Bullets inside Tippit
davidma...@yahoo.com
Oswalds gun and that that the cartridges were manufactured by a
different company?
David Maggs
WhiskyJoe
From: davidma...@yahoo.com - view profile
Date: Fri, Apr 21 2006 11:48 am
> Is it true that the bullets inside Tippit could
> not be matched to Oswald's gun?
Yes, this is true.
Oswald's was one of the relatively few guns that
had it's barrel bored out wider for a special
type of ammunition. So it could fire bullets
without leaving unique marks on the bullets that
can be used to match the bullets with the gun.
The bullets in Officer Tippit's body were a
somewhat rare type of bullet, with no marks
on them, because they were fired from a gun
which had an extra wide bore.
Since Oswald's gun leaves no unique marks on
the bullet and the bullets had no unique marks
on them, it is impossible to match the bullets
with Oswald's gun. But Oswald's gun may have
fired those bullets. Oswald's gun is of the
correct caliber. And it is of the relatively
few types of guns that would not leave marks
on those types of bullets.
> And that that the cartridges were manufactured
> by a different company?
This is true as well. This could indicate that
the murder used two different types of bullets,
using the same gun. Oswald was found with the
same two types of bullets in his pocket.
It seems that Oswald did murder Tippet's, or
had the incredible misfortune to be arrested
within 35 minutes, within 6 blocks, of a
murder, with one of the relatively few types
of guns that could have fired the bullets
recovered from the body, with the same two
types of bullets in his pocket as recovered
from the victim.
And, of course, had left the scene of another
murder 45 minutes before the other murder to
catch the first taxi ride of his life and
retrieved his handgun. Surprising behavior
from someone who was poor, frugal and
presumably did not expect to need to be home
for another five hours, until the first
murder took place and could have walked home
in about an hour.
If innocent, he had incredibly bad luck that
day.
Anthony Marsh
The Oswald ammunition was two different brands.
The way the revolver was made made it impossible to prove the bullets
came from that revolver.
> David Maggs
>
>
Jean Davison
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1145672806.8...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Nice summary, Whiskey Joe.
And talk about bad luck. The one day he left his wedding ring at
home, and took a package to work, and was spotted near the only exit route
for the assassin (back stairway), and furthermore, lost the jacket that he
had on when he left his rooming house .... all on THIS day, of all days.
Wow, what are the odds?
Jean
Grizzlie Antagonist
And, you forgot to mention, that a jacket was found near the Tippit
murder scene.
Some CT's have tried to cast doubt on the jacket being Oswald's. But
it still means that both Oswald and Tippit's murderer lost their
jackets in the same general vicinity in the same two-hour window period.
Ricky
<davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes.
>
>David Maggs
>
David VP
To correct you (just slightly) in this regard.......
Oswald had just one "type" of bullet in his pocket (Winchester-Western;
5 of them found in his left front trouser pocket). But what's more
important here, IMO, is the fact that Oswald had a perfectly-even mix
of the two types of bullets IN HIS GUN WHEN ARRESTED (the exact same
type of bullets that were plucked from Tippit's body -- Winchesters and
Remingtons).
Oswald's gun was filled with 3 Winchester-Western bullets and 3
Remington-Peters bullets when he was apprehended in the theater. And
the bullets taken from Tippit were a mix of Winchesters and Remingtons.
Do CTers look upon this as yet another amazing "coincidence" that ties
an "innocent Patsy named Oswald" to the Tippit murder? (Or were those
plotters so good they knew to shoot Tippit with the exact same types of
ammunition that Oswald just happened to have in his gun on 11/22?)
Plus: Joseph Nicol, who was one of 9 ballistics experts to examine the
bullets taken from Tippit's body, said that one of the 4 bullets inside
Tippit could be linked to Oswald's gun "to the exclusion". Grain of
salt required there, of course, since the other eight experts who
looked at the bullets did not agree with Nicol re. this "to the
exclusion" conclusion.
But the spent bullet shells found at 10th & Patton were tied to LHO's
gun beyond any and all doubt (even if CTers want to disregard the two
"Poe" shells). The other two shells have an undeniable clear chain of
custody (even via oddball CT standards).
There's no better way to quickly figure out who the one and only killer
of J.D. Tippit was than by turning to this fabulous hunk of bound
printed matter:
www.amazon.com/gp/product/0966270975/102-0679552-6293763
Ricky
>
>From: davidma...@yahoo.com - view profile
>Date: Fri, Apr 21 2006 11:48 am
>
>
>> Is it true that the bullets inside Tippit could
>> not be matched to Oswald's gun?
>
>Yes, this is true.
>
>Oswald's was one of the relatively few guns that
>had it's barrel bored out wider for a special
>type of ammunition. So it could fire bullets
>without leaving unique marks on the bullets that
>can be used to match the bullets with the gun.
>
The gun was sent to England (WWII lend lease) and then returned to the
U. S. This is why the berrle was bored out because the English
cartridges are slightly smaller than the U. S. cartridges.
>The bullets in Officer Tippit's body were a
>somewhat rare type of bullet, with no marks
>on them, because they were fired from a gun
>which had an extra wide bore.
>
The bullets were from common U. S. Remmington and Smith and Wesson
cartridges.
>Since Oswald's gun leaves no unique marks on
>the bullet and the bullets had no unique marks
>on them, it is impossible to match the bullets
>with Oswald's gun. But Oswald's gun may have
>fired those bullets. Oswald's gun is of the
>correct caliber. And it is of the relatively
>few types of guns that would not leave marks
>on those types of bullets.
>
The shell cases recovered at the scene were linked to the gun by the
ejector markings to the exclusion of all other guns as I recall.
>
>> And that that the cartridges were manufactured
>> by a different company?
>
>This is true as well. This could indicate that
>the murder used two different types of bullets,
>using the same gun. Oswald was found with the
>same two types of bullets in his pocket.
