Tell me about the shooting of Office J.D. Tippit

220 comments

  1. Photon says:

    I guess the market for screenplays has dried up. Maybe this topic might move some books for Mr. McBride, but this effort came and went without much of an impact.
    I think it is despicable to link innocent people to the murder of anybody, but this individual has claimed that Tippit either shot JFK or was involved in an effort to murder Oswald. His claims for Tippit having PTSD are totally unsubstantiated , his claims for what Tippit’s 90 year old father ( who according to his daughter had a 2 year history of dementia at the time of the interview) said were never confirmed by the individual that Tippit’s father claimed made the statements in the first place-J D’s widow. And McBride never even tried to contact her for confirmation for TWO DECADES. At his COPA presentation in 2014 he claimed to be a journalist since 1960-when he was a 13 year old boy.

    • GM says:

      I think it is despicable to link innocent people to the murder of anybody, but this individual has claimed that Tippit either shot JFK or was involved in an effort to murder Oswald.

      It depends how you look at it Photon. I mean Lee Harvey Oswald never had a chance to clear his name, he was murdered before he stood trial. That fact never stopped people from saying they were certain that he was the lone assassin of President Kennedy. The Dallas Police Chief, Jesse Curry, said nobody could put Oswald in the sixth floor window of the TSBD with a rifle in his hands. Have you ever thought that Oswald might have been innocent?

    • Fearfaxer says:

      “I think it is despicable to link innocent people to the murder of anybody, but this individual has claimed that Tippit either shot JFK or was involved in an effort to murder Oswald.”

      It is the mark of a true phony that every time he tries to feign righteous indignation, his words ring hallow and cheap. Paul, Photon, whatever your real name, it is at moments like this that you come across as sounding hopelessly insincere and dishonest. I don’t believe you’re outraged by this. From what I know of you from your postings on this website. I don’t believe you’re capable of any honest emotion at all.

    • “I guess the market for screenplays has dried up. Maybe this topic might move some books for Mr. McBride…”~Photon

      Notice that Dr Photon always suspects a monetary motive for anyone promoting the anti-Warren Report side of these arguments.

      I would interpret this as actually being Dr Photon’s motivation projected onto others. I see this as another of many indications that Dr Photon is a paid propagandist for the State.
      \\][//

  2. Oswald was in the Texas Theater at the time Tippit was killed.

    None of the so-called ‘witnesses’ who supposedly ID’d Oswald actually did. Many of these witnesses had obviously been coached. And they still went off script during official questioning.

    The bullets taken from Tippit could not be tied to the pistol that Oswald is said to have when arrested at the theater.

    All of this has been addressed in other threads here.
    \\][//

    • The bullets taken from Tippit could not be tied to the pistol that Oswald is said to have when arrested at the theater.

      But the spent cartridges could be, to the exclusion of all other weapons.

      • “But the spent cartridges could be, to the exclusion of all other weapons.”~McAdams

        The question remains. who actually had that revolver before the scuffle in the theater? It is highly likely that the entire scuffle scene was staged to plant that pistol on Oswald. Remember that gun could not be fired in the condition it was “found” in.

        You have a problem on the receiving end at the PO Box where both the Carcano rifle and the 38 SW pistol were sent. An insider that we have discussed before, who also “just happened to be at Oswald’s last interrogation, and who just happened to have a birds eye view just above the sniper at the south-west end of Dealey Plaza just at the entrance to the underpass on Commerce St. — that being the US Post Office Building of course.

        Then there is the issue of “Oswald’s Wallet” supposedly being found in the street near the Tippit killing. This to the rational mind is another plant.

        I contend that Oswald never had possession of the Carcano or the SW 38 revolver, nor the Hidell ID card. They were all props held by the perpetrators setting LHO as the patsy.
        \\][//

        • I contend that Oswald never had possession of the Carcano or the SW 38 revolver, nor the Hidell ID card. They were all props held by the perpetrators setting LHO as the patsy.

          So everything is faked. You said the same thing about the handwriting that ties Oswald to the Mexico City trip.

          Do you even understand how this reeks of desperation?

          • theNewDanger says:

            John McAdams

            January 18, 2016 at 10:46 am

            So everything is faked. You said the same thing about the handwriting that ties Oswald to the Mexico City trip.

            Do you even understand how this reeks of desperation?”

            Translation: “It’s all a coincidence. Stop thinking. Nothing to see here. Ooo look a rabbit hole. Right this way. If you dare to question the realities excluded from the evidence and conclusions, you are a desperate crackpot and/or drug addict.” © The insidious “academic” cynic

          • “According to Warren H. “Butch” Burroughs, the concession stand operator at the Texas Theater, Lee Harvey Oswald entered the theater sometime between 1:00 and 1:07 P.M., several minutes before Officer Tippit was slain seven blocks away.[428] If true, Butch Burroughs’s observation would eliminate Oswald as a candidate for Tippet’s murder. Perhaps for that reason, Burroughs was asked by a Warren Commission attorney the apparently straightforward question, “Did you see [Oswald] come in the theater?” and answered honestly, “No, sir; I didn’t.”[429] What someone reading this testimony would not know is that Butch Burroughs was unable to see anyone enter the theater from where he was standing at his concession stand, unless that person came into the area where he was working. As he explained to me in an interview, there was a partition between his concession stand and the front door. Someone could enter the theater, go directly up a flight of stairs to the balcony, and not be seen from the concession stand.[430] That, Burroughs said, is what Oswald apparently did. However, Burroughs still knew Oswald had come into the theater “between 1:00 and 1:07 P.M.” because he saw him inside the theater soon after that. As he told me, he sold popcorn to Oswald at 1:15 P.M.[431]—information that the Warren Commission did not solicit from him in his testimony. When Oswald bought his popcorn at 1:15 P.M., this was exactly the same time the Warren Report said Officer Tippit was being shot to death[432]—evidently by someone else.”~Jim Douglass – JFK and the Unspeakable
            \\][//

          • As he told me, he sold popcorn to Oswald at 1:15 P.M.[431]—information that the Warren Commission did not solicit from him in his testimony. When Oswald bought his popcorn at 1:15 P.M.,

            I explained this to you in another post, which I can’t find right now.

            Burroughs said nothing like this in his WC testimony. He said he didn’t see Oswald come in. And he said nothing about selling him popcorn at 1:15.

            The testimony of Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal clearly shows Oswald going into the theater much later.

            Postal, for example, was out on Jefferson watching cop cars roar by when Oswald slipped into the theater.

            Brewer also was hearing and seeing cop cars when Oswald ducked into the entrance way of his store.

          • David Regan says:

            According to the testimony of Julia Postal, who was selling tickets at the Texas Theatre on the 22nd, that, “just about the time we opened” she heard the sirens of police cars racing west on Jefferson Boulevard, away from the scene of the Tippit murder, and then she saw Oswald duck into the theatre, “when the sirens went by he had a panicked look on his face, and he ducked in.” She had previously confirmed that on this day they opened at 12:45 PM. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41&relPageId=19

          • She had previously confirmed that on this day they opened at 12:45 PM. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41&relPageId=19

            She was clear in her testimony that Oswald ducked into the theater very shortly before Brewer, having followed Oswald, came up to her.

            And there would not have been a lot of cop cards speeding up and down Jefferson until after the Tippit shooting.

            It’s also clear that she called the cops immediately after Brewer talked to her.

            That doesn’t not work for any scenario that puts Oswald in the theater before about 1:40.

        • I contend that Oswald never had possession of the Carcano or the SW 38 revolver, nor the Hidell ID card. They were all props held by the perpetrators setting LHO as the patsy.

          But of course, you see each and every piece of evidence against Oswald as faked, forged or planted.

      • Officer Jerry Hill’s dispatch @ 1:40 PM/550-2

        “Shells at the scene indicate the suspect is armed with a .38 automatic rather than a pistol.”

        https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=648
        \\][//

        • “Shells at the scene indicate the suspect is armed with a .38 automatic rather than a pistol.”

          Hill explained to Dale Myers:

          I assumed it was an automatic simply because we had found all the hulls in one little general area. . . . If you find a cluster of shells—say a foot or foot and a half in diameter on the ground—you have to assume that they were fired from an automatic, because a revolver does not eject shells. You have to remove the shells. And so, that’s why I say, when we found the cluster of shells, we assumed we were looking for a man armed with an automatic.

          Hill said the same thing to “Frontline.”

          Then there is the fact that multiple witnesses—Domingo Benavides, Virginia Davis, Barbara Jeanette Davis, Acquilla Clemons, Helen Markham—saw the shooter manually ejecting spent cartridges from his gun.

          This would not happen with an automatic.

          • Tom S. says:

            Dr. McAdams,
            Do you endorse all of Hill’s explanation to Dale Myers, or is your endorsement selective?
            You’ve chosen to present Hill explaining to Myers. It seems not worth the risk because Hill’s
            explanation to Myers certainly increases doubts already existing, as to reliability of Hill’s
            statements and conduct on November 22, through the period of the Warren investigation.

            https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/cFbL_8suZHc
            A City of Two Tales

            When, in 1986, DPD Sgt. Gerald Hill admitted that it was he who radioed at
            1:41pm, on Nov. 22, 1963,
            “The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38
            rather than a pistol” (DPD radio log tapes & CE 705 p28),
            he couched his admission in terms which turned it into a virtual confession of
            conspiracy to cover-up before the Warren Commission, in 1964. In effect, he
            implied that he, fellow officers Joe M. Poe & Det. James Leavelle, & witnesses
            Domingo Benavides & Sam Guinyard fed the WC an erroneous story re the handling
            of the empty shells at the Tippit murder scene. The enterprising Hill took it
            upon himself to rewrite all their roles, with help from Benavides. Why?….
            -Don Willis – 2001

          • Mr McAdams,

            I do not know if you realize it or not, but anyone vaguely familiar with firearms and ammunition would know instantly the difference between a .38 special and a .38 automatic round.
            Especially as the DPD used .38 special pistols as standard issue.

            The casing of a .38 is practically twice as long as a .38 auto casing.

            That someone of Jerry Hill’s experience would “mistake” a .38 sp with a .38 auto is simply preposterous.
            \\][//

          • he couched his admission in terms which turned it into a virtual confession of
            conspiracy to cover-up before the Warren Commission, in 1964.

            And just how is that?

        • That someone of Jerry Hill’s experience would “mistake” a .38 sp with a .38 auto is simply preposterous.

          OK, so you think he was lying.

          How many liars does this get you up to to get Oswald off the hook? A few hundred by now?

          And I suppose all the witnesses who saw Oswald manually emptying spent cartridges from the revolver were lying too.

      • Representative BOGGS. Are you able to match the bullet with the cartridge case?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not possible.
        Representative BOGGS. So that while you can establish the fact that the cartridge case, the four that we have, were fired in that gun–
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
        Representative BOGGS. You cannot establish the fact that the bullets were fired in that gun?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
        http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/cunningham2.htm
        \\][//

        • Nice that you omitted the testimony that said that the bullets would not be expected to match, given that the pistol fired a .38 Special slug through a barrel that was bored for a .38.

          The slightly undersized slugs did not pick up a consistent set of striations.

          • McAdams,

            I give the link so anyone here can read the entire testimony to see if I have given a section out of context.

            Your addition does not change the context of my quotes.

            You have the problems of the slugs being impossible to match to a specific weapon. You have also been offered adequate information to show that the casings are in question and no authentic chain of custody can be claimed for them.

            Just like CE399 you are left holding an empty bag, presuming evidence that simply is nonexistent.

            The most very special aspect of this whole situation is that this whole thing has been gone through in detail on JFKfacts previously at least once since I have been here.

            This continuous relitigation is a carousel that must be seen as a purposeful distraction agenda by now.
            \\][//

          • You have the problems of the slugs being impossible to match to a specific weapon. You have also been offered adequate information to show that the casings are in question and no authentic chain of custody can be claimed for them.

            That’s not true. A solid chain of custody exists for all of the ones recovered.

            From my book:

            Officer J. M. Poe. Poe claimed he initialed the cartridges, but was unable to locate his initials when shown the cartridges by the FBI, and later by the Warren Commission.110 . . . In fact, however, Poe gave the hulls to Pete Barnes of the Identification Bureau. Barnes marked them and was able to identify his marks later.113

            The spent cartridges would therefore have been admissible in a Lee Oswald murder trial. Marking evidence is merely one way of establishing the chain of evidence. Another is to simply have every officer who handled it testify to their place in the chain of possession.114

            It’s also the case that another spent cartridge was received by Captain G. M. Doughty and yet another by Detective C. N. Dhority. Both men marked them and identified their marks.115 These two cartridges would have been quite sufficient to tie Oswald’s revolver to the murder scene.

        • 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.

          http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-Warren-Commission-by-Bill-Simpich-Assassination_Evidence_JFK_JFK-Assassination-141119-717.html

          \\][//

          • In other words, Cunningham called Hill a liar.

            Or simply mistaken.

            Why would Hill lie about that?

            Oswald clearly tried to shoot Nick McDonald, and the hammer of Oswald’s pistol hit the web of flesh between McDonald’s thumb and forefinger.

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

            It wasn’t true “professor”, Cunningham testified this was not the case. So now you come up with this story about the hammer of the gun hitting McDonald in the hand. That does not negate the lie in Hill’s report, now does it?

            How far do you want to push your twaddle on this incident Mister McAdams?
            \\][//

          • It wasn’t true “professor”, Cunningham testified this was not the case. So now you come up with this story about the hammer of the gun hitting McDonald in the hand. That does not negate the lie in Hill’s report, now does it?

            And you know it was a lie, rather than merely a mistake, how?

            BTW, the sources are unclear as to exactly why the pistol did not fire. McDonald, in some testimony gave the testimony I recounted.

            http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2014/oct/23/city-posthumously-honors-office-who-arrested-oswal/

            But there is the normal amount of messiness in the witness testimony.

            But it’s quite clear that Oswald had a pistol and pulled it on McDonald.

          • Tom S. says:

            Bill Simpich submitted a comment yesterday that is still pending until he responds to a options I
            offered to make the content of his comment compatible with Jfkfacts.org format limitations.

