either shooting Tippit or fleeing the scene gun in hand?”

            This was your assertion, it includes the term “ID-ed Oswald”

            I am answering the fullness of your question Jean.
            \\][//

          • Benavides is always cited as one of the best witnesses,

            Actually no, he’s not.

            Buffs tend to blow up the significance of witnesses they can attack and impeach, and ignore the ones whom they can’t impeach.

          • Tom S. says:

            If I lie is proven in an initial affidavit, and then repeated under oath in testimony related to the
            details in the affidavit, is the witness impeached, or does it depend whether you like or disagree
            with the crux of the perjurer’s testimony?

          • Jean Davison says:

            How many gunmen did Tatum see, Willy? How many did Benevides, Markham, Scoggins, Barbara and Virginia Davis see?

            What’s more likely, that all six had the same blind spot or that Aquilla Clemmons was wrong?

          • Jean, Jack Tatum’s account does NOT positively ID Oswald.

            I can’t find the source document for the HSCA paragraph on him, but for Frontline in 1993, he identified the shooter as Oswald.

            That sort of belated ID is a bit suspect, and not because he’s a terrible liar, but only because of a large chance of memory contamination.

            I’d consider him a solid witness for only one shooter.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Four of the last six comments by JMc, one by Jean, one by Willy. Does someone have an agenda to dominate the site with long comments distracting from the current topic?

          • Well Ronnie, although not directly in reference to Officer Hill, the topic branches into the Tippit shooting rather naturally.

            Now I have already explained to Jean how these witnesses may have missed the second shooter. But she is still insisting the witness who saw only one are ‘reliable’ – and that is the issue I keep proving is not the case. They were NOT reliable. Nor did any of them have the POV to see the second gunman.

            Alternatively those who may have had that POV witnessed the event only after hearing gun shots and seeing the one man who had finished Tippit off.

            the tie-in is that there is a possibility that the heavier man was firing a .380 automatic pistol – the shell hulls that Hill called in about.
            \\][//

          • The Criteria for Assessing the Reliability of Witness Testimony

            The most critical would be:

            1. — POV — and Distance from event witnessed

            2. – Consideration of obstructions a witness’ position would encounter

            3. – Human perception of events that occur in a matter of seconds and less – the likelihood of a duck response in crisis situations.

            We might add to these:

            4. — Possible conflict of interests

            5. — Obvious conflict of interests

            6. — Internal conflicts of a single witness’ testimony, and a detailed analysis of how this might be (see 3rd critical criteria point)

            7. — Established history of lying

            8. — Conflicts with known and established empirical evidence.

            Plus; particular circumstances of specific witnesses, that could effect the reliability of a certain witness.
            \\][//

  6. What really threw a spanner into the works was when Jerry Hill made a radio call at 1:40 pm on November 22, 1963 and reported that the hulls came from a 38 automatic, rather than a 38 special. The 38 special bullets were used by the Dallas police and were extremely well-known. Both 38 special and 38 automatic hulls are clearly identified at their base –- Hill’s misidentification cannot be passed off as a simple mistake.

    Multiple witnesses—Domingo Benavides, Virginia Davis, Barbara Jeanette Davis, Acquilla Clemons, Helen Markham—saw the shooter manually ejecting spent cartridges from his gun.

    So yes, it was a mistake. And Simpich is just recycling hoary buff factoids.

    • Acquilla Clemons, Mcadams? She saw two men shoot Tippit, neither of which matched Oswald. One was a short stout man with bushy hair, and the other a tall younger man. They fled in different directions after the shooting.
      She also said she was warned to keep her mouth shut if she knew what was good for her:

      “Acquilla Clemons lived on the north side of Tenth Street in Dallas. On 22nd November, 1963, Clemons was sitting on the porch of her house when she saw Officer J. D. Tippit killed.

      Afterwards she claimed that there were two men involved in the attack on Tippit. She later testified in a television documentary that the gunman was a “short guy and kind of heavy”. The other man was tall and thin in khaki trousers and a white shirt. She also claimed that Dallas Police warned her not to repeat this story to others or “she might get hurt”.”
      http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKclemons.htm

      \\][//

      • She saw two men shoot Tippit, neither of which matched Oswald.

        But Markham, Benevides and Scoggins all saw only one shooter.

        So you ignore the majority of witnesses and glom onto one you find convenient.

        Frank Wright said he saw a shooter drive away in a gray, 1951 Plymouth coupe. Which is an example of how witness testimony can be wacky.

        • David Regan says:

          Markham, Benavides and Scoggin’s testimony of Oswald as the shooter were hardly ironclad.

          Markham, Benavides and others claimed Tippit was shot well before 1:16.

          • Markham, Benavides and Scoggin’s testimony of Oswald as the shooter were hardly ironclad.

            Virginia Davis and Ted Callaway were the best witnesses to Oswald fleeing. They were not hysterical, identified Oswald before they had any opportunity to see him on TV, etc.

            As for the time: We know the time Bowley called in the shooting (1:16), and that’s not consistent with a shooting earlier than 1:14 or 1:15.

          • David Regan says:

            Neither Davis or Callaway actually saw the shooting. Those that did, could not positively identify Oswald as Tippit’s killer. Also, how reliable is Davis when she claimed the shooting occurred at 1:30?

            As for the time, Benavides testimony certainly IS consistent with a shooting earlier than 1:14.

            Domingo Benavides was driving west along 10th Street when he heard the shooting. Startled by the shots, Benavides pulled his pick-up truck to the curb almost directly across the street from Tippit’s patrol car, and ducked down inside his truck. Benavides informed the Warren Commission that he remained in his pick-up truck “for a few minutes” before exiting. He then went to Tippit and seeing that he was dead attempted to use Tippit’s car radio to call for help and when he replaced the microphone he looked up to see T. F. Bowley who, after checking on the slain officer, did use Tippit’s car radio to call for help. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbcnV9cPL_w
            http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0227b.htm

          • Also, how reliable is Davis when she claimed the shooting occurred at 1:30?

            She was obviously approximating. Do you deny she heard Markham screaming, and went out to see the shooter leaving?

            Also, if you think she is unreliable as to the time, why are you touting other witnesses who also may have been unreliable as to the time?

        • Armaldo M. Fernandez says:

          The WC did not interview a very relevant witness at the murder scene. Temple Ford Bowley is not in the index of WC Report, but his affidavit indicates he arrived when Tippit was on the ground and appeared dead to him. The point is that he looked at his watch and it was 1:10 PM. (See Joseph McBride, Into the Nightmare, p. 247)
          The last known person to see LHO before the Tippit murder was his landlady, Earlene Roberts, who saw through her window that Oswald was waiting for a bus, bound to the opposite direction of the crime scene a mile away. Roberts pegged it was at 1:04. (Ibid, p. 244) Oswald couldn’t have run almost a mile in six minutes, or less, since Bowley told McBride that when he arrived there were already spectators.

    • Charles says:

      Sorry Mr.McAdams but your assertions regarding this have already been addressed and dismissed elsewhere.

      • Sorry Mr.McAdams but your assertions regarding this have already been addressed and dismissed elsewhere.

        Sashay(tm)!

        No, they have not been addressed and dismissed.

        Tell me: are all the witnesses who saw Oswald kick out hulls manually lying?

        • “Tell me: are all the witnesses who saw Oswald kick out hulls manually lying?”~McAdams

          Yes, or mistaken. Oswald did not shoot Tippit, he wasn’t even there, he was in the Texas Theater buying popcorn when two other assailants shot Tippit.

          \\][//

        • Armaldo M. Fernandez says:

          You can skip all the witnesses. There is no evidence in the WC Report about LHO getting the murder weapon. The handgun was shipped through Railroad Express Agency (REA)and there is no proof at all that Oswald ever picked it up.
          The evidence trail stops at the point Oswald would report to REA, show some ID, pay for the gun, sign off on a receipt, and get a matching one. (See WC Report, p. 173).
          And by the way, there is no sign that the FBI visited REA. So, the best explanation is that the FBI did visit REA, but faced the same situation as with the rifle: neither receipts nor witnesses proving the pick-up.

          • Except that Seaport traders shipped the revolver, Serial No. V510210, to Oswald.

            Sometime after January 27, 1963, Seaport Traders, Inc., received through the mail a mail-order coupon for one “.38 St. W. 2″ Bbl.,” cost $29.95. Ten dollars in cash was enclosed. The order was signed in ink by “A. J. Hidell, aged 28.” 588 (See Commission Exhibit No. 790, p. 173.) The date of the order was January 27 (no year shown), and the return address was Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. Also on the order form was an order, written in ink, for one box of ammunition and one holster, but a line was drawn through these items. The mail-order form had a line for the name of a witness to attest that the person ordering the gun was a U.S. citizen and had not been convicted of a felony. The name written in this space was D. F. Drittal.587

            Heinz W. Michaelis, office manager of both George Rose & Co., Inc., and Seaport Traders, Inc., identified records of Seaport Traders, Inc., which showed that a “.38 S and W Special two-inch Commando, serial number V510210” was shipped on March 20, 1963, to A. J. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. The invoice was prepared on March 13, 1963; the revolver was actually shipped on March 20 by Railway Express. The balance due on the purchase was $19.95. Michaelis furnished the shipping copy of the invoice, and the Railway Express Agency shipping documents, showing that $19.95, plus $1.27 shipping charge, had been collected from the consignee, Hidell.588 (See Michaelis Exhibits Nos. 2, 4, 5, p. 173.)

            This from WCR, Chapter 4.

          • Photon says:

            There is no evidence that Oswald would have had to sign anything to pick up the revolver from REA, only show a picture ID. Further record requirements were at the discretion of the clerk passing the item to the customer-an issue that the Dodd Commision noted .
            It was Oswald’s gun, like it or not.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Why did Oswald buy a pistol from a mail order company instead of a local pawn shop or firearms dealer as that would have left no record at the time? Just to provide a link to himself?

          • Tom S. says:

            Oswald would have been required to pay for a local purchase. He was alleged to have obtained a C.O.D. mail order
            revolver with no actual evidence of payment or of receiving the revolver. Everyone interested can describe this
            “purchase” as it suits their particular belief. Example: “Of course he paid for and picked up the revolver through
            a special cash payment acceptance arrangement the post office conducted on behalf of Railroad Express Agency, he shot
            Officer Tippit with it, so the post office must have collected his money and handed the gun over to him, silly!” Or….”there is no proof Oswald was ever notified a revolver had arrived at the Dallas
            office of Railroad Express Agency, or that he paid the C.O.D. purchase fee and received the revolver,
            or that the post office acted as collection agent for Railroad Express Agency.”

          • Jean Davison says:

            Tom,

            “….there is no proof …. that the post office acted as collection agent for Railroad Express Agency.”

            I don’t think the P.O. collected the money, the Railway Express Agency (REA) did. According to the Seaport Traders guy, Heinz Michaelis, their records showed that REA remitted the C.O.D. amount due to them:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41&search=rea_OR+%22railway+express%22#relPageId=388&tab=page

            He mentions Michaelis Exhibit 5, a REA form showing amount to be remitted to Seaport Traders:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=639&tab=page

          • Or….”there is no proof Oswald was ever notified a revolver had arrived at the Dallas office of Railroad Express Agency, or that he paid the C.O.D. purchase fee and received the revolver,

            Except that the revolver ended up in Oswald’s possession.

            Want to posit that somebody else picked up the revolver and turned it over to Oswald? In spite of the fact that the notice was sent to Oswald’s PO box?

          • Tom S. says:

            Except that the revolver ended up in Oswald’s possession.

            Except that police testified that THE revolver ended up in Oswald’s possession.

            Several individuals police agreed were theater patrons testified they saw a handgun in Oswald’s hand.

            It is “that kind” of a case, Dr. McAdams, because the “loss” of the suspect while in the basement of police H.Q.
            surrounded by police investigators and shackled to one of them is prejudicial, as is the paper trail associated
            with the revolver as presented, as is the lack of a procedure of independent defense investigation and challenge
            of the admissibility of prosecution evidence, a consequence of the “loss” of the defendent precluding due process.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Why did Oswald buy a pistol from a mail order company instead of a local pawn shop or firearms dealer as that would have left no record at the time?”

            That’s a myth, Ronnie.

            Several years ago David Van Pein posted this e-mail from Gary Mack:

            “Regarding the purchase of weapons in Texas in the early 60s, Federal
            regulations required retailers to keep a log of all such sales. For
            example, Ray’s Hardware in Dallas still has their January 19, 1960 log
            showing the revolver bought by Jack Ruby (but paid for by police detective
            Joe Cody, one of Ruby’s friends). One of the folks at Ray’s told me long
            ago that they must keep such records.”

            Buying locally would’ve meant a record plus a potential witness to ID him.

          • Tom S. says:

            Jean,
            Gun Shows…. treat yourself to an afternoon out and attend one of the numerous ones upcoming in your, or in a
            nearby community. Inquire of sellers of hand guns if they are selling as a licensed firearms dealer or a private
            seller. Ask one of each what the requirements are to purchase a hand gun from them.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States#Restrictions
            …….
            Restrictions

            Under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), firearm dealers with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) were prohibited from doing business at gun shows (they were only permitted to do business at the address listed on their license). That changed with the enactment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), which allows FFLs to transfer firearms at gun shows provided they follow the provisions of the GCA and other pertinent federal regulations. In 1999, ATF reported that between 50% and 75% of the vendors at gun shows had FFLs.[2]
            Gun show loophole
            Main article: Gun show loophole

            The “Gun show loophole” is a political term in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows. ….

            This was written in 2013. It seems your point might be to influence readers to accept
            that it was inevitable, or at least difficult to avoid an anonymous purchase of hand gun locally.:

            http://smartgunlaws.org/universal-gun-background-checks-policy-summary/
            ….Gun offenders overwhelmingly obtain their guns through private sales. A survey of state prison inmates in 13 states who were convicted of gun offenses found that only 13.4% obtained the gun from a gun store or pawnshop, where background checks are required.15 Nearly all (96.1%) of those inmates who were already prohibited from possessing a gun at the time of the crime obtained the firearm through an unlicensed private seller.16….

            …Summary of State Law…..

            2. Gun Show Background Checks: Illinois42 requires a background check before the sale or transfer of a firearm at a gun show. Additionally, though Oregon generally requires background checks to be conducted by a licensed dealer at the point of transfer for all firearms, Oregon law allows a transferor at a guns how who is not a licensed dealer to contact the Department of State Police directly to conduct the background check.43 For more information about the regulation of gun shows, see our summary on Gun Shows.

            3. State Permit Requirements for Private Purchasers: Eight states regulate private sales primarily by prohibiting private sellers from transferring certain firearms to purchasers who do not have the requisite state license or permit, and by requiring a background check before issuing the license or permit. ….

            50 years later, and the opposite of the crux of your claim is still reality in Texas and in Louisiana.:

          • “Except that the revolver ended up in Oswald’s possession.”~McAdams

            An obvious ‘circular argument’. You must first prove Oswald possessed said revolver plus that he carried it into the theater that day. You have done neither.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Tom,

            The question was about “a local pawn shop or firearms dealer as that would have left no record,” not gun shows or private sales.

          • “The question was about “a local pawn shop or firearms dealer as that would have left no record,” not gun shows or private sales.”
            ~Jean Davison

            That is your restriction and constriction. Oswald supposedly left a paper trail in the manner that he allegedly procured that weapon.

            Why not buy a pistol at a gun show or make a private buy. If he wanted a weapon for the intention of a criminal deed, why didn’t he get one that was not traceable to his person?

            This question pertains to the rifle as well.
            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Somewhere, maybe during the interrogation, he said he bought the pistol at a pawn shop in Fort Worth. There is no affirmable record of his purchase of it otherwise.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “The question was about “a local pawn shop or firearms dealer as that would have left no record,” not gun shows or private sales.”
            ~Jean Davison

            “That is your restriction and constriction.”

            No, I was quoting Ronnie. However, I don’t blame him — this myth has been around at least as far back as Sylvia Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact, which says:

            “If… Oswald had merely walked into a gun shop or an H.L. Green chain store, he could have purchased a rifle or a pistol over the counter without leaving a trace of the transaction.”

            https://books.google.com/books?id=9XEhAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT200&dq=%22gun+shop%22+%22trace+of+the+transaction%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiovZrNx9XKAhXMRiYKHZJ1ANUQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=%22gun%20shop%22%20%22trace%20of%20the%20transaction%22&f=false

            However, she’s wrong about that. H.L. Green did maintain a record of its gun sales:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95616&relPageId=142&search=yeargan_AND green

          • “If… Oswald had merely walked into a gun shop or an H.L. Green chain store, he could have purchased a rifle or a pistol over the counter without leaving a trace of the transaction.”
            ~as quoted by Jean Davison

            SO WHAT?

            The question remains; Why did Oswald supposedly acquire these weapons leaving a paper trail when there were obvious ways of securing such weapons covertly?
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “The question remains; Why did Oswald supposedly acquire these weapons leaving a paper trail when there were obvious ways of securing such weapons covertly?”

            Maybe you should consider when these weapons were purchased: in March 1963. Oswald didn’t buy the rifle to kill JFK and leave behind in the Depository. He bought it to try to kill Walker in April and take with him when he escaped. Which is what happened after he missed.

            In the Walker shooting, the police weren’t able to trace the serial number because they didn’t have the rifle.

            Why buy from a private dealer and allow a potential witness to see his face if there was no need for it?

          • “He bought it to try to kill Walker in April and take with him when he escaped. Which is what happened after he missed.”~Jean Davison

            Oswald didn’t shoot at General Walker either. Even Walker disputed that and said that the bullet shown in evidence is not the one they found at the scene.

            Oswald didn’t shoot at anybody, and didn’t own either of the weapons claimed by the authorities. It was a set-up; Oswald was a patsy.

            There are gaping holes in every assertion made against Oswald. We have uncovered those gaping holes throughout the intervening 50 plus years. You Warren Report defenders are behind the curve and defending a defeated myth and attempted cover-up.
            \\][//

          • David Regan says:

            Railway Express Agency employees were required to check a form 5024, to confirm that the name on the mailing notice and the name of the receiver of a shipment matched their records. No form 5024 for this delivery was ever produced and no one from REA was ever called to testify about the sale of the handgun.

          • Bogman says:

            “Buying locally would’ve meant a record plus a potential witness to ID him.”

            Wow, Jean, Oswald was so careful so far in advance of the assassination – before he even knew JFK was coming Dallas – but apparently had ZERO plan for escape?

            How do you rectify that dichotomy in his behavior?

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Wow, Jean, Oswald was so careful so far in advance of the assassination – before he even knew JFK was coming Dallas – but apparently had ZERO plan for escape?

            How do you rectify that dichotomy in his behavior”

            Did Hickley have a plan for escape? Sirhan? The guy who shot George Wallace? Anyone who shoots a president is essentially cashing in his chips. As JFK put it, “anyone who is willing to trade his life for mine” could kill him.

            Who would shoot a President from a 6th floor window with dozens of lawmen outside and expect to get away?

          • Bogman says:

            “Did Hickley have a plan for escape? Sirhan? The guy who shot George Wallace? Anyone who shoots a president is essentially cashing in his chips. As JFK put it, “anyone who is willing to trade his life for mine” could kill him.”

            Doesn’t really answer my question.

            If he was being so careful not to be identified as the owner of the gun, where does that desire to get away with the crime go?

            In other words, why doesn’t Oswald just buy his gun in a local shop and screw the consequences, like you say he did in the assassination?

            Hinckley… if he had HALF the intelligence connections of Oswald I have a feeling you’d be arguing conspiracy.

          • “Who would shoot a President from a 6th floor window with dozens of lawmen outside and expect to get away?”~Jean Davis

            That is a very good question Jean, not one to be as blithely answered as yours have been.

            The proposition that someone would fire from that so-called snipers perch is preposterous in a penumbra of aspects. The one you pointed out is just one of them.

            That the “nest” is obviously staged is another aspect in this case. The clear disruption of a “crime scene” by the so-called “bumbling” of the investigating officers, yet another aspect.

            Whoever staged this event, knew it was shoddy and would only hold up for a few days. But by then the real assassination teams would have gotten far away; and the controlled media would handle spinning and burying anything that needed be.