>
>
>
>It seems that Oswald did murder Tippet's, or
>had the incredible misfortune to be arrested
>within 35 minutes, within 6 blocks, of a
>murder, with one of the relatively few types
>of guns that could have fired the bullets
>recovered from the body, with the same two
>types of bullets in his pocket as recovered
>from the victim.
>
>And, of course, had left the scene of another
>murder 45 minutes before the other murder to
>catch the first taxi ride of his life and
>retrieved his handgun. Surprising behavior
>from someone who was poor, frugal and
>presumably did not expect to need to be home
>for another five hours, until the first
>murder took place and could have walked home
>in about an hour.
>
This is circumstantial and does not prove anything even if admitted
into evidence.
WhiskyJoe
Thank you Jean.
Yes, if Oswald was innocent, he was very
unlucky that day.
Not to mention that while Oswald's handgun
leave no, or very faint, marks on the bullets,
it left strong identifying marks on the shells
and the shells recovered from the murder
scene were uniquely linked to Oswald's
handgun.
Grizzlie Antagonist
Sorry, but you need to return to law school. Even jury service might
help.
You're hardly alone. I hear a number of laypeople pull the phrase
"circumstantial evidence" as a rabbit out of a hat when they wish to
dismiss evidence that they don't like or believe in. They say, "That's
just circumstantial".
But circumstantial evidence, as any judge would instruct you once you were
sworn into the jury panel, is certainly admissible. OF COURSE,
circumstantial evidence "proves something". "Circumstantial evidence" is
evidence, which means that it proves something. Circumstantial evidence
might sometimes be exclused for other reasons, but NEVER because it's
"only" circumstantial.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that can be used to INFER a conclusion
while direct evidence is evidence that stands on its own. Direct evidence
usually takes the form of a witness statement. Since criminals rarely
make it a point to act in the presence of witnesses, it would usually be
difficult indeed to secure a conviction if "circumstantantial evidence"
wasn't admissible.
Actually, what is being discussed is a combination of direct and
circumstantial evidence, since it would probably take direct evidence to
establish Oswald's frugality. But evidence that Oswald left work early
and that his activities otherwise varied from his usual habits on this
particular day and that he retrieved a handgun yet are certainly items of
"circumstantial evidence" from which one could infer guilt or
consciousness of guilt.
Their admissibility might vary from judge to judge, but given the charges,
it is hardly conceivable that any judge would exclude from evidence proof
that he ran to his roominghouse to retrieve his handgun and the evidence
concerning his activities beforehand would likely be admitted too, even if
with limiting instructions, just to show the entire chain of events.
WhiskyJoe
Reply to: David VP - view profile
Post of: Sat, Apr 22 2006 10:50 am
>> "Oswald was found with the same two types
>> of bullets in his pocket."
> To correct you (just slightly) in this
> regard....... Oswald had just one "type" of
> bullet in his pocket (Winchester-Western;
> 5 of them found in his left front trouser
> pocket). But what's more important here,
> IMO, is the fact that Oswald had a
> perfectly-even mix of the two types of
> bullets IN HIS GUN WHEN ARRESTED (the
> exact same type of bullets that were
> plucked from Tippit's body -- Winchesters
> and Remingtons).
Yes, that is right. I forgot the details.
The same mix of bullets in his handgun.
Reply to: Ricky
post of: Sat, Apr 22 2006 10:51 am
>> The bullets in Officer Tippit's body
>> were a somewhat rare type of bullet,
>> with no marks on them, because they
>> were fired from a gun which had an
>> extra wide bore.
> The bullets were from common U.S.
> Remmington and Smith and Wesson
> cartridges.
What I meant was that it would be rare
to find bullets with no markings on
them. Typically, guns leave unique marks
on the bullets, as well as the shells.
But with these bullets, no marks, or
faint marks, were left on them. Those
types of bullets are common, but fired
bullets with no marks, or faint marks,
on them are not so common.
Anthony Marsh
> On 21 Apr 2006 23:44:26 -0400, "WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> From: davidma...@yahoo.com - view profile
>> Date: Fri, Apr 21 2006 11:48 am
>>
>>
>>> Is it true that the bullets inside Tippit could
>>> not be matched to Oswald's gun?
>> Yes, this is true.
>>
>> Oswald's was one of the relatively few guns that
>> had it's barrel bored out wider for a special
>> type of ammunition. So it could fire bullets
>> without leaving unique marks on the bullets that
>> can be used to match the bullets with the gun.
>>
> The gun was sent to England (WWII lend lease) and then returned to the
> U. S. This is why the berrle was bored out because the English
> cartridges are slightly smaller than the U. S. cartridges.
>
I am not sure I understand your theory. I'd think it would be the
opposite. That in England it would be converted to .38 Special and they
preferred the barrel be wider than American.
>> The bullets in Officer Tippit's body were a
>> somewhat rare type of bullet, with no marks
>> on them, because they were fired from a gun
>> which had an extra wide bore.
>>
> The bullets were from common U. S. Remmington and Smith and Wesson
> cartridges.
>
No. Remington-Peters and Western.
>> Since Oswald's gun leaves no unique marks on
>> the bullet and the bullets had no unique marks
>> on them, it is impossible to match the bullets
>> with Oswald's gun. But Oswald's gun may have
>> fired those bullets. Oswald's gun is of the
>> correct caliber. And it is of the relatively
>> few types of guns that would not leave marks
>> on those types of bullets.
>>
> The shell cases recovered at the scene were linked to the gun by the
> ejector markings to the exclusion of all other guns as I recall.
close enough for government work.
Anthony Marsh
> From: davidma...@yahoo.com - view profile
> Date: Fri, Apr 21 2006 11:48 am
>
>
>> Is it true that the bullets inside Tippit could
>> not be matched to Oswald's gun?
>
> Yes, this is true.