            In the meantime, I see no reason to keep readers from the benefit of Mr. Simpich’s presentation details
            and conclusions.:

            Bill Simpich commented on January 19, 2016:

            Jerry Hill lied over and over again – that is at the heart of the Tippit shooting.
            To review the documents this analysis is based on, see http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-Warren-Commission-by-Bill-Simpich-Assassination_Evidence_JFK_JFK-Assassination-141119-717.html

            I would appreciate thoughtful comments, I spent a lot of time writing it as a rebuttal of Warren Commission advocate David Belin’s main arguments. I believe you will find the evidence is reliable…..

            I hope to be hear from Bill soon and assist him in presenting the entirety of his actual comment here,
            in the meantime, the link to his well documented article related to this topic is displayed in the excerpt, above.

          • “But it’s quite clear that Oswald had a pistol and pulled it on McDonald.”~McAdams

            No it is NOT quite clear “professor”:

            Alpin “heard the pistol snap”…but both the officer and Oswald were holding the gun when the pistol “snapped”.

            Oswald was not in the isle with a gun in his hand as Gibson claims, the scuffle took place at the seat where Oswald was sitting. Gibson was at the entrance to the lobby and the seating area eating a hotdog watching this incident. The cops had Oswald surrounded at the seat he was sitting in during the scuffle. Gibson had no obstructed view of the incident from his vantage point.
            So it is far from “clear” that Oswald pulled the gun, and more than likely that the gun was in possession of the police when they entered the theater, with intent to plant the pistol on Oswald.
            \\][//

          • DB says:

            Thanks for posting the Bill Simpich article. It still amazes me how the physical evidence against LHO is such a debacle. When you read such an article it makes it clear why LHO had to die. No way could all these errors see a courtroom, not just for cover up purposes but for sheer LE ineptitude.

            If would be interesting to see how much of the alleged evidence became evidence after LHO died.

      • The shells found at the scene were marked by Officer JM Poe, but when
        Poe was shown the shells during his testimony before the WC, he would
        not identify them as the ones he initialled.
        In fact, no one–not Poe, Sgt. Hill, the Davises or Domingo
        Benevides—would identify the shells shown to them as the same ones
        they found at the Tippit murder scene.

        When the Dallas Police were ordered to turn over their evidence to the
        FBI, they turned over one shell and only after the FBI inquired to the
        whereabouts of the remaining shells were three shells “found” in a
        desk drawer at Police Headquarters.

        So the “chain of possession” was broken.
        http://alt.conspiracy.jfk.narkive.com/qUlmo5E4/the-smoking-gun-in-the-tippit-murder-that-exonerates-oswald#
        . . . . .
        Mr. BALL.Now I have here a package from the lab. Q-74 to Q-77. Would you look those over and see if there is any identification on there by you to indicate that those were the hulls given to you by Benavides?
        Mr. POE. I want to say these two are mine, but I couldn’t swear to it.
        Mr. BALL. Did you make a mark?
        Mr. POD. I can’t swear to it; no, sir.
        Mr. BALL. But there is a mark on two of these?
        Mr. POE. There is a mark. I believe I put on them, but I couldn’t swear to
        it. I couldn’t make them out any more.
        http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Poe.pdf
        \\][//

        • See my other post. Poe said he turned the two hulls (which he got from Benavides) over to Pete Barnes.

          Barnes said he got the two hulls from Poe, and that he marked them. And then he identified his mark.

          Benevides testified to giving two shells to an officer:

          Mr. BELIN – When you put these two shells that you found in this cigarette package, what did you do with them?

          Mr. BENAVIDES – I gave them to an officer.

          Mr. BELIN – That came out to the scene shortly after?

          Mr. BENAVIDES – Yes, sir.

          Mr. BELIN – Do you remember the name of the officer?

          Mr. BENAVIDES – No, sir; I didn’t even ask him. I just told him that this was the shells that he had fired, and I handed them to him. Seemed like he was a young guy, maybe 24.

          Mr. BELIN – How old would you say the man that you saw with gun was?

          Mr. BENAVIDES – I figured he was around 25.

        • “I hope to be hear from Bill soon and assist him in presenting the entirety of his actual comment here..”
          ~TomS

          I would be delighted to have Mr Simpich putting commentary to this thread. I relied a great deal on the article referenced, as leads to Jerry Hills culpability, and the issues of the shells and the SW .38 pistol.

          In my view Bill Simpich and James Douglas seem to provide the best evidence in the Tippit murder case. There are of course others worthy of mention, but this is not a cast list from me, just a short comment.
          \\][//

      • theNewDanger says:

        John McAdams

        January 17, 2016 at 10:09 pm

        The bullets taken from Tippit could not be tied to the pistol that Oswald is said to have when arrested at the theater.

        But the spent cartridges could be, to the exclusion of all other weapons.

        The presence of the weapon, cartridges, and bullets still aren’t clear from impeaching the premises that the bullets that went into Tippit were all accounted for by the evidence “collected”. If anything, the evidence impeaches the story claimed as unlikely to have occurred the way it is written in the record, not to mention the demonization of uncalled eye witnesses and their accounts of what they saw happen. With regard to the bullets and cartridges, please consider the possibility that 2+2 is not the same equation as 3+1 just because the answer is 4. From HSCA Volume VII, (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0194a.htm):

        “Of the four expended cartridge cases found at the scene of the Tippit murder, two were of Western Cartridge Co. Manufacture, two of Remington-Peters. The autopsy of Tippit, however, revealed three bullets of Western Cartridge Co. manufacture and one of Remington-Peters.”

        This isn’t buff stuff. It’s bad evidence. The HSCA refused to even speculate about it to produce a conclusion on the bullets. Just like the JFK murder, the Tippit murder remains unsolved to the exclusion of all other hypotheses by the government and its “official story” advocates.

        • “Of the four expended cartridge cases found at the scene of the Tippit murder, two were of Western Cartridge Co. Manufacture, two of Remington-Peters. The autopsy of Tippit, however, revealed three bullets of Western Cartridge Co. manufacture and one of Remington-Peters.”

          So one Remington Peters bullet was not recovered, and one WCC hull was not recovered.

          How do you think what you posted supports some conspiracy scenario?

          The spent hulls were matched to Oswald’s pistol to the exclusion of all other weapons.

          • theNewDanger says:

            John McAdams
            March 11, 2016 at 9:59 pm

            So one Remington Peters bullet was not recovered, and one WCC hull was not recovered.

            How do you think what you posted supports some conspiracy scenario?

            The spent hulls were matched to Oswald’s pistol to the exclusion of all other weapons.

            The bullets in Tippit are what matter. Ignore my posts if you can’t help but disinfo your way out of even addressing the issue at hand.

    • Oswald was in the Texas Theater at the time Tippit was killed.

      And your evidence for this?

      • “Oswald was in the Texas Theater at the time Tippit was killed.
        And your evidence for this?”~McAdams

        I have given my evidence for this, and you simply hand wave it with an ad hominem remark about James Douglas.

        Oswald was buying popcorn at the concession stand in the Texas Theater from Butch Bourroughs at 1:15 PM.
        This is the exact time that Tippit was murdered according to the official narrative.
        Unless there were two Oswald’s, then someone else had to have murdered officer Tippit.
        \\][//

        • You have ignored the fact that Burroughs radically changed his testimony between the time he testified to the WC, and the 80s he started telling the story of seeing Oswald enter the theater shortly after 1:00 p.m.

          • “You have ignored the fact that Burroughs radically changed his testimony between the time he testified to the WC, and the 80s he started telling the story of seeing Oswald enter the theater shortly after 1:00 p.m.”~McAdams

            Burroughs did not change his testimony. The interrogators for the Warren Commission simply did not establish a timeline. They did not ask Burroughs anything about what time these events occurred.

            That is in itself a suspicious lack of completeness of questioning. It is standard protocol in taking testimony to establish the timeframe of events. But this did not happen in the Burroughs questioning.

            You like to surmise and make guesses about things “professor”, why would you suppose that they did not establish a timeline for a time critical event like the Tippit killing?
            \\][//

          • Mr. BALL. And you later saw a struggle in the theatre between a man and some officers, didn’t you?

            Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes.

            Mr. BALL. Did you see that man come in the theatre?

            Mr. BURROUGHS. No, sir; I didn’t.

            Mr. BALL. Do you have any idea what you were doing when he came in?

            Mr. BURROUGHS. Well, I was—-I had a lot of stock candy to count and put in the candy case for the coming night, and if he had came around in front of the concession out there, I would have seen him, even though I was bent down, I would have seen him, but otherwise I think he sneaked up the stairs real fast.

          • McAdams,

            We have already been through this nonsense you keep pursuing here. Douglas did not claim that Burroughs SAW the person enter the theater, but he did HEAR someone come in. the first time he SAW Oswald was at 1:15 PM when he sold him popcorn.

            Remember this and stop going around in circles with your crap!
            \\][//

          • but he did HEAR someone come in. the first time he SAW Oswald was at 1:15 PM when he sold him popcorn.

            But he said nothing about seeing or hearing Oswald at any point before the cops arrived in his 1964 testimony.

            His 1980s statements simply aren’t consistent with his earlier testimony.

            And you have evaded the fact that the testimony of Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal establishes that Oswald entered the theater about 1:40 or so.

  3. Russ Tarby says:

    excellent work by Joe McBride!
    the Collins Radio connection continued post-murders:
    LHO’s widow, Marina Oswald, eventually married a Collins employee, Kenneth Porter.

    • the Collins Radio connection continued post-murders:
      LHO’s widow, Marina Oswald, eventually married a Collins employee, Kenneth Porter.

      Which means what?

      That the conspirators were running a dating service to see that all their fellow conspirators got hooked up and married?

    • Photon says:

      Collins radio equipment was considered top of the line gear for Amateur Radio operators in 1963-there were hundreds of users. Should they be considered part of the conspiracy?
      Porter worked for Collins? In what capacity? How? He was a carpenter. I don’t recall any transceivers or amplifiers being made of wood.
      Barry Goldwater used Collins gear for his Amateur Radio hobby. Does that mean he is guilty, too?

  4. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Nobody really knows who shot Tippit. Well, nobody that has ever told the truth about it. The killer got away. Oswald didn’t have time to do it.
    McBride’s book is convincing, beyond Tippit’s fathers story, that Tippit was stalking Oswald. If Oswald didn’t kill Tippit why was Tippit killed? For not killing Oswald? Or to intensify the hunt for Oswald and inspire further what ever cop found him to kill him for killing JFK, AND, a Dallas Cop.
    The Collins Radio stuff is intriguing and deep but possibly limited in how much more can be known.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      I can’t buy Tippit as a shooter. The shooter(s) used were professional/trained/experienced IMO. To my knowledge Oswald nor Tippit neither were recently practiced expert shots.

  5. Jerry says:

    Here’s a crazy video re Tippit that kinda makes sense is some ways….

  6. kennedy63 says:

    When all is said and done, the Tippit murder is a red herring. Because Tippit was killed within an hour of the JFK hit, there naturally would extend some connection were evidence was “discovered” that pointed to Oswald’s involvement. Oswald denied both shootings, despite repeated questioning by DPD officials, Postal Inspector, FBI, and Secret Service agents. The known phone call Oswald made may indicate Oswald was still acting under orders from his handlers, although his handler were non-responsive following his arrest at the theater. What I find most fascinating throughout the whole “Oswald as lone assassin” scenario is, that nothing is clear cut. There are WC supporting witnesses and contradicting witnesses of the “WC theory.” For those who support the WC findings, it should be, again, noted that the hand-picked august body of Johnson appointees, were NOT a court of law, so any findings could only be sanctioned “officially” by the government, the WC sponsor. Imagine that, if you will, Lone-nutter. Finally, there has been enough research into the JFK and Tippit murders, to conclude that the DPD was, at least, negligent in performing it’s duties in both cases. The FBI bears blaming, as well as the Secret Service, for the 50+ years of quagmire, muck, and mire, which obfuscates the whole truth of JFK’s murder, and the oddities of the JFK evidence base. Tippit, on the other hand, may have been executed by rogue DPD cops to precipitate the man-hunt for Oswald.

  7. Jordan says:

    Collins Radio was a huge part of the U.S. intelligence machine, and provided high-end receiving gear for all types of monitoring employed by the intel agencies as well as the military. Most of such equipment was pretty hush-hush stuff including the gear installed on the USS Pueblo which the North Koreans seized in 1968.

    They were also contracted to the U.S. Government to provide broadcast equipment from audio mixing consoles to multi-kilowatt Medium and Short-wave broadcast transmitters for agencies like the VoA/RFE etc.

    Their ties to CIA/MI/DI are clear, concise and largely self-explanatory….

  8. Bill Pierce says:

    For those who believe Oswald was innocent of Tippit’s murder, here’s what you get into.

    Regarding Oswald’s revolver:
    (1) Either Oswald had the revolver when arrested or he didn’t. If you say no, then four or five arresting cops were part of the tightly scripted conspiracy scenario or they all lied.
    (2) Supposedly Oswald admitted ownership of the gun. If you believe otherwise, then someone (Fritz?) invented the story. The story either had to be part of the script or coordinated with others who presumably planted the gun.
    (3) Either Oswald bought the gun or he didn’t. If someone else ordered it, another nameless person enters the conspiracy (well in advance of the assassination), and then someone had to plant the gun with the police.
    (4) Subject to memory, the gun (mailed to Oswald’s PO Box) was an S&W .38, rechambered for .38 Special. Did the plotters prearrange (in their incredibly detailed script) for the *real* murderer to drop shell casings that would lead to Oswald’s mail-order revolver or did the *real* murderer hand off the murder weapon to a Dallas cop who took it to the theater?

    Did the plotters lure Tippit to his death? How did the plotters know, in advance, that someone (Brewer) would lead cops to the theater? How many cops were involved? Did *innocent* Oswald make a deliberate decision to spend his afternoon watching a grade Z movie or was he trying to get off the street?

    And after you’ve attempted to explain this farfetched scenario that requires an impossible level of preplanning, coordination and clairvoyance (and an army of conspirators) . . . then try to explain how all the dirty cops and other unhinged lunatics who populated the City of Hate were able to persuade the Bethesda autopsy team to screw up the autopsy, and then coerce RFK’s deputy attorney general Katzenbach to write his cover-up memo. Were the entire US government and MSM protecting H L Hunt, Gen. Walker and the Dallas Police Department?