            Of course topping it all off with the appointment of a panel of “Honorable Men” to instigate a cover-up put the official lid on the whole thing.
            \\][//

          • If he was being so careful not to be identified as the owner of the gun, where does that desire to get away with the crime go?

            Because when he bought the gun he did not have shooting Kennedy in mind. He had in mind something like the Walker shooting (or maybe specifically the Walker shooting).

            Jean has actually explained this to you.

            Hinckley… if he had HALF the intelligence connections of Oswald I have a feeling you’d be arguing conspiracy.

            If Hinckley had done the things that Oswald did, he would have the same sort of “connections.”

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            You’re talking about two different crimes, months apart. The circumstances were quite different. For one thing, shooting a local figure at night isn’t like shooting a President in public. Realistically, he could get away with one, not the other.

            What escape plan do you think he should’ve had?

            “In other words, why doesn’t Oswald just buy his gun in a local shop and screw the consequences, like you say he did in the assassination?”

            I don’t understand. He didn’t need to buy a second rifle for 11/22.

            “Hinckley… if he had HALF the intelligence connections of Oswald I have a feeling you’d be arguing conspiracy.”

            What “connections” are you referring to in particular?

          • Bogman says:

            “What escape plan do you think he should’ve had?”

            If Oswald was the assassin, he had a plan to get out of the bldg – did hiding the rifle and running down the stairs to buy Coke come to him after the assassination?

            But then, strangely, he appears to have no plan to exit the crime scene or Dallas (bus, taxi, house, theater)

            “What “connections” are you referring to in particular?”

            This where the LNers show their stripes.

            Do you have a lot of “friends” who meet the CIA in DC about you after the friendship ends?

            Have you or anyone you know interfaced with CIA assets and the FBI in a single day?

            Are you effin’ kidding me?

            In this case, the strongest evidence of conspiracy stem from highly trusted and even honored sources within the CIA and its assets… John Whitten, Anthony Veciana, William Gaudet, James Wilcott, etc.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            I still don’t see an escape plan for Oswald. The Coke was an improvisation, maybe to use as a bit of cover to explain his being near the stairway escape route if he ran into anyone on his way out. (His location near the back stairs at that time was just a coincidence, you think?)

            He was probably surprised to get out of the building when the police were slow to seal it off, but then what? He didn’t have enough money to get very far. He deliberately left most of his money at home, along with his wedding ring (just another coincidence?).

            “But then, strangely, he appears to have no plan to exit the crime scene or Dallas (bus, taxi, house, theater)”

            I don’t think it’s strange at all if he didn’t expect to get out of the building. What kind of an escape plan *could* he have had, realistically?

            [continued in another post, for length]

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman, Part 2,

            Me: “What “connections” are you referring to in particular?”

            “This where the LNers show their stripes.”

            I certainly hope so. We’re looking for something more solid than hearsay and suspicion, I think.

            “Do you have a lot of “friends” who meet the CIA in DC about you after the friendship ends?”

            Who are you referring to?

            “Have you or anyone you know interfaced with CIA assets and the FBI in a single day?”

            Are you talking about Oswald’s arrest in New Orleans? Lots of people “interface” with the FBI and CIA who aren’t connected to either. Oswald had his own agenda in New Orleans, which he spelled out in things he wrote.

            “In this case, the strongest evidence of conspiracy stem from highly trusted and even honored sources within the CIA and its assets… John Whitten, Anthony Veciana, William Gaudet, James Wilcott, etc.”

            I certainly disagree with that. Not sure what you’re referring to with Whitten, but the other three are IMO questionable sources offering hearsay. The HSCA didn’t believe Wilcott’s story was “worthy of belief” and explained why, starting here:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=800&search=wilcott#relPageId=229&tab=page

            It also found Veciana less than credible and gave its reasons:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=800&relPageId=167&search=veciana

            This was the Committee that found a “probable conspiracy,” remember, so I think they were open to believing these allegations if they felt they were credible.

            IMO it’s possible that Veciana saw Phillips in Dallas with someone who looked like Oswald, but Oswald was in New Orleans during that time frame, and that’s a long way to go for a public talk with his “handler.” Veciana was only one of many witnesses who believed or claimed they’d seen Oswald in distant places, like in a Sears store in Pennsylvania:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62264&search=oswald_AND+camera+AND+store+OR+shop#relPageId=57&tab=page

            Eyewitness IDs of strangers have been shown to be less than certain, even when they are not months later like this one.

          • Bogman says:

            “Veciana was only one of many witnesses who believed or claimed they’d seen Oswald in distant places, like in a Sears store in Pennsylvania.”

            I know, I know. Every witness that goes against the LN narrative is a publicity-seeking nut, including poor old S.M Holland, and those who support the LN theory are all believable.

            Think you are absolutely wrong about Veciana. He was a highly valued employee of the CIA for years who was trained in spookcraft, including memory and observation.

            I also can’t find one other incident of Veciana lying to anybody. And he has gained nothing by identifying Maurice Bishop/Phillips meeting Oswald. Other than being shot in the head and surviving.

          • Bogman says:

            Jean: “I certainly hope so. We’re looking for something more solid than hearsay and suspicion, I think.”

            Jean, the DRE – CIA assets – wrote and distributed a frickin’ PRESS RELEASE about the alleged assassins. Again, that ties Oswald to the intelligence community. Does it mean he was being used in some way as well? My feeling is the circumstantial evidence, despite investigations being blocked by the CIA, is a resounding yes.

            Jean: “Who are you referring to?”

            You really don’t know that a CIA official in DC is on the record that he spoke with George DeM about Oswald before Georgie left for his sweet gig with Papa Doc in Haiti?

            “Are you talking about Oswald’s arrest in New Orleans? Lots of people “interface” with the FBI and CIA who aren’t connected to either. Oswald had his own agenda in New Orleans, which he spelled out in things he wrote.”

            Those are intelligence connections. You believe the official explanation of them. I believe the circumstantial evidence and the statements of previously highly regarded and trusted CIA sources says otherwise.

          • Bogman says:

            Moderator – can you post this instead of previous? I accidently kept some of Jean’s post in it.

            Bogman
            Your comment is awaiting moderation.

            February 7, 2016 at 4:47 pm

            Jean: “I certainly disagree with that. Not sure what you’re referring to with Whitten, but the other three are IMO questionable sources offering hearsay.”

            So you’ve studied the assassination the highly damaging HSCA testimony by Whitten to the official case?

            http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwhitten.htm

            Time and again it’s been demonstrated the CIA blocked investigations and archive release, including effing with their own who’s instincts told him JM/WAVE should’ve been thoroughly investigated.

            JM/WAVE, where the entire cast of characters who have either implicated themselves in the JFK assassination or circumstantial evidence says they likely were, from Morales to Roselli to Harvey to Joannides.

          • Think you are absolutely wrong about Veciana. He was a highly valued employee of the CIA for years who was trained in spookcraft, including memory and observation.

            And your evidence for this is?

          • I also can’t find one other incident of Veciana lying to anybody. And he has gained nothing by identifying Maurice Bishop/Phillips meeting Oswald. Other than being shot in the head and surviving.

            The fact he was convicted of dealing drugs does not enhance his credibility.

            http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/belligerence/veciana-pomares.pdf

            And his “identification” has been off and on:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bishop.txt

            (172) When Veciana was shown a photograph of David Phillips by Schweiker’s investigator, he did not provide an absolutely conclusive response.(158) For that reason, it was decided that Veciana be given the opportunity to observe Phillips in person.(159) . . . Following the encounter of Veciana and Phillips, Schweiker’s investigator asked Veciana if David Phillips was Maurice Bishop.(171) Veciana said he was not.(172)

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            “Jean, the DRE – CIA assets – wrote and distributed a frickin’ PRESS RELEASE about the alleged assassins. Again, that ties Oswald to the intelligence community.”

            I don’t know how you figure that. If the DRE distributed a press release blasting Castro, would that tie Castro to the U.S. intelligence community? Oswald and Bringuier were political enemies. Why shouldn’t Bringuier and the DRE issue a press release?

            Oswald had his own publicity campaign going, btw. He called or visited N.O. newspapers and TV stations asking them to write up his group and activities. He talked about this in the radio debate.

            He also tried to get Bringuier into trouble by telling a reporter that Bringuier was “training guerrillas” and collecting contributions for the DRE without a city permit:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57725&search=wdsu-tv_chandler+oswald+bringuier#relPageId=97&tab=page

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57725&search=wdsu-tv_chandler+oswald+bringuier#relPageId=98&tab=page

            This is the Oswald you won’t see in conspiracy books.

          • Bogman says:

            McAdams: “The fact he was convicted of dealing drugs does not enhance his credibility.”

            Yeah, they did the same thing to poor Abraham Bolden, arrested upon his return from DC when he tried to tell Rankin and the WC what he knew.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “I know, I know. Every witness that goes against the LN narrative is a publicity-seeking nut, including poor old S.M Holland, and those who support the LN theory are all believable.”

            That’s not even close to anything I’ve said, Bogman. I believe Holland was honest, but it’s well established that eyewitness testimony is often simply WRONG no matter how honest (or dishonest) the witness may be. Most of the convicted men exonerated by the Innocence Project were convicted because of mistaken IDs by eyewitnesses:

            http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes-wrongful-conviction/eyewitness-misidentification

            “…. And [Veciana] has gained nothing by identifying Maurice Bishop/Phillips meeting Oswald. Other than being shot in the head and surviving.”

            According to this press account, Veciana attributed the shooting to “agents of the Cuban government,” so there is more than one explanation out there.

            http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/belligerence/veciana-9-22-79.htm

        • Bogman says:

          Jean:
          I still don’t see an escape plan for Oswald. The Coke was an improvisation, maybe to use as a bit of cover to explain his being near the stairway escape route if he ran into anyone on his way out.”

          This started with you saying Oswald was ready to give up his life to kill JFK. Yet he obviously not ready to do that if he’s being clever about hiding the gun, running down the stairs and buying a Coke. But that’s where his “cleverness” ends for some reason…

          If Oswald was all in, why not bring more bullets and keep shooting from his perch? Why not kill LBJ and anyone else in those cars below if he’s the disturbed individual the WC – without ANY mental health expert consulted – maintained he was.

          It doesn’t add up.

          Jean: “I don’t think it’s strange at all if he didn’t expect to get out of the building. What kind of an escape plan *could* he have had, realistically?”

          Exactly my point. If you’re all in as you say he had to be, give his life to kill the president, then why not keep shooting instead of running down the stairs?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            It’s pointless to ask why Oswald did or didn’t do this or that. No one can read his mind. I don’t think the WC called him disturbed, although a psychiatrist who examined him when he was a teenager used that word.

            The WC *did* consult a psychiatrist from the Mayo Clinic who said that without a “first-hand examination” all that could be said was “inference and surmise. He talked about Oswald’s apparent dyslexia, however, after examining his writings:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142&search=dyslexia#relPageId=853&tab=page

          • ‘It’s pointless to ask why Oswald did or didn’t do this or that.’ — Jean Davison

            And yet it’s rational to publish a book that argued WHY he assassinated President Kennedy? You certainly made inroads in asking why Oswald did or didn’t do this or that.

            It is so offensive to compassionate psychologists, knowing what is known about adolescent behaviour, for you to wheel out the 1953 assessment of Oswald when he was a truant in New York City. What kid from the rural South in the 1950’s would adjust immediately to the Bronx? I realize just now that you have objectified this young kid for over 30 years, and I wish that more people would call you on it.

          • Bogman says:

            Jean: “I don’t know how you figure that. If the DRE distributed a press release blasting Castro, would that tie Castro to the U.S. intelligence community? Oswald and Bringuier were political enemies. Why shouldn’t Bringuier and the DRE issue a press release?”

            If CIA assets had distributed a press release on John Hinckley 3 mos prior to his assassination attempt on Reagan, calling him a “danger to America,” what would the reaction be? Please…

            Jean: “Oswald had his own publicity campaign going, btw. He called or visited N.O. newspapers and TV stations asking them to write up his group and activities. He talked about this in the radio debate.”

            Yes, and your MaryFarrell links only bolster the case that Oswald was desperate to fulfill his mission to get publicity on his FPCC activities. In fact, according to the one doc, he only wanted to leaflet WHEN THE CAMERA CREWS WERE THERE.

            That smacks of a typical PR practice that Phillips would know best.

            I agree you can assess this anyway you want but because of the corroborating statements by CIA men Veciana and Gaudet, and the highly informed suspicions of honored CIA official Whitten, and the confirmed intel babysitting by George DeM, it’s obvious to me Oswald was not acting alone in these provocative adventures.

          • Bogman says:

            To add: Not to mention the still unexplained obstruction of justice by Joannides.

            All roads lead to US intel influencing Oswald. That’s the only reasonable supposition.

            But happy to have the CIA explain it all to us.

          • Bogman says:

            Jean says: The WC *did* consult a psychiatrist from the Mayo Clinic who said that without a “first-hand examination” all that could be said was “inference and surmise. He talked about Oswald’s apparent dyslexia, however, after examining his writings:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142&search=dyslexia#relPageId=853&tab=page

            It was only a decade later psychiatrists were assessing mental profiles of the Unabomber and Son of Sam et al. Really no one was available to do the same other than give this rubber stamp on the conclusions of the WC’s laymen?

            BTW, sure it’s all complete coincidence, but Rome is tied to the FBI:

            https://books.google.com/books?id=Av6QWOzZjrMC&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=howard+rome+fbi+hemingway&source=bl&ots=XV3OtZase7&sig=X014mwxPDjCEMt36DgYdMrG-ljM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_qs7a1O7KAhVO6WMKHRlIA8gQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=howard%20rome%20fbi%20hemingway&f=false

          • “BTW, sure it’s all complete coincidence, but Rome is tied to the FBI:” — bogman

            Bogman, this most likely has nothing to do with anything, but as you probably know, John F. was an admirer of Hemingway, referencing him in his opening sentence of “Profiles In Courage”, writing that “This is a book about the most admirable of human virtues — courage. ‘Grace under pressure,’ Ernest Hemingway defined it.”

            from the JFL Library site, a special section dedicated to Hemingway. How much a threat to the oligarchy did these brave Americans pose?

            http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/The-Ernest-Hemingway-Collection/History-of-the-Hemingway-Collection.aspx

    • Brian Joseph says:

      I guess I’m missing something. You quote Bill Simpich and then what you write after that has nothing specifically to do with the quote. Where did you read that Simpich said that witnesses didn’t see the shooter empty shells? Your “rebuttal” doesn’t relate to anything Simpich said. Your your rebuttal appears to be an avoidtoid.

      • Simpich claims the hulls were from an automatic weapon, which would exculpate Oswald (who was arrested with a revolver).

        But the fact that all those witnesses saw the shooter kick out spent hulls means that the shooter did indeed have a revolver.

        • Bill Simpich says:

          John McAdams gets it wrong when he says that I said the shooter used an automatic. The hulls in the custody of the National Archives came from a 38 special, not an automatic. He made it up.

          John McAdams complains about the lack of a citation, but fails to read the article that answered that question and rebutted his many arguments.

          When there is evidence of alteration – for example, the hulls many yards
          apart conflicting with police testimony that they were lying next to each other in the street – or that Poe said he initialed the hulls but he couldn’t identify them and they had no initials – any reasonable judge will use the standard provided by McAdams as the basis to reject the hulls. Even Officer Jim Leavelle agrees with me on this one.

          I would also suggest that McAdams’ determination to use the terms
          “buff” and “wacky” – classic ad hominem attacks – is hardly
          the way to inspire confidence in his intellectusl integrity.

          • Photon says:

            ” Hill’s misidentification cannot be passed off as a simple mistake.” If it wasn’t a mistake your implication is that he found .38 Auto shells-what other point could you be making? A central position of Conspiracy viewpoints appears to be that nobody ever makes a mistake-every statement at odds with the facts must be a conscious effort to deceive or cover up.Why? Is it because that unlike every other event in human history every statement in the JFK assassination is infallible and must be taken as absolute truth ( except of course any statement supporting the WC conclusions)?
            I understand that feel that the shells would not be admissible. But what would a judge in 1963 Dallas rule? What would a judge in 2016 California who presides over criminal trials rule? As an attorney with a dog in this case you would obviously like to restrict any evidence that would tend to convict your client, but how about some objective evidence to back up that claim?

          • John McAdams gets it wrong when he says that I said the shooter used an automatic. The hulls in the custody of the National Archives came from a 38 special, not an automatic. He made it up.

            Either you meant that the shooter used an automatic, or you believe the “automatic” statement was incorrect.

            Which is it?

            John McAdams complains about the lack of a citation, but fails to read the article that answered that question and rebutted his many arguments.

            You said:

            Furthermore, the Davis sisters said that the marked hulls were not the hulls that they originally provided to the police.

            I demanded a citation for that. Do you have one?

            When there is evidence of alteration – for example, the hulls many yards apart conflicting with police testimony that they were lying next to each other in the street

            Hill seemed to say, to “Frontline,” that the hulls were close together. But the evidence was that they were scattered, some a fair distance from the shooting.

            You call Hill a liar. Do you somehow believe him on this, when it’s convenient? If so, you have to dismiss all the other witnesses.

            any reasonable judge will use the standard provided by McAdams as the basis to reject the hulls.

            I provided a statement from a standard forensics text showing that the hulls would have been accepted as evidence.

            You are just making up rules of criminal procedure.

            I would also suggest that McAdams’ determination to use the terms “buff” and “wacky” – classic ad hominem attacks – is hardly the way to inspire confidence in his intellectusl integrity.

            Your reciting ancient buff factoids and ignoring contrary evidence is hardly the way to inspire confidence in your intellectual integrity.

          • Bill Simpich says:

            Photon (and McAdams) keep claiming I was implying that the gun used was an automatic. I am saying one thing – like many assassinations, the evidence supposedly found at the scene was part of a staged set. Most assassins and their compatriots – like Jerry Hill – don’t want to be caught.
            The best way to do that? Fake evidence. Smoke and fog. Not rocket science.

            It’s fine to argue but don’t misquote me. Photon, the evidence I have offered is objective. I will say it again.

            Poe did not recognize the hulls he found and said he initialed. His initials are not on the hulls. That is a big problem, something any judge would look at very closely in deciding whether or not the hulls should have been admitted. Barnes’ testimony that he initialed them instead of Poe is not sufficient to address the problem posed by the man who found those hulls.

            There is a similar problem with the other two hulls. Hill was one of the lead officers on the scene. His statement that the hulls were in a tight circle on the street – not the yards of the Davis women, where the hulls were supposedly shaken out – is a real problem. This is the same man who lied about the radio call and claimed that found hulls came from an automatic – the police case is hurt whether he is lying or telling the truth here!

            Given that neither of the Davis women could later identify the hulls that they said they found, the problem for any reasonable judge is enormous. Again, there is no reliable chain of custody.

          • I am saying one thing – like many assassinations, the evidence supposedly found at the scene was part of a staged set.

            So the conspiracy planted the hulls, but planted the wrong ones: hulls that matched an automatic, not Oswald’s revolver?

            But then what happened to the hulls from the shots that killed Tippit?

            Barnes’ testimony that he initialed them instead of Poe is not sufficient to address the problem posed by the man who found those hulls.

            You need to quit making stuff up.

            I posted a link to a standard forensics text that says the chain of custody can be established by having each officer who handled the evidence testify about their place in the chain.

            You have merely made unsupported assertions.

            His statement that the hulls were in a tight circle on the street – not the yards of the Davis women, where the hulls were supposedly shaken out – is a real problem.

            No, because it’s clearly not true. Talking to “Frontline,” he may have simply been taking about a typical case where hulls from an automatic are found. But it’s clear that the hulls were where Oswald dropped them, some several yards from the shooting scene.

            You need to be going with the majority of witnesses, and the testimony from the day of the shooting (and shortly thereafter).

            This is the same man who lied about the radio call and claimed that found hulls came from an automatic –

            Why would he tall a lie that let Oswald off the hook?

            Do you even bother to try to figure out the logical implications of what you are saying?

            Now, you first said:

            the Davis sisters said that the marked hulls were not the hulls that they originally provided to the police.

            And now you say:

            Given that neither of the Davis women could later identify the hulls that they said they found,

            Backing off your first statement, eh?