>
> Oswald's was one of the relatively few guns that
> had it's barrel bored out wider for a special
> type of ammunition. So it could fire bullets
> without leaving unique marks on the bullets that
> can be used to match the bullets with the gun.
>
That is not why it was bored out.
curtj...@webtv.net
I am no ballistics expert, but don't the cartridges from a Special, the
gun found on Oswald tend to make the cartridges bulge in the center? I
don't recall the bullets found at the Tippit scene being categorized as
bulged. Also, I find it very disconcerting that an officer would put
initials inside the cartridges found and later not have those markings in
evidence in a later period of time.
CJ
Ricky
<lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am not a lay person to the law.
>But circumstantial evidence, as any judge would instruct you once you were
>sworn into the jury panel, is certainly admissible.
I have been on a jury and attended a number of trials. Yes
circumstantial evidence maybe admitted or excluded depending on the
judge. If admitted it will be considered.
>OF COURSE,
>circumstantial evidence "proves something". "Circumstantial evidence" is
>evidence, which means that it proves something. Circumstantial evidence
>might sometimes be exclused for other reasons, but NEVER because it's
>"only" circumstantial.
>
Because it is circumstantial it has a high probability of being
disputed by other reasonable circumstantial evidence creating a
reasonable doubt.
>Circumstantial evidence is evidence that can be used to INFER a conclusion
>while direct evidence is evidence that stands on its own. Direct evidence
>usually takes the form of a witness statement. Since criminals rarely
>make it a point to act in the presence of witnesses, it would usually be
>difficult indeed to secure a conviction if "circumstantantial evidence"
>wasn't admissible.
>
I did not say circumstantial evidence was not admissible and your
statements are true enough but hard direct evidence must be present in
most cases. Just because a felon is employed at a place that was
robbed or burglarized does not mean he is guilty of the crime. More
than simple employment is needed because several felons may work at or
near the same location. Many circumstantial evidence cases have been
overturned for the lack of evidence while others have not.
>Actually, what is being discussed is a combination of direct and
>circumstantial evidence, since it would probably take direct evidence to
>establish Oswald's frugality. But evidence that Oswald left work early
>and that his activities otherwise varied from his usual habits on this
>particular day and that he retrieved a handgun yet are certainly items of
>"circumstantial evidence" from which one could infer guilt or
>consciousness of guilt.
>
If admitted and testified to by credible witnesses who are not
controverted by other credible witnesses creating reasonable doubt.
Frugality does not mean he would not take a cab. JFK had been shot
and he may have been told to go home or thought so. The day was not
usual requiring usual habits. The pistol may only prove or indicate
he often carried it illegally as a matter of habit. I often legally
carried my pistol in my youth as a matter of habit.
>Their admissibility might vary from judge to judge, but given the charges,
>it is hardly conceivable that any judge would exclude from evidence proof
>that he ran to his roominghouse to retrieve his handgun and the evidence
>concerning his activities beforehand would likely be admitted too, even if
>with limiting instructions, just to show the entire chain of events.
>
You cannot prove he ran from the rooming house as the testimony
suggests that he walked in a hurry. You cannot prove he picked up the
pistol at the rooming house. He may have had it at the SBD for part
of his escape plan which remains unknown. When you start speculating
you can reach the wrong conclusions.
Ricky
The problem is not the marks that are on them but that each bullet
fired from Oswald's gun will have different marks on them and not be
traceable to that gun to the exclusion of all other guns. Faint marks
are still traceable to the gun if it has a reasonably tight bore to
bullet distance that is simply worn. It Oswald's gun the bore to
bullet distance was so large that markings would occur randomly on the
bullet as it passed making sporadic contact with the bore.
Tom Lowry
LHO 's . The hammer marks on the end of the bullets matched his gun .
Thats all we can say about it , period . There where however 6 to 8
witnesses who saw him shoot Tippit . A couple witnesses saw him very
close , to positively ID him . Case Closed . Tom Lowry
curtj...@webtv.net
Doesn't one find it odd that he would only take 4 bullets with him to
the TSBD, and have supposedly unloaded 4or 5 into Tippit, and still
somehow have five more on him a short time later?
Anthony Marsh
Some empty cartridges in some guns can bulge and even split after firing.
Grizzlie Antagonist
Then you should have known better than to have made the statement,
"This is circumstantial and does not prove anything even if admitted
into evidence."
> >OF COURSE,
> >circumstantial evidence "proves something". "Circumstantial evidence" is
> >evidence, which means that it proves something. Circumstantial evidence
> >might sometimes be exclused for other reasons, but NEVER because it's
> >"only" circumstantial.
> >
> Because it is circumstantial it has a high probability of being
> disputed by other reasonable circumstantial evidence creating a
> reasonable doubt.
I'm not sure that I know what "reasonable circumstantial evidence" existed
in Oswald's favor. But assuming that it did exist, that simply means that
Oswald's attorney would have been allowed to introduce it, in order to try
to establish this reasonable doubt. It does not mean that "circumstantial
evidence" would not also have been admissible against Oswald in the first
place. It means that both sides would have been allowed to introduce it
as evidence.
Resolving discrepancies is up to a jury. A jury will be told that if two
reasonable inferences can be derived from circumstantial evidence, they
should resolve the inference in favor of the defendant - the key word
being REASONABLE. The jury will also be specifically instructed NOT to
infer in favor of the defendant if doing so would NOT be reasonable.
But you can't argue or attempt to imply that "circumstantial evidence" is
unreliable because there might be two sides to it. Again, that's what
juries are for. Most criminologists, I think, would say that
circumstantial evidence is MORE reliable than direct evidence.
Direct evidence involves what people witnessed and that can be fleeting or
inaccurate or unreliable for a number of reasons. Circumstantial evidence
is often more static and more easily come by and more subject to
examination.