    • Jean Davison says:

      Bill Pierce (Jan. 18),

      If I could, I’d nominate your post as Comment of the Month.

      Your questions show just how ludicrous the Oswald was Framed idea really is. If anyone out there disagrees, would you please answer Bill’s questions?

      • Bill Binnie says:

        Problem is the Time line makes it impossible that the LHO who went to his rooming house and was arrested at the Texas Theatre was the same person who dropped a wallet and shot Tippit unless Butch Burroughs, Earlene Roberts, Helen Markham, Roger Craig, ER at Methodist Hospital, William Waley are all liars who cannot tell time- Also a problem that 2 bullets from an automatic hand gun are in Tippits body- I am sure our WC Cheering section can explain all of this away- Let the show begin- BB

        • Bill Binnie says:

          The time line makes an ironclad Argument that LHO wasn’t at the Tippit Murder scene- Since this argument is implacable, we now ask who went to such an extraordinary effort to make it look like LHO was there and why? This is what Law Enforcement and the WC should have been spending their time on- As opposed to tormenting and ignoring all witnesses who created the logical straight jacket the WC cheering section wears fitfully to this very day-

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bill Binnie,

            Instead of changing the subject, how about tackling Mr. Pierce’s questions?

          • David Regan says:

            For what purpose, Jean? To provide assumptive answers to assumptive questions?

            Dodging facts of a case that was “not very, very strong”, would not have gone far at trial. Perhaps yourself or Mr. Pierce could provide us with hard facts that would have kept defense counsel from having the Tippit case excluded.

          • “For what purpose, Jean? To provide assumptive answers to assumptive questions?”~David Regan

            Viola! You hit the jackpot David! That is exactly it, the Warranista Roundabout. An opportunity to rehash all the old arguments attended to over and again on this blog.

            And still whether they will admit it or not, they are making the argument for ‘Presumption of Guilt’ by discarding it’s attendant principles, the primary on being “Beyond Reasonable Doubt”.

            And that takes us to the tired old argument as to WHO is responsible for the proofs. And that is understood in US jurisprudence to be the responsibility of the accusing parties.

            And the resident state-propagandists will of course complain that “No they are not in anyway opposed to these principles of jurisprudence. – But this is blatantly belied in their present and past commentary.

            So let’s put this in plain and straightforward language: The spokespersons for Lee Harvey Oswald’s right to a defense, only have to cast doubt upon the points of evidence put forth by our adversaries.

            They are the ones that must ‘Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt’.

            I have taken their word that they stand by these points of legal jurisprudence with a grain of salt before. and I shall do so again, as their own argumentation proceeds them and reveals them.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            You’ve accused a Dallas policeman of planting a loaded murder weapon on Oswald and who knows how many other people of helping to frame him, so don’t lecture me about “principles of jurisprudence.”

            You’re confusing attacking the evidence against Oswald, which CTs have done for 50 years, with explaining how he could’ve been framed, which has never been done by anyone.

        • Butch Burroughs, Earlene Roberts, Helen Markham, Roger Craig, ER at Methodist Hospital, William Waley are all liars who cannot tell time-

          You are going to need to explain each one of these. I think you are simply quoting conspiracy book factoids.

          We’re already talked about how Burrough’s testimony you have in mind is bogus.

          Whom do you wish to discuss next?

          • Bill Binnie says:

            Dear JD and JA- Sorry- The reality is that I am gathering data from affidavits and sworn testimony. Anyone who has studied the JFKA knows that the WC Mythology is based on the shifting sands of a handful of key “witnesses” (Brennan, Benivides, Givens)who saw things NO ONE else saw- The FBI confirmed in writing that Givens was receptive to changing his testimony and soon after did- There are multiple witnesses who consistently refute every aspect of the testimony of the 3 WC Pillars listed above and you chose to ignore them all- But when you chose to ignore a preponderance of evidence that is not helpful to your cause, you concede the intellectual standing to ask any questions of real researchers. The Reality based time line shows us that LHO was not on the 6 th floor at 12.30 PM, that between 4 and 7 shots were fired into the Presidential Limousine within 6 seconds, and that LHO could not have killed JD Tippit- This doesn’t make LHO innocent- It doesn’t mean that the CIA killed JFK- It just means that something complex happened in Dallas that day and some Patriotic citizens are very anxious to understand and share this truth with the world- BB

          • Bill Binnie says:

            And I meant to add that Brennan admitted his WC Approved testimony “evolved” over time but this was because he was worried about those pesky commies coming to get him- Almost funny except that Brennan is the lynch pin on which rests the DPD Hunt for LHO to the exclusion of the tens of thousand of men in Dallas who fit the initial description Brennan proffers. In closing to JD and JMC- Be gone, you sad and silly shills-

          • Brennan admitted his WC Approved testimony “evolved” over time but this was because he was worried about those pesky commies coming to get him- Almost funny

            But witnesses who fear getting offed by an evil CIA spook “cleanup squad” are perfectly reliable, eh?

            Brennan is the lynch pin on which rests the DPD Hunt for LHO to the exclusion of the tens of thousand of men in Dallas who fit the initial description Brennan proffers.

            I don’t get your point. Brennan offered a description that was vague but did fit Oswald. His description may or may not have had a role in Tippit stopping Oswald.

            But the description is no part of the evidence against Oswald.

            In closing to JD and JMC- Be gone, you sad and silly shills-

            What kind of juvenile reply is that?

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Anyone who has studied the JFKA knows that the WC Mythology is based on the shifting sands of a handful of key “witnesses” (Brennan, Benivides, Givens)…”

            “WC supporters” don’t usually on eyewitnesses, they place more weight on the physical and circumstantial evidence.

            The HSCA concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy and that he fired all the shots that hit JFK and Connally without even mentioning the three witnesses you named.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=800#relPageId=71&tab=page

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Great posts Bill Binnie. Especially the “patriotic citizens are very anxious to understand and share this with the world”.
            Well said.

          • “The HSCA concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy..”
            ~Jean Davison

            We all know by now that the HSCA was compromised by CIA interference:

            Chief Counsel Blakey later stated that Joannides, instead, should have been interviewed by the Committee, rather than serving as a gatekeeper to the CIA’s evidence and files regarding the assassination. He further disregarded and suspected all the CIA’s statements and representations to the Committee, accusing it of obstruction of justice.

            In the same 2003 interview, Robert Blakey, issued a statement on the Central Intelligence Agency:

            …I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the [Central Intelligence] Agency and its relationship to Oswald…. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation.

            The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known. Significantly, the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.

            We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.

            Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp.
            \\][//

          • David Regan says:

            The description broadcast on Dallas Police radio Channel 1 was very generic. It is likely Tippit had seen dozens of men matching that description in the 20 minutes following the broadcast of that bulletin and yet there is no record of him stopping or pulling over anyone else based upon that description.

          • Bill Binnie says:

            The WC cheering section operates in the very deliberate fashion of the worlds best defense attorneys- Evidence and Witnesses favorable to your cause are pristine no matter how much baggage they bear- Evidence and Witnesses to the contrary are minutely assailed until rendered impotent. It is a scorched earth methodology- You are the Johnnie Cochrans of the JFKA- I know why Johnnie did his thing- It paid astoundingly well since guilty criminals in need of his service often possessed extravagant means- You folks I do not get- I admit You are all extremely knowledgeable / passionate advocates for your cause – I say be gone with you as your efforts clearly seek a predetermined outcome, which is in diametric opposition to the good folks here who parse every detail of the JFKA, entirely uncertain where the story ends- You have it all figured out, so kindly let us crazy paranoids alone with our delusions- Peace be with you-

          • I say be gone with you as your efforts clearly seek a predetermined outcome, which is in diametric opposition to the good folks here who parse every detail of the JFKA, entirely uncertain where the story ends- You have it all figured out, so kindly let us crazy paranoids alone with our delusions-

            You really would like to exchange conspiracy factoids and speculation unchallenged, wouldn’t you?

            But real truth seekers welcome challengers, and people who will subject their theories to critical scrutiny.

            So what does that make you folks?

      • “Your questions show just how ludicrous the Oswald was Framed idea really is. If anyone out there disagrees, would you please answer Bill’s questions?”~Jean Davison

        They have already been answered Jean, many of them on this very thread. Cranking up this same carousel over and over each time a new commentator lands on the site is preposterous in its redundancy.

        Bill has the opportunity here and on other threads to challenge the answers already given his questions.
        \\][//

        • Jean Davison says:

          “They have already been answered Jean, many of them on this very thread.”

          No, they have not. Prove me wrong by quoting it.

        • “No, they have not. Prove me wrong by quoting it.”~Jean Davison

          What do you mean “it”? There are too many examples on this very page to cite just one.

          However I will address one specific issue, you have offered three witnesses from Texas Theater, that you claim saw Oswald with the pistol in his hand. I have provided clear and irrefutable points that none of these witnesses had the vantage point to see this with certainty. Those refutations are on this thread, and I am not going to point them out to you one more time.

          Another point is Perry Russo’s Testimony before the New Orleans Grand Jury, that proves that Shaw was in fact Clem Bertrand, that Russo was at a gathering at Ferries where plans were discussed to assassinate JFK:
          http://www.jfk-online.com/russo3221.html

          \\][//

          • Photon says:

            So Willy Paul Bentley was a liar?
            So Nick McDonald was a liar?
            So Ray Hawkins was a liar?
            So C.T. Walker was a liar?
            What witness do you have that contradicts their stories?
            Do you have any evidence that any of them had any history of false testimony or disciplinary action?
            You seem eager to dismiss documented facts and occurrences no matter how well they can be proven if in any way they call into question your conclusions.

          • Tom S. says:

            So Photon NOLA ADA Sciambra was a liar?
            NOLA ADA William Martin was a liar?
            NODA Jim Garrison lied to Phelan about what Sciambra also told Phelan, that Russo told the assassination party story
            to him before it was decided to “treat” Russo with sodium pentathol? Phelan wrote his Sat. Eve. Post story without
            mentioning that Sciambra said to Phelan that he orally briefed Garrison about the assassination party claim, before
            Russo received sodium pentathol, and Garrison corroborated this to Phelan…. but Phelan certainly did not twist the
            facts by not sharing that part with his Sat. Eve. Post readers? I see empty arguments and a lack of consistency of
            belief. You defend to the hilt the general reliability of investigative authority who sing your tune, but you do the
            opposite when you don’t like the sound of their song, and this is not a criticism direct specifically at you, Photon,
            but you do happen to be pulling the, “what…are you claiming all these (insert description of revered authority figure(s)
            here) are lying? You are commenting on a site founded by a journalist whose lawsuit has been shutdown three times by the
            same judge who was appointed by a POTUS of the son of a POTUS who was greatly helped during a critical campaign season
            in mid-1992 when said judge was assistant minority counsel and acting minority counsel of the congressional committee
            investigating the 1980, October Surprise incident. This judge has now been reversed three times on appeal in this one
            lawsuit pursued by Morley and his lawyer. Rather unusual, since appeals decisions tend to give the benefit of doubt to
            a presiding trial judge who shows up to court and at least goes through the motions of presiding at trial.
            Don’t you see how this works, so why do it?

            I’m willing to give reasonable consideration to any of these …. a POTUS doing a quid pro quo judiciary appointment his father could not quite get to, but had planned for his second term, in appreciation of his expedited October Surprise investigation “exoneration”. The cops, FBI, CIA, and WC followed on another in concealing the actual facts of the Kennedy case from the American people, beginning
            with the DPD in Dallas, who lost the two most important living people then in town, on the same weekend, with just one day
            in between, and in the second instance, in the basement of their own H.Q. Garrison and his ADAs contrived the whole deal, subjecting a witness to sodium pentathol followed by hypnosis to “tune” his song to meet their agenda.

            A reasonable person, I expect, is openminded and consistent.
            As an aside, Photon, since you elect this to be our only means of back and forth communication, would you be so kind to explain why you felt so strongly that a man who
            served in WWII with RCAF could not indeed subsequently be a CIA agent?

            https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-10/#comment-850117
            Photon January 16, 2016 : “Your US cities directory…it would have been impossible for him to have been in the agency.”

            No exceptions, is that your final answer? Link to your original reference to the man’s
            alleged disqualification.: https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-10/#comment-849904

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “…you have offered three witnesses from Texas Theater, that you claim saw Oswald with the pistol in his hand. I have provided clear and irrefutable points that none of these witnesses had the vantage point to see this with certainty.”

            So Brewer and the other two witnesses didn’t see what they claimed: a gun in Oswald’s hand. Must’ve been hallucinating or imagining things. The question was, “(1) Either Oswald had the revolver when arrested or he didn’t. If you say no, then four or five arresting cops were part of the tightly scripted conspiracy scenario or they all lied.”

            Were the four or five cops part of the conspiracy or lying?

            And I thought you said someone planted the gun on him.

            Re Perry Russo, please read his early interviews at the top of this link. His original story said nothing whatsoever about Oswald and Shaw at an assassination party. What you’ve read is the “new and improved” version.

            http://www.jfk-online.com/russomenu.html

          • Tom S. says:

            Jean,
            You say Russo’s original story “made no mention”….. but, are these the entirety of the facts, or is this your limiting description in support of your opinion?
            ADA Sciambra wrote a memo to NODA Garrison, in which he omitted the attendance of an “assassination party” claim of Russo.
            James Phelan admitted under cross examination in his Shaw trial testimony that Sciambra told him, at the relevant time, just
            after the memo was written, that he had advised Garrison orally that Russo had described the assassination party attendance
            to Sciambra before Sciambra wrote the memo, and thus, before Russo was asked to undergo sodium pentathol administration?

            IOW, Jean, is there anything inaccurate related to what I asked you, ending in the sentence, directly above?

          • James Phelan admitted under cross examination in his Shaw trial testimony that Sciambra told him, at the relevant time, just after the memo was written, that he had advised Garrison orally that Russo had described the assassination party attendance to Sciambra before Sciambra wrote the memo, and thus, before Russo was asked to undergo sodium pentathol administration?