            There is no presumption that any civilian can identify and hull they find. They are under no obligation to mark it, and lacking a mark, one .38 Special cartridge looks like any other.

            Again, there is no reliable chain of custody.

            Do you think you can just assert anything you want, without caring whether it’s true or not?

  7. The two hulls found by Domingo Benavides at the Tippit crime scene would never be admitted as evidence. Officer J.M. Poe told the FBI that he marked these hulls with his initials “JMP”. When he testified before the Commission, Poe stated under oath that he could not swear that he initialed these hulls. Hence, there was no chain of custody.

    Nonsense. Poe testified that he gave the hulls to Pete Barnes of the Indemnification Bureau. Barnes confirmed that, and marked the hulls, and identified his mark in them.

    Buffs should not make proclamations on legal matters they know nothing about.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/chain.htm

    The hulls would have been admissible.

    As would the other two that were marked by the officers that collected them.

    • “Officer J.M. Poe told the FBI that he marked these hulls with his initials “JMP”. When he testified before the Commission, Poe stated under oath that he could not swear that he initialed these hulls. Hence, there was no chain of custody.”~Simpich citation

      McAdams, you are again spinning things to your favor that run counter to Poe’s testimony under oath. Even if Pete Barnes marked these hulls, the lack of Poe’s marks would be enough to reject them as reliable evidence.
      The vital question remains, where are the .380 auto hulls that Jerry Hill reported? Eaten by the Memory Hole is the only plausible answer.

      The whole affair screams: “COVER-UP!”

      But here we have McAdams shouting into the microphone, “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! I am the Mighty Oz, you will obey my commands!”

      Very funny when you think about it.
      \\][//

      • McAdams, you are again spinning things to your favor that run counter to Poe’s testimony under oath. Even if Pete Barnes marked these hulls, the lack of Poe’s marks would be enough to reject them as reliable evidence.

        I’m afraid that’s not what standard law enforcement texts say.

        See:

        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/chain.htm

        “However, if all the persons who came in contact with this knife are known and are available to testify concerning their part in the transaction and can establish that the knife had not been tampered with, the knife and the analysis will undoubtedly be admitted in evidence.”

        So if Poe testified he gave to hulls to Barnes, and Barnes could identify them as the hulls he collected from Poe, they would be admissible.

        You folks need to quit making up rules that don’t exist in the real world.

        • “So if Poe testified he gave to hulls to Barnes, and Barnes could identify them as the hulls he collected from Poe, they would be admissible.”~McAdams

          Poe could not identify them as the hulls he gave to Barnes. That is the legal point here. It creates reasonable doubt. You keep turning around in your mind the issue of jurisprudence, dismissing that you must prove “beyond reasonable doubt”; not our side.

          Where are the .380 auto hulls that Jerry Hill collected?

          How is it the bullets do not match the manufacture of .38 Sp hulls?

          How is it you cannot retain the points of argument that have been settled here? How is it you forget that
          Domingo Benavides did NOT positively identify Lee Harvey Oswald, but would only say the person he saw resembled him, and during questioning of the details of appearance clearly described a man with a ruddy complexion, not at all the pale skin of Oswald; darker hair, and taller than Lee Harvey Oswald?

          And for you to cite Markham, is a sign of desperation on your part – she was a fruitcake that couldn’t keep her story straight from one moment to the next.

          As Charles said, ALL of this has been beaten like a dead horse here McAdams. I am sorry, but I am going to have to dismiss you as a sincere participant in these proceedings and will not answer anymore of your inquiries.
          \\][//

          • Poe could not identify them as the hulls he gave to Barnes. That is the legal point here.

            No, it’s not. Barnes testified that Poe gave him the hulls, and Barnes identified his initials in them. So those were the hulls that Poe collected.

            I posted a link to a standard law enforcement text on that. You buffs are not allowed to just make up rules of evidence to suit yourselves.

            you must prove “beyond reasonable doubt”; not our side.

            No, this is an historical issue, not a trial.

            Where are the .380 auto hulls that Jerry Hill collected?

            He didn’t collect any. Poe, Doughty and Dhority collected the hulls.

            How is it the bullets do not match the manufacture of .38 Sp hulls?

            There was one missing hull, and one missing bullet.

            How is it you cannot retain the points of argument that have been settled here?

            Settled? In whose opinion?

            How is it you forget that
            Domingo Benavides did NOT positively identify Lee Harvey Oswald, but would only say the person he saw resembled him, and during questioning of the details of appearance clearly described a man with a ruddy complexion, not at all the pale skin of Oswald; darker hair, and taller than Lee Harvey Oswald?

            You are citing a vague description to claim he saw somebody other than Oswald. But he said the man resembled Oswald, and you are saying he didn’t. He doesn’t agree with you.

            And for you to cite Markham,

            Markham identified Oswald in the lineup, and then strongly resisted an attempt by Mark Lane to manipulate her:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt

            But Virginia Davis and Ted Callaway were the best witnesses.

            I am going to have to dismiss you as a sincere participant in these proceedings and will not answer anymore of your inquiries.

            This is what you always say when you’ve been beaten on the evidence.

        • Rob H says:

          It would be highly suspect for Barnes to say the hulls were same as Poe gave him since Poe stated he could not find his markings on them.

          The hulls would not only have little legal weight, but could be used as proof of evidence tampering.

    • David Regan says:

      According to Alfredda Scobey – counsel to your beloved WC – the matter of whether the Tippit murder would have been admissible was far from certain. She also states the admission of evidence for the Walker shooting would have been “extremely doubtful”. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/v1n1scobey.pdf

      • You don’t seem to understand. The issue is whether, should Oswald be put on trial for shooting JFK, evidence of his shooting Tippit would have been admissible.

        I don’t see her addressing the issue of whether the physical evidence would have been admissible if Oswald should be charged with shooting Tippit.

        She doesn’t seem to doubt Oswald’s guilt.

        And things not admissible in court may be admissible in history.

        • David Regan says:

          “And things not admissible in court may be admissible in history.” — John McAdams

          Of course those responsible for the assassination knew this and had to have Oswald taken out.

        • “And things not admissible in court may be admissible in history.”~McAdams

          Perhaps for hack historians but certainly not for responsible forensic historians.
          \\][//

    • Bill Simpich says:

      Let’s see. McAdams didn’t rebut the evidence I cited with evidence of his own; he misquoted me and failed to apologize; he asked me to provide citation that I had already given; and instead of challenging my evidence with better evidence he called me names. Since it’s all about the battle with John McAdams and not the substance, I think I’ll take a victory lap.

      • McAdams didn’t rebut the evidence I cited with evidence of his own; he misquoted me and failed to apologize;

        Do you or do you not think the hulls that were supposedly .38 automatic were planted?

        Answer the question!

        If so, you think the conspirators planted the wrong kind of hulls to implicate Oswald.

        If not, you think an automatic was used to shoot Tippit, which is what I said you believed.

        he asked me to provide citation that I had already given;

        No. You claimed that the Davis women said the hulls that were entered into evidence were not the ones they recovered.

        I asked for a citation on that, and you failed to provide it.

        Do you have it?

        You don’t, and the reason is that you posted something that’s not true.

        You just posted an essay with silly buff stuff, and when challenged on it you can’t defend it.

        • Rob H says:

          John,

          Care to answer Humes probing of the back wound which determined it was non-transiting?

          You’re running away as usual when faced with facts you can’t handle.

      • Paul Oryshak says:

        Hi Bill
        Committee Exhibit 2011 p. 414 of Volume 24 of the Warren Report (Mary Ferrell) mentions that Virginia Davis could not identify any of the shells shown to her by police after the assassination.

        • Tom S. says:

          Link: (Last sentence, bottom right – https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=432 )
          Committee Exhibit 2011 p. 414 of Volume 24 of the Warren Report (Mary Ferrell)

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            I cant read this, the text is too small.
            Can you quote just the last sentence?

          • A curious document indeed. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=432 )

            The first paragraph refers to events on June 18, 1964.

            The second paragraph refers to events on June 12, 1964. an odd chronology for an official report.

            The third and last paragraph appears to be a revision of the first paragraph referring to events on June 18, 1964; for instance the time that Davis found a cartridge case has been revised to approximately 3:30 pm not 3:00 pm.

            It also CHANGES the version as detailed in the first paragraph from “at the time she found the cartridge case [3:00 or 3:00 pm?], an unknown Dallas police officer was standing approximately five feet from her and she immediately gave the cartridge case to him” (para #1) TO, “ she furnished a cartridge case to an unidentified officer of the Dallas Police Department at approximately 6:00 pm that same date (para #3)

            Who produced this document?

            And look who surfaces in the second paragraph? Special Agent Bardwell Odum, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

            I wonder what prompted Ms. Davis to move to Athens, Texas?

          • Tom S. says:

            22 November statement of Virginia Davis: http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0449-001.gif (If you read one, you read them all…..)
            22 November statement of Barbara Jeanette Davis: http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0446-001.gif

            I’m checking to confirm Mrs. Davis’s age at the time of the shooting. Even at 16 years old, she was a minor,
            unable to enter into a legal contract.

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/davis_vc.htm
            ….Mrs. DAVIS. Mrs. Charlie Virginia Davis.
            Mr. BELIN. You are known as Mrs. Charles Davis?
            Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
            Mr. BELIN. Your first name is Virginia?
            Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
            Mr. BELIN. Where do you live, Mrs. Davis?
            Mrs. DAVIS. Athens.
            Mr. BELIN. In Texas?
            Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
            Mr. BELIN. How old are you?
            Mrs. DAVIS. Sixteen.
            Mr. BELIN. How long have you lived in Athens?
            Mrs. DAVIS. Well, about 6 months. It was after the President was shot.
            Mr. BELIN. Do you remember when the President was shot?
            Mrs. DAVIS. On November 22.
            Mr. BELIN. About how long after that did you move to Athens?
            Mrs. DAVIS. It was about 2 weeks after the President was shot.
            Mr. BELIN. Mrs. Davis, how long have you been married?
            Mrs. DAVIS. Seven months.
            Mr. BELIN. Any children?
            Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
            Mr. BELIN. The time you moved to Athens would have been sometime in December of 1963?
            Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
            Mr. BELIN. Prior to that time, had you always lived in Dallas?
            Mrs. DAVIS. Well, after I got married we moved to Dallas and we lived there ever since.
            Mr. BELIN. When you got married, you moved to Dallas. Before you got married, where did you live?
            Mrs. DAVIS. Palestine.
            Mr. BELIN. Is that in Texas?
            Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
            Mr. BELIN. Were you raised there?
            Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; I was raised in Athens.
            Mr. BELIN. You were raised in Athens. Did you go to school in Athens?
            Mrs. DAVIS. No; I went to school in Palestine.
            Mr. BELIN. How far did you get through school?
            Mrs. DAVIS. The ninth grade. …

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Thanks, it’s pretty clear she couldn’t identify the cartridge casings as those she found. Not even “one of the four exhibited to her”. She found “A’ cartridge “cases” in her front yard at 3:30 PM. Then gave IT to a unidentified officer at 6:00. They are wanting her to identify the one she found in her yard, away from the murder scene, over two hours afterwards (how?, by accident?) from the four total? Made by different manufacturers, originally identified as a 38 Automatic, then as 38 Specials the DPD used?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            I never realized they were asking these questions of a 16 year old who had quit school and moved.

          • Tom S. says:

            Statements on November 22 records Virginia’s age as 16, and sister-in-law Barbara Jeanette Davis as age 22.: http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0446-001.gif

          • Let’s review what Simpich said:

            Furthermore, the Davis sisters said that the marked hulls were not the hulls that they originally provided to the police.

            But neither of the Davis women said any such thing.

            They simply said they could not identify them.

            Given that all .38 Special hulls look pretty much the same (if they aren’t marked) then there would be no expectation that they could.

            Simpich has been caught misrepresenting a source rather badly.

          • I wonder what prompted Ms. Davis to move to Athens, Texas?

            Clearly, it was the conspiracy that forced her to do that.

            Since people in Athens, TX don’t remember all the sinister conspiratorial machinations they have witnessed.

        • Why would you expect a civilian who had not marked the casing to be able to say it was the precise one she recovered?

          She never said none of those were not the one she recovered.

          • “Why would you expect a civilian who had not marked the casing to be able to say it was the precise one she recovered?
            She never said none of those were not the one she recovered.”~McAdams

            It doesn’t matter McAdams, she couldn’t identify the shell hulls. That is the simple point.

            A better question is: Why would the cops expect a civilian who had not marked the casing to be able to say it was the precise one she recovered? What was the point in asking if it is obvious she won’t be able to answer?

            Why did Hill state that all the shells were in a small circle in the street near Tippit?
            If that is true where did the shells come from found in the girl’s yard?

            Do none of these questions make you the slight bit suspicious “professor”?`

            It is obvious that either Hill was lying about the shells in the street, or the shells in the yard were “other shells” – unaccountable shells.

            And you honestly see nothing strange in these inconsistencies? If so you would and do make a lousy crime scene investigator.
            \\][//

          • And you honestly see nothing strange in these inconsistencies? If so you would and do make a lousy crime scene investigator.

            You would never arrest anybody at all, because you would always find this or that “inconsistency” that you would think let’s the suspect off the hook.

            I think when he told “Frontline” about the hulls being found in a small area he was simply giving a typical case where an automatic was used.

            That was not responsive to the question, but it was not a “lie.”

            And why would Hill, whom you think is an evil conspirator, tell a lie that would get Oswald off the hook?

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Thank you for the laugh Mr.Simpich. Enjoy the victory lap! Many have been subjected to his buff, ad hominem attacks, too few ever ever persist in debunking his BS, me included, though Tom is trying and Jeff has jousted previously. He has been persistent for many years as evidenced on many sites from his own to that of Col. Prouty.

        • Do you approve of Simpich saying something about the Davis women that is not true?

          He said:

          Furthermore, the Davis sisters said that the marked hulls were not the hulls that they originally provided to the police.

          But as the source shows, they said no such thing.

          • Bill Simpich says:

            I approve of getting the facts right. I first thought the Davis sisters flatly denied that the hulls were the same, then changed it when I realized that they couldn’t identify them as the same. The difference is subtle, but real.

            Mr. McAdams, are you going to apologize for mis-stating me and claiming that I said the shooter used an automatic?

            I would like to be wrong, doubt you will. I believe that goal is to confuse and sow discord not have a conversation designed to educate.

            Mr. McAdams knows the weaknesses of the lone gunman argument better than almost anyone. Yet he mocks people who discuss these weaknesses.

            Mr. McAdams tries to order people to answer his questions. I have no duty to answer his questions, but I will say this:

            He asked me if the shooter used an automatic (what Hill said) – the hulls found were 38 special hulls, but I don’t trust that finding. The bullets reportedly found in Tippit’s body were 38 special bullets, I’m not sure I trust that finding given the many incidents of alteration in this case.

            What

          • Bill Simpich says:

            …What I do know is that Hill also said that the hulls were in a tight pile on the street, but the story was the hulls were found in different places, some many yards from the scene.

            All of the trustworthy indicates that the gun was not an automatic. And Hill admitted many years later that he was the person who made the call, after lying to the Warren Commission about it.

            Mr. McAdams can’t stand the fact that Officer Poe claimed he marked the hulls and couldn’t identify them to the Warren Commission, and so he tries to argue that is an irrelevant fact that the judge would not take into consideration when deciding whether the hulls Barnes says he got from Poe are the same ones. Again, Barnes’ hulls don’t have Poe’s initials on them. It’s a real problem. Mr. McAdams knows it better than anyone. He flatly refuses to admit it’s even a problem. That’s because his goal is to sow confusion and discord.

            Sorry, John, I’ve seen you in action for too long. I have to call it as I see it.

          • I realized that they couldn’t identify them as the same. The difference is subtle, but real.

            Very good. Good to have that off the table.

            Mr. McAdams, are you going to apologize for mis-stating me and claiming that I said the shooter used an automatic?

            No, because you seemed to believe that the hulls were really from an automatic, and you said nothing about automatic hulls being planted (which would have been an absurd scenario).

            But I appreciate that you have clarified your position.

            Sort of. Well not really.

            He asked me if the shooter used an automatic (what Hill said) – the hulls found were 38 special hulls, but I don’t trust that finding. The bullets reportedly found in Tippit’s body were 38 special bullets, I’m not sure I trust that finding given the many incidents of alteration in this case.

            Well the simple explanation is that the hulls were merely misidentified. That makes more sense that real .38 automatic hulls from the bullets that killed Tippit switch out, or the wrong sort of hulls planted to inculpate Oswald (which then needed to be switched out again).

            And your “many incidents of alteration” is baseless.

            Perhaps you should list some.

          • I would like to be wrong, doubt you will. I believe that goal is to confuse and sow discord not have a conversation designed to educate.

            If challenging people on evidence and logic “sows discord,” then we need more of it.

            Cozy group think is a bad thing for any project that is really “truth seeking.”

          • Tom S. says:

            Cozy group think is a bad thing for any project that is really “truth seeking.”

            Dr. McAdams, would you agree that the railing against “political correctness” is the fruit of “Cozy group think”?

          • …What I do know is that Hill also said that the hulls were in a tight pile on the street, but the story was the hulls were found in different places, some many yards from the scene.

            Of course, the fact they were found that way indicates that the shooter manually extracted the hulls from a revolver.

            Again, Barnes’ hulls don’t have Poe’s initials on them. It’s a real problem.

            Not in terms of introducing the hulls into evidence. I’ve posted a link to a standard forensics text on that. All you have is a problem you made up.

            Also: you seem to have abandoned the claim that the hulls the Davis women gave to G. M.
            Doughty and C. N. Dhority were somehow faked or planted.

            Both were initialed by the officers. They place Oswald’s pistol at the scene.

            So why would you question the other two?

            That’s because his goal is to sow confusion and discord.

            When you are used to functioning in a tight little circle of conspiracy believers, getting challenged can be a real bitch.

          • Dr. McAdams, would you agree that the railing against “political correctness” is the fruit of “Cozy group think”?

            No, political correctness is itself a form of cozy group think.

            It’s the politically correct types that want to shut up speech. It’s the politically incorrect types who want to allow speech that the PC types find inconvenient.

          • Tom S. says:

            No, political correctness is itself a form of cozy group think.

            It’s the politically correct types that want to shut up speech. It’s the politically incorrect types who want to allow speech that the PC types find inconvenient.

            No, it’s a straw man, and so was your intent in you “Cozy group think,” reference.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-turns-political-correctness-into-the-mother-of-all-straw-men/2015/12/21/90ab5398-a816-11e5-bff5-905b92f5f94b_story.html
            The GOP turns ‘political correctness’ into the mother of all straw men

            http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/12/30/the-boost-republicans-are-getting-from-attacking-political-correctness/
            The boost Republicans are getting from attacking ‘political correctness’

            A tough night for Trump and political correctness: 5 takeaways from the Republican debate
            http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-republican-debate-takeaways-20151215-story.html

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/dr-randolph-robertson-examines-filmed-images-of-the-jfk-autopsy-that-have-never-been-made-public/#comment-844117
            John Mcadams: ….also wants politically incorrect voices on campus shut up.

            It’s nasty authoritarianism.

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/dr-randolph-robertson-examines-filmed-images-of-the-jfk-autopsy-that-have-never-been-made-public/#comment-843998
            John Mcadams: ….But side with the intolerant politically correct crowd, if you want.

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/agencies-hint-they-may-try-to-block-jfk-declassification-in-2017/#comment-839715
            John Mcadams: ….You are the sort of politically correct person who sees “racism” behind any disagreement with the politically correct orthodoxy.

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/agencies-hint-they-may-try-to-block-jfk-declassification-in-2017/#comment-839541
            John Mcadams: …. What you are showing is the worst of both worlds: the nasty authoritarianism of JFK buffs, and the nasty authoritarianism of politically correct leftists.

            (You predictably react so reflexively you may not even notice it, anymore…..)

          • “No, political correctness is itself a form of cozy group think.”

            define cozy: to give (someone) a feeling of comfort or complacency.

  8. The hulls provided to the police were not found at the crime scene, but down the street and later in the day -– a good case that they were planted.

    What!?

    So some conspirators planted hulls, but didn’t plant them at the crime scene, but down the street?