> >Circumstantial evidence is evidence that can be used to INFER a conclusion
> >while direct evidence is evidence that stands on its own. Direct evidence
> >usually takes the form of a witness statement. Since criminals rarely
> >make it a point to act in the presence of witnesses, it would usually be
> >difficult indeed to secure a conviction if "circumstantantial evidence"
> >wasn't admissible.
> >
> I did not say circumstantial evidence was not admissible and your
> statements are true enough but hard direct evidence must be present in
> most cases. Just because a felon is employed at a place that was
> robbed or burglarized does not mean he is guilty of the crime. More
> than simple employment is needed because several felons may work at or
> near the same location. Many circumstantial evidence cases have been
> overturned for the lack of evidence while others have not.
Circumstantial evidence IS evidence. It is not "lack of evidence".
You might have meant to say "for insufficient evidence".
By "overturned", do you mean by the appellate court? That's what I
understand the meaning of "overturned" to be.
I don't know about "many". In the first place, very few jury trials are
overturned. Defense verdicts are NOT overturned. And when guilty
verdicts are overturned, it is usually because the appellate court has
decided that the trial judge made some crucial error that was prejudicial
to the defendant and that might have had an effect on the jury verdict.
Note that over a course of a trial, even a good trial judge will have many
opportunities to make errors, so the appellate court will disregard
instances of what it feels are "harmless error" and limit this remedy to
an instance where the trial judge's error really might have had
consequences.
But it is very very very VERY rare that either the trial judge or the
appellate court will overturn a guilty verdict. To do that, they would
have to find that the jury abused its discretion in arriving at a guilty
verdict and it is an extremely rare occasion where that finding is made.
It is not the job of any judge to second-guess the jury, only to ensure
that the jury behaves within its discretion.
So I don't think that I agree that "many" circumstantial evidence cases
have been overturned for lack of evidence. If the prosecution's case was
that bad, it probably never made it far beyond the preliminary hearing
stage.
> >Actually, what is being discussed is a combination of direct and
> >circumstantial evidence, since it would probably take direct evidence to
> >establish Oswald's frugality. But evidence that Oswald left work early
> >and that his activities otherwise varied from his usual habits on this
> >particular day and that he retrieved a handgun yet are certainly items of
> >"circumstantial evidence" from which one could infer guilt or
> >consciousness of guilt.
> >
> If admitted and testified to by credible witnesses who are not
> controverted by other credible witnesses creating reasonable doubt.
Yes. Again, I 'm not sure what credible witnesses exist in this case
that might have provided facts from which reasonable doubt could be
inferred.
But your initial argument was that "circumstantial evidence doesn't
prove anything", which is a far cry from what you are saying now -
which is that other circumstantial might refute it.
> Frugality does not mean he would not take a cab.
Young Sandy MacTavish ran home eagerly from school and when he met his
father at the door, he said eagerly, "Father! Today I ran home from
school behind an omnibus and saved three pence!"
Smack went the father's gnarled hand against his son's cheek.
"Spendthrift!" he remonstrated. "Why did you not run behind a taxicab
and save four shillings?"
Of COURSE, frugality means that he would not take a cab, unless he
regarded himself as being in an emergency situation. Or at least,
that's certainly a reasonable inference which I doubt that a judge
would remove from the discretion of the jury. I'm not sure, however,
whether evidence of his frugality would have been admissible in the
first place.
I'm looking at the Texas Rules of Evidence right now. I don't know if
these were applicable in 1963-1964. But they are more or less based on
the standard rules of evidence that are in practice that are in all
states, which, in turn, is mostly similar to the Federal Rules of
Evidence applicable in the federal courts.
Rule 406 states, "Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine
practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless
of the presence of eyewitnesses is relevant to prove that the conduct
of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in
conformity with the habit or routine practice."
So evidence that an individual acted in CONFORMITY with a habit is
admissible. Does this mean that evidence that a person varied from his
conventional actions is or is not admissible?
Or is frugality a character trait, rather than a "habit"? Character
evidence is not always admissible.
RULE 404. CHARACTER EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE
TO PROVE CONDUCT; EXCEPTIONS; OTHER CRIMES
(a) Character Evidence Generally. Evidence of a person's character or
character trait is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in
conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:
(1) Character of accused. Evidence of a pertinent character trait
offered:
(A) by an accused in a criminal case, or by the prosecution to rebut
the same, or
It's possible that the prosecution would not have been allowed to bring
in evidence of Oswald's frugality. But then again, they might have
been. They would not have been seeking to introduce evidence of
Oswald's frugality to prove action in conformity therewith on a
particular occasion but for the purpose of proving action CONTRARY
therewith on a particular occasion. So it might not have been
excludable under this rule, and quite frankly, in high profile cases,
in particular, judges are not inclined to give the benefit of a close
question on an evidentiary ruling to the defendant.
Evidence of Oswald's frugality might have made its way into evidence
surreptitiously or inadvertently whether it was presented in that light
or not.
In either event, his actions certainly would have been scrutinized.
You may not think that there is anything particularly suspicious about
a low-income book clerk taking a taxicab home, but a jury might have
felt differently - whether or not they would have been allowed to learn
of Oswald's usual frugality.
> JFK had been shot
> and he may have been told to go home or thought so.
He was NOT told to go home. No one was told to go home. If he
"thought so", it would have been incumbent upon him to explain why "he
thought so". That would have required his taking the witness stand.
And quite frankly, I don't think that any defense attorney would have
been that thrilled to have the mercurial Oswald taking the witness
stand and testify on his own behalf.
He would have had the right to testify on his own behalf or NOT to
testify on his own behalf, as he chose, and either choice would have
been fraught with danger for him. This is something that "Oswald would
have been acquitted" theorists rarely take into account - the
temperament of the accused.
Again, had he testified, he would be allowed to give his own
explanation for his actions or perhaps introduce other evidence for
this purpose but that's NOT the same thing as saying that evidence that
he left early would be inadmissible.