            The testimony you posted shows Sciambra claiming that after he was confronted with the fact that no “assassination party” was included in the Baton Rouge memo.

            When Sciambra first returned from Baton Rouge, Richard Billings was there to observe what he orally reported to Garrison.

            No “assassination party.”

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

          • Another point is Perry Russo’s Testimony before the New Orleans Grand Jury, that proves that Shaw was in fact Clem Bertrand, that Russo was at a gathering at Ferries where plans were discussed to assassinate JFK:
            http://www.jfk-online.com/russo3221.html

            Which might be easy to believe, if you don’t know how it developed over time:

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

          • “Were the four or five cops part of the conspiracy or lying?”~Jean Davison

            Yes, that is the only reasonable conclusion considering all the facts. Those facts go beyond the incident in the theater and are contained in the ballistics and weapon testimonies that I have also addressed.
            . . .

            Affidavit In Any Fact by George Jefferson Applin, Jr. as a witness to the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. He states that he was watching a movie in the Texas Theater when an officer with a riot gun walked down the aisle. He witnessed the officer approach a seated man and shake him down. The man then took a swing at them and held up a pistol. Applin heard the pistol snap and then a large group of officers arrested the man.
            http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338846/
            . . . .
            My comments:
            Alpin “heard the pistol snap”…but both the officer and Oswald were holding the gun when the pistol “snapped”. As both Oswald and the officer had their hands on the pistol, Alpine cannot have known who had the gun to begin with. His testimony impugns itself on these grounds/

            Also see:
            The testimony of John Gibson was taken at 3:45 p.m., on April 8, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Joseph A Ball, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.
            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gibson.htm

            My commnents:
            Oswald was not in the isle with a gun in his hand as Gibson claims, the scuffle took place at the seat where Oswald was sitting.
            Gibson was standing to the entrance of the seating section in the foyer while witnessing the scuffle. As Oswald was surrounded by cops Gibson simply did not have a clear view of what was happening.
            Bottom line, his assertion that Oswald was in the isle holding a gun rebukes his testimony.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            I don’t think I’m the one “limiting description,” Tom.

            “ADA Sciambra wrote a memo to NODA Garrison, in which he omitted the attendance of an “assassination party” claim of Russo. James Phelan admitted under cross examination in his Shaw trial testimony that Sciambra told him, at the relevant time, just after the memo was written, that he had advised Garrison orally that Russo had described the assassination party attendance to Sciambra before Sciambra wrote the memo…”

            “Admitted?” He acknowledged that that’s what Sciambra *said* when he was trying to explain the glaring omission. Phelan later said:

            “Now [Sciambra] says, Well, he wrote the memo in a big hurry and he said maybe he forgot to put in about the assassination plot. And I … said, “Come on, now, you found a witness to the crime of the century and you come down and write a 3,500-word memo and leave the crime out of it — put in all this other chicken-shit stuff — but you leave the crime out!” I said, “Nobody can be that stupid.[…]I said, “You know the thing that really hangs me up is that you said Russo said he saw the man [Clay Shaw] twice and named the two times, once on the Nashville Wharf and once in a car with David Ferrie. So if he told you about the party you not only had to forget to leave out about the party but you also had to change the number of times to conform with what you told here, and that won’t work.”

            http://www.jfk-online.com/phelankirk.html

            IOW, Sciambra’s memo not only omitted the assassination party, the word “twice” in effect ruled it out. I don’t see how this memo makes any sense unless it means just what it indicates — that Russo didn’t mention a party to Sciambra.

            Here’s the Sciambra memo (the only copy I could find online):
            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russo2.txt

            Garrison claimed in his book that Russo told Baton Rouge reporters about the assassination party before Sciambra talked to him, but the transcripts at that link show that’s not true.

          • Photon says:

            Tom S, can you please post the connection between the Garrison cast of characters and the particulars of the arrest of Lee Oswald?
            I referred to the police officers involved in the arrest of Oswald. It was a witnessed arrest and the witnesses noted that Oswald resisted arrest. One witness not an officer heard a “click” as Oswald pulled the trigger but the hammer fell onto the web of skin between McDonald’s thumb and finger, preventing Oswald’s third murder of the day. Are you agreeing with Willy that this event never happened? What evidence do you or Willy have that the arresting officers even knew who Oswald was or had any knowledge that he might be associated with the assassination?

          • You are commenting on a site founded by a journalist whose lawsuit has been shutdown three times by the same judge who was appointed by a POTUS of the son of a POTUS who was greatly helped during a critical campaign season in mid-1992 when said judge was assistant minority counsel and acting minority counsel of the congressional committee investigating the 1980, October Surprise incident. This judge has now been reversed three times on appeal in this one lawsuit pursued by Morley and his lawyer.

            Which has what to do with the subject of this thread?

            Somehow, you think JFK research consists of free association. Associate somebody you don’t like with somebody else you don’t like, and you think you have evidence.

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘What evidence do you or Willy have that the arresting officers even knew who Oswald was or had any knowledge that he might be associated with the assassination?’ — photon

            Are you being deliberately disingenuous?

            Johnny Brewer testified that he heard an officer say: “Kill the President, will you.”

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

            Mr. BREWER – And somebody hollered “He’s got a gun.”
            And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I heard some of the police holier, I don’t know who it was, “KILL THE PRESIDENT, WILL YOU.’ And I saw fists flying and they were hitting him. (emphasis mine)

          • “Are you agreeing with Willy that this event never happened?”~Photon

            What are you talking about Photon?

            Your framing of questions and comments always has that disingenuous twist to it:

            I did not say the event did not happen. I said that it did not happen in the manner espoused by the state-propagandists.
            \\][//

          • “Oswald pulled the trigger but the hammer fell onto the web of skin between McDonald’s thumb and finger, preventing Oswald’s third murder of the day.”~Photon

            Can you prove this assertion?
            \\][//

          • This video is relevant to the planting of the pistol on Oswald in the Texas Theater in 1963:

            All the officer planting the pistol had to do was what is shown in this video in how to set the hammer block so the gun won’t fire if the trigger is pulled.

            This is how you can hand or plant a loaded revolver on a ‘suspect’ assuring that he won’t shoot you in the act.
            Note: You will here the ‘snap’ even though the gun doesn’t fire:

            https://youtu.be/dcISLeCIWVk?t=302

            \\][//

          • Sciambra told him, at the relevant time, just after the memo was written, that he had advised Garrison orally that Russo had described the assassination party attendance to Sciambra before Sciambra wrote the memo,

            Why do you folks keep repeating this?

            Are you ignoring what Jean and I have been telling you, which you can easily see in the part of the transcript you don’t post?

            Sciambra came up with that lame excuse after he was confronted with the lack of any “assassination party” in the Baton Rouge interview memo.

          • Tom S. says:

            Sciambra came up with that lame excuse after he was confronted with the lack of “any assassination party”
            in the Baton Rouge interview memo.
            Dr. McAdams,
            Your belief system of the investigation has its underpinnings in your steadfast assertion that ADA Sciambra
            “came up with that lame excuse” about what he was told, when, by witness Perry Russo, despite the otherwise
            unblemished reputation of Sciambra, before or since. Would you like to phone a friend, or is that you final answer?

          • “”Sciambra told him, at the relevant time, just after the memo was written, that he had advised Garrison orally that Russo had described the assassination party attendance to Sciambra before Sciambra wrote the memo””
            . . .

            “Why do you folks keep repeating this?”~McAdams

            Because it is true.

            Because Walter Sheridan, Gurvich, and Phelan are the liars; not, Garrison, Sciambra, or Perry Russo.
            \\][//

          • despite the otherwise unblemished reputation of Sciambra, before or since.

            Says who?

          • Because Walter Sheridan, Gurvich, and Phelan are the liars; not, Garrison, Sciambra, or Perry Russo.

            And you have to include Billings, who was there when Sciambra got back from Baton Rouge, and told Garrison what he had found.

            No assassination party:

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

          • Richard Billings, an editor at LIFE magazine.

            “The New Orleans States-Item exclusive confirmed the Agency’s worst fears. Just as the media were beginning to catch on that Garrison’s case was flimsy, the DA was moving to draw the CIA into the maelstrom. In a long memo prepared on 26 April, Rocca concluded that it would be “unwise to dismiss as trivial any attempts by Garrison to link the Agency to his plot.” Though it is impossible to discern what the New Orleans DA “knows or thinks he knows,” wrote Rocca, the grim truth, given the Ramparts exposé, was that the “impact of such charges…will not depend principally upon their veracity or credibility but rather upon their timeliness and the extent of press coverage.”[34]
            **From this point on, Garrison would not utter a word without it being parsed inside Agency headquarters.**” (Bolding mine)

            https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/fall_winter_2001/article02.html

            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Billings claimed Sciambra, upon returning from questioning Russo in Baton Rouge, first encountered Garrison and Billings
            at a NOLA restaurant, Broussards. Billings claimed Sciambra related the details he obtained from Russo and Sciambra did
            not mention and assassination party, or details related to it at that time. Sciambra was asked about this later and
            allegedly stated that Billings was not present at that restaurant meeting with Garrison. Link (near bottom of page): http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bethell8.htm

          • Though it is impossible to discern what the New Orleans DA “knows or thinks he knows,” wrote Rocca, the grim truth, given the Ramparts exposé, was that the “impact of such charges…will not depend principally upon their veracity or credibility but rather upon their timeliness and the extent of press coverage.”[34]

            That’s absolutely correct.

            So why are you quoting it?

          • Sciambra was asked about this later and allegedly stated that Billings was not present at that restaurant meeting with Garrison. Link (near bottom of page): http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bethell8.htm

            I don’t see that on the page you cited.

            Billings said that Sciambra was lying about Russo telling the “assassination party” story in Baton Rouge.

          • why James Angleton would be devoting a memo to discussing one of those lawyers, Edward Baldwin’s law partner, James F. Quaid?

            The CIA memo you quoted said that Quaid had offered his services to the CIA, but the offer was rejected.

            And what does Edward Baldwin have to do with this?

          • Garrison honed in one lawyer, prominent and representing “the station” aka WDSU, known in the past to have distributed CIA funds in New Orleans.

            BZZZZZ!

            You have provided no evidence for this other than Garrison’s unsourced claim.

            You need to quit citing Garrison to vindicate Garrison.

            As I’ve already presented, the name of the lawyer described in that letter was Stephen B. Lemann, and newspaper and FBI reports indicated both Lemann and Edward Baldwin, partner of James F. Quaid, were representing WDSU employee Townley, yet Lemann’s name is nowhere to be seen in the report the Mcadams site page linked above,

            Since they had nothing to do with the case, of course they were not mentioned.

            You need to learn the concept “begging the question.”

          • “And you have to include Billings, who was there when Sciambra got back from Baton Rouge, and told Garrison what he had found.”~McAdams

            Sciambra testified under oath that Billings was NOT at the meeting or even in the place when he told Garrison what he had found out about the Party Russo had attended.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Tom,

            I think the key to understanding who’s telling the truth in the Garrison case is to look at what Russo said to the Baton Rouge press a day or two before he first spoke to Sciambra.

            If the Garrison version is correct and Russo was present when Ferrie, Oswald and Shaw plotted the assassination, when he saw Oswald on TV on 11/22 and later when it made headlines that Garrison was investigating Ferrie, shouldn’t Russo have thought: OMG, I was there when Ferrie and Oswald (and Shaw) plotted the assassination together?

            And yet when Russo came forward after Ferrie died, he told a Baton Rouge TV reporter that he’dd never heard of Lee Harvey Oswald until he was linked with the assassination. Did he say he’d overheard a plot at Ferrie’s place? No, he said, “Quite frequently he (Ferrie) talked in general terms and not specifically about Kennedy though about how easy it would be to assassinate a president of the United States because of the fact that he was in the public view so much and unprotected more or less….And he (Ferrie) jokingly posed the question that if he and I could do it, it could be done,”

            “Jokingly?” If his later testimony were true, Russo was well aware when he gave this interview that Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald had plotted the assassination together. But there’s no hint of that in Russo’s first statements.

            And get this. He told Baton Rouge reporter Bankston he was not even “aware that the Ferrie involved in Garrison’s probe of the Kennedy assassination and the Ferrie he knew were the same until he saw Ferrie’s picture this week in the newspaper.” He’d supposedly witnessed “the Ferrie he knew” plotting the assassination with Oswald and yet he thought Garrison might’ve been investigating some other guy named Ferrie?? Talk about coincidence! Explain that one, Garrison fans.

            Here are the Baton Rouge interviews:
            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russo1.txt

            Did Russo’s story change after he went to New Orleans? Absolutely.

            Sciambra interviewed Russo the day after he talked to the Baton Rouge reporters. Notice how Sciambra’s memo is consistent with what he’d told the reporters: no assassination party at Ferrie’s place, no conspiring with Shaw and Oswald. That’s why the memo leaves it out — not because Sciambra “forgot,” but because Russo didn’t say it.

        • leslie sharp says:

          ‘Associate somebody you don’t like with somebody else you don’t like,’ — John McAdams

          John, allow me to interject a personal anecdote to diffuse once and for all your flimsy retorts that are becoming tiresome, at least as they have been applied to my specific revelations of the extreme right wing elements feeding into an environment suited to the assassination on 11.22.63. I encountered on numerous occasions members of the H.L Hunt family. I found them to be to a person, gracious and in some cases very engaging, and I did not dislike a single member. I would go so far as to say I was very fond of two of H.L.’s grandsons, both of whom are now deceased. For whatever reason they both embodied a passion for the preservation of the environment that sustained wildlife. They were humble and funny and genuinely likeable, and they both died too soon.

          Relegating one’s adversary to the question of Likes and Dislikes is pathetic, absurd and desperate, particularly coming from an alleged professor of political science. I emphasize “alleged” because how can a professor be locked into a paradigm that disavows challenge to his or her fixed and purely subjective opinion of the assassination of President Kennedy and call himself a ‘scientist’?