    If true (IIRC they were found in the bushes near the scene), this is strong evidence that they were not hulls from an automatic, since those would have been kicked out where Tippit was shot.

    Furthermore, the Davis sisters said that the marked hulls were not the hulls that they originally provided to the police.

    Give a citation!

  9. Dallas officer Jerry Hill and other policemen always insisted that Oswald fired his revolver in the theater in an effort to kill, but that the revolver misfired.

    Hill wrote in his report that one of the shells had a hammer mark on the primer.

    Hill was wrong about this, but it’s hard to claim he lied in an attempt to frame Oswald, since the reality is that Oswald did attempt to fire his revolver.

    To the Warren Commission:

    Mr. McDONALD – Yes, sir. Now, as we fell into the seats, I called out, “I have got him,” and Officer T. A. Hutson, he came to the row behind us and grabbed Oswald around the neck. And then Officer C. T. Walker came into the row that we were in and grabbed his left arm. And Officer Ray Hawkins came to the row in front of us and grabbed him from the front.

    By the time all three of these officers had got there, I had gotten my right hand on the butt of the pistol and jerked it free.

    Mr. BALL – Had you felt any movement of the hammer?

    Mr. McDONALD – Yes, sir. When this hand–we went down into the seats.

    Mr. BALL – When your left hand went into the seats, what happened?

    Mr. McDONALD – It felt like something had grazed across my hand. I felt movement there. And that was the only movement I felt. And I heard a snap. I didn’t know what it was at the time.

    And there is this (go to 2:00):

  10. The biggest problem is the way that Jerry Hill poisoned the well with his lies and his widely varying stories. The history of alteration would probably result in none of the hulls being admitted into evidence. Hill’s evidence is wholly unreliable, which impeaches the case against Oswald.

    This is a typical buff tactic: attack a peripheral witness, and claim that it impeaches the entire case against Oswald.

    But Hill was not any part of the chain of custody of the hulls found at the Tippit shooting scene.

    McDonald is the best witness to the fact that Oswald tried to fire his revolver in the Texas Theater.

    Typical tactic: Attack Helen Markham and call her the Warren Commission’s “star witness,” and ignore witnesses like Virginia Davis and Ted Callaway whose ID of Oswald leaving the scene is solid.

    Or claim that Howard Brennan was the “star witness” who put Oswald in the Sniper’s Nest, when the Warren Commission discounted his testimony (he had seen pictures of Oswald before the lineup) and was only willing to say that Brennan had “seen someone who at least looked like Oswald.”

    • Bill Binnie says:

      JMC-Or claim that Howard Brennan was the “star witness” who put Oswald in the Sniper’s Nest, when the Warren Commission discounted his testimony (he had seen pictures of Oswald before the lineup) and was only willing to say that Brennan had “seen someone who at least looked like Oswald.”

      The Whitewash Conspiracy said that Brennan “most probably” furnished the DPD with the Description that went out at 12.45 PM- Do you disagree? Who did he give the statement to, if you don’t? And who was the witness who gave it if he didn’t? Is there a good reason that Rowland’s very different testimony is distorted and then ignored? Oh, he was prone to exaggerate-

      • The Whitewash Conspiracy said that Brennan “most probably” furnished the DPD with the Description that went out at 12.45 PM- Do you disagree?

        Yes, Brennan most probably did that, and gave it to Inspector Sawyer.

        That’s why the WC said that Brennan had at least seen a man who “looked like” Oswald. That’s short of saying his identification of the precise man Lee Oswald had much probative value.

        • Bill Binnie says:

          How did Mr Brennan give a description of height, body type, age and weight of a person who he saw from 120 feet away who had to be kneeling at a partially open window? How many suspects did Tippit and the rest of the DPD confront, based on the description that is offered in the 12.45 PM alert? One would have thought Tippit would have found a new suspect every 15 feet- Why did Methodist Hospital think that Tippit arrived DOA at 1.16? Why did Dr Rose believe that Tippit had standard and automatic shells in his body- Wonder who Tippit had to call from the record store just before being murdered? Why did Tippit not answer multiple calls from dispatch after 1.03?

          • “Dr. Earl Rose performed the autopsy of Officer J.D. Tippit. J.D. Tippit had two different types of .38 caliber bullets in his body. Two were from an automatic weapon and two from a revolver. The shells are not interchangeable.”
            The Warren Commission’s conclusion was made in spite of the evidence and not because of it. To determine if Oswald’s gun had fired the bullets, it was necessary to call in a ballistics expert who would be able to tell if the lines and grooves on the bullets had a relation to the barrel of the revolver. The Commission called as its witness FBI ballistics expert Cortlandt Cunningham, and he testified, after an examination of the bullets taken from Tippit’s body, that it was impossible to determine whether or not these bullets had been fired from Oswald’s gun.
            \\][//

          • he testified, after an examination of the bullets taken from Tippit’s body, that it was impossible to determine whether or not these bullets had been fired from Oswald’s gun.

            You keep repeating that, and ignoring the fact that the spent hulls were matched to Oswald’s revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons.

          • How did Mr Brennan give a description of height, body type, age and weight of a person who he saw from 120 feet away who had to be kneeling at a partially open window?

            Because he saw him.

            How many suspects did Tippit and the rest of the DPD confront, based on the description that is offered in the 12.45 PM alert?

            A few. They stormed a library in Oak Cliff (but perhaps because of the Tippit shooting). But the descriptions were similar.

            Donald Wayne House was arrested in Fort Worth.

            Probably Oswald was acting suspiciously, which provoked Tippit to stop him.

            Why did Dr Rose believe that Tippit had standard and automatic shells in his body-

            That’s not true.

            But does your question imply that if we don’t know the reason for absolutely everything, there was a conspiracy?

            You understand how silly that is, right?

          • Bill Binnie says:

            JMC: But does your question imply that if we don’t know the reason for absolutely everything, there was a conspiracy?
            You understand how silly that is, right?
            BB: No, my question(s) imply that investigators in 1963 should have been extremely interested in the answers. So should their brethren in 2016- When the WC and its later day apologists are at best indifferent or more likely antagonistic to such questions, the objective viewer defaults to a conclusion that a conspiracy is a given and asks better questions from this new perspective- It is also very informative to hear WC acolytes parse the known evidence in a myopic effort to crush substantive, dissenting data and hoist dubious postulations helpful to their cause, in its place- My reasons don’t sound silly at all- It is impossible for me to intellectually critique yours, however- There must be more to you than web site hits and basking in the faint praises of fans who know what they want and that you will always give it to them- Exactly the opposite of what one might expect from a high level educator-

          • Oswald was 5′ 6″ and weighed 135 lbs. So Brennan’s description does not even match Oswald.
            Why did they then look for a 5 foot 10 inch 145 pound suspect and come up with Oswald?

            How could anyone assess the height of anyone in that window from the ground. It is absurd.
            \\][//

          • Why did Methodist Hospital think that Tippit arrived DOA at 1.16?

            Did they think that?

            At 1:19, on Dallas police radio, the ambulance (602) asked for the address on Jefferson. He was told “501 East Tenth.”

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/capture46.ram

            So he certainly had not picked up Tippit before that.

        • Jean Davison says:

          “Oswald was 5′ 6″ and weighed 135 lbs”

          According to his autopsy report, Oswald was 5’9″ and weighed an estimated 150 pounds.

          http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340153/m1/1/

          • Wiki gave my measurements. At any rate that is NOT the height and weight given in the APB is it Jean?

            But seriously Jean, you’ve seen the videos of Oswald at the police station, if he was 5’6″ he simply could not have weighed 150 pounds.
            \\][//

          • Jean, the debate revolves around the height and weight broadcast by the dispatcher long before the autopsy of Lee Harvey Oswald. If you look at the video of the young guy in police custody, would you in your wildest estimation argue that he weighed 160 lbs. particularly considering the fact that a camera adds a number of (some say up to 5) lbs.? Also compare his height to those law enforcement and reporters surrounding him and tell me he was 5’9″? Perhaps we are inching toward proof of misidentification, Jean?

          • “Oswald’s enlistment papers record his vital statistics as 5 feet 8 inches (1.73 meters) in height, 135 pounds (61 kg) in weight, with hazel eyes and brown hair.”~Wiki
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Oswald’s autopsy report by Dr. Rose gives an estimated weight of 150 but doesn’t use “estimated” with the 5’9″ height, which suggests that his body was measured.

            In November 1963 Oswald himself filled out this driver’s license application, giving his weight as 140 and height as 5’9″.

            http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth346898/m1/1/

            It’s not that easy for witnesses to accurately estimate a person’s weight. If it were easy there’d be no carnival attraction called “Guess Your Weight.”

            Oswald wasn’t arrested because he fit the description but because Johnny Brewer noticed him ducking the cops outside his shoe store and followed him to the theater: “His hair was sort of messed up and looked like he had been running, and he looked scared, and he looked funny.”

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm

          • Oswald wasn’t arrested because he fit the description but because Johnny Brewer noticed him ducking the cops outside his shoe store and followed him to the theater:

            Well . . . I think the description was part of it. From Julia Postal:

            So, well, I called the police, and he wanted to know why I thought it was their man, and I said, “Well, I didn’t know,” and he said, “Well, it fits the description,” and I have not—I said I hadn’t heard the description. All I know is, “This man is running from them for some reason.” And he wanted to know why, and told him because everytime the sirens go by he would duck and he wanted to know—-well, if he fits the description is what he says. I said, “Let me tell you what he looks like and you take it from there.” And explained that he had on this brown sports shirt and I couldn’t tell you what design it was, and medium height, ruddy looking to me, and he said, “Thank you,”

            The description was nowhere near precise enough to cause Oswald to be stopped, so had he not acted suspiciously, he probably would not have been.

            But he did — more or less — fit the broadcast description.

          • Bogman says:

            “The description was nowhere near precise enough to cause Oswald to be stopped, so had he not acted suspiciously, he probably would not have been.”

            And you align this argument with Tippit stopping Oswald how…?

            FYI, according to DPD radio logs, Oswald was the only person stopped by an officer after that very generic description was released.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            As pointed out by Walt Brown, Oswald, or whoever Tippit came upon was walking away from him. ID’ing him from behind, unless he knew him, from such a generic description would be difficult.

          • Bogman says:

            Exactly, Ronnie. I don’t think that’s even in dispute.

            Of all the guys fitting the general description of 5’10, 165-pounds walking around Dallas, DPD miraculously stops Oswald, and only Oswald, that day.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Dale Myers has argued that Oswald may have aroused Tippit’s suspicion by changing his direction when he saw the police car. He supports this with a number of witnesses who saw Oswald walking east and others who saw him walking west, among other things. For the full details click on “Why did Tippit stop Oswald” at this link:

            http://www.jdtippit.com/faq.htm

          • Bogman says:

            Jean —

            Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Sylvan Fox did a study of DPD radio logs that day back in ’64. Oswald was the only Dallas resident that day stopped by police from that very generic (and inaccurate in Oswald’s case) description of the assassin put out by DPD.

            How does that happen?

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Sylvan Fox did a study of DPD radio logs that day back in ’64. Oswald was the only Dallas resident that day stopped by police from that very generic (and inaccurate in Oswald’s case) description of the assassin put out by DPD.
            How does that happen?”

            I’m not sure that’s true. A patrolman called this in:

            “261: … have a white male that fits that description in size. He’s drunk down at the end of the north end of Laws Street. You want to have someone check him?
            […]
            Dispatcher: 261, are you near that person?
            261: I’ve got him on my motor….”

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm

            I checked only two pages of the transcript. There may be other examples. Evidently Oswald looked older than his age to some people because Marrion Baker’s first affidavit also described him as about 30 years old.

          • Bogman says:

            You’re right, Jean. The drunk was the other one. I assumed he was just stopped during that time period for public drunkenness.

            So that’s two. Oswald and obvious drunk in a city of 700K?

            You might guess that 50K males in Dallas at that time could be considered to fit that generic description.

            2 out of 50K citizens and one the assassin. All within 45 mins of the assassination.

            Pretty amazing luck, don’t you think?

          • Jean Davison says:

            “You might guess that 50K males in Dallas at that time could be considered to fit that generic description.

            2 out of 50K citizens and one the assassin. All within 45 mins of the assassination.

            Pretty amazing luck, don’t you think?”

            Not if Oswald did something to attract Tippit’s attention, as he later attracted Brewer’s by appearing to duck the cops who were driving down Jefferson, sirens going. Maybe Oswald changed directions, as Myers argued.

            The first description was broadcast at 12:45, when the Depository was still being searched. The suspect would presumably still be somewhere near that area if he fled on foot. It’s not as if the search was necessarily city-wide. Others may’ve been stopped but not called in because they had a convincing story.

            Then when the Tippit shooting happened, cops began actively searching *that* area. It was a residential area, not many people walking around.

            What is the suspicion here, anyway? That the police weren’t really looking, or what?

    • Rob H says:

      John pulling one of his patented squirm moves here.

      Markham was described as having made a positive ID of Oswald, but if you read her testimony, it’s clear she’s a poor witness.

      This kind of brazen lie is enough to cast serious doubt on the Commission’s integrity. Sorry, John, but it’s not enough to be honest just part of the time. An official investigation must be so ALL THE TIME.

      • John pulling one of his patented squirm moves here.

        Markham was described as having made a positive ID of Oswald, but if you read her testimony, it’s clear she’s a poor witness.

        She was a befuddled witness before the Warren Commission, but she did pick Oswald out of the lineup.

        Also, she resisted a strenuous effort by Mark Lane to get her to describe the shooter as somebody other than Oswald.

        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt

        But note here what buffs do. They inflate the importance of this or that witness they can attack, and ignore witnesses they can’t attack.

        The best witnesses to Oswald shooting Tippit are Virginia Davis and Ted Callaway.

  11. Alan says:

    Jerry Hill lied his eyes out, and would have testified Oswald (the wrongfully accused)was wearing a pro-Castro hat inside the Texas Theatre if it meant even more lying would embellish his trumped up charges. Amazing what some people will do and say for 30 pieces of silver. Bunch of lying treasonous cowards.

  12. leslie sharp says:

    ‘Following several leads, he (Jerry Hill] first went to the Texas School Book Depository where he and 2 officers found the shooter’s next and found the shooter’s perch and 3 spent shell casings. Then he was sent to the shooting of Officer J. D. Tippitt in Oak Cliff, and from there to the Texas Theatre where he and several of his fellow officers apprehended Lee Harvey Oswald. Jerry personally put the handcuffs on Oswald.’
    http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dallasmorningnews/obituary.aspx?pid=153027526#sthash.LYAyerj2.dpuf

    and another version from the DMN: ‘Gerald Lynn “Jerry” Hill was a sergeant working a desk job at Dallas police headquarters when he was thrust into the spotlight on Nov. 22, 1963. . . . When he learned President John F. Kennedy had been shot, Mr. Hill raced across downtown Dallas to the Texas School Book Depository. He was one of the three lawmen who located the sniper’s nest and three spent shell casings near a sixth-floor window. Later that day, Mr. Hill handcuffed the accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, at the Texas Theatre in Oak Cliff.

    This begs the question of just how thinly spread the Dallas Police Department was in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. Captain Westphall tells Jerry Hill to go on over to the TSBD; Sgt. Hill finds some shell casings and instead of staying with that investigation, he ends up at the site of the Tippit shooting AND places Lee Oswald in handcuffs at the Texas Theatre?

    At the back door of the Texas Theatre as Jerry Hill was handcuffing Lee Oswald, we have Bardwell “Hart” Odum, Special Agent of the FBI. He too had been at the TSBD in the immediate aftermath, present at the discovery of the rifle.

    After which Jerry Hill rushes to the scene of the Tippit shooting,and Bardwell travels with Lt. Day to deposit the rifle for safekeeping yet within minutes Odum is at the back door of the Texas Theatre as Oswald is being handcuffed by one Sgt. Jerry Hill. Who is issuing Odum his orders? Is Hill checking in with his superiors?

    Odum then travels to Irving to search the Paine house; several hours later he’s present when the photos arrive from MC; he clips them at Hosty’s behest and goes to the Executive Inn to show them to Marguerite Oswald and Marina who have been ensconced with Life magazine employees while their colleague Dick Stolley is securing the Zapruder film. We discover in Ruth Paine’s testimony that Bard Odum knows she and Michael on a first name basis.

    YET, in spite of all this, the family of Bardwell Odum chose not to include one single reference to the Kennedy assassination in the DMN obituary. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dallasmorningnews/obituary.aspx?n=bardwell-odum&pid=143129833

    Distilled down, Jerry Hill of the DPD and Bardwell Odum of the FBI occupy unique roles that crisscrossed in the immediate hours following the assassination; one apparently obfuscated (at best) the facts, the other was not even called to testify.

    • I agree with you Leslie Hill and Odum seem to have a central place in this whole affair.

      It is especially interesting that he Paine’s and are apparently quite chummy. It seems to me that the Paine’s were clearly deeply involved in covert intelligence matters, and that Ruth especially was central in guiding Oswald to his position as a patsy in this operation.
      \\][//

  13. Louis says:

    Every cop on the planet would know a semi hull when he saw one. It’s a signature of firepower. It shows what the level of force is or was and it shows who was up against what. Nobody gets that wrong who has a clue about handguns. Every single DPD cop on the force would have known that clue in a single split instant, and did.

    • Photon says:

      Just like they knew the difference between a Carcano and a Mauser. I doubt that any had actually seen a classic .38 automatic round- they just weren’t that common. Some may have been familiar with a .38 Super,but again it was an uncommon weapon. A .380 round would have “.380” or possibly “.9mm Kurz” stamped on it. The fact is that the officer that reported the rounds as coming from an automatic later stated that he assumed that they came from an automatic because he FOUND them, as an automatic ejects shells as it is being fired. The officer had no idea that Oswald had ejected them from his revolver and would be picked out of a police lineup by witnesses who saw him do it.
      Why would Oswald manually eject shells from his revolver? Why were the shells found some distance from Tippit’s body? Was he reloading? Are those serious questions? Why would anybody who just shot a policeman in front of multiple witnesses and was seen fleeing the scene of the crime by multiple witnesses and was later seen by multiple witnesses violently resisting arrest want to reload an empty gun? For the same reason he shot Tippit-he wanted to get away after shooting JFK.
      Now here is one for Willy- if the DPD planted a revolver on Oswald and wanted to link him to the bullets in Tippit, why would they plant a LOADED weapon on him?

      • “Now here is one for Willy- if the DPD planted a revolver on Oswald and wanted to link him to the bullets in Tippit, why would they plant a LOADED weapon on him?”~Photon

        The cops were familiar enough with the weapon to set the hammer-block safety mechanism so that pulling the trigger in a struggle would not fire the bullet in the chamber.

        “I doubt that any had actually seen a classic .38 automatic round”~Photon

        Horse-snot Dr Photon, the .380 auto had been a very popular pocked or purse carry weapon since the 1940s.
        \\][//

        • Photon says:

          As I stated Willy .380 is usually stamped on the round- if the police were so expert in caliber identification the officer would have described it as a .380- not a .38 Caliber. It was actually a round more common with European police forces. My SIG P230 is chambered for the round, as is the Walther PPK. I have never heard anybody refer to it as a .38 Automatic.
          As for the ” hammer-block safety mechanism” nonsense the most important rule of firearms safety after ” never point the weapon at something you don’t intend to shoot” is ” never trust the safety”. But you completely missed the point of my statement. Why go through the trouble of planting shells where they might be missed or picked up in an uncontrolled manner when they could arrest Oswald with a revolver with a cylinder full of empty shells that could be tied to the rounds in Tippit?

          • “As I stated Willy .380 is usually stamped on the round- if the police were so expert in caliber identification the officer would have described it as a .380- not a .38 Caliber”~Photon

            Nonsense Photon, there is no such thing as a .38 caliber automatic that takes a full size .38 Sp bullet, they are and have been, .38 ACP
            which is the exact thing as a .380; same size.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            No Willy, the the .38 ACP round is decidedly NOT the same as the .380 round. The former was invented by John Browning for the M1900 Colt automatic, the later for a different pistol requiring concealment- therefore its European 9 mmKurz designation.
            You have just revealed your ignorance on a matter that it quite well known among firearms enthusiasts.If you can’t get something that simple correct, what does that say about your powers of deduction? I didn’t even mention the .38 Super.