In fact, Oswald was the ONLY employee to reason it the way in which you
are trying to justify. No other TSBD employee left early, let alone by
taxicab. But I imagine that this would not have been admissible -
evidence of what other TSBD employees didn't do.
> The day was not
> usual requiring usual habits. The pistol may only prove or indicate
> he often carried it illegally as a matter of habit. I often legally
> carried my pistol in my youth as a matter of habit.
I don't believe that LHO routinely carried a pistol out of habit. If
he wanted to try to show that he did, I assume that he could have
attempted to show it under Rule 406, and the prosecution would
certainly have been allowed to try to rebut this. Given the charges, I
really don't see how Oswald is helped very much, if at all, by evidence
that he routinely carried a pistol.
> >Their admissibility might vary from judge to judge, but given the charges,
> >it is hardly conceivable that any judge would exclude from evidence proof
> >that he ran to his roominghouse to retrieve his handgun and the evidence
> >concerning his activities beforehand would likely be admitted too, even if
> >with limiting instructions, just to show the entire chain of events.
> >
> You cannot prove he ran from the rooming house as the testimony
> suggests that he walked in a hurry.
FIne. He "walked in a hurry" instead of "running".
> You cannot prove he picked up the
> pistol at the rooming house.
Quite an expensive cab ride if it was just to pick up his jacket at the
rooming house, which jacket he would shortly lose anyway. Again, I
don't see that it helps to say that he had the pistol with him at all
times as opposed to having picked it up later.
> He may have had it at the SBD for part
> of his escape plan which remains unknown.
"Escape plan"? "Escape" for what purposes? What has he done that
requires him to "escape"? Evidence of a perceived need to "escape" is
"circumstantial" evidence from which consciousness of guilt can be
inferred.
> When you start speculating
> you can reach the wrong conclusions.
What you call "speculating", I would call "drawing inferences". That's
what triers of fact - whether they are jurors or judges - are called
upon to do. They draw inferences based upon common human experience
and upon their own unique experiences. How would you have it
different? How COULD you have it different?
One more thing - while a jury would not have been allowed to hear all
the evidence the prosecution would have had to offer, the public would
have heard it all. And the public is entitled to its own judgment,
separate and apart from what juries conclude, as the OJ case shows us.
My judgement has always been the same. Had Oswald been a Timothy
McVeigh type of character, belief in his guilt would be a sacrament.
The amount of tortured reasoning and twisting of facts that has been
engaged in over the years to try to exonerate Lee Harvey Oswald has
been engaged in ONLY because Oswald was a Marxist-Leninist.
WhiskyJoe
Reply to: David VP - view profile
Post of: Sat, Apr 22 2006 10:50 am
>> "Oswald was found with the same two
>> types of bullets in his pocket."
> To correct you (just slightly) in this
> regard.......
> Oswald had just one "type" of bullet
> in his pocket (Winchester-Western;
> 5 of them found in his left front
> trouser pocket). But what's more
> important here, IMO, is the fact
> that Oswald had a perfectly-even
> mix of the two types of bullets
> IN HIS GUN WHEN ARRESTED (the exact
> same type of bullets that were
> plucked from Tippit's body --
> Winchesters and Remingtons).
Upon further review, was I not correct
to say that he had "both types of
bullets in his pocket" since both types
of bullets were in his handgun and
his handgun was in his pocket?
:)
Jean Davison
<curtj...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1145742273.1...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> WhiskyJoe wrote:
>> Thank you Jean.
>>
>> Yes, if Oswald was innocent, he was very
>> unlucky that day.
>>
>> Not to mention that while Oswald's handgun
>> leave no, or very faint, marks on the bullets,
>> it left strong identifying marks on the shells
>> and the shells recovered from the murder
>> scene were uniquely linked to Oswald's
>> handgun.
>
> I am no ballistics expert, but don't the cartridges from a Special, the
> gun found on Oswald tend to make the cartridges bulge in the center? I
> don't recall the bullets found at the Tippit scene being categorized as
> bulged.
The best photo of the shells I've seen is in Dale Myers' With
Malice. They do appear to be bulged slightly.
>Also, I find it very disconcerting that an officer would put
> initials inside the cartridges found and later not have those markings in
> evidence in a later period of time.
If you mean Poe, he supposedly marked two of the four shells,
but did he?
Jean
>
> CJ
>
>
James K. Olmstead
Circumstantial evidence is valid evidence in most cases. However it has to directly
relate to the actual crime or the act of commission of the crime.
> I'm not sure that I know what "reasonable circumstantial evidence" existed
> in Oswald's favor. But assuming that it did exist, that simply means that
> Oswald's attorney would have been allowed to introduce it, in order to try
> to establish this reasonable doubt. It does not mean that "circumstantial
> evidence" would not also have been admissible against Oswald in the first
> place. It means that both sides would have been allowed to introduce it
> as evidence.
The problem is that only evidence that presents guilt is presented by the WCR, there
is no defense position presented. That's why there is discussion on the case. However
supporters of the WCR reject any and all evidence wheiter it's circumstantial or
direct when it's presented.
About 15 years ago there was a law student in Texas involved in disscusions and I
beleive he looked back at most of the laws in Texas that pertain to this case and found
that they hold true from 1963 as basically written. Texas law for the most part
follows the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The make believe 1963-64 jury would not find use or no use of cab's any issue to consider
if taking a cab "acted in CONFORMITY" with daily habits....however the incident with
the cab at the bus station would be a major consideration......that's apparent by the
volume of discussion on the issue to this day.
jko
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145829933.5...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
curtj...@webtv.net
If I would have to make a choice between yes or no I would say yes. How
does one take a very peculiar and distinct act like marking the inside of
a shell, where the spotlight would be on one for the momentous day in
American History as part of that History, and somehow go to a statement
that seems very contrived to be not so sure of that event? Poe had to lie
or his ass would have been in a sling. People in this case knew what was
coming down, and who was their bosses and what they felt about the case.