          • In 1967, before the Clay Shaw trial began, NBC broadcast a documentary on the case, which Garrison defenders generally agree was an attempt to discredit the prosecutor. The documentary’s producer, Walter Sheridan, appeared on the program and said, “In my conversations with Perry Russo he has stated that his testimony against Clay Shaw may be a combination of truth, fantasy, and lies.”

            Russo, however, said Sheridan “was not investigating any facts. His only purpose was – and he stated it pointedly – he said, ‘I’m going to take Garrison out of this.’ He says, ‘You’re going down with him.’”

            Russo said that Sheridan offered to relocate him, get him a job, and protect him from extradition. In exchange for that, Russo said, Sheridan wanted him to retract his identification of Shaw and his testimony about the party attended by Shaw, Ferrie, and Oswald, where Russo said an assassination plot was discussed.

            “What Walter Sheridan was asking me to do was an absolute lie,” Russo said. “Shaw was there. Ferrie was there. Oswald was there.”
            . . . .
            See Perry Russo in a video taped interview stating those exact things himself:

            The JFK Assassination; The Jim Garrison Tapes, Part 9:
            “Shaw was introduced to me as Bertrand”~Perry Russo @ 4:45

            The JFK Assassination; The Jim Garrison Tapes, Part 10″
            Perry Russo explaining how Sheridan had tried to dupe him into ducking out on Garrison: @ 8:30 min mark.
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Coinciding with the publication of the early 1992 GQ magazine article by Nicholas Lemann, a Loyola Univ. Student Historical Journal published an article that explains the situation in 1967 with facts and objectivity. It is thorough and informed. The title sums up the core point of the article and of this thread.:

            http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1991-2/1991-2.htm
            The Case of Jim Garrison versus the Free Press

          • I encountered on numerous occasions members of the H.L Hunt family. I found them to be to a person, gracious and in some cases very engaging, and I did not dislike a single member.

            Which doesn’t change the fact that you connect everybody on the political right with everybody else on the political right, and think it has something to do with the JFK assassination.

            And now you are tied in to that evil axis!

          • “What Walter Sheridan was asking me to do was an absolute lie,” Russo said. “Shaw was there. Ferrie was there. Oswald was there.”

            When subjected to a lie detector test by Sgt. Edward O’Donnell, the results were as follows:

            I then told him, you know the questions that I intend to ask you during this test, is there anything you would wish to clarify with me. I then asked him was Clay Shaw at this party, he replied do you want to know the truth, I stated yes, he said I don’t know if he was there or not. I told Perry that Shaw was the type of a man that if you were to see him, he would stand out in your mind and I asked him if he would give me a no or yes answer to this question. He stated that if he had to give a yes or no answer, he would have to say no.

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

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/O-Donnell.txt

            Russo gave different answers at different times. Which suggests nothing he says is reliable.

          • Tom S. says:

            Russo gave different answers at different times. Which suggests nothing he says is reliable.

            I’ve posted examples of both Priscilla and Marina doing the same thing, Priscilla in her HSCA interview compared to later
            responses to the same question, why did it take fourteen years to author and publish her book, “Marina & Lee” and Marina’s
            contradictory statements are legend…obvious, numerous. You seem less concerned about those two than you do about Russo.

            The question here is not about Russo’s reliability, but did Jim Garrison act in good faith in arresting Clay Shaw? Alcock
            thought so, or he told Billings he would not have still been there, and at the Diary link from your site I posted in reference
            to Sciambra and Billings, it seems Billings is quoted admitting he was convinced Garrison was sincere and believed in what
            he was attempting.

            The thread is about the reaction and reporting of the Garrison investigation and the prosecution of Clay Shaw by the news media,
            just ask Bogman.

          • “And now you are tied in to that evil axis!”
            ~John McAdams

            After all the revelations as to the propriety of Garrison’s accusations of CIA involvement in disrupting his case against Shaw/Bertrand; you have nothing to say about that, just hand wave that information and attack Leslie Sharp with one of your scurrilous and vicious asides?!?!

            I find your underhanded tactics here and elsewhere on the Internet vile and despicable.
            \\][//

          • “When Shaw’s trial appeared imminent, DCI Helms ordered an ad hoc committee to formulate a strategy—six of CIA’s highest officials comprised this “Garrison Group.”

            Source: Russell Holmes Papers.

            So tell us “professor” McAdams, what is your theory now as to why the CIA was so concerned about Garrison’s trial against Clay Bertrand?

            Are you seriously going to contend that this “strategy” of high CIA officials would not follow normal CIA protocol of infiltration and harassment of its perceived enemies?

            Garrison was obviously correct in his assertions that CIA was intent on crushing his case against Clay Shaw–aka–Clay Bertrand. It is even verified in CIA’s own records.

            You can spin your denial dial to frantic ranting, but you are not going to convince anyone who has the slightest ability of critical thinking. Your tired tactics no longer work here “professor”. You are all washed up.
            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Well John if your Right then your Right or else pretty well.
            But how is Lesie tied to the “Evil Axis”?
            Wasn’t that from the Raygun era, in reference to Communism, which he and Bush defeated if you believe in the tooth fairy.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Which doesn’t change the fact that you connect everybody on the political right with everybody else on the political right, and think it has something to do with the JFK assassination. . . . And now you are tied in to that evil axis! — John McAdams

            Predictable, John, and how very unoriginal that you resort to your daily talking points on this site rather than recognize let alone risk engagement in an informed analysis of the political, social and corporate dynamics of Dallas November 1963. Are you threatened by this conversation, would you dare to debate the personalities involved in the planning of the motorcade for instance, or the influence of Mayor Cabell whose brother had been recently fired from the CIA and who has a record of involvement with Ed Butler’s INCA? To borrow a gambling phrase John, “call me one, or fold.”

          • “And yet when Russo came forward after Ferrie died, he told a Baton Rouge TV reporter that he’dd never heard of Lee Harvey Oswald until he was linked with the assassination.”~Jean Davison

            So Russo, who knew that Ferrie was plotting to kill a President (but was “joking”) just died, and Jean doesn’t consider that Russo likely was scared to death that Ferrie had been murdered; which he likely was. And therefore Russo would be publicly backing away from any further knowledge or connections with this crew he was likely desperate to extricate himself from.

            Russo said, “he had never heard of Lee Harvey Oswald until he was linked with the assassination.” Russo was introduced to a “Leon” by Ferrie, just like he was introduced to a “Clem Bertrand” by Ferrie. But none of this sinks in for our Warrenista agents here.

            As far as “the Garrison fans” remark, I should point out to the CIA fans here, that we have been quite able to explain every little puzzle you have put forward so far – because the truth of this matter is OBVIOUS, and the veils covering that truth have been blown away throughout the 52 years of the System’s attempts at tampering with the minds of the people.

            So it is wise, while walking Warren’s dogs to keep a poopscoop available. You don’t want to touch those dropping with your bare hands.
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Willy,
            This probably something I had a hand in, as I reply from a list of comments and they are not separated by individual articles. I meant only
            to post one or two OT posts in this Tippit thread, and now that I discovered I had posted much more than that, here, I’ve been migrating my
            comments, re-posting them where I actually intended them to appear.:
            https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-853160
            We’re hammering this Tippit thread, and I’d appreciate it if this week’s “Comment of the week” commenters could re-post some of their
            key comments that are on that topic but posted have been posted here.

          • Bill Binnie says:

            to WW- Comrade Photon and Friends are playing a zero sum game and will never concede an inch so why the frustration? It is like arguing the BHO Presidency with Dinesh D’Sousa- They are not going to slump on their key board and type out a white flag- Treat them as a free fact checker and thank them for the service- Keep Eyes on the Prize and trust that truth does win in the end- BB

          • Are you threatened by this conversation, would you dare to debate the personalities involved in the planning of the motorcade for instance, or the influence of Mayor Cabell whose brother had been recently fired from the CIA and who has a record of involvement with Ed Butler’s INCA? To borrow a gambling phrase John, “call me one, or fold.”

            What is there to debate? None of these people had anything to do with killing Kennedy.

            You just don’t like them because they were conservative and anti-communist.

            If you want to “debate,” you are going to have to show something besides the fact that they were conservative and anti-communist, which we all know.

          • “When Shaw’s trial appeared imminent, DCI Helms ordered an ad hoc committee to formulate a strategy—six of CIA’s highest officials comprised this “Garrison Group.”

            Source: Russell Holmes Papers.

            I guess I’ll have to post this for the umpteenth time, since you apparently refuse to read it.

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

          • I’ve posted examples of both Priscilla and Marina doing the same thing, Priscilla in her HSCA interview compared to later responses to the same question,

            Early on, Marina concealed several things that she knew tended to inculpate Lee.

            After she opened up, her testimony was quite consistent. Consistent in “Marina and Lee,” with HSCA, and even into the 1990s.

            The thread is about the reaction and reporting of the Garrison investigation and the prosecution of Clay Shaw by the news media,

            The news media quickly found out that Garrison was a fraud, and reported that.

            The fact that you don’t like that is irrelevant.

          • Tom S. says:

            No…. this thread is supposed to be about the Tippit shooting !

          • Relegating one’s adversary to the question of Likes and Dislikes is pathetic, absurd and desperate, particularly coming from an alleged professor of political science.

            Basing ones theory of the assassination on whom one likes and dislikes for political reasons is pathetic, absurd and desperate.

            You never discuss the evidence. You only discuss how one person you don’t like is tied to another person you don’t like.

            In fact, you never actually talk about the assassination.

          • Mr Binnie,

            We do not confront the propagandists here to change the minds of these agent. We do such to reveal to the candid world their, disingenuous techniques and methods.

            I do not feel frustrated in this effort, I think we are making a good job of it!
            \\][//

    • David Regan says:

      Perfect opportunity here for a Pierce/Burnham debate on this very topic http://assassinationofjfk.net/looking-at-the-tippit-case-from-a-different-angle/

      • Bill Pierce says:

        David Regan:

        A few years ago at this forum I posted a similar list of ordinary questions challenging the theory that Tippit’s murder was a carefully scripted, preplanned event. [At one time I had a list of about 100 questions.] There were no responses to the previous post. This time the responses avoid the most important issue: the impossible level of *preplanned coordination, luck, clairvoyance and subsequent deception and manipulation* that’s required to support the proposition that someone else killed Tippit for the purpose of leading police to Oswald. The questions are uncomfortable but I see no reason to get defensive about them or to pretend they’ve been answered when they haven’t.

        The essay by Westerberg and Engwall (Regan’s link) is fairly typical. They theorize that: “Officer JD Tippit had to die in order to create a false logical chain of events that eventually would lead to the arrest of Oswald in the theatre.”

        Unsurprisingly the two authors invent an incredibly complex scenario to fit their theory and then support their controversial claims with statements like this: “How they guided him into an ambush on 10th Street could possibly be thru Collins Radio, perhaps controlled from a moving vehicle with communication onboard.” Hmmmm. I’m not thrilled with those kinds of fantasy answers. Are you?

        Using just one of the authors’ claims, how about this instead? A couple of conspirators pick up Oswald at the TSBD, murder him within five minutes, and then dispose of his body in the South Dallas/Trinity forest wastelands. That leaves authorities with the rifle, soon to be linked to Hidell, Oswald, FPCC, USSR, Kostokov and no telling what else. Without Oswald, the Mexico City voice recordings aren’t as much of a problem and, who knows, perhaps the MC mystery man gets a temporary name, Hidell. Plus the conspirators don’t have to worry about Oswald saying something stupid.

        Obviously that’s not what happened. But if you were ‘scriptwriting’ the event wouldn’t you make it as simple as possible? The simple scenario above doesn’t require an Oswald imposter running around Oak Cliff on a prearranged route and time schedule. It doesn’t require planted shell casings, a planted revolver, a throw-down jacket, a planted wallet, manipulated witnesses, dirty cops, mail-order trickery, invented conversations, blind landladies, the needless murder of Tippit, and on and on.

        All of this leads to the most obvious question. Did the astonishingly intricate plot actually call for Oswald to be arrested and go to trial? Did the script insist on Oswald’s arrest so that later he could be murdered – in police custody – by Jack Ruby? Did Salvador Dali write the script?

        • “All of this leads to the most obvious question. Did the astonishingly intricate plot actually call for Oswald to be arrested and go to trial? Did the script insist on Oswald’s arrest so that later he could be murdered – in police custody – by Jack Ruby? Did Salvador Dali write the script?”~Bill Pierce

          I think the most obvious question before this forum now is did Franz Kafka write the comment just posted by Bill Pierce?
          \\][//

          • David Regan says:

            I would agree, Willy. Bill Pierce seems to employ the typical mantra of avoiding the obvious holes in the Tippit scenario (ie- the timing issues), by demanding an alternate explanation of how the incident played out.

            But speaking of scripts, if this case had been a really cheesy movie, in addition to a convenient paper trail, the police would have found an advertisement with the rifle circled on it. Oh wait…they did.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Still no attempt to answer to Bill Pierce’s questions, I see. No one seems to understand his point: “the impossible level of *preplanned coordination, luck, clairvoyance and subsequent deception and manipulation* that’s required to support the proposition that someone else killed Tippit for the purpose of leading police to Oswald.”

          WC critics never tire of criticizing the WC scenario yet don’t seem to realize that any scenario in which Oswald is framed will inevitably sound preposterous. Or maybe they do, and that’s why no one has ever offered one.

  9. Sandy K. says:

    Acquilla Clemons gave Mark Lane a most “unofficial” eyewitness account of the Tippit murder. The WC did not call her to testify.

    • 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”.

      Anthony Summers, the author of The Kennedy Conspiracy (1980): “Obviously, Mrs. Clemons should have been questioned more thoroughly than in a television interview. She said she had been visited by the FBI, who decided not to take a statement because of her poor health. Mrs. Clemons suffered from diabetes, hardly a condition to deter efficient investigators from taking a statement. According to two reporters, who visited Mrs. Clemons several years after the assassination, she and her family still spoke with conviction of seeing two men at the scene of the Tippit shooting. Mrs. Clemons’ story finds corroboration from another witness, and he too was ignored.”

      Acquilla Clemons was not called to give evidence to the Warren Commission.
      http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKclemons.htm
      \\][//

  10. Warren says:

    Hello to all,I have never posted before but now is the time!