          • Photon,

            There is no difference between a .38 ACP and a .308 but the name. They are both the same size bullet built to be fired in an semiautomatic handgun.

            http://gundata.org/blog/post/38-special-vs-380-acp/

            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Doubling down,Willy? To claim that the .38 ACP and the .380 are the same round proves that you do not know this topic at all. I told you what the origin of the .38 ACP round was and the pistol it was designed for.
            By the way, the .308 is a rifle round.

          • “By the way, the .308 is a rifle round.”~Photon

            By the way, and most blatantly obvious; “308” was a typo.

            “Doubling down?”~Photon

            Yes and absolutely. I insist.
            \\][//

          • “I told you what the origin of the .38 ACP round was…”~Photon

            Lol…you “told” me? Like you told me JFK had a “WEIRD NECK”!

            Your pretense at knowledge of firearms and ammunition is another glaring hoax here “doctor”.

            Arguing with you is like having a conversation with Mr Potato Head.
            \\][//

        • Photon says:

          By the way Willy, S&W didn’t offer the internal trigger guard on .38 revolvers until 2001.

          • “By the way Willy, S&W didn’t offer the internal trigger guard on .38 revolvers until 2001.” ~Photon

            Not so, the mechanism was one that had the hammer actually hit the firing pin on the S&W .38, but the hammer block still worked the same way.
            The New version is now the same as the .38 Sp.; the design that has the block mechanism hit the pin rather than the hammer tag in the older style S&W. That is what came out in 2001.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            You seem to be ignorant of the function of the hammer block. It was to prevent accidental firing of a round from a dropped weapon or hammer strike . It was in answer to users keeping the chamber in contact with the firing pin empty. After the introduction users could safely carry a revolver with all chambers loaded.
            How to defeat the feature? PULL THE TRIGGER! Now tell us, how would that feature have prevented Oswald from shooting a cop? More importantly, how would altering it prevent Oswald from shooting a cop?

          • Photon,

            You do not understand the function of the new 38 special ‘hammer block’ — The hammer hits the hammer block in this new design. The ‘hammer block’ has a center hole on it that the firing pin fits through While the hammer block is still in position.

            Both the old design and the new design were made to pull the hammer back, which causes the trigger to come rearward to firing position. One slowly releases the hammer while pulling the trigger while the hammer block stays in place and catches it and the trigger goes back to set position. When the hammer comes to rest against the hammer block, the trigger is no longer cocked in firing mode.

            Both the new .38 Sp design and the old S&W .38 regular design use essentially the same function for a “Safety”.

            You can pull the trigger on either model without cocking the hammer. But it takes more pressure on the trigger. With the hammer pulled back, the trigger is in “hair-trigger” mode, taking only moderate pressure to fire the pistol.

            Have you ever operated either of these pistols Photon? Don’t you know that once you pull the hammer back to cock position, you can still slowly pull the trigger while holding the hammer and reset the trigger to the center position? When it is cocked the trigger is back near the handle and only takes the slightest pressure to cause it to fire.

            A girlfriend I was living with up in N Carolina bought a S&W snubnose .38 that was just like the pistol we are discussing.

            It had a new cylinder – just like the Oswald gun”, so it would fire .38 Sp rounds. We both shot the gun while I was up there. You could do the same thing with the hammer as I just described I can do with my own .38 Sp. — BOTH models have this ‘Safety’ feature.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            What exactly does the trigger action on your girlfriend’s .38 have to do with the DPD rendering the gun found on Oswald unable to be fired, as you claimed it was in order for it to be safely planted?
            You brought up the hammer block nonsense because you didn’t know that it was designed to prevent a loaded chamber from accidentally being discharged, not to prevent the weapon from being fired. The fact that you don’t know the difference between a .38 ACP round and a .380 round is proof enough that your firearm expertise is limited.
            I have fired S&W revolvers in .357 and .44 Magnum, not .38 Special. My .38 shooting has been limited to Iver Johnson revolvers- generally lousy firearms.

          • Photon says:

            Willy, have you even read Burroughs April 8, 1964 Warren testimony ?
            He states that he never took a ticket from Oswald-and that he was taking tickets that day. How could Burroughs have sold him popcorn when he never saw him at the concession counter?
            He testified that he did not see the confrontation when Oswald was arrested, but that after he was arrested he acted angry and was ” mad at everybody”.
            ” I think that Oswald was buying popcorn at 1:15, just like Butch Burroughs said.”
            Yet in his Warren testimony Burroughs said he never saw Oswald before the shoe salesman alerted him to his presence in the theater.
            Willy, I can understand your ignorance about the fine points of the .38 ACP and .380 rounds. But the claim of Burroughs selling popcorn to Oswald at 1:15 is contradicted by Burroughs own sworn testimony in 1964. Why did you make it up?

          • “Why did you make it up?”~Photon

            I have made nothing up. The DPD made everything up and framed Oswald under the direction of a higher authority. And all your arguments are fruitless, baseless, and will not convince a rational reader.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            A rational reader should ask the question: If the clerk at the concession stand never saw the individual who supposedly bought popcorn, how could that individual have purchased popcorn?
            Where is your source for the claim that Burroughs sold popcorn to Oswald @ 1:15?
            Again, if the DPD planted everything on Oswald and faked the evidence why didn’t he have a revolver containing the spent shells on his person, instead of a reloaded weapon ready to fire with ammo not related to the Tippit murder?

          • “If the clerk at the concession stand never saw the individual who supposedly bought popcorn, how could that individual have purchased popcorn?”
            ~Photon

            Of course Burroughs saw Oswald when he bought the popcorn. He just didn’t connect that with the person he heard come in around 1 PM, but didn’t see.

            Are you really so daft that you cannot make sense out of such a simple sequence?

            The cops could not have charged that Oswald attempted to shoot the arresting officers if “he had” an unloaded gun.

            You would tire the patience of a saint doctor Photon.
            \\][//

  14. leslie sharp says:

    Correction: Westbrook rather that Westphall.

    ‘Multiple witnesses, including civilians, saw the gun in Oswald’s hand and the struggle to get it away from him.’ — Jean Davison, jfkfacts.or February 7, 2015 at 9:21 pm

    Mr. WESTBROOK. And I asked him his name and he didn’t answer, and so that was the only thing. Then I yelled–there was so much confusion and it was rather loud, and I yelled at the top of my voice, I said, “Get him out of here. Get him in the squad car and head straight to the city hall and notify them you are on the way.” And so they immediately left with him.
    Mr. BALL. Were you the senior officer there?
    Mr. WESTBROOK. Possibly–I don’t think there was another captain there. There was a lieutenant and then I ordered all of them to be sure and take the names of everyone in the theatre at that time.
    Mr. BALL. We have asked for names of people in the theatre and we have only come up with the name of George Applin. Do you know of any others?
    Mr. WESTBROOK. He possibly might have been the only one in there at the time the rest of them might have been working there, because I’m sure at that time of day you would have more employees than you would have patrons.
    Mr. BALL. You didn’t take the names of any of the patrons?
    Mr. WESTBROOK. No, Sir.

    Can Jean Davison now identify who these multiple witnesses were “including civilians”?

    Not only does Captain Westbrook not take names of occupants of the theatre, he even fails to identify Sgt. Hill who is alleged to have helped handcuff Oswald and whom he had sent to the TSBD less than an hour earlier? So who precisely were the witnesses, civilian and law enforcement, of what happened inside the theatre?

    And why wasn’t Bard Odum called to testify, Jean?

    And which officer called out “Kill the President will you” during the altercation? Does that not lay to rest once and for all Jean, that the DPD went to the Texas Theatre to arrest “AN” assassin?

    • Yes Jean! You are invited; Come and dance your Fandango!!

      Perhaps Dr Photon on guitar! McAdams is already clacking his castanets.
      \\][//

    • leslie sharp says:

      So Sgt. Jerry Hill who was johnny on the spot at the TSBD to find 3 shell casings and the sniper’s perch while virtually simultaneously FBI SA Bardwell Odum was present when the alleged weapon was located, rushes to the scene of the Tippit shooting, AND/OR is (according to Warren Commission testimony) in pursuit of “a white male, 5’8″ 160 pounds, wearing a jacket, a light shirt, dark trousers, and ‘sort of bushy brown hair””?

      MR. HILL. . . . With the description, as I remember, it was a white male, 5’8″ 160 pounds, wearing a jacket, a light shirt, dark trousers, and sort of bushy brown hair. Captain Sawyer said, “Well, as much help as we have here, why don’t you go with Sergeant Owens to Oak Cliff on that detail.” And Bill Alexander said, “Well, if it is all right, I will go with you.” And the reporter, Jim Ewell, came up, and I said an officer had been shot in Oak Cliff, and he wanted to go with us also.

      When Sgt. Jerry Hill handcuffed Oswald in the Texas Theatre, did he notice that Lee Oswald was almost 30 lbs. or 1.5 stone lighter than the description he had been in pursuit of, and that Oswald could hardly be described as ‘bushy haired’? Why was Jerry Hill so confident that he had the ‘his man’ and did he believe at the moment of handcuffing Oswald that Oswald was the assailant of JF Tippit or President Kennedy?

      Did Hill hear another officer shout “Kill the President will you” to corroborate the testimony of Johnny Brewer?

      FBI Agent Bardwell Odum delivered the alleged rifle from the TSBD to police HQ AND STILL had time to make it to the Texas Theatre to witness, at least be present in the back of the theatre, Hill’s arrest of Oswald. Why was Odum convinced it was worth his time to rush to the Texas Theatre in the midst of a hunt for the assassin? Did he have the description Hill and the DPD were pursuing? 160 lbs. and ‘bushy haired’? If so, did it occur to him that the man in handcuffs did not match that description?

      We have a question of timing here. Of course if Odum had been called as a WC witness, perhaps these questions would have been resolved easily. But then, he wasn’t was he, Jean? Anyone who studies the WC testimony of those active in the first 2 hours of the assassination will recognize that their interrogators were very careful not to press the timeline.

      Jean Davison in particular, if you will, can you tease this out for us?

  15. Mary. McNamara says:

    Question: Why would Oswald manually eject shells from his gun? If you assume for the sake of argument he did, did he need to? Otherwise why would he if he needed to get away?
    My understanding is that an automatic throws out the shells, and a revolver keeps them and you have to take them out to reload. Was he reloading?

    • “Question: Why would Oswald manually eject shells from his gun?” ~Mary. McNamara

      He wouldn’t have and couldn’t have. He was not in possession of that pistol. The police were. The hulls were planted to tie them to the pistol which was later planted on Oswald at the Texas Theater.

      As in many cases of deceit and police malfeasance, there were major errors in planning and execution of these machinations. That is why the gumbo of confusion in the so-called “evidence”.
      \\][//

    • Yes, Oswald reloaded:

      When Oswald was arrested six live cartridges were found in the revolver. 63 Three were Western .38 Specials, loaded with copper-coated lead bullets, and three were Remington-Peters .38 Specials, loaded with lead bullets.

      Warren Commission Report, Appendix 10.

      • Armaldo M. Fernandez says:

        After Oswald was arrested no evidence was found that he has got the revolver.

        • Except for the fact that he took it out and tried to shoot Officer McDonald.

        • You see Armaldo?

          McAdams repeats this: “Except for the fact that he took it out and tried to shoot Officer McDonald.” – Even though this has hardly been firmly established.

          And so now we will be harangued into relitigation of the points that we showed that the witness testimonies in the Texas Theater were unreliable because of lack of proper POV of these witnesses; the impossibility of them actually seeing what they claimed to see.
          How it is only the claims of a few of the arresting officers that we actually must rely on.

          And all of these arguments take place in a vacuum, without considering all the other issues where the DPD was guilty of malfeasance in this case. And THAT too must be relitigated over and again, as if it never happened. This is the strategy of attrition, of wearing down their opponents, never allowing a single resolution to take place.

          This is the reason we must make note of the techniques used by the propagandist – over and above any of the data and facts of this case.
          \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy, what was Oswald doing in the theater in the first place?
            Why did he enter without paying for a ticket-or is that a myth, too?
            Did Nick McDonald make up the story about Oswald punching him in the face?
            Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Oswald had ever been in that theater previously?
            Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Oswald had attended any movie in a theater after returning from the Soviet Union?
            Why did he decide to attend a movie when everybody else that knew there had been a shooting was glued to radios or TVs? Obviously he that knew something was going on-a policeman tried to arrest him at the TSBD but his boss covered for him.All that was going on and yet he just decided to attend a matinee of a movie nobody had heard of-apparently for the first time .
            You don’t want to ask the obvious questions.

          • “Willy, what was Oswald doing in the theater in the first place?”Photon

            I think he went to meet his handler, to find out what was really going on.

            “Why did he enter without paying for a ticket-or is that a myth, too?”~Ibid

            I think he did buy a ticket and the girl in the booth couldn’t face that fact that she had faced who she came to believe was the killer of the President. When she was asked if she sold Oswald a ticket, she went into hysterics, several times. Finally after calming her down and some reassuring coaching she claimed she did not sell him a ticket.

            I am not really here to play guessing games Photon, but you wanted me to suppose. Well that is what I suppose.

            I think that Oswald was buying popcorn at 1:15 PM, just like Butch Burroughs said. Whether the girl might have been elsewere than the ticket booth when he entered, or she sold him a ticket and didn’t want to face that fact, are minor details.

            We have already gone over how the so-called witnesses of the struggle at his seat had no proper view to make any certain testimony about who had the gun.

            I think that officer McDonald was trying to plant the pistol on Oswald. As I have said before. I don’t know if Oswald punched him or not. Oswald was the only one with any bruises on his face after the scuffle.

            McDonald would have had a broken thumb or a bloody gash in the web between, if the hammer would have slammed into it. Was there any mention of such wounds?

            Sure there are lots of questions. And few certain answers. Not enough to charge Oswald with trying to shoot McDonnald, and certainly nothing to the assertions that he shot Tippit.
            \\][//

          • I think he did buy a ticket and the girl in the booth couldn’t face that fact that she had faced who she came to believe was the killer of the President.

            So Postal was lying.

            I think that Oswald was buying popcorn at 1:15 PM, just like Butch Burroughs said.

            Then you think that Brewer and Postal were lying about the sequence of events that led to Postal calling the cops.

            I think that officer McDonald was trying to plant the pistol on Oswald.

            But somehow he had the pistol that had been shipped to Oswald. And the hulls from which were found at 10th and Patton.

            You can always let your boy Lee off the hook if you call half the population of Dallas liars.

          • “You can always let your boy Lee off the hook if you call half the population of Dallas liars.”
            ~McAdams

            No not “half the population of Dallas.” just key police officers, plus interrogators from the Warren Commission who were expert at extracting any testimony they wished from any inexperienced and frightened witnesses.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy, do you have any proof?
            You seem to be long with claims of malfeasance without any clearly documented evidence to back up those claims.
            Give us one specific example with unequivocal physical evidence to prove that the DPD planted any evidence in regards to Lee Oswald. This claim seems to be a CT staple -without a shred of evidence.

          • “Willy, do you have any proof?
            You seem to be long with claims of malfeasance without any clearly documented evidence to back up those claims.”~Photon

            We have been over this countless times Photon. You and your comrades have been presented with reams of proofs. Your spurious hand-waving will not make them go away, nor will this stupid game you play of asking for the same evidence over and again.

            Just read through the body of this thread and the thread on Garrison proceeding it.

            In fact pick almost any thread on this blog and you will encounter proofs of official malfeasance, planted evidence, and deceit on the part of the officials concerned with the case.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Thanks Willy, you just admitted you have no proof. Because their isn’t any.All I asked for was for a single verifiable example -and you can’t produce.
            I don’t care about any thread, give me ONE that proves that the DPD planted evidence.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. McAdams:

            “You can always let your boy Lee off the hook if you call half the population of Dallas liars.”

            Uh, John, Jerry Hill is a LIAR. Who gives a rat’s ass about half the population of Dallas? One of the KEY men involved in the investigation of LHO LIED under oath. Did you read that John? Mr. Hill LIED to either the WC or Mr. Myers. Where is your scorn for Mr. Hill’s behavior?

            Maybe half of the population of Dallas is lying. That is not the focus. Mr. Hill’s LYING is the focus. Where is your condemnation for his deceit?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Oh Photon,

            Your words:

            “Thanks Willy, you just admitted you have no proof. Because their isn’t any.All I asked for was for a single verifiable example -and you can’t produce.
            I don’t care about any thread, give me ONE that proves that the DPD planted evidence.”

            I would like to play along with your “one” request.

            This quote is from Jesse Curry. have you heard of him, Photon? The chief of the DPD. Enjoy what he has to say:

            “After viewing the Zapruder Film Curry came to the conclusion that Governor John Connally and John F. Kennedy had been hit by separate bullets. He told interviewer Tom Johnson that he was not convinced that Lee Harvey Oswaldkilled Kennedy: “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody’s yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand.”

            Uh, Photon, I am not the gun “expert” you tell everyone that you are, but doesn’t one NEED a gun in their hands to shoot someone? I mean, isn’t that a basic requirement of an assassination by bullet? A WEAPON to fire the dreaded bullet?

          • “Thanks Willy, you just admitted you have no proof.”~Photon

            Don’t thank me for a present you didn’t receive Dr Phoo. I just told you something you already know, that we, including myself have provided you with reams of proofs, and that reiterating even one more for you is just playing into the child’s game that you play here.

            You are like a gnat buzzing around everyone’s faces- just an irritation.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Please give an example of the DPD planting evidence on Oswald or in regards to his arrest. The quote from Jesse Curry does not mention anything about ” planting evidence” and he later stated that he thought that there was enough evidence to convict Oswald.
            If you can’t give anything besides general unsubstantiated statements and unrelated comments you have proved my point-you have nothing to support your claim.

          • Photon, You have just proved my point. You have been answered too many times to even guess at on the proven incidents of planted evidence. And when you inquire for the umpteenth time, and it is pointed out that you have been answered, you ignore that and keep up your blatantly scurrilous games.
            You are redundancy personified; Your continued taunts a tepid bore.
            \\][//

  16. Bart Kamp says:

    For those interested in Gerald Hill, they ought to go to http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.co.uk/
    and ROKC
    http://reopenkennedycase.org/
    Lots there.

  17. Avinash says:

    The killing of Tippit was likely done to inflame the police and make them more determined to hunt down the patsy.It also helped divert police officers from Dealey Plaza.

  18. Jean Davison says:

    “The hulls provided to the police [by Barbara and Virginia Davis]were not found at the crime scene, but down the street and later in the day -– a good case that they were planted…”

    These hulls were not found down the street but in the Davis’s side yard along the same path they said Oswald took as he was unloading his weapon. Scroll down here and you can see the actual marks in these shells made by the policeman who retrieved them:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=IdnhAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT385&lpg=PT385&dq=tippit+myers+davis+shell+OR+cartridge+found&source=bl&ots=eNHrfV7gZ1&sig=96f7B_kAdDstkk3YadwSxVIhcEo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ6pmygdLKAhUENSYKHSu3DDgQ6AEINTAE#v=onepage&q=tippit%20myers%20davis%20shell%20OR%20cartridge%20found&f=false

    Dale Myers’ With Malice, an in-depth study of the Tippit murder, contains numerous photos like these that you won’t find anywhere else. Myers also has some interesting details about Acquilla Clemmons, who was 3/4 of a block down the street:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=IdnhAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT385&lpg=PT385&dq=tippit+myers+davis+shell+OR+cartridge+found&source=bl&ots=eNHrfV7gZ1&sig=96f7B_kAdDstkk3YadwSxVIhcEo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ6pmygdLKAhUENSYKHSu3DDgQ6AEINTAE#v=onepage&q=clemmons%20tenth&f=false

    IMO, anyone who wants to study the Tippit case should definitely read this book, now available on Kindle. (No, I don’t get a commission.)

    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=dale+myers+with+myers

    • “These hulls were not found down the street but in the Davis’s side yard”~Jean Davis

      The Davis’ side yard is not the crime scene. The crime scene was where Tippit was shot in the street.
      \\][//

      • The fact that they were found some distance from the “crime scene” shows that they were not ejected by an automatic, but rather manually ejected by Oswald was he left the scene.