Suddenly testimony became political and possibly job threatening. Try
looking at the comedy when one looks for the fingerprints on the passenger
side of Tippit's vehicle.
CJ
curtj...@webtv.net
Would you say the bulges of a Special could never be compared to the
insignificant bulging in a regular revolver?
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Not at all. Supposedly Oswald bought one box of 20 rifle bullets and
used most for target practice and shooting at Walker, so he could be
down to only 4 bullets by 11/22/63. But having two different brands of
revolver bullets he likely bought 40 rounds total, did not use many for
practice and had plenty left over by 11/22/63.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> A good exchange....somebody actually looked up the law and applied it to his position.
Thank you, I think.
> Circumstantial evidence is valid evidence in most cases. However it has to directly
> relate to the actual crime or the act of commission of the crime.
I would think that it could relate to flight from the scene.
> > I'm not sure that I know what "reasonable circumstantial evidence" existed
> > in Oswald's favor. But assuming that it did exist, that simply means that
> > Oswald's attorney would have been allowed to introduce it, in order to try
> > to establish this reasonable doubt. It does not mean that "circumstantial
> > evidence" would not also have been admissible against Oswald in the first
> > place. It means that both sides would have been allowed to introduce it
> > as evidence.
>
> The problem is that only evidence that presents guilt is presented by the WCR, there
> is no defense position presented.
Several defense positions are presented and refuted. There is no
tenable defense position, really.
> That's why there is discussion on the case. However
> supporters of the WCR reject any and all evidence wheiter it's circumstantial or
> direct when it's presented.
The horse waves its tail and the flies hasten away.
James K. Olmstead
> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>> A good exchange....somebody actually looked up the law and applied it to his position.
>
>
>
> Thank you, I think.
Yes....I like to see posters use the law in expression of their opinion.
>
>> Circumstantial evidence is valid evidence in most cases. However it has to directly
>> relate to the actual crime or the act of commission of the crime.
>
>
> I would think that it could relate to flight from the scene.
There is alot of circumstantial evidence associated with the "flight from the scene" and
there are alot of considerations not presented.
Just so you have some idea of what I mean....dealing with "circumstances".
The bus directly behind the bus Lee is presented as having boarded would have
taken him directly to his room, where the bus he was on would require a transfer
or a long walk home.
Lee walked a route to catch a bus......along that short walk he would have to be deaf
dumb and blind to the traffic jam that bus would face, once he got on board and it
took him directly back to the TSBD.
Along the route from the TSBD to the bus stop, there were at least four locations
of interest associated with criminal activities or associates of Ruby....including the
offices of a guy who did "engraving" that might have engraved Oswald's ID bracelet
(also a known associate of Ruby).
>
>
>
>> > I'm not sure that I know what "reasonable circumstantial evidence" existed
>> > in Oswald's favor. But assuming that it did exist, that simply means that
>> > Oswald's attorney would have been allowed to introduce it, in order to try
>> > to establish this reasonable doubt. It does not mean that "circumstantial
>> > evidence" would not also have been admissible against Oswald in the first
>> > place. It means that both sides would have been allowed to introduce it
>> > as evidence.
>>
>> The problem is that only evidence that presents guilt is presented by the WCR, there
>> is no defense position presented.
>
> Several defense positions are presented and refuted. There is no
> tenable defense position, really.
>
Where exactly are these defense positions presented in the WCR?. The assigned
defense lawyer had to go thru the "prosecution" to ask any question. NO DIRECT
QUESTIONING was allowed by this token defense team.
>
>> That's why there is discussion on the case. However
>> supporters of the WCR reject any and all evidence wheiter it's circumstantial or
>> direct when it's presented.
>
>
> The horse waves its tail and the flies hasten away.
There is none so blind as those that refuse to see........quotes are fun
jko
Ricky
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Revolver rounds like .38 etc. come in boxes of 50 and not 20. He may
not have bought new ammo but was given the ammo or bought/traded for
opened partial ammo boxes at a pawnshop or gun range. I think he had
11 or 13 rounds in his pocket.
Anthony Marsh
I am not sure how and where Oswald bought the revolver ammo. And what
you point out is interesting, but not dispositive. You can also buy
small bags of ammo, and possibly even mixed brands. I certainly can't
see Oswald buying 100 rounds of revolver ammo and using about 80 of them
in practice.
Anthony Marsh
The bulges on Oswald's shells are more pronounced that on a regular
revolver shell.
curtj...@webtv.net
Oswald's shells that were on him were not shot, so their was no bulges.
What I am trying to say is, what type of precedent in studies would
determine what typical bulging for each weapon? If the shells at the
Tippit crime scene were slightly bulged, if any were, would this be
normal for a regular revolver?
I can add another question too, would the bulging be any different if
an automatic revolver was used versus the other two mentioned?
CJ
Ricky
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Nor can I. Small bags and mixed brands are available at gun shows
today but are sold by individuals but then so are cheap guns that
would not be traceable. Oswald does not have a history of being at
gun shows. I suspect the ammo was given to him or he found it at
homes he may have stayed in. It is unknown if the persons he stayed
with had guns using that ammo.
Anthony Marsh
Right, we are not talking about the unfired rounds.
>
> What I am trying to say is, what type of precedent in studies would
> determine what typical bulging for each weapon? If the shells at the
> Tippit crime scene were slightly bulged, if any were, would this be
> normal for a regular revolver?
>
NRA. Various gun magazine articles would touch on it.
> I can add another question too, would the bulging be any different if
> an automatic revolver was used versus the other two mentioned?
>
I think the chances would be less for a semi-automatic pistol. Maybe
non-existent for a full auto pistol.
There is also a problem with some pistols which can use various ammos if
you pick one that is slightly undersized or traditionally has weak
cartridge material.