    I have read all the books and own most ,i have seen all the videos ,films etc.
    The only constant is Oswald,regardless of where he was who he knew or what he did or did not do he is the one ..

    I have to put mt heart on my sleeve and state regardless of the miriad of issues he still remains the strongest and and most likely candidate to have carried out the killing.

    You cannot have it all ways,either show some solid evidence that he did not or accept the inevitable.

    A couple of lucky shots and mayhem ensues….

    • “You cannot have it all ways,either show some solid evidence that he did not or accept the inevitable.”~Warren

      That is not the way US jurisprudence is meant to work. The accused is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around: Guilty until proven innocent.

      The standard is “Beyond reasonable doubt” — there is certainly reasonable doubt proven in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald.
      \\][//

    • theNewDanger says:

      Warren

      January 18, 2016 at 4:10 pm

      You cannot have it all ways,either show some solid evidence that he did not or accept the inevitable.

      A couple of lucky shots and mayhem ensues…

      Warren-

      It is imperative that you check the depth before diving in. Your deceptive proclivities are obvious:

      You cannot have it all ways,either show some solid evidence that he did not or accept the inevitable.

      See Argumentum ad Ignorantiam/appeal to ignorance
      (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html)

      II. Some typical ad ignorantiam fallacy examples follow.

      ——————————————————————————–
      In spite of all the talk, not a single flying saucer report has been authenticated. We may assume, therefore, there are not such things as flying saucers.

      ——————————————————————————–
      No one has objected to Lander’s parking policies during the last month of classes, so I suppose those policies are very good.

      ——————————————————————————–
      Since the class has no questions concerning the topics discussed in class, the class is ready for a test.

      ——————————————————————————–
      Biology professor to skittish students in lab: There is no evidence that frogs actually feel pain; it is true they exhibit pain behavior, but as they have no consciousness, they feel no pain.

      ——————————————————————————–
      Johnson: It is impractical to send more men to the moon because the money spent for that project could be spent on helping the poor..
      Hanson: It is not impractical.
      Johnson: Why?
      Hanson: Just try to prove that I wrong.

      (Hanson is defending his claim by an ad ignorantiam, i.e., his claim is true, if Johnson cannot refute him.)

      Your coincidence theory:

      A couple of lucky shots and mayhem ensues

      For a couple of “lucky shots”, without accepting my words as facts, at least consider that no sharpshooting sniper (a higher skill than Oswald ever reached) has ever accomplished the shooting from the TSBD range with a Carcano that was mis-sighted and in terrible shooting condition like the one alleged to have found its mark in 1963 that wildly missed on another shot. Not one shooting exercise done to recreate the shooting has proven that something like CE399 comes to rest with nearly no granular loss and nearly no damage after going through not just one wrist, but back tissue, most likely JFK’s thoracic vertebrae, the throat, and ribs from the TSBD’s trajectory and given the muzzle velocity and differing impact behaviors of the bullets (only one bullet penetrates two men, another bullet purees in JFK’s skull), not to mention not one shooting attempt has ever accomplished what CE 399 is alleged to have done before or ever since. Have you really researched this issue other than just reading a few propaganda lines? Whether you’re reading McAdams, Talbot, or any one else, consider doing some actual research.

      Reading books of already arrived upon conclusions isn’t research; it’s spectatorship. Your comments here are proof that reading others books is not enough. Show some kind of cognition that transcends fallaciousness.

      • Warren says:

        I also thank you for your warm welcome ND..
        Jeez some of you guy’s don’t take kindly to opinions ….

        • theNewDanger says:

          Warren

          January 18, 2016 at 4:10 pm

          You cannot have it all ways,either show some solid evidence that he did not or accept the inevitable.


          ——————————————————————————–

          Warren

          January 21, 2016 at 9:12 am

          I also thank you for your warm welcome ND..
          Jeez some of you guy’s don’t take kindly to opinions ….

          Warren –

          You go from telling people they “can’t have it all ways” and to do what you say or to otherwise “accept the inevitable” to morphing my response to have come from some phantom group known to you as “you guys” in stating that this phantom group “don’t take kindly to opinions”. Do you see how your logic is all over the place?

          My response was of an individual origin, not of some collective “you guys”. Your introduction was of an authoritative origin in commanding people to accept something otherwise your belief in fallacy is inevitably correct. That approach does not show opinion, it shows assumed pretentious superiority of understanding and intellectual arrogance. Your introduction had nothing to do with alleged “opinions”.

    • J.D. says:

      Warren — welcome. A word of caution: It’s very easy to get fed up with the complexity of this case and decide to throw up your hands and assume that Oswald did it. I suspect that this is the real reason you hear so many people say that they used to believe in a conspiracy, but then they read Case Closed or they saw that NOVA special or they just got the impression that all of the mysteries had been cleared up, so they stopped paying attention.

      The solution to this, I think, is to ponder the words of Vincent Salandria, one of the first researchers into the case: “My initial feeling was that if this were a simple assassination, as the Commission claimed, the facts would come together very neatly. If there were more than one assassin the details would not fit.”

      In other words, we have to explain away an awful lot — the location of the bullet holes in JFK’s clothing, Oswald’s lack of a motive, the absence of evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, the witnesses who heard a shot from the grassy knoll, Ruby’s killing of Oswald — in order to swallow the idea that Oswald was the lone assassin.

      • we have to explain away an awful lot — the location of the bullet holes in JFK’s clothing, Oswald’s lack of a motive, the absence of evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, the witnesses who heard a shot from the grassy knoll, Ruby’s killing of Oswald — in order to swallow the idea that Oswald was the lone assassin.

        Have you bothered to think about how much must be “explained away” to get Oswald off the hook?

        Have you been hanging around here and seen the photographic evidence, the Zapruder film, the ballistics evidence, the handwriting evidence, dozens (or scores) of witnesses discarded by conspiracy theorists?

        Have you been reading Willy Whitten’s posts?

        • “Have you been reading Willy Whitten’s posts?”~McAdams

          Thank you Herr Doktor, for choosing me as a special nemesis here! I consider that a great compliment and am delighted to play that role for you.
          \\][//

        • J.D. says:

          Yes, I am familiar with the evidence that appears to implicate Oswald, and with the arguments against a conspiracy.

          I came to my conclusions after reading actual books on the case. I would suggest this approach to anyone.

        • Fearfaxer says:

          “Have you bothered to think about how much must be ‘explained away’ to get Oswald off the hook?”

          Not so much, really.

          A fair trial would most likely have resulted in, at most, a mistrial, quite possibly an acquittal.

          Paraffin test on cheek negative. Broken chain of custody with rifle and handgun shell casings. Not a single eyewitness to the two murders who gave credible testimony IDing Oswald. No credible explanation as to how he got the rifle into the TSBD (and don’t cite the “curtain rods” story that package described by the only two people to see it stated it was much too small to contain the rifle). No witness putting him on the 6th floor at the time of JFK’s assassination, one or two people plausibly locating him in and around the lunchroom within only 90 seconds to two minutes after the shots were fired.

          All that without even knowing just what Oswald would have had to say in his defense, once he’d been able to calm down, think rationally about his situation, and — most importantly — talked to a good lawyer.

        • Jordan says:

          Funny, I didn’t see Oswald in the Zapruder film…Perhaps you can point him out…Which frame(s) is he in…?

          I could go on….

      • Warren says:

        I take your well intended information on board,thank you for being so polite and welcoming,a pity everybody is not a well mannered as yourself.

    • Bogman says:

      My two cents, Warren, on the state of the case are:

      First, the CIA, which should have been a suspect in the case from the start (an idea supports by honored CIA agent John Whitten and chosen to do an internal investigation of the agency in ’63), got a pass of any investigation by the WC.

      Second, the HSCA did investigate the CIA in the ’70s, especially in the wake of the revelations that they used the mob to try to whack Castro. But it is highly likely the CIA leveraged its contacts in Congress and the media to force out two independent big city attorneys aggressively investigating them. The prosecuting attorneys were replaced by academic Blakey who agreed to sign the CIA secrecy agreement that Sprague and Tanenbaum wouldn’t.

      And then we found out through research by Morley that the CIA ran an operation against Congress, deliberately deceiving the investigation and obstructing justice through Joannides to hide the nature of the agency’s relationship with Oswald and the DRE FOREVER. And they continue to refuse to provide his files or any explanation to the American people.

      Case definitely NOT closed.

    • Thomas says:

      I agree about Oswald and will say for the millionth time that Oswald’s active involvement, even alone, does not negate the possibility of a conspiracy. There are many questions about Oswald pre- Nov 22 that need to be resolved and many questions about why a cover up in the first place.

    • David Regan says:

      Warren, welcome to the discussion. Perhaps you could provide solid evidence of Oswald’s guilt? If the WC had, this discussion would have ended in 1964.

    • Jerry says:

      Hi, Warren. This is my 2nd post which makes me vastly more experienced than you. Kidding. I don’t disagree that Oswald is a constant. But to me there is no doubt that he is part of a conspiracy. What part, I don’t know. I do know this… 1. The shooter had a dead shot coming at him through the 6th floor window and instead chooses to shoot at a bad angle, at car going away from him, near/possibly through a tree. 2. LHO just “happened” to get a jog at the TBD? 3. LHO’s insane life and at the height of the Cold War he is let back into the USA without a hitch. 4. Jack Ruby, a known mobster stalks and kills him out of a loyalty to Jackie?

      • Photon says:

        #1.” Chooses to shoot at a bad angle,at a car going away from him near/possibly through a tree” Actually it was a perfect angle-it kept him hidden and he didn’t have to move the rifle or lead the target. He hit the target with one out of three shots. If he had taken an earlier shot and exposed himself he may not have gotten off any more shots.
        #2 “LHO just happened to get a jog at the TBD?” Yes. And before the Dallas route was even established.So what?
        #3 “.”LHO’s insane life and at the height of the Cold War he is let back in the USA without a hitch.” How many other defectors were treated exactly the same? And on what grounds could he be refused entry back into the US?
        #4 “Jack Ruby a known mobster…” No he wasn’t

  11. Warren says:

    You make the obvious point Willy,but in the JFK case the obvious is not the norm.
    I admire the stoicism and also the massive amount of hard work and determination at finding so much information that contradicts the official findings,but and this is a big BUT in my humble opinion the one and only constant is Oswald,it may be probably he was coerced,encouraged,helped in some manner but ultimately he fired the shots..

    If that is a conspiracy so be it but please give me a break from the multitude of theories,that in itself is of no use to anyone.

    As previously stated ,too many people covering their own arse has led to so many issues regarding the assassination and maybe its time we accept that human beings are just selfish..

    A disgruntled individual albeit with people prompting him into an act of enormous magnitude,getting lucky with a couple of shots.

    I am not saying that maybe somebody allowed this to happen and many people gained so much but the actual event was simply a case of murder!

    • “You make the obvious point Willy,but in the JFK case the obvious is not the norm.”~Warrem

      Stop right there pal, there is nothing fundamentally different about the murder of John Kennedy that would effect the principle of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

      As a national precedent it is even more important to adhere to our principles rather than take the hysterical standpoint of flushing our liberties during times of crisis.

      What follows in the rest of your comment is simple ignorant twaddle. Unless you are able digest and follow the particulars here; to make reasoned counter arguments against the points raised here by those who recognize what bunk the Warren Report is, then you are simply making noises from the seat of your trousers.
      \\][//

      • Warren says:

        Well thanks for your warm welcome on my first post Willy,I have studied this subject for 15 years,ignorant i am not but i think i maybe got you on a bad day Willy.
        My first take on all this was a conspiracy for sure but after 52 years i just no longer see this.
        As i stated i do not rule out the possibility of coercion and encouragement given to LHO but unfortunately there are far too many red herrings,unreliable information and a combined investigation which by anybodies standards was farcical.
        i am still open to any new developments and admire the determination of so many individuals who have dedicated their lives to this matter.

        • Warren,

          Let us be frank. I have no problem with those who have a differing opinion on the JFK Assassination.

          My whole point in my confrontational reply to you had and has to do with what is settled jurisprudence of “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY”.

          To reverse this most basic principle of law is one of the most insidious developments of the contemporary Amerikan so-called “justice system”. This along with the concept of what is referred to as “pre-crime” “preventive detention” are so far beyond primary constitutional law as to be termed ‘tyrannical’ in concept.

          Have you read the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence?
          \\][//

          • Warren says:

            I’ll take that as an apology!

            Obviously the matter of innocent until proven guilty is a given, but as it is very unlikely that anybody will ever have to confront that position in respect of the JFK assassination its not a game breaker either.

          • JohnR says:

            Dear Mr. Whitten: I argued on a previous thread with Jean Davison about Oswald not being considered “innocent until proven guilty.” I, too, maintained that failure to do so violated the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. I was wrong. The phrase does not appear anywhere in the document. I’ve never been more disappointed. I admitted my error, and apologized to Ms. Davison.

          • JohnR,

            You say that “I too maintained that failure to do so violated the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. I was wrong.”

            No you were not wrong. violating “the spirit” of the Constitution is not the same as misquoting or not finding the text in the Constitution of your assertion.

            I would first of all site the 9th Amendment of the Constitution:

            “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

            Next adding these remarks:

            “The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury.”
            http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#innocent

            To be clear, there is no right to breath enumerated in the Constitution.

            And to be more specifically clear, these rights enumerated or not in the Constitutions are NOT grants from authority, but merely assurance of the authorities granted to the government by the people, of natural rights that proceed any government or authority.

            The Declaration of Independence INFORMS our understanding of this grant of authority by the people.

            Like presumed innocence, the concept of the Bill of Rights as a “grant” from government has been misconstrued by the post modern generations who were reared in a very general ignorance of US History and the issues of the Unalienable Rights of Liberty.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Thanks for your comment, JohnR.

            Around here “innocent until proven guilty” seems to apply only to Lee Harvey Oswald, not to the hundreds of people who’ve been accused of killing Kennedy or helping frame an innocent man.

          • Jean Davison,

            Have you ever read the Constitution for the United States?

            Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?

            What is your opinion of those two documents?
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            Ever heard of the First Amendment? You say what you want, I say what I want. I don’t have a problem with that. Do you?