        As several witnesses reported.

    • leslie sharp says:

      Jean, perhaps you missed these questions:

      Mr. BALL. We have asked for names of people in the theatre and we have only come up with the name of George Applin. Do you know of any others?
      Mr. WESTBROOK. He possibly might have been the only one in there at the time the rest of them might have been working there, because I’m sure at that time of day you would have more employees than you would have patrons.
      Mr. BALL. You didn’t take the names of any of the patrons?
      Mr. WESTBROOK. No, Sir.

      Can Jean Davison now identify who these multiple witnesses were “including civilians”?

      Not only does Captain Westbrook not take names of occupants of the theatre, he even fails to identify Sgt. Hill who is alleged to have helped handcuff Oswald and whom he had sent to the TSBD less than an hour earlier? So who precisely were the witnesses, civilian and law enforcement, of what happened inside the theatre?

      And why wasn’t Bard Odum called to testify, Jean?

      And which officer called out “Kill the President will you” during the altercation? Does that not lay to rest once and for all Jean, that the DPD went to the Texas Theatre to arrest “AN” assassin?

      • Jean Davison says:

        No, I didn’t miss the questions, I’ve already answered them. We discussed Odum last year, remember?

        http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/is-marina-oswald-a-credible-witness/#comment-721598

        I listed three civilian witnesses to Oswald’s holding a pistol on January 19, 2016.

        • “I listed three civilian witnesses to Oswald’s holding a pistol.”~Jean Davison

          Oh! What were their names Jean?
          \\][//

        • Jean, that is the flaw in the format or software of this site. You can make an arbitrary assertion i.e. “I didn’t miss the questions, I’ve already answered them” and attempt to walk away with “We discussed Odum last year, remember?”

          The result of your tactics might be that anyone joining the site could be persuaded by comments from a person perceived as a published author, in your case one who alleges to have determined “THE assassin’s motive”, and the new student might well presume Jean Davison indeed answered to satisfaction the questions about Bardwell Odum.

          But in fact, we both know that the questions about Odum are yet to be resolved.

          He was present when the alleged weapon was discovered on the 6th floor, he carried the weapon to DPD HQ, he witnessed Hill arrest Oswald, he searched the Paine’s house, he confronted Marguerite with photos flown from Mexico City.

          But WHO in fact was his boss during all this, Jean? Who was Odum reporting to as he traversed the terrain as it were?

          We can pursue Jerry Hill further … after you have answered that fundamental question.

          Or you can choose to hide in the formatting of this site.

          • Jean Davison says:

            I didn’t make “an arbitrary assertion” I provided a link to the relevant thread.

            You ask who was Odum’s boss. Since he was an FBI agent in Dallas, I assume his immediate boss was the man in charge there, Shanklin. Why do you need me to answer this simple question?

            “We can pursue Jerry Hill further … after you have answered that fundamental question.”

            I don’t owe you any answers, Leslie, just as you don’t owe me any.

          • He was present when the alleged weapon was discovered on the 6th floor, he carried the weapon to DPD HQ, he witnessed Hill arrest Oswald, he searched the Paine’s house, he confronted Marguerite with photos flown from Mexico City.

            And this is sinister how?

          • ‘I don’t owe you any answers, Leslie, just as you don’t owe me any.’

            By that logic, you don’t owe anyone any answers which brings into question ‘good faith’ participation once again; but as that has been deemed an inappropriate assertion I’ll withdraw it, and pursue again the question of Odum’s activities in the first 12 hours. You don’t have to respond, obviously. How many FBI agents were in the Dallas/ Fort Worth area that month, particularly with the president’s visit pending? I believe I have read as many as 40, but possibly 30. And of those agents how many were involved in ‘discovering’ a rifle on the 6th floor, and less than an hour later present at the arrest of a young man (25-30 lbs. lighter than the dispatcher’s description) by a DBP Sgt. whom Odum had brushed shoulders with on the 6th floor – who conveniently found 3 shell casings allegedly matching the rifle Odum carried from the building – and by late afternoon was over in Irving searching thru Marina’s bedroom, and then was present that early evening when the photographs arrived from MC, cropped the photos and made his way to the Executive Inn to show them to the two Mrs. Oswalds. This is a very busy agent, don’t you think? If Shanklin was giving Odum his orders, why would he spread him so thin? Why wouldn’t he want him to stay with the rifle identification in those early hours for instance? Why send him to the Texas Theatre on a ‘chance’ run? And did Odum’s familiarity with the Paines play any role in his decisions? Did Shanklin know about that first name friendship? And woven into this saga, we have Odum’s contradiction of the memo penned by his ultimate boss, the head of the FBI related to #399. Yet in spite of all this involvement in the most critical first 24 hours of the assassination, Bardwell Odum was never called to testify before the Warren Commission. That alone should send alarms for a serious citizen investigator, and in my view renders the commission’s efforts as bogus. And why would Odum’s family fail to even mention his highly significant participation in the immediate aftermath of the assassination of a US president in his obit?

            You aren’t responding, I speculate, because you don’t have the answers which is logical. What is illogical to me is that you don’t have the questions.

          • This is a very busy agent, don’t you think?

            So he was one of the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy, right?

            But I thought all the FBI agents were. And all the Dallas cops.

            You are saying just one lackey of The Conspiracy was tasked to do all those dirty deeds?

            And how were they dirty deeds?

          • John, I respect you may feel a need to leap to Jean Davison’s defence, but your comment is frivolous and an obvious attempt to distract.

            My questions are directed to her assertion the debate had been resolved – the question of Odum’s dispersed role over 5 key locations in the first 12 hours of the assassination — the TSBD, the Texas Theatre, Marina Oswald’s bedroom, the office where the Mexico City photographs arrived, and the Executive Inn.

            You’re welcome to join the discussion. Why would Gordon Shanklin spread one agent so thin with dozens of agents at his disposal; why would Odum be present at the arrest of someone alleged to have shot a police officer when he had only the previous hour discovered an alleged weapon in the assassination. Did Shanklin know within an hour that the alleged perpetrator of the Tippit shooting was also the assassin of the president of the United States?

          • Why would Gordon Shanklin spread one agent so thin with dozens of agents at his disposal; why would Odum be present at the arrest of someone alleged to have shot a police officer when he had only the previous hour discovered an alleged weapon in the assassination.

            You evaded my question.

            And we all know what this means in a discussion like this: if you actually tried to explain what it means, it would sound silly.

            You apparently think that Odum was the only FBI agent in on The Conspiracy, so he had to do all the conspiratorial things.

            But what conspiratorial things did he do?

            Can’t answer that, can you?

          • ‘And we all know what this means in a discussion like this: if you actually tried to explain what it means, it would sound silly.
            You apparently think that Odum was the only FBI agent in on The Conspiracy, so he had to do all the conspiratorial things.’

            I think Odum was in 5 key locations in the most critical hours following the assassination: the 6th Floor of the TSBD at 411 Elm where he was involved in the discovery of the alleged weapon, the Texas Theatre where someone NOT matching the initial description was arrested by a DPD officer who had found shell casings on the 6th floor in the same time period Odum was present, the home of Ruth (and Michael) Paine with whom he was on first name basis, the office where along with FBI Agent Hosty he cropped the photographs that had been flown from Mexico City, and the Executive Inn where he confronted Marguerite Oswald with said photographs in spite of Hosty stating the photos were not of Oswald. This analysis does not include Odum’s alleged participation in the chain of custody of #399 because of the discrepancy, but it could be added to the list of questionable coincidences were we to fully understand why he would dispute the memo written by J. Edgar Hoover related to that magic bullet.

            “Through natural selection, cats have developed a keen instinct for sensing which way is down, analogous to the mechanism humans use for balance, biologists say. Then – if given enough time – they are able to twist their bodies like a gymnast, astronaut or skydiver and spin their tails in order to position their feet under their bodies and land on them.”

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            Odum was not the only FBI agent who went from the Depository to the Texas Theater — Robert Barrett, e.g., caught a ride with a cop, going first to the Tippit murder scene, then the theater, and I’m not sure where else. Do you have a list of each agent’s activities that day? If not, how do you know that Odum’s schedule was extraordinary?

            These two murders were immediately connected by many people. Less than an hour after the assassination a policeman was killed two miles away — “in broad daylight in a nice quiet neighborhood,” as Hosty wrote in his book, adding that he instantly saw a connection.

            The lawmen went where the action was. The rail yard and TSBD had been searched to no avail, so obviously the sniper had fled. There was no citywide manhunt underway as you seem to think because they had no leads until Tippit was shot. The description of the sniper was too average and nonspecific to be of much use: white male, approximately 30, slender, 5’10”, 165 pounds.

            At 1:22 a description of the Tippit killer was broadcast: white male, about 30, 5’8″, black hair, slender. The police could be “on the lookout,” but where would they go searching for such a nondescript person?

            At 1:28 a policeman asked the radio dispatcher:
            “Is there any indication that it [the Tippit murder] has any connection with this other shooting?
            The dispatcher replied, “Well, the descriptions on the suspect are similar and it is possible.” Policemen heard this on their radios.

            So if someone at the theater said, “Kill the president, will you?”, it was not an unreasonable assumption given these circumstances.

            If you want to know why the police went to the theater, read Brewer’s and Julia Postal’s testimony. She indicated the police were reluctant to come there at first, until she described the man.

            As I said before, I have no way of knowing why Odum wasn’t called along with the other 500+ witnesses the WC heard from.

            Just what exactly are you accusing Odum of, anyway? Specifically.

          • ‘Just what exactly are you accusing Odum of, anyway? Specifically.’ — Jean Davison

            “A Very British Coup”.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oANMGT0IK-A

            min. 40:05
            An aide to the popularly elected former steel worker / Socialist Party Prime Minister is at a blackboard, charting the activities of 6 characters, drawing arrows linking one to the other to make his point with the PM. The PM asks, ” . . . so a deliberate conspiracy involving all these people?” Aide: “Yes.” PM: “but no real evidence?” and his aid responds, “of course not, that’s the whole point . . . they don’t sit in committee and plan the downfall of the elected government. They don’t keep any minutes, you can’t actually ‘prove’ it . . . [long pause] . . . you just have to know how it’s done.

            This scene is analogous to how the evidence and investigation was handled in the first 12 hours after the assassination; it can also be applied as analogous to the NBC/Sheridan attack on Jim Garrison followed some years later by Nicholas Lemann’s GQ piece on his beloved NOLA; and you can apply it to today to the discourse on numerous assassination research forums including this one. You just have to know how it’s done.

          • PM: “but no real evidence?” and his aid responds, “of course not, that’s the whole point . . . they don’t sit in committee and plan the downfall of the elected government. They don’t keep any minutes, you can’t actually ‘prove’ it . . . [long pause] . . . you just have to know how it’s done.

            So “no real evidence” is evidence of conspiracy.

            I guess conspiracy theorizing had to come to this.

          • “So “no real evidence” is evidence of conspiracy.
            I guess conspiracy theorizing had to come to this.”~McAdams

            Here we have another subtle straw man from the “professor”. That is not what Leslie said or implied.

            And as an immediate example to this “knowing how it’s done,” is your very reply to her comment. You show how it is done by your spurious argumentation based on straw-men and appeals to authority. Practically all of your commentary is steeped in those two tactics.
            \\][//

          • Yes John, British Parliament member Chris Mullin, author of “A Very British Coup” made the story up out of whole cloth and fantasized that coups happen, and fantasized that conspiracies are seldom proven to the satisfaction of a tribunal or court … in spite of being an astute politician who was able to navigate the labyrinth to expose the injustice in the Birmingham Six case. But he had no idea what he was talking about when he penned “it can’t be proven, that’s the point of a conspiracy.” (paraphrasing)

            Similarly, David John Moore Cornwell, pen name “John le Carré” – British author of espionage novels who worked for the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service probably had to conjure up bizarre devices – again out of whole cloth – because in his real world, plots can always be proven, right John?

            Truth is stranger than fiction John, or have you not studied that phenomenon as a political scientist?

          • Ms Sharp,

            We will note:

            In the epistemology of the taut linear mind will connect the dots, and find blank areas, and assume that means the dots are not connected down the line at some point.

            But these dots in fact have a trajectory that can be gleaned from their sequence. So when the trajectory of the connected dots is plotted, one can find the continuation of that trajectory in the dots further down the line.

            It is in ignoring the trajectories that eventually connect all the dots, that leaves the linear mind baffled by those who understand the points of the individual trajectories and point them out.
            \\][//

  19. leslie sharp says:

    Anyone who wants to understand the holes in the Tippit investigation should listen to the Joseph McBride interview featured on a recent thread. McBride exhibits a level of character and humility when he acknowledges he does not have all of the answers – in stark contrast to some in this conversation who pose as authorities on the murder based solely on the Warren Commission conclusions. At least McBride has the courage to ask the questions.

    jfkfacts.org/assassination/tell-me-about-the-shooting-of-office-j-d-tippit/

    and hats off to Alan Dale for another excellent interview. (and no, I’m not on commission!)

    • leslie sharp,

      I wonder how many Warrenistas’ actually watched that McBride video?
      I also have to wonder if they actually understand the arguments we made in that forum. Certain things were established there. But now, we are expected to go through this whole round’about. Continuous remediation. A variation on “Outcome Based Education”, another term for “indoctrination”.

      So what we are experiencing here is an attempt to indoctrinate us by our adversaries. Das Propaganda!

      It is most curious that these issues are now being relitigated that were just discussed on that thread.
      \\][//

      • Bill Pierce says:

        Willy Whitten asks:
        “I wonder how many Warrenistas’ actually watched that McBride video.”

        I watched McBride’s video and found it completely unpersuasive. Simpich isn’t convincing either. I’m not a “Warrenista” but I side with the forum’s Three Amigos on this issue.

        Two previous questions beg to be answered: (1) Regarding the ultra elaborate Tippit plot (planted shell casings, planted wallet, planted revolver, etc), was the principal purpose the apprehension of Oswald so that he could be interrogated and later tried for the murders of Tippit and Kennedy? I thought most conspiracy realists believed that Oswald had to be eliminated because he knew too much. (2) Was Oswald’s murder a random act by another lone nut or was Jack Ruby part of the conspiracy? In other words did the surrealistic plot require Oswald’s arrest in order to give Jack Ruby (another conspirator) the opportunity to sneak into police headquarters and kill him less than 48 Hours later? [If all the cops were dirty, why not have one of them kill Oswald inside the theater?]

        Remember, according to this utterly ridiculous theory, *everything* was perfectly scripted and choreographed in advance.

        • “If all the cops were dirty, why not have one of them kill Oswald inside the theater?”~Bill Pierce

          Because he didn’t get up an run like they expected him to as they approached ever so slowly although they knew exactly where he was seated.

          The cops went there to kill Oswald, and plant the Tippit murder weapon on him. When he didn’t flee they had no choice but to attempt to plant the gun on him while he was still alive. At that point there were too many cops around him to safely shoot him and be sure not to shoot a fellow officer.

          You end with: “Remember, according to this utterly ridiculous theory, *everything* was perfectly scripted and choreographed in advance.”

          Yea, except how Oswald would actually react in the theater. He didn’t have their script.
          \\][//

          • Photon says:

            According to the story you disdain the cops stated that Oswald resisted arrest and tried to shoot them. Obviously there was an altercation in front of witnesses.
            They had amply opportunity and apparent justification to shoot him at that point.
            But they didn’t-and with that all of the claims of the police wanting to kill Oswald go out the window. Hell, kids in America in 2016 are getting shot for much,much less.

          • “They had amply opportunity and apparent justification to shoot him at that point.”~Photon

            There wasn’t a clear shot that wouldn’t endanger the other officers all around Oswald. These cops wouldn’t want to take a chance of shooting one of their buddies.
            \\][//

          • Rob H says:

            Maybe the plan was to shoot him if ran and plant the gun on him if he didn’t.

        • Bill Simpich says:

          Bill Pierce, nothing was “perfectly scripted”. Tippit’s father told Joe McBride that police officers told him “Tippit was looking for Oswald when he died.”

          In other words, Oswald wasn’t even supposed to make it as far as the theater, where he was spotted going from seat to seat, apparently looking for his contact. Something things had gone wrong.

          You haven’t studied McBride’s work, or that of other researchers. Tippit was parked at the south side of the Trinity River, waiting for Oswald to drive by. He lost him. In the last minutes of his life, Tippit stopped a car, looking for someone in the back seat. Tippit went to the Top Ten Record Store a block from the Texas Theatre, made a frantic phone call, and ran out. By 1:07, Tippit was dead. Oswald was already inside the theater.

          Jerry Hill and his buddies went up to the balcony when they got to the theater. When they realized LHO was down below, they ran down so fast that one of them sprained his ankle and another one tore a tendon.

          When they drove to the station, Jerry claimed that they looked at Oswald’s wallet and found his alias Alex Hidell, and called it into the dispatcher. The dispatch tape revealed nothing of the sort.

          When Jerry Hill – a former TV reporter – got on TV late that afternoon, he told the world about Oswald’s time and adventures in the USSR. When asked how he knew all that, he said “Westbrook told me!”

          Having missed a second chance to kill Oswald at the theater, it was time to bring in Jerry Hill’s long-time acquaintance, Jack Ruby.

          Leslie Sharp has a great list of Odum’s misdeeds – another question is the missing FBI tape of his conversations with his dispatcher while he drove around with the alleged assassination weapon.

          You and McAdams can mock this till the cows come home. It just underlines the lack of confidence in your own argument. If you want a fair fight, study the research of McBride and others and address it front and center. Otherwise, you are wasting everyone’s time – which I believe is your primary goal.

          • Photon says:

            No Bill, you don’t want to tell the whole story.
            McBride interviewed a 90 year old man with dementia ( according to the man’s own family) who stated that Tippit’s widow told him that Tippit was searching for Oswald. Instead of trying to confirm that claim with the primary source, what did McBride do? NOTHING-for years! What turned that video off for me was McBride claiming to be a journalist for a period of time that coincided with him being in Middle School-ie, he made it up.
            What else did he make up?
            Is everybody going from seat to seat in a dark theater looking for a contact? If you were supposed to meet a contact in a dark theater ( or even a lighted one) wouldn’t you know where to find him, which row, which seat,etc? So the crime of the century ensues and Oswald is supposed to look for his contact in the dark with no idea where he was? And if the supposedly innocent Oswald had a handler why didn’t he go straight to the theater instead of going back to his room? Why would he need his revolver to meet his contact? Or more specifically, if he needed a revolver for protection when he went to see his handler, why even go to meet with him in the first place? Why did Oswald drop off his jacket?
            If he had a prearranged plan to meet his handler why waste time to pick up a jacket that he dumped anyway?
            What is your source confirming that Oswald was in the Texas Theatre when Tippit was shot?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon and Mr. McAdams,

            Once again, you have used a different standard than you do for someone that supports the “Warren Omission” report. Allow me to help:

            “What really threw a spanner into the works was when Jerry Hill made a radio call at 1:40 pm on November 22, 1963 and reported that the hulls came from a 38 automatic, rather than a 38 special. The 38 special bullets were used by the Dallas police and were extremely well-known. Both 38 special and 38 automatic hulls are clearly identified at their base –- Hill’s misidentification cannot be passed off as a simple mistake.

            When Hill testified before the Warren Commission, he threw gasoline on the fire. In the face of a very carefully phrased question by David Belin, Hill denied under oath that he made the radio call about the finding of 38 automatic hulls at 1:40 pm. Hill claimed that he wasn’t using his call number “550-2” as much as another officer, and that it was wrong to think that he made the call.

            Twenty-two years later, in 1986, Hill admitted to researcher Dale Myers that he made the call. When he was asked how he determined that the hulls were 38 caliber, Hill said, “Thirty-eight’s stamped on the bottom of it. I looked on the bottom.”

            Photon and John—did you catch the problem with this latest instance of the incompetence of the DPD? Mr. Hill told your beloved WC one thing, and then years later, said a completely different thing. That is called LYING. Mr. Hill, if he did indeed say two different things about the phone call HE made is indeed a LIAR.