> CJ
>
>
curtj...@webtv.net
The shells picked up at the Tippit scene most probably were automatic's
because the officer reported that the officer had been shot by an
Automatic. Most probably the revolver was of an Automatic nature.
Was Oz's revolver at the theater arrest an Automatic? Would automatic
shells fit into a Special Revolver (a rechambered revolver to change the
characteristic of the bullet and it's idenity).?
CJ
Jean Davison
It occurs to me that these two CT arguments are mutually
exclusive. The argument that the shells in evidence aren't bulged suggests
that they weren't fired from Oswald's weapon. On the other hand, the
argument that Poe's marks are missing suggests that the original shells were
switched for some that *were* fired from Oswald's weapon. In the first
argument the shells are the originals, in the second, they aren't. So which
is it, folks?
I'm reminded again of the Clavius site on moon landing conspiracy
theories, which says:
QUOTE:
>>>>
On a grander scale, conspiracists often have an elaborate explanation for
one photograph or statement and another completely different but equally
elaborate explanation for the next photo and so on. Soon these piecemeal
propositions start contradicting each other. And you get different
explanations depending on which conspiracist you ask.
>>>>
UNQUOTE
http://www.clavius.org/occam.html
Jean
>
> CJ
>
>
Walt
slightly larger diameter chamber ( the hole in the cylinder where the
cartridge is loaded ) than the newer 38 special revolver. The newer,
and smaller, 38 special cartridge can be fired in the old 38 revolver,
but it doesn't fit snuggly. Consequently the shell, or case, will
expand ( buldge) when the cartridge is fired.
I don't believe that Tippit's killer was using an 38 AUTOMATIC, for a
couple of reasons. (a) The shells that were recovered at the were
WIDELY SCATTERED. If an automic had been used the shells should have
been found in a small area. (b) One of the witnesses who saw the
gunman running away said the gunman was "holding the pistol up and
shaking the spent shells out of it as he ran. ( This accounts for the
wide distribution of the shells)
Incidently.... The wittness's DESCRIPTION of the gunman's ACTION in
removing the spent shells indicate that Tippit's killer was using a
SINGLE ACTION revolver. The spent shells are extracted one at a time
from a single action revolver, ( Pointing the barrel up and shaking the
pistol is a common practice fror removing the spent shells ONE AT A
TIME. Whereas a DOUBLE ACTION revolver like the one Oswald had extracts
the spent shells from all six chambers at THE SAME TIME. ( Therefore
the spent shells would be extracted and dumped in a tight cluster and
not widely dispersed.)
Walt
Ricky
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Yes. All revolvers cause bulging of the spent cartridge case. The
case expands to fully touch the sides of the chamber so that when
unloading the case does not freely fall to the ground. Ejector rods
are designed on most revolvers to remove spent cases. A micrometer
can be used to get the bulge size and in some cases this size could
eliminate some guns as the weapon.
>
>NRA. Various gun magazine articles would touch on it.
>
>> I can add another question too, would the bulging be any different if
>> an automatic revolver was used versus the other two mentioned?
>>
>
No. The bullet expands to the chamber size making contact with the
chamber wall. When ejected chamber marking scratches are made on the
case and these are usually traceable back to that specific gun. Each
gun has its own chamber size and characteristics within a few microns.
The bulging would not necessarily tell if it were an auto or a
revolver but the case tool markings could and should in most cases.
Ricky
The shells of an auto are different than from a revolver at the base.
Automatics do not have rims and are called rimless while revolvers
have rims so that the shell can be ejected.
>Was Oz's revolver at the theater arrest an Automatic?
It was a revolver which are never automatics.
>Would automatic
>shells fit into a Special Revolver (a rechambered revolver to change the
>characteristic of the bullet and it's idenity).?
>
They probably could not be fired from a revolver of any type without a
"C" ring half clip to hold them in place in the chamber. The C ring
acts like a rim. Reloading with C ring takes more time. The C rings
(it takes two for a full load) are easy to lose and I do not recall
them being on the market in 1963. They appeared in the market for the
.45 auto to be fired in a .45 Colt revolver.
Oswald's gun was re-chambered because it went to England which uses a
slightly different size .38 and then came back to the US which uses a
larger size .38.
>CJ
Walt
cartridges for an automatic can not be fired in a revolver, nor can the
38 revolver cartridge be loaded into an automatic.
Walt
Anthony Marsh
No, the automatic shells are slightly different. You can tell the
difference at a glance. Some stupid cop might not be able to tell the
difference.
> Was Oz's revolver at the theater arrest an Automatic? Would automatic
> shells fit into a Special Revolver (a rechambered revolver to change the
> characteristic of the bullet and it's idenity).?
>
No, there is practically no revolver sold to the public which is an
automatic. A pistol can be a semi-automatic. A revolver can not.
I don't remember any automatic rounds for that model revolver. Maybe
Google could pop up something, but it would be too esoteric for someone
like Oswald. Not in your local gun shop.
> CJ
Ricky
wrote:
>Curt, perhaps I can help....... The old 38 caliber revolver had a
>slightly larger diameter chamber ( the hole in the cylinder where the
>cartridge is loaded ) than the newer 38 special revolver. The newer,
>and smaller, 38 special cartridge can be fired in the old 38 revolver,
>but it doesn't fit snuggly. Consequently the shell, or case, will
>expand ( buldge) when the cartridge is fired.
>
>I don't believe that Tippit's killer was using an 38 AUTOMATIC, for a
>couple of reasons. (a) The shells that were recovered at the were
>WIDELY SCATTERED. If an automic had been used the shells should have
>been found in a small area.
The shells were found close together as if dropped out of a revo;ver
while reloading according to the testimony. An automatic ejects each
shall as it is fired thus any movement of the gun changes the landing
location yielding a scattered pattern. I think you have this
reversed.