            What about CT suspects like Lansdale and Angleton? Are they “innocent until proven guilty” like Oswald? How about Allen Dulles? Clay Shaw? Ruth Paine? Arlen Specter? And others in a long, long list.
            They have no “presumption of innocence”?

            Shaw was acquitted by a jury and still he’s guilty according to many. That doesn’t bother you? Sounds like a double standard to me, Willy.

          • JohnR says:

            Jean Davison wrote:

            “What about CT suspects like Lansdale and Angleton? Are they “innocent until proven guilty” like Oswald? How about Allen Dulles? Clay Shaw? Ruth Paine? Arlen Specter? They have no “presumption of innocence?”

            Don’t read into my earlier apology a concession, Jean. I still find deplorable your lifelong participation in the persecution of Oswald, freedom of speech or no.

            Do you really not understand the difference between leveling an accusation at a dead man, as opposed to a live one? Every single one of those you listed had ample opportunity to explain and defend themselves. Some still do. Oswald didn’t.

            If, in the end, Oswald is proven innocent, will you be ashamed?

          • “Ever heard of the First Amendment?”~Jean Davison

            No!! What does that say?!?

            The jury found Shaw innocent because the trial was compromised Jean. Anyone who follows the actual history of this knows this to be absolutely true.

            Clay Shaw was Clem Bertrand. This was established in many ways by many people who knew him. The most important evidence for this is Perry Russo’s deposition before the Grand Jury:

            ORLEANS PARISH GRAND JURY
            PROCEEDINGS OF
            MARCH 22, 1967
            http://www.jfk-online.com/russo3221.html
            \\][//

          • “What about CT suspects like Lansdale and Angleton? Are they “innocent until proven guilty” like Oswald? How about Allen Dulles? Clay Shaw? Ruth Paine? Arlen Specter? And others in a long, long list.
            They have no “presumption of innocence”?”
            ~Jean Davison

            Those listed above have been proven guilty by the facts of history.

            Yes, I know the 1st Amendment quite well thank you. I do not mind your right to free speech Jean, I deplore your openly scurrilous “reasoning”, and clearly statist agenda.
            \\][//

          • Do you really not understand the difference between leveling an accusation at a dead man, as opposed to a live one? Every single one of those you listed had ample opportunity to explain and defend themselves. Some still do. Oswald didn’t.

            Actually, Oswald did, both in what he told the police, and what he said at his news conference.

            And he told a bunch of lies.

            You folks have a huge double standard. Defend Lee to the last, but casually decide that everybody else is lying scum who needs to be jailed.

            If, in the end, Oswald is proven innocent, will you be ashamed?

            If you someday have to admit he was guilty, will you be ashamed?

          • Tom S. says:

            …but casually decide that everybody else is lying scum who needs to be jailed.

            Dr. McAdams,
            Is there an adder on your H.O. insurance premium for that glass house you live in? Glass is not as resilient as brick….
            If not for “the Clay Shaw” exception, you too could be among the very people you chastise…

            http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/07/andrew_moo_moo_sciambra_who_wo.html
            on July 28, 2010 at 7:45 PM
            Andrew ‘Moo Moo’ Sciambra, who worked on Jim Garrison investigation of JFK assassination, dies at age 75

            David Snyder, who covered the case for The States-Item.
            “He was incredibly loyal to Garrison,” Snyder said. “He was straightforward and not trying to con anybody.”

            Sciambra never was accused of saying to anyone, “Put this sweater on, we’ll have you over to county jail, in time for your Sunday lunch!”

    • “You make the obvious point Willy,but in the JFK case the obvious is not the norm.”~Warrem

      Stop right there pal, there is nothing fundamentally different about the murder of John Kennedy that would effect the principle of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

      As a national precedent it is even more important to adhere to our principles rather than take the hysterical standpoint of flushing our liberties during times of crisis.
      \\][//

    • kennedy63 says:

      Warren, if YOU accept the Warren Omission Report, that is your right. When people become enlightened and independently think for themselves, they arrive at a different conclusion; they see the fallacy of the government’s supposition that Oswald alone killed JFK and Tippit. That emotionally distraught Ruby shot Oswald for no reason but to spare Jackie coming to the trial. It was a sloppy operation from start to finish. JFK, L.H. Oswald, and Jack Ruby all died; and, a host of assassination witnesses were injured, or killed. Things like this DON’T happen IF Oswald did it alone!

      • Thomas says:

        I agree about Oswald and will say for the millionth time that Oswald’s active involvement, even alone, does not negate the possibility of a conspiracy. There are many questions about Oswald pre- Nov 22 that need to be resolved and many questions about why a cover up in the first place.

  12. kennedy63 says:

    I believe there was a broadcast over DPD radio to Tippit that ordered him into the Oak Cliff section stating “Be at large for any emergency that might come in.” The other officer was Nelson, but he was involved in a car accident before he could get to 10th and Patton. Tippit was ordered into Oak Cliff after Oswald was picked up and taken to the theater (by the police car that came by his rooming house). Police activity in this area regarding Oswald’s movements were suspicious. Rogue police sought Oswald. Evidence is Tippit and his frantic movement before he was shot. Tippit was ordered into Oak Cliff specifically for this purpose. Oswald was not known (to the public) as JFK’s assassin; so, the cover used was for Tippit “to be at large for any emergency that might come in.” Knowing he was in danger of being killed, Oswald shot Tippit in self defense. To witnesses, it looked like a open and shut case of a cold blooded cop killing. In reality, Tippit was moving in to kill the Oswald-look-alike. The real Oswald was at the Theater looking for his contact. The Oswald-look-alike also went to the theater after shooting Tippit. The real Oswald was taken out the front, the look-alike out the back. Using look-a-likes was a common practice in spy craft.

  13. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Regarding the gun Oswald supposedly shot Tippitt with. We have shells that supposedly came out of it that have markings from his gun, but those found at the scene were from an automatic and were thus not from his gun? Then we have bullets from Tippitt’s autopsy that didn’t come from it? Doesn’t make sense to me.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Where did he get it? There is no evidence he ever ordered it or picked it up as USPD protocols called for at the time. This has been deeply dissected elsewhere on the world wide web and somewhat here. I read somewhere once that Oswald said he bought the pistol at a pawn shop in Fort Worth.
      Then I’ve also read something about Ruby giving Oswald a hand gun outside the TSBD after the Assassination.

    • These are just conspiracy talking points that have been corrected elsewhere on this thread.

      • “These are just conspiracy talking points that have been corrected elsewhere on this thread”~John McAdams

        “Corrected” McAdams? Where specifically were any of these points supposedly corrected?
        \\][//

        • “Corrected” McAdams? Where specifically were any of these points supposedly corrected?

          I have trouble believing you did not notice when I posted that Poe gave the hulls to Pete Barnes who marked them, and identified his mark. Poe testified he gave the hulls to Barnes, and Barnes testified he got them from Poe.

          The the hulls would have been admissible in a Lee Harvey Oswald trial.

          And two other hulls were recovered by officers who did mark them, and found their marks.

        • I also posted that the bullets would not be expected to be matched to the revolver, given that a .38 had been converted to a .38 Special.

          You omitted that from Cunningham’s testimony that you posted.

          • “…the bullets would not be expected to be matched to the revolver, given that a .38 had been converted to a .38 Special.”~my quote

            “You omitted that from Cunningham’s testimony that you posted.”

            Cunningham describe ho the bullet would skip and miss the lands and grooves in the rifling of the pistol barrel — only hitting them intermittently, and makes determining whether the bullet was fired from that particular weapon impossible.

            I gave the link to the Cunningham testimony on that thread. Any who want to verify what I have said here need only read that testimony itself. All of it – in context “professor”.
            \\][//

          • The Warren Report is legally considered, hearsay.

            “The judges in the Clay Shaw trial ruled the Warren Report “hearsay.”~F. Irvin Dymond, the lawyer who attempted to introduce it.
            \\][//

          • BY MR. ALCOCK:
            Q Did you make a tape recording of this interview with Perry Russo?
            A No.
            Q When you were in the District Attorney’s office in the presence of Mr. Barnes, Mr. Russo and Jim Garrison and Mr. Sciambra, did you repeatedly tell Perry Russo that you had made a tape of it?
            A I asked him if he would like to hear a tape play-back of our conversation because at that time Perry Russo had denied that he ever told me that Clay Shaw was not at Dave Ferrie’s apartment, and I told Perry Russo at that time “Would you like to hear a tape of our conversation” in an effort to reenforce Perry Russo into admitting the truth, not admitting the truth, but admitting to what he told me when I interviewed him, and then I was in your office on that occasion Perry Russo had done a double take and denied that he ever told me this.
            Q Did you repeatedly say that you had a tape recording of this conversation and he asked you “Let me hear the tape”?
            A I asked him if he would like to hear the tape, and I don’t have any tape. In fact, Mr. Sciambra asked me the same question –excuse me, before I left your office that afternoon, I told Mr. Sciambra I did not have any tapes.
            Q Why did you keep asking Mr. Russo if he wanted to hear the tapes?
            A I don’t know how many times I asked him.
            Q Why did you keep asking him that if you didn’t have any tape?
            A I just explained why.
            Q But you had no tape. Is that correct?
            A That is correct.
            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/O-Donnell.txt
            . . . .
            Now here we have LT. Efrard O’Donnell lying to Perry Russo in front of several witness about a tape recording he did NOT make of the interview that was only attended by Russo and himself. Wherein Russo denied saying that he told the officer that he had not actually been at the party with Clay Shaw/Bertrand.

            And now we are expected to believe this officer who clearly lied to these people, rather than believe Russo. This in view of the fact that Garrison’s investigation was under attack by the authorities; established on many fronts on this thread.

            My question to Mr McAdams is, when will this spinning BS on your part come to an end here?
            \\][//

          • Now here we have LT. Efrard O’Donnell lying to Perry Russo in front of several witness about a tape recording he did NOT make of the interview

            Correct. He was bluffing, trying to get Russo to admit to what he had told him.

            Russo was scared of the Garrison people, who would charge anybody who changed their story with perjury.

          • “Correct. He was bluffing, trying to get Russo to admit to what he had told him.”~McAdams

            You don’t know that is wasn’t Lt. Edward O’Donnell that was lying about what Russo said to him when they were alone.
            Here you have O’Donnell clearly lying about the tape recording, and you characterize that as “bluffing”.

            Perry Russo in his video taped testimony said that it wasn’t Garrison he was afraid of, that it was Walter Sheridan and his people, including Shaw that he was afraid of.

            There is a very good chance that O’Donnell was one of Sheridan’s people.
            \\][//

        • “For months, the tactics of what Rocca called “that wild man down there” preoccupied senior CIA officers. When Shaw’s trial appeared imminent, DCI Helms ordered an ad hoc committee to formulate a strategy—six of CIA’s highest officials comprised this “Garrison Group.”[38]

          [38, Memorandum for the Record, Garrison Group Meeting No. 1, 20 September 1967, Box 46, Russell Holmes Papers, JFK NARA.]”

          https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/fall_winter_2001/article02.html

          \\][//

          • “For months, the tactics of what Rocca called “that wild man down there” preoccupied senior CIA officers. When Shaw’s trial appeared imminent, DCI Helms ordered an ad hoc committee to formulate a strategy—six of CIA’s highest officials comprised this “Garrison Group.”[38]

            You are quoting a very good essay from Max Holland!

            I urge everybody to read it.

            The “Garrison group” is discussed at length here:

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

          • “You are quoting a very good essay from Max Holland!”~McAdams

            Yes it is good as far as the source material is concerned, as long as one understands Max Holland’s pro-CIA biases and how he spins his story in that direction.

            For example this jewel of misframing:

            “Helms’s testimony reveals that the CIA’s Counterintelligence (CI) Staff had a sophisticated understanding of how dezinformatsiya worked by no later than 1961.”
            . . .

            Of course CIA understood “dezinformatsiya”, the CIA was expert at disinformation themselves, from the days of OSS and the Second World War.
            \\][//

          • Why don’t you address this point McAdams:

            “DCI Helms ordered an ad hoc committee to formulate a strategy—six of CIA’s highest officials comprised this “Garrison Group.”

            After all the squattle you laid on me about Marchetti misconstruing what Helms was doing about the Shaw situation, you suddenly have no comment about this further proof that the CIA was having strategy meetings of the highest order on ways to infiltrate and disrupt Garrison’s case.

            And don’t try to tell us that is supposition, when that is clearly CIA’s modus operandi when dealing with the opposition.

            Why don’t you address the fact of Lt. Edward O’Donnell lying to Perry Russo in front of several witness about a tape recording he did NOT make?

            Why don’t you address the issues of substance raised here “professor”?
            \\][//

          • Why don’t you address this point McAdams:

            “DCI Helms ordered an ad hoc committee to formulate a strategy—six of CIA’s highest officials comprised this “Garrison Group.”

            I keep doing so, and you keep ignoring it.

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

  14. Ray Mitcham says:

    How does one prove a negative? CT’s do not have to prove Oswald is innocent, the Warrenistas have to prove he was guilty. They have failed to do so.

    • Dave says:

      A point well worth remembering – despite all their feverish attempts, McAdams, von Pein, Bugliosi, Posner et. al have NEVER been able to legally prove Oswald is guilty of killing JFK. I expect that to be the case for, well, forever.

      • Photon says:

        How do you “legally prove” somebody has murdered anybody if the accused is dead?
        How do you equate ” legally prove” with actually doing the deed? So O.J. never killed his wife because a jury found him ” not guilty” of committing the crime?
        Your questions should be #1 “what was the standard of reasonable doubt for murder in Texas in 1963 (would have been a state trial) and did the D.A. Have sufficient evidence to bring him to trial? ”
        # 2 ” how many prosecutors familiar with the case don’t think that they would have been able to get a conviction?”
        The results of a jury trial are always unpredictable and may hinge on factors not related to the evidence presented. This “legally prove” shibboleth is nothing but CT obfuscation to avoid the real evidence that would have convicted Oswald in 1963 Texas.