            And, true to your hypocritical natures, you heap scorn and disgust at the people who call Mr. Hill a LIAR. Both of you ridicule Jean Hill and her embellishing story though the years. Where is the same scorn and disgust for Mr. Hill? Forget about everything else, if Mr. Hill did indeed lie to your beloved WC, then nothing else Mr. Hill says can be believed.

            Photon, your hypocrisy is on display everyday on this website. You say over and over again that Allen Dulles was an honorable man and how dare anyone question his integrity. What a load of crap that is! Dulles and Jerry Hill are one in the same. Liars, men of deceit, intent on an agenda that does not square with the truth. McAdams, before you give Officer Tippit sainthood, please remember that he was not the Boy Scout you would like everyone to believe he was. Unless, of course, your Catholic education or employment endorses fathering a child outside of marriage. Then, by all means, ask Rome to canonize him.

            It would be nice if you would—one time—admit that the men who “investigated” JFK’s murder were never really interested in the “truth.” Unless you believe that men of deceit can give you “truth.” One of the main reasons this case has never been settled is because of people like you that refuse to look at anything outside of the “official” version. You will castigate and ridicule Jean Hill all day long. However, you will not hold Mr. Hill or Allen Dulles or Gerald Ford to the same standard. And that is hypocrisy of the highest order.

          • By 1:07, Tippit was dead. Oswald was already inside the theater.

            No, to believe that, you have to accept the 1980s testimony of Butch Burroughs, and not his WC testimony.

            You also have to believe Brewer and Postal are lying about the sequence of events, and that, after Postal called in Oswald’s entry into the theater, the Dispatcher waited a half-hour to broadcast a suspect in the Texas Theater.

          • Leslie Sharp has a great list of Odum’s misdeeds

            What “misdeeds?”

            Just being around when important things happened?

            Explain “misdeeds!”

          • Photon and John—did you catch the problem with this latest instance of the incompetence of the DPD? Mr. Hill told your beloved WC one thing, and then years later, said a completely different thing.

            Your problem is that Hill’s testimony is no part of the evidence against Oswald. He didn’t recover the hulls. He didn’t claim to identify Oswald shooting Tippit.

            You are attacking somebody whose credibility is irrelevant to Oswald’s guilt.

            And, true to your hypocritical natures, you heap scorn and disgust at the people who call Mr. Hill a LIAR.

            Did he “lie” when he said the hulls were .38 Special? You buffs have been quoting that as true for decades, and using it to exculpate Oswald.

            Are you know saying it was a lie?

            More likely it was a mistake.

            Did he lie saying he didn’t make the call? Perhaps, but how does that change the case against Oswald.

            Both of you ridicule Jean Hill and her embellishing story though the years. Where is the same scorn and disgust for Mr. Hill?

            Jean Hill is quoted as evidence of a conspiracy. If all she had said was (for example) that she was on the north side of Elm, and photos show her on the south side, she would be irrelevant, and nobody would criticize her.

          • One of the main reasons this case has never been settled is because of people like you that refuse to look at anything outside of the “official” version.

            I has been solved, but you folks just won’t accept the result.

            You will castigate and ridicule Jean Hill all day long. However, you will not hold Mr. Hill or Allen Dulles or Gerald Ford to the same standard.

            Both Ford and Dulles served honorably on the Warren Commission. Ford was a bit too keen to find a Communist conspiracy, but in the end accepted that there was no evidence of conspiracy.

            Shenon paints Dulles as old and doddering, but if you look at his questioning of witnesses, he seems quite sharp.

            Both Ford and Dulles attended the vast majority of the hearings.

            Ford insisted that the Report not say there was no conspiracy, but rather that the Commission had found no evidence of conspiracy.

            And that is hypocrisy of the highest order.

            You’ve got to get beyond hating people who disagree with you about the assassination, especially Ford and Dulles. It may be fulfilling to hate them, but it impedes your ability to analyze the case.

          • David Regan says:

            Gerald Ford’s Role in the JFK Assassination Cover-up http://www.crimemagazine.com/gerald-fords-role-jfk-assassination-cover

            Ford Told FBI of Skeptics on Warren Commission
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/07/AR2008080702757.html

            Yeah, stand up guy there Professor. Honorable as well to grant Nixon a pardon.

          • “Did he “lie” when he said the hulls were .38 Special? You buffs have been quoting that as true for decades, and using it to exculpate Oswald.
            Are you know saying it was a lie?
            More likely it was a mistake.
            Did he lie saying he didn’t make the call? Perhaps, but how does that change the case against Oswald.”~McAdams

            Hill is a proven liar, just like officer O’Donnell who didn’t know how to administer a polygraph test and lied about what Perry Russo said to him when no one else was there to verify it. Just like Gurvich, Phelan, Sheridan, Shaw and so many others who lied to uphold the central lie maintained by the Warren Report.
            \\][//

          • Gerald Ford’s Role in the JFK Assassination Cover-up http://www.crimemagazine.com/gerald-fords-role-jfk-assassination-cover

            This is the bogus “Ford moved the entrance wound” stuff.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ford.htm

            Ford Told FBI of Skeptics on Warren Commission
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/07/AR2008080702757.html

            Yeah, stand up guy there Professor.

            And this is terrible how? People in DC trade information all the time.

            Earl Warren was apparently sharing information with liberal columnist Drew Pearson.

            Honorable as well to grant Nixon a pardon.

            Yes, it was.

          • before you give Officer Tippit sainthood, please remember that he was not the Boy Scout you would like everyone to believe he was. Unless, of course, your Catholic education or employment endorses fathering a child outside of marriage. Then, by all means, ask Rome to canonize him.

            And that somehow proves Oswald didn’t shoot him?

            Oswald would never shoot an adulterer?

            Or is it that all adulterers are part of assassination conspiracies? If the latter, please go arrest Bill Clinton and Donald Trump!

          • “You’ve got to get beyond hating people who disagree with you about the assassination, especially Ford and Dulles. It may be fulfilling to hate them, but it impedes your ability to analyze the case.” — John McAdams

            The failure to analyze the case, to pursue in good faith new data in the investigation is yours, John. Others here and on various forums continue to make a concerted effort to confront the anomalies, to expose the contradictions, and to challenge the obfuscations all of which you, sadly but personally represent.

            If I understand your argument John, you are positing that anyone who questions the Warren Commission conclusion began with a hatred for key figures in our government and industry, and following that when these figures landed in positions of authority to determine who shot their elected president, they/we – based solely on our hatred of these individuals – rejected the conclusions, AND/OR assigned responsibility for 11.22.63 to others we hated.

            Or maybe you can provide a more eloquent prose in support of your theory . . . rather than this vapid sound bite “because you hate someone”.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Thank you Mr. Simpich, again. Very prescient post. I hope all will read it.

          • Bill Pierce says:

            Bill Simpich writes:
            “Bill Pierce, nothing was “perfectly scripted”. Tippit’s father told Joe McBride that police officers told him “Tippit was looking for Oswald when he died.” In other words, Oswald wasn’t even supposed to make it as far as the theater, where he was spotted going from seat to seat, apparently looking for his contact. Something had gone wrong.”

            Let’s address the following issue first. If Tippit’s murder was coincidental, then no one could have anticipated the event in order to plant Oswald’s wallet at the scene or implement any of the other stuff that required planning. Based on your theory, conspirators killed Tippit. Do we agree on this?

            And, according to your comment above, Tippit was scripted to kill Oswald, right? So, while Oswald was inside the theater, Tippit drove around until he noticed a pedestrian who fit Oswald’s general description. Tippit stopped the pedestrian (conspirator) – who was fulfilling his role in the carefully planned plot – and the pedestrian killed him. Thus, Tippit was a conspirator sent to kill Oswald; instead, Tippit was double-crossed by fellow conspirators. If I’ve gone astray please let me know.

            Look at it another way. According to the theory, Oswald hurried to the theater to meet his contact. In your theory the theater *clearly* is the pre-arranged venue for all things conspiratorial. [I disagree but let’s go on.] According to you, “Oswald wasn’t even supposed to make it as far as the theater.” So why didn’t Tippit’s fellow conspirators *simply* tell him that Oswald’s destination was the theater, so that Tippit could plan accordingly? This is half-baked and unpersuasive.

            If the conspirators wanted Tippit to kill Oswald, why did they have Tippit murdered? Usual answer: to frame Oswald and lead police to the theater . . . where police (the standby team of assassins?) were supposed to kill Oswald. Which would have been easy. Instead the cops arrested him.

            Here’s the theory as I understand it:
            -Plan one: have a cop (Tippit) kill Oswald somewhere in Oak Cliff.
            -Plan two: have someone kill a cop (Tippit) for the purpose of framing Oswald and leading police to the Texas Theater where the conspirators plainly knew Oswald was located.
            -Plan three: have cops kill Oswald at the theater.
            -Plan four: have Ruby kill Oswald at police HQ.

            Not forgetting that the theory requires a team of conspirators to plant a wallet, manipulate shell casings, throw down a jacket, spirit Oswald’s look-alike out the back of the theater, and on and on and on. Plus, the theory requires rejection of almost all the evidence.

            ***No doubt the authorities committed all kinds of dishonest and deceptive acts to make a stronger case that Oswald murdered both Kennedy and Tippit. CE399 is the whopper. Nevertheless (no hard feelings) your theory isn’t convincing. For me, the word “farfetched” comes to mind. [I’m a fan of Occam’s razor.]

          • “Here’s the theory as I understand it”Bill Pierce

            Well that is not the theory as I understand it.

            It reads more like an elaborate straw man argument to me.
            \\][//

        • The failure to analyze the case, to pursue in good faith new data in the investigation is yours, John.

          You haven’t provided any new data.

          All you’ve done is connect a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the assassination with a bunch of other people who had nothing to do with the assassination.

          And you’ve connected yourself to the Rockefeller family and to H.L. Hunt!

          That makes you a sinister person.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. McAdams,

            Your words:

            1. “You’ve got to get beyond hating people who disagree with you about the assassination, especially Ford and Dulles. It may be fulfilling to hate them, but it impedes your ability to analyze the case.

            2. “Did he lie saying he didn’t make the call? Perhaps, but how does that change the case against Oswald.”

            3. “Both Ford and Dulles served honorably on the Warren Commission. Ford was a bit too keen to find a Communist conspiracy, but in the end accepted that there was no evidence of conspiracy.”

            My words:

            John, with all due respect, you are completely full of it. You are disingenuous, and you really have no desire to look beyond the pages of your beloved WO report. That is certainly your choice as an American, but unlike most of the folks that read your website and drink all of the “McAdams Kool-aid” you offer, I don’t think you will find many people on this site that will. Perhaps you would be more comfortable talking to the masses that have not been taught to think on their own?

            1. You keep mentioning the word “hate.” That is odd, coming from you. Of the two of us, which one of us is having a little trouble at work, because of their refusal to show tolerance and respect to everyone? I have been in public education for 25 years without a single incident. You? How are things going at Marquette? Perhaps you should re-think your use of the word “hate.”

            2. Perhaps Hill lied? No, John, he LIED. Officer Hill is a LIAR. And, like most of the people that investigated the murder of JFK that LIED under oath, NOTHING happened to them. Lying under oath at one time is this country was called perjury. But just like Dulles and Angleton and all the goons, LYING in the JFK case was a ticket to nowhere. You rail against Madeline Brown and Jean Hill, but they were not involved in the investigation of the murder. Ask yourself this question. Would you want your hearing at Marquette heard by a man or men who have been shown in the past to be LIARS? Would that make you comfortable, John? My feeling is that you would cry foul—or “ad hominem.”

            3. Gerald Ford served honorably? What a load of crap! The man who said people who wrote books about the assassination were “despicable,” but then proceeded to write his own book to “convince” us of Oswald’s motives. That Gerald Ford? The same Ford who pardoned the second biggest crook in the history of US politics? That Gerald Ford? Yeah, he was honorable, and Allen Dulles was a humanitarian.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. McAdams,

            Dulles was an honorable man? Really? Let us try this one more time, since you are doing the same thing you accuse the CT side of doing—refusing to directly answer a couple questions. Please don’t respond by mentioning the word hate, because as we know, your problems at Marquette could be viewed as a by-product of hate.

            If Allen Dulles helped overthrow a foreign country to help his buddies become mega-rich—please see the United Fruit Company—AND, I take Bill Clarke’s promise that Dulles acted on the orders of the president, can you tell me where in the US constitution that type of imperialism is allowed? Who is more guilty—the president or Dulles? Who is more evil More to the point—who is more evil—the president, Dulles, or Adolf Hitler?

            So, you believe Dulles was honorable? The facts point to a different conclusion. He was a murderer of innocent men, women and children. If you were on trial for you for life, would you want Allen Dulles on your jury?

            Keep on spouting Dulles’ honor. However, most RATIONAL people look at Dulles’ behavior in Iran and Central America as proof that he was evil and a monster. It is certainly odd that you find his placement on the WO as perfectly reasonable, where most people that have followed this investigation find it yet ANOTHER example of Washington covering its ass.

          • Rob H says:

            John,

            One of the very serious problems I have with your website is its failure to mention Ruby’s Vol. V testimony, approximately pp. 191-198.

            Ruby begins to open up here as opposed to the irrelevant ramblings in other pages.

            First, he stated in plain language that the only condition under which he could reveal all he knew would be if they took him back to Washington, D.C. The reason for this, he explains, is that he felt his life was in danger in Dallas and NOT because of his murder conviction.

            He then asked Earl Warren if they could take him to Washington. Earl Warren had the brazen audacity to deny Ruby’s request with the bogus excuse that it would require “a great many things”. Pure BS. The Commission had subpoena power.

            By page 198, the dam begins to crack. Ruby starts by saying that Lee Harvey Oswald isn’t guilty of killing President Kennedy, but that he, Jack Ruby, is.

            He goes on to say an organization was involved and that General Walker was one of its leading men. And also remarks because of what he (Ruby) did, other people’s lives are now in danger.

            Ruby paused and asked Warren if he understood what was being said. Warren had the unbridled gall to say “No”. A thirteen year-old would have known what Ruby was saying. Following Warren’s remark, Ruby trailed off into the usual litany of irrelevant trivia without being questioned on his previous statements.

            Even if Rubby was as nutty as a fruitcake, the Commission had a solemn obligation to get everything possible out of him.

            But this, the Commission refused to do.

            John, this act alone sinks the Warren Commission’s credibility. It was a deliberate act of obstruction and betrayal of public trust.

            I hope you won’t trot out the rather lame Ruby-was-insane argument. That was never proven.

            Like the Warren Commission itself, the failure of your website to include this testimony proves its use of selective facts while suppressing others not friendly to its agenda.

          • Rob H says:

            John,

            The Warren Commmission has been totally refuted.

            You simply live in a dream world which bars any new evidence from entering.

            When I mention Humes probing the back wound and the probe not going through, your response is “abrasion collars”.

          • By page 198, the dam begins to crack. Ruby starts by saying that Lee Harvey Oswald isn’t guilty of killing President Kennedy, but that he, Jack Ruby, is.

            Nonsense.

            Quote his exact words.

            And remember and if you quote something out of context, I’ll call you on it.

            Ruby actually said:

            No subversive organization gave me any idea. No underworld person made any effort to contact me. It all happened that Sunday morning.

            And then you assert:

            I hope you won’t trot out the rather lame Ruby-was-insane argument. That was never proven.

            But Ruby said:

            the Jewish people are being exterminated at this moment. Consequently, a whole new form of government is going to take over our country, and I know I won’t live to see you another time.

            Do you believe Jews were being exterminated as Ruby was questioned?

          • When I mention Humes probing the back wound and the probe not going through, your response is “abrasion collars”.

            For the umpteenth, let me try to explain this.

            The back wound had an abrasion collar, which showed it was an entrance would.

            No bullets were found in Kennedy’s torso.

            Therefore a bullet transited.

            The fact that the wound could not be probed does not prove that no bullet transited. It’s often the case that through-and-through wounds can’t be probed.

          • How are things going at Marquette? Perhaps you should re-think your use of the word “hate.”

            I’ve drawn the hatred of the politically correct, just as I’ve drawn the hatred of rabid conspiracists.

            The rest of your post is just fussing and fuming about people you hate.

            All your posts give the impression that you have decided whom you hate, and all your conclusions follow from that.

            But somehow, you have no animus toward Lee Harvey Oswald.

          • By page 198, the dam begins to crack. Ruby starts by saying that Lee Harvey Oswald isn’t guilty of killing President Kennedy, but that he, Jack Ruby, is.

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=40#relPageId=208

            Context, Rob, context. He’s lamenting that, in some people’s eyes, he (Jack Ruby) is guilty.

            He goes on to say an organization was involved and that General Walker was one of its leading men. And also remarks because of what he (Ruby) did, other people’s lives are now in danger.

            Yes, the Birch Society. And the lives he thinks are in danger are the Jews, whom he thinks are being blamed for the assassination.

            Remember, he saw the anti-Kennedy ad in the Dallas Morning News with a Jewish name signed to it.

    • At least McBride has the courage to ask the questions.

      Unfortunately, conspiracy types “ask questions” and then pretend that the “questions” prove conspiracy.

      But unless you have an alternative answer, supported by the evidence, you have nothing.

      • “But unless you have an alternative answer, supported by the evidence, you have nothing.”~McAdams

        We have supplied a literal penumbra of evidence countering your nonsense, but you pretend to never grasp any of it.

        We understand that is a propagandist’s job, and you would have nothing to do if you didn’t keep making the same tired spurious rhetorical commentary here. But it is futile “professor” you aren’t convincing anyone but your comrade shills.
        \\][//

      • Bill Binnie says:

        I agree that it is silly to think that conspirators had preplanned the Tippit Killing to advance their sinister aims- I agree 1000% percent- It is like when the 9.11 folks say a missile hit the Pentagon and then you ask them to explain where did the plane and all its passengers disappear to? What seems apparent is that things went very wrong for the conspirators at some point around Noon- A conspiracy to frame LHO as a Patsy MUST involve liquidation of the patsy well before the assassination- The fact is that LHO was on the 1st or 2nd floor after 12.20PM blows big holes in things. Clearly he had no intention of killing JFK who was due to pass by anytime after 12.15- And it is a fact that by 12.31 PM that LHO was on the 1 st Floor and was seen by multiple witnesses. Pretty fleet footed patsy- As a researcher who ascribes to the LHO as unwitting conspirator and pre designed Patsy theory, it seems clear to me that things came apart for the Conspirators and they engaged in a series of spontaneous acts after the presidents execution, in order to put Humpty Dumpty back together again- A Police Car passes the rooming house and waits- A Policeman is killed by people who don’t look like LHO and his wallet is dropped- A 20 man team storms a remote Theatre because a sneaky man doesn’t buy a ticket- Police yell out “Kill the President, Will you” when they are there because of the Tippit Killing and Mr Patsy yells out repeatedly that he is not resisting arrest- And LHOs killer is waiting at the Police Station when LHO is led around and is able to correct official information about a man he doesn’t know- The Conspirators did many bizarre things that COULD not have been part of the plan- But all of these bizarre things happened, and how any intelligent person in the 21 st century reads the litany of damning facts and still sees a LN commie killer is beyond reason-

        • it seems clear to me that things came apart for the Conspirators and they engaged in a series of spontaneous acts after the presidents execution, in order to put Humpty Dumpty back together again-

          So somehow they had spent hills ready to drop at the scene to implicate Oswald.

          And they had Oswald’s gun, ready to plant on him at the Texas Theater.

          And a bunch of officers were ready to lie to claim he resisted arrest, and even tried to shoot a cop.

          And a bunch of witnesses were lined up to identify Oswald as the man who shot Tippit.

          But no, you can’t believe that.

          You have to believe that they improvised all that within an hour or so.

          • Paulf says:

            John, somewhere up the thread you mocked someone for asking questions, now you are asking silly questions as a way of allegedly disproving someone’s point.

            You are certainly entitled to question, but if you were the least bit sincere you would at least try to maintain a consistent facade. But you you just naysay whatever anybody says, like John Cleese in Monty Pyton’s argument clinic sketch.

            If you were the least bit sincere, or knew anything about crime investigations, you’d have to admit that whether or not Oswald killed Tippet, the evidence is contradictory and the investigation was horribly botched. That doesn’t mean necessarily that he didn’t do it, but the facts certainly call into question any kind of smug certainty.