>(b) One of the witnesses who saw the
>gunman running away said the gunman was "holding the pistol up and
>shaking the spent shells out of it as he ran. ( This accounts for the
>wide distribution of the shells)
>
Yes it would and witness testimony is conflicting. I am referring to
the officer's testimony as I recall it.
>Incidently.... The wittness's DESCRIPTION of the gunman's ACTION in
>removing the spent shells indicate that Tippit's killer was using a
>SINGLE ACTION revolver. The spent shells are extracted one at a time
>from a single action revolver, ( Pointing the barrel up and shaking the
>pistol is a common practice fror removing the spent shells ONE AT A
>TIME.
They also have ejection pins to remove each shell after rotating the
cylinder.
> Whereas a DOUBLE ACTION revolver like the one Oswald had extracts
>the spent shells from all six chambers at THE SAME TIME. ( Therefore
>the spent shells would be extracted and dumped in a tight cluster and
>not widely dispersed.)
>
Yes as reported by the witness. If walking this cluster could be a
few feet in diameter.
>Walt
>
curtj...@webtv.net
NIce to see you back around ol' boy! Where hast thou been in hiding?
I tend to think of it as automatic because of the officer reporting it,
and would have had to look at the bottom of the shell to see the word
printed on it.
Your scenario is not without merit and well-thought out. I still can
possibly see the man running with the automatic and have it scatter
that way, even though your way is more likely.
CJ
curtj...@webtv.net
more types of bullets; coupled with the fact that evidence procedure is
potentially contrary can make it exlusive or conclusive, depending on
what actually happened.
> I'm reminded again of the Clavius site on moon landing conspiracy
> theories, which says:
>
> QUOTE:
> >>>>
> On a grander scale, conspiracists often have an elaborate explanation for
> one photograph or statement and another completely different but equally
> elaborate explanation for the next photo and so on. Soon these piecemeal
> propositions start contradicting each other. And you get different
> explanations depending on which conspiracist you ask.
>
> >>>>
>
> UNQUOTE
>
> http://www.clavius.org/occam.html
>
>
If you are to apply this to your above scenario, then I think that
would be of the utmost crassnest. Apply this when the evidence
confuses you, eh?
Don't you think that if an officer reports that the pistol was an
automatic, that he would have derived that from the imprint on the
bottom of a shell, rather than trust weapon that was not there?
CJ
> Jean
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > CJ
> >
> >
Walt
Tippit murder scene were widely dispersed. In fact if it hadn't been
for Dom Benevides watching the killer after the shooting it's quite
possible a couple of the spent shells would not have been found,
because Benevides saw the killer extract one of the shells and toss it
into the bush. I'm confident that I'm correct it saying the shells
were not in a relatively small area as would be the case if the killer
had been using either an automatic or a double action revolver. The
FACT that two witnesses saw the killer removing the spent shells from a
SINGLE ACTION revolver ( like a Ruger single six) tends to exonerate
Oswald as the Killer because he was NOT carrying a SINGLE ACTION
revolver, He had a DOUBLE ACTION, S&W, 38 caliber revolver when he was
arrested.
Walt
Anthony Marsh
You've got be joking of course. Found .38 Special ammo on the street?
Found .38 Special ammo in apartments he rented?
Anthony Marsh
No, that's slightly impossible. Revolvers do not usually come in an
automatic type.
> Was Oz's revolver at the theater arrest an Automatic? Would automatic
> shells fit into a Special Revolver (a rechambered revolver to change the
> characteristic of the bullet and it's idenity).?
>
For all practical purposes there is nothing on the market for the public
like an automatic revolver. Hill was basing it on seeing the empty shells.
Could have been from the pattern of where they were found, slightly
scattered, not close together.
Ricky
wrote:
>Ricky, I don't believe I'm incorrect in saying the spent shells at the
Then you should consider editing your original sentences as posted because
it appears you reversed the words or at least this was not made clear in
my confused head. Yes the shells were spread over several feet. A S&W
revolver will some times have shells remain in the ejector requiring
removal by fingers as one walks. Yes it was a revolver that killed
Tippit. The bullet types were found inside Tippit are that of .38
revolver which does not exclude .38 auto but such weapons were hard to
find and uncommon in 1963 and expensive.
Ricky
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Yes you can still buy .38 Special ammo on the street with cash or
trade.
>Found .38 Special ammo in apartments he rented?
Or with people he stayed with.
Walt
Ricky wrote......"A S&W revolver will some times have shells remain in
the ejector requiring removal by fingers as one walks."
Yer right Ricky.... An old, badly worn, S&W with dirty, or rusty
chambers, sometimes won't extract all of the spent shells, but the
stuck shells are not easily removed. It usually takes a pocket knife or
a 20d nail or some other tool to remove the stuck shell. A man would
have to have steel fingernails, or some real skinny, bony, fingers to
extract the shells with his fingers....and pointing the pistol barrel
toward the sky wouldn't help very much. The witnesses said that the
killer was pointing the pistol up and shaking it to remove the shells
ONE AT A TIME as he fled the scene. Their DESCRIPTIONS of the mans
actions leaves little doubt that the killer was using a SINGLE ACTION
revolver. Oswald's pistol was a DOUBLE ACTION revolver.
Walt
Donald Willis
>>>auto pistol.problem with some pistols which can use various ammos if
>>> you pick one that is slightly undersized or traditionally has weak
>>> cartridge material.
>>>
>>
>> The shells picked up at the Tippit scene most probably were automatic's
>> because the officer reported that the officer had been shot by an
>> Automatic. Most probably the revolver was of an Automatic nature.
>>
>
>No, that's slightly impossible. Revolvers do not usually come in an
>automatic type.
>
>> Was Oz's revolver at the theater arrest an Automatic? Would automatic
>> shells fit into a Special Revolver (a rechambered revolver to change the
>> characteristic of the bullet and it's idenity).?
>>
>
>For all practical purposes there is nothing on the market for the public
>like an automatic revolver