        • “So O.J. never killed his wife because a jury found him “not guilty” of committing the crime?”~Photon

          So Clay Shaw wasn’t guilty because a jury found him “not guilty” of committing the crime?
          \\][//

        • Venality and Delusion presented as Tragedy and Hope in regard to Collectivist Statism:

          Political Labels and Orwellian Euphemisms.

          A turning of the Hegelian Screw.
          \\][//

  15. Bob Prudhomme says:

    I want to know how McAdams quotes people in such big type.

  16. Use an HTML element called blockquote. Practice here:

    \\][//

  17. Mariano says:

    Why in the world did not the WC request or be offered records of the respective phone calls made to police at the time of the shooting of Tippit?

    Why in the world were most witnesses who gathered at the scene not called to appear at the Commission?

    Mrs Markham timed the shots at approx. 1.06pm; T.F. Bowley (who arrived after others had already converged) arrived at 1.10pm.

    Several people called the police almost immediately after shots rang out: Barbara Davis in her affidavit a few minutes after 1pm; J.T. Lewis called the DPD; Mary Wright dialled ‘0’; Frank Cimino claimed he called at roughly 1pm; Temple Ford … called; and a Warren Reynolds is said to have placed a call.

    Why are there no records of the times at which these calls were made? Why was the WC not interested in following up what would seem a logical way to verify the actual time of the shooting?

    It is very obvious the WC was not at all interested in pinpointing the “actual” time of the shooting. The 1.16pm time reference should signal to any observer of the investigation the fantasy being woven to fit a predetermined narrative.

    Not mere incompetence, outright fraud.

  18. Mariano says:

    A Dallas policeman runs up to Will Fritz at the SBDB with the news that Tippit had been shot. Roger Craig checks his watch to reveal 1.06pm.

    • Tom S. says:

      Mariano, your comments have a better chance of appearing if you include a link to as close to an original supporting source as is available.

      • Mariano says:

        Markham’s, and T.F. Bowley’s testimonies to the WC can be viewed on the Mary Ferrel Foundation website; Warren Reynolds was interviewed by the FBI 22 1 1964; L.J. Lewis was interviewed by the FBI 21 1 1964; and Frank Cimino was interviewed by the FBI 4 12 1963 (google these to view interview details). Details of Roger Craig’s reference to the time of the shooting whilst he was at the TSBD are easily accessed.

        There appear no records indicating the time at which these and other callers to enforcement agencies at the time of the shooting took place. The Dallas Police Department Collection provided by The Portal to Texas History (on the web) has no such details.

        The transcript of radio communications by the DPD (on the same portal) in the duration that lasts roughly between the JFK and Tippet murders has no time references, and appears to have a lot of communications missing from the record.

        Also among those records is an affidavit by Officer J.M. Poe (DPD) who states that after the ambulance arrived at the Methodist Hoispital, and doctors and nurses had attempted to bring Tippit back to life, at 1.15pm Dr Richard Liquori pronounced (Tippit) him dead.
        How believable is the WC Tippit timeline if he was pronounced dead at 1.15pm at the Methodist Hospital?

        There is another source that references a time of the murder. Hugh Aynesworth (Dallas Morning News reporter) claims he arrived at the tippit murder scene at 1.05pm -no later than 1.10pm, after hearing a “squad car blast” that a policeman had been shot in Oaklift, words to the effect this is a citizen, a policeman is shot, hes hurt pretty bad … (after which details of location are provided).
        (Aynesworth appeared at the scene with Vic Robertson and Ron Reiland – WFAA-TV newsmen in a Channel 8 cruizer). Aynesworth provided more details to Larry Sneed, author of the book: No More Silence … (1998, pp 292-293).

    • The problem, of course, is that we know when the report of the Tippit shooting was called in to the Dallas police dispatcher: 1:16.

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

      Then there is the following (from Craig, but written in the third person):

      at the moment when Capt. Fritz concurred with Weitzman‘s identification of the rifle, an unknown Dallas police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. Craig instinctively looked at his watch. The time was 1:06 p.m.

      http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html

      But we know when the rifle was discovered: 1:22.

      This is yet another zombie factoid. Craig is radically unreliable:

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

      • Tom S. says:

        The problem, of course, is that we know when the report of the Tippit shooting was called in to the Dallas police dispatcher: 1:16.

        The problem, of course, is that Earline Roberts demonstrated a very poor time orientation, during the very time period she is relied upon by the WC.:

        http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Roberts_aff.pdf
        “December 5, 1963…Oswald went out the front door….about thirty minutes later three Dallas policemen came to the house looking for Lee Harvey Oswald….”

        https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22In+oak+cliff%2C+detectives+senkel+and+potts+and+lieutenant*%22
        Four Days in November: The Assassination of President John …
        Vincent Bugliosi – 2008 –
        …2:58 p.m. In Oak Cliff, Detectives Senkel and Potts and Lieutenant Cunningham bang on the door at 1026 North Beckley. The housekeeper, Mrs. Earlene Roberts answers the door and invites the officers inside, where they meet the landlady and her …

        Dr. McAdams, the thing you exhibit in common with the WC is a penchant for presenting incomplete or controversial information as if it were definitive.

        The WC reacted to this official document…..(Time of death displays as 1:15 pm)
        http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth190303/m1/1/

        …by presenting this contradictory, unofficial information in an FBI report.:

        Dr. McAdams, who have you identified as the audience, ripe for your internet narrowcasting?

        • What is your point, Tom?

          (I ask with considerable trepidation, knowing that I’m not going to get a coherent answer.)

          You have a bad habit of posting stuff, apparently thinking that some conclusion is obvious, when in fact that conclusion is only in your own mind.

          • Tom S. says:

            You have a bad habit of posting stuff, apparently thinking that some conclusion is obvious, when in fact that conclusion is only in your own mind.

            Dr. McAdams, in presenting your conclusions, you have a habit of deliberately misleading readers. I’ll leave it to the misled to determine if that is “bad.”

            Your approach and presentation remind me of this DPD apologist FBI appraisal of the DPD’s investigation of the shooting murder of one of its own officers.:

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60308&relPageId=69
            “…it is only reasonable to assume the Dallas Police Department in handling its murder investigation undoubtedly felt that it had enough witnesses,…. without canvassing the area looking for reluctant or shy witnesses.”

            You establish (you inconsistently determine what to qualify or disqualify) what cannot reasonably be established, and you support conclusions premised by what you’ve established. The time of the Tippit shooting remains unestablished, considering the conflicting evidence. The time Oswald left the rooming house, based solely on the claims of Earline Roberts, is in doubt, unestablished. It follows that you’ve come to (and tirelessly present) other than reasonable conclusions.

          • The time of the Tippit shooting remains unestablished, considering the conflicting evidence.

            You can always come up with “conflicting evidence” if you don’t care that it’s grossly unreliable.

            The most reliable evidence is the call Bowley made. It was at 1:16.

          • Tom S. says:

            You can always come up with “conflicting evidence” if you don’t care that it’s grossly unreliable.

            You can, and arbitrarily eliminate contradictory evidence.
            It is what you do.

            https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/dallas-police-chief-jesse-curry-on-the-origin-of-the-shots/#comment-861695
            John McAdams – 2016/03/08 at 5:38 pm

            Why trust witness testimony?
            Excellent point.

            You accept and rely on the testimony of William Whaley, Mary Bledsoe, and Earline Roberts, it is what you do, despite submitting the comment above.

            I made a reasonable observation. You’re the self anointed expert.:
            http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth190303/m1/1/

          • Why are you posting a document saying that Tippit was killed at 1:15 p.m. in order to claim he was killed at some other time?

          • Tom S. says:

            Why are you posting a document saying that Tippit was killed at 1:15 p.m. in order to claim he was killed at some other time?

            Dr. McAdams, you are doing what you do, again. That is what you do, despite the fact that you know 1:15 pm. was
            the time Tippit was pronounced dead, according to the autopsy permit, and not the time bullets pierced his body.

            The time bullets pierced Tippit’s body was before 1:15 pm. It is unfortunate that you do not accept this limited but reasonable conclusion.
            It is unfortunate you refuse to accept that this is reasonable because it is well supported.

          • No figure “2” in this document is above the line except for the “2” in “1:25”. Why is that? An experienced typist who honed the skills in the early 1960’s will recognize the issue.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Quit screwing around John. Tippit was dead on the scene when he was shot (1:06?). He was not declared dead until he was loaded in the ambulance, transported to the hospital, unloaded and taken in, then declared dead.
            Is that clear enough? If not, it took them about 7 minutes to get him from where he died to the hospital and inside where he was pronounced dead. It took them at least 3-4 minutes to get there after they were called, maybe more.
            Some say he was shot earlier. The witnesses didn’t rush to his police radio as soon as the shots were fired.
            This is well documented elsewhere and I can provide sources and references. It may be tomorrow or Monday.

          • Dr. McAdams, you are doing what you do, again. That is what you do, despite the fact that you know 1:15 pm. was the time Tippit was pronounced dead, according to the autopsy permit, and not the time bullets pierced his body.

            This lists “time and date of death” as 1:15.

            http://whokilledjfk.net/images/tippit14.jpg

            This lists “pronounced dead” as 1:25.

            http://whokilledjfk.net/images/tippit17.gif

            So what are you talking about?

            And why in the world would you ignore the time of the call from Bowley?

          • The witnesses didn’t rush to his police radio as soon as the shots were fired.

            They didn’t loll around for 10 minutes either.

            Benevides was close to Tippit’s car, remember, and he apparently went over as soon as Oswald disappeared out of sight.

            He had trouble with the radio but Bowley arrived soon after.

          • Speaking of clocks and FBI Agent Richard Harrison and Carolyn Arnold:

            TO SAC DALLAS (89–43)FROM DIRECTOR FBI (62–109060)ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY, NOVEMBER TWENTY–TWO, NINETEEN SIXTY–THREE, MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION CONCERNING.RE BUREAU AIRTEL MARCH SIXTEEN, LAST AND YOUR AIRTELS MARCH TWENTY–FIVE AND TWENTY–EIGHT, LAST RELATING TO COMMISSION’S REQUEST FOR SIGNED STATEMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN IN TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY BUILDING ON NOVEMBER TWENTY–TWO, NINETEEN SIXTY–THREE.BEFORE STATEMENTS CAN BE DISSEMINATED TO COMMISSION, FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS NECESSARY:STATEMENT OF MRS. R. E. PAREN CAROLYN UNPAREN ARNOLD, PARAGRAPH SIX, LINE TWO, TIME INDICATED AS TWELVE TWENTY–FIVE A.M., SHOULD BE QUOTE P.M. UNQUOTE. IF THIS IS TYPO, BUREAU WILL HANDLE.STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA H. BARNUM DOES NOT DISCLOSE HOME ADDRESS.STATEMENTS OF MRS. R. A. REID AND MRS. ROBERT E. PAREN PAULINE UNPAREN SANDERS, SR., PARAGRAPH THREE EACH STATEMENT DISCLOSES DATE OF ACTIVITY AS NOVEMBER TWENTY–TWO NINETEEN SIXTY–FOUR. SINCE THIS DATE IS OF PRIMARY CONCERN, IT MUST BE CORRECTED.STATEMENT OF JOYCE MAURINE STANSBERY PARAGRAPH SIX, LINE TWO SECOND WORD MISSPELLED. BUREAU WILL HANDLE IF THIS IS TYPO.ABOVE CORRECTIONS MUST BE IMMEDIATELY HANDLED EITHER BY ADVICE TO THE BUREAU OR BY OBTAINING NEW CORRECT STATEMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS INDICATED. HANDLE IMMEDIATELY SO DISSEMINATION TO PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED

        • “The problem, of course, is that we know when the report of the Tippit shooting was called in to the Dallas police dispatcher: 1:16.”~McAdams

          Yes that is indeed quite the problem, as Tippit was pronounced D.O.A. by Dr. Rose at 1:15 PM. This conflict indicates either a “time-warp” of science fiction proportions or a conflict with the information of the Dallas Police Dispatcher.

          Which would you choose McAdams? The Stephen King ‘time travel’ theory or the dispatch report being in error?
          \\][//

  19. ed connor says:

    I have not read Mr. McBride’s book, but I listened to the one hour taped interview on JFK Facts.
    As Jeff surely knows, Carl Mather did not “work on LBJ’s airplane in Bethesda, Maryland.”
    First, Vice President Johnson had a perfectly suitable Boeing 707 at his disposal (Air Force 2).
    Secondly, there is no airport at or near Bethesda, Maryland. I know. I live in Bethesda, Maryland.
    Maybe Mr. McBride was thinking of the gyrocopter recently flown to the U.S. Capitol. That is a much smaller aircraft and, as its name implies, may be made of marinated lamb.

  20. Mariano says:

    Where are the records indicating when calls were received from the several people who called police to report the shooting of Tippit? These times should approximate the time of the shooting?

    Acquilla Clemons witnessed the shooting (two men were evident, one of whom was short and kind of heavy; the other tall and thin and wearing khaki trousers) – she was advised by Dallas policemen to not relate this to the Commission otherwise she might be killed – yet you wouldn’t know about her reading the WR, as her name is not mentioned and she was never questioned or called to testify by the WC.

    Domingo Benavides witnessed the shooting (could not identify the shooter) in his deposition to a Commission lawyer on April 2 1964 (he was never called to testify in the WC) he described how after the shots he hid in his pickup for a few minutes for safety, and only after the shooter had clearly left did he get out of the pickup to approach the scene – yet the WC version of events is that he immediately contacted police via Tippit’s radio after the shooting. Benavides was not requested to view a lineup.

    In a taped phone interview by Mark Lane, Markham (the WC primary witness to the shooting) described the shooter as short, on the heavy side, with bushy-like hair. She also said that police at the scene did not ask her to describe the appearance of the shooter, that only she should describe the shooter’s clothing – the WC version is that Markham provides a matching description of the shooter’s appearance.

    Other witnesses: Mr and Mrs Wright; Mr and Mrs Higgins; the ambulance driver and assistant were not called to testify to the WC. B.D Searcy, and Jimmy Burt, nor T.F. Bowley were questioned by the WC.

    Mark Lane, very early on identified the fix that was taking place in WC investigations, and covers some of these points, among others in sections 13 – 15 of Part One of his book RUSH TO JUDGEMENT.

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.