          • Bill Binnie says:

            JMC- So somehow they had spent hills ready to drop at the scene to implicate Oswald.
            And they had Oswald’s gun, ready to plant on him at the Texas Theater.
            And a bunch of officers were ready to lie to claim he resisted arrest, and even tried to shoot a cop.
            And a bunch of witnesses were lined up to identify Oswald as the man who shot Tippit.
            But no, you can’t believe that.
            You have to believe that they improvised all that within an hour or so.

            BB- You almost entirely mischaracterize what I think and write- Lets try this in the form of a Pop Quiz and see how this goes- What I said is that a sequence of bizarre things starting happening as soon as parts of JFKs shattered skull began hitting the pavement- I would rate the following as 8 to 10 on a 1-10 scale- How would you rate them by the same scale? As in an academic setting, the responder doesn’t rephrase the question or ignore three quarters of them- The responder simply provides a response in the required format- Bizarre Post Assassination events: 1- Three witness provide very uneven and disputed testimony about being one floor below the assassin and hear things that sound like a gun being fired- These three men don’t go to sixth floor to check it out- They don’t flee and hide from the gunman- They run to the opposite end of the floor and take in the human commotion in the Railroad Yard- How Bizarre is that? A handful of witnesses are at the Tippit murder scene. Only one of them provides a description that might be consistent with LHO- How bizarre is that? Tippit doesn’t reply to repeated calls from dispatch after 1.03PM. This is a significant breach of protocol- How bizarre is that ? Tens of thousands of Dallas men fit the description broadcast by the DPD. There is no evidence that any men were pulled over and questioned except LHO by Tippit-How Bizarre is that? A simple man like LHO has three working wallets and more than a dozen different form of ID for him and his alias in them- How Bizarre is that? A Police car stops in front of the LHO rooming house a half hour after the JKK killing and it waits a little while before leaving- How bizarre is that? Why would 20+ law enforcement people show up to investigate a man who entered a theatre w/o paying? How bizarre is that? If the Police were ostensibly there in pursuit of a potential cop killer, why would some of them call out, “Kill the President, Will you?” How bizarre is that. We can pretend that Ruby didn’t speak to Kantor but we have footage of him correcting Wade about LHO and the FPFCC- Since Ruby and LHO didn’t know each other, how bizarre is that? If all of this is just wild eyed buff constructions, that would be an interesting observation- I look forward to your quiz results- Bonne Chance!

          • John, somewhere up the thread you mocked someone for asking questions, now you are asking silly questions as a way of allegedly disproving someone’s point.

            The “questions” are just logical implications from what the conspiracists here are claiming.

            If you propound a theory, you need to embrace everything that necessarily follows from your theory. Else, you have no reason believing the theory.

            whether or not Oswald killed Tippet, the evidence is contradictory and the investigation was horribly botched.

            No, it wasn’t. You folks nitpick stuff that has nothing to do with Oswald’s guilt (like whether Hill admitted to calling in “automatic” hulls), and somehow think that impeaches the real evidence against Oswald.

            Do you really believe the gun was planted on Oswald in the Texas Theater?

            That people who said Oswald tried to shoot McDonald are liars?

          • Most of the stuff you mention is not bizarre, and/or not even true.

            But let me deal with a few things:

            Why would 20+ law enforcement people show up to investigate a man who entered a theatre w/o paying?

            The man fit the description of the Tippit killer.

            “Kill the President, Will you?” How bizarre is that.

            Assuming that happened, because people connected the Tippit shooting with the JFK shooting. The didn’t believe the two so close together could be a mere coincidence.

            We can pretend that Ruby didn’t speak to Kantor but we have footage of him correcting Wade about LHO and the FPFCC- Since Ruby and LHO didn’t know each other, how bizarre is that?

            A bunch of people in the news conference corrected Wade:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cuba2.rm

            That information had been broadcast before 4:00 p.m., Central time.

          • Rob H says:

            John,

            You’ll have to explain why in the Warren Commission Report, Helen Markham is described as having made a positive ID of Oswald.

            Her testimony is laughable. First, she said she couldn’t identify Oswald by his face, but by his clothes. Then she contradicts herself by saying she didn’t identify Oswald by his clothes, but by his face.

            Suffice to say, the Warren Commission’s description of Markham’s identification of Oswald is a Sheer Lie.

            Yet another damning impeachment against the Commission’s credibility.

        • Bill Binnie says:

          EXTRA CREDIT: Why does Memorial Hospital think that Officer Tippit arrived there at 1.16 DOA? How bizarre is that?

          • Let me guess: they knew Tippit was going to be shot, and jumped the gun.

            The plans of The Conspiracy leaked out and made it to Methodist Hospital.

          • “Do you really believe the gun was planted on Oswald in the Texas Theater?
            That people who said Oswald tried to shoot McDonald are liars?”~McAdams

            YES! Absolutely. How many times do you have to read this???
            The people who said Oswald tried to shoot McDonald are liars.
            \\][//

      • Rob H says:

        Provide some examples with citations, please.

        • Bill Binnie says:

          Hi JMC- We made some progress and I have to admit that when a cooler head looks at a point of fact I can see where Researchers will over reach- But as you say above, MOST of the “stuff”
          Aka “demonstrable fact” has a reasonable explanation or is tainted by conflicting data- SOME does not fall in this category and is bizarre and deserves deeper exploration- Specifically why the Hospital thinks Tippit arrived DOA at 1.16 PM- This makes it impossible to maintain that LHO was the killer- So you flippantly throw this one back as inconsequential- That’s when people reasonably assume that the WC and its defenders have an alternate agenda- Yours is not behavior one would see from a legitimate seeker of the truth and becomes just as myopic and one dimensional as most shrill “Buff” –

          • First, post a link to the primary source showing Tippit arrived at 1:16.

            I had not heard this, and am wondering whether it is true. (Not that he arrived at 1:16, but whether anything actually says this.)

            Secondly, DPD radio reported the shooting at 1:16. I would not have happened more than a minute or so before that.

            That’s the most solid way of establishing a timeline.

          • Bill Binnie says:

            The supplementary offense report typed up by DPD officers Bardin and
            Davenport listed the time of 1:15 as the time that Dr Richard Liquori
            pronounced Officer JD Tippit dead. Bardin and Davenport were in
            their squad car when they saw the ambulance carrying Tippit going to
            Methodist hospital. Unfortunately, like every aspect of this conundrum, there is reason to believe the DOA at Methodist could also be 1.22 to 1.28- What a strange descent into the rabbit hole-

          • The supplementary offense report typed up by DPD officers Bardin and Davenport listed the time of 1:15 as the time that Dr Richard Liquori pronounced Officer JD Tippit dead. Bardin and Davenport were in their squad car when they saw the ambulance carrying Tippit going to Methodist hospital.

            Well thanks for supplying the source.

            In another post, I showed that the ambulance was asking the address of the Tippit shooting at 1:19. So they had to have picked up Tippit after that.

            Unfortunately, like every aspect of this conundrum, there is reason to believe the DOA at Methodist could also be 1.22 to 1.28- What a strange descent into the rabbit hole-

            It’s not a rabbit hole if you go with the most reliable sources. But conspiracy books tend to downplay those in order to create “problems” in the evidence trail.

  20. leslie sharp says:

    I’ve no idea how to weave this into a comment to pass muster, but I hope anyone who appreciated John Kennedy’s humor will ‘get it’.

  21. Bogman says:

    For some good early debate on assassination that includes some excellent analysis from Pulitzer-prize winning reporter Sylvan Fox on the Tippit case, check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W3fxghrkQM The Tippit discussion starts around 58 minutes in.

    One of Fox’s key points:

    o No other patrolman stopped a man fitting the generic description that was distributed in all of Dallas after the assassination (Fox read all the radio logs for the day)

    • That was an interesting interview/debate with Sylvan Fox. That lawyer was a McAdams clone there debating him. Same arrogant manner, stepping on Mr Fox’s answers to his questions before Fox could get two words out of his mouth.
      The driving assumption of all three participants that Oswald actually shot the President wouldn’t fly so easily in this era, with so much more revealed.

      But Fox made some good beginning critiques of the Warren Commission Report by pointing out that the Report is incongruent with the evidence in the 26 volumes it supposedly condensed into that report.
      That was the same thing that motivated Garrison to look into the assassination, the fact that the Report does not accurately reflect what the evidence cited in the other volumes contains.

      In my considered opinion the ‘first’ contender for making a solid case against the WCR, Mark Lane comes out on top of Fox.
      \\][//

      • Bogman says:

        Thanks for listening to the recording and your comment, Willy.

        I think Fox’s “Unanswered Questions” actually pre-dates Mark Lane’s “Rush” by a few months.

        As a journalist, he was pretty courageous at a time when no paper would even question the WR (wait a tic, that’s still the case!).

        I would’ve loved to talk to Mr. Fox after all the revelations that have been revealed since his book to get his current opinion. He died in 2007 and, big surprise, his NY Times obit doesn’t even mention his JFK book.

      • Bogman says:

        I wanted to add that Fox essentially says the WR is useless because:

        o There is no cross-examination, the basic foundation of the American justice system’s guiding principles to get to the truth. On the radio show, Fox said Fritz should’ve been had an extensive cross as well as many others in the DPD that day.

        o The WR makes broad psychological assertions regarding Oswald without ever consulting a mental health professional. Where’s cert-happy Photon when you need him?

      • Bogman says:

        One more:

        Fox also says the FBI should’ve known Oswald was a provocative, dangerous individual and had him on the security watch list. What he couldn’t know is that the CIA’s memo to MC ensure he was removed from the FBI’s list six weeks prior to the assassination.

        And that is the point I make to the LNers all the time — Oswald actions would’ve drawn more attention to him by the authorities than almost any single individual you could think of from that era.

        • And that is the point I make to the LNers all the time — Oswald actions would’ve drawn more attention to him by the authorities than almost any single individual you could think of from that era.

          The reason you think that way is that none of the other individuals went on to shoot the president.

          Thus people ignore and know little about the various odd folks, leftists, Klansmen, crazies, and so on who came to the attention of authorities.

          Hosty, IIRC, had about 30 people and groups in Dallas he was supposed to keep tabs on. Most right wing. So the idea that Oswald was supposed to stand out is something easy to believe after Nov. 22, 1963.

          But the issue is whether he would have stood out so clearly before that.

          • Paulf says:

            How many Marines defected to the enemy and came back to live in the US?

            That’s the same thing as being a run of the mill dissident? Pleasssssse…

          • How many Marines defected to the enemy and came back to live in the US?

            That’s the same thing as being a run of the mill dissident? Pleasssssse…

            Conspiracy books certainly won’t tell you about this:

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/defector.htm

          • DB says:

            Unfortunately we can not use any evidence the CIA has provided in this case as they already obstructed justice. They disqualified themselves so that is on them.

            I do agree with the other poster that it is very unique LHO defected with U2 experience and came back to the US without much of an issue. Its pretty clear he was at least being watched after by intelligence and probably used for some sort of purpose and / or to their benefit. Otherwise why wouldn’t they have arrested him? makes zero sense unless of course he was used for their benefit.

  22. Bill Simpich says:

    Bill Pierce,

    Thanks for your post. Although we don’t agree, this is the kind of discussion I wanted to facilitate. I’m convinced Hill is a liar, I’m not convinced we know the whole Tippit story. Here’s a couple “I think” thoughts. This is not yet a theory, just mulling it over…

    I think the Tippit story is about what happens when a plan is overtaken by unseen events.

    I think that after JFK was shot, Oswald was supposed to die moments later at the scene. The gun is found – the shells are found – case closed.

    I think what happened is that Marrion Baker unexpectedly came on the scene. If he saw a gun in the window – and he might have – I’m not convinced it was ever fired. But, in any case, he came on the scene like gangbusters. Within seconds. And he confronted Oswald with his gun while he had Truly in tow.

    I don’t think Baker was part of any scheme. I think Truly might have been. Again, in any case, this caused disruption. I think Oswald left the scene in the middle of that disruption. I don’t think that was supposed to happen.

    Now the planners have lost control of Oswald. I think Oswald went to the rooming house and straight to the theater without seeing Tippit, to meet a contact he was supposed to meet in case of any emergency. I’m not even 100% convinced that was him at the rooming house, Burroughs’ siting of him is a little after 1 pm – not contradicted by his WC testimony, sorry John. Jack Davis sees him at about 1:15. He’s going from seat to seat.

    The dispatcher called Tippit to go to Oak Cliff. I am more suspicious of the dispatcher than I am of Tippit. Tippit could have been a fallguy himself – but consciously looking for Oswald.

    Oswald crosses the bridge into Oak Cliff while Tippit is on the side of the road. At some point, Tippit realizes he missed him…he stops a car looking for LHO, runs into Top Ten Records and uses their phone, a block from Texas Theatre…

    • Burroughs’ siting of him is a little after 1 pm – not contradicted by his WC testimony, sorry John.

      You are one of the very few people who would read Burroughs’ testimony that way. Most conspiracy people just ignore it.

      But you need to deal with Brewer and Postal.

      Brewer saw Oswald slink into the entrance way of his story after he had heard news of the Tippit shooting on the radio, and while cop cars were roaring up and down Jefferson.

      Postal, likewise, was out on Jefferson watching the cop cars roar by when Oswald slipped into the theater.

      Want to call them liars?

      • Roy W Kornbluth says:

        Johnnie Brewer saw an LHO impersonator duck into Texas Theater, most likely Larry Crafard, Jack Ruby’s brand-new live-in handyman. LC went to the balcony. He was hustled out the BACK door during the LHO hubbub, seen by some in that back alley. Then LC was let go and he reappeared shortly after 2:00 in the parking lot of a Mexican restaurant, seen by a mechanic who told Wes Wise about it. The mechanic got the license plate number. Problem is: it was the plate for a car owned by Carl Mather, which was NOT the red Falcon checking out traffic from the parking lot.

        • Bill Simpich says:

          I agree with you. I think the dark center of the JFK case is the repeated impersonation of Oswald. Between that and the phonied up firearms evidence in a crime of this magnitude, it’s not an easy matter.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Yes, when Ruth Paine saw a picture of Larry Crafard, she thought it was her sometime housemate Lee Oswald.

  23. Bill Simpich says:

    So, to conclude my mulling over all this, not ready to call it a theory…you suggested it was

    -Plan one: have a cop (Tippit) kill Oswald somewhere in Oak Cliff.

    In response, would say at least capture Oswald, so someone else could kill him. Maybe Tippit was planning to kill him, maybe not

    -Plan two: have someone kill a cop (Tippit) for the purpose of framing Oswald and leading police to the Texas Theater where the conspirators plainly knew Oswald was located.

    In response, yes, Tippit was killed to frame Oswald. Tippit stopped his car – maybe because he saw someone who looked like Oswald, maybe another distraction. There are lots of LHO doubles in this case. It’s not accidental, there’s just too many powerful sightings. There’s a reason why. We remain confused to this day. It’s a powerful tool.

    I think the killing of Tippit was opportunistic. The wallet was held as a prop to be used at some point, now was the time to use it.

    It was given by an “unknown party” to Kenneth Croy, a “bad-reputation” cop who I think may have shielded Ruby’s body in the moments before he killed Oswald. Croy gave it to his boss, who gave it to Westbrook. The witnesses, including John M’s favorite Ted Callaway, says the wallet was never on the ground near Tippit.

    -Plan three: have cops kill Oswald at the theater.

    My response: An Oswald double gets Johnny Brewer’s attention, then runs past the ticket-taker and into the balcony. The idea? Draw the cops. Works like a charm. Hill, Bentley, all the bad guys storm the balcony, hoping Oswald is there. Miscommunication again. Oswald throws a punch to create a diversion, manages to survive.

    -Plan four: have Ruby kill Oswald at police HQ.

    My response: Late, better than never. Horn beeps, time to shoot. TV lights in the eyes of LHO’s custodians, perfect moment to strike. If that hadn’t worked, LHO would have died days later.

    Yes, a great screenplay, especially with the phony evidence. But that’s how assassinations are done. You plan to get away with it. Except for the sacrificial Ruby, they did.

    • Mr Simpich

      I like your “mulling over” sketch. It sounds good to me. You have all the ducks in a row. And you set the pacing well.

      Good job!
      \\][//

    • Roy W Kornbluth says:

      Bill,
      Above in your Plan Two, “I think the killing of Tippit was opportunistic.” Only after the fact. I believe that, most likely, hotheadS on a hair-trigger simply panicked. JDT was moving out of his car and his reptile-brained killers figured, “Better get the drop on him.” Acquilla Clemons and the Davis sisters saw two men leaving the scene in different directions after the shooting. Almost certainly the older, heavier one with dark bushy hair was Roscoe Anthony White. The slightly LHO looking one was probably Larry Crafard; next candidate in line is Billy Seymour (with the ex-Cuban and rogue CIA connections), who could look almost exactly LHO with a little hair lightening. Two other potential LHO lookalikes in the area John Thomas Masen and Edwin Walker’s boyfriend Robert A. Surrey.

      I imagine that Tippit and his killers/accomplices got into an argument that started with “Whyntcha do yer ‘job’ and pick up the sap?!” It quickly escalated with cowards’ adrenaline. As Jack used to like to quote the Old Testament, ” The wicked flee (or fire off their boomsticks) when no one pursueth (or threateneth).”

      • Roy W Kornbluth says:

        Jack Ruby himself is a candidate for the heavier gunman with dark bushy hair. He had plenty of time to reach Oak Cliff at 1:06-9 after his appointment behind the stockade fence in Dealey Plaza at 12:31. JR was a busy boy that weekend.

  24. Ronnie Wayne says:

    “I think Truly might have been (involved)” Thank you again. Me too. Not as a sinister accomplice with real beforehand knowledge.
    But someone told what to do by superiors, like hire LHO. Then again I think the CIA had access to the Texas School Book Depository through connections with owner Harold Byrd or their interest in school books and American’s Thought’s via Operation Mockingbird.
    I’ve read Truly never would discuss the subject with his family.
    I guess what I’m saying here is while there is no proof it is easy to conceive of a CIA “Textbook” operation in the TSBD. With their
    history of “front” operations through “legitimate” businesses it is not a stretch that a person or two in the TSBD was an asset.
    I know, just my imagination runnin away with me.

  25. Ronnie Wayne says:

    As this thread is regarding Tippit and I don’t know where else to post it… I’ve been re reading an old Book by Walt Brown, Treachery In Dallas. He mentions four of Ruby’s employee’s testifying he knew Oswald. His source are Commission Exhibits.
    Ruby was unmarried and “lived” his “business” so to speak. Who would know him better?

  26. Jordan says:

    Mr. Simpich, from your Op-Ed News piece you state:

    4. All of the above evidentiary items came from a rifle, No. C-2766, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

    When the Italian government sold off millions of Mannlicher rifles in 1958, a handful of major companies bought them up. One of them, International Firearms Limited in Montreal, was run by William Sucher.

    From http://jfklancer.com/carcano_twin.html:

    1964

    7 Jan; John V. Sipes (deputy director, Office of munitions control, dep. of State) and John D. Depenbrock (chief, arms traffic division) report to the FBI the information received from an “unconfirmed reliabile source, who is an officer in a small arms surplus company.”

    The source “advised the office on Dec. 18” he was in possession of “firm evidence” the ammo used in the assassination of JFK was “imported by William Sucher, owner of the International Firearms, Montreal, Canada.” This was ammo manufactured in US and “sold to Greece in 1952 or 1953, and re-imported in Canada after 1st February 1962.” So the re-selling into the US had been “illegal,” states the source.

    If I understand this correctly, the re-selling of the ammo was an illegal act, and the FBI was informed of such, however no action appears to have been taken to expand this area of investigation.

    I would expect it would have led to an investigation of other “export/import” activities involving Empire Wholesale and Century International Arms in particular.

    Such an investigation would likely have resulted in a “wrongful death” determination in my opinion, however the failure to engage such an investigation allowed this same route to be used repeatedly, including the Contra-Arms/Oliver North matters.

    Why did such a relevent legal matter simply disappear…? Was it due to the CIA being heavily involved in the acquisition and distribution of “illegal” ammunition, and possibly the firearms involved as well…?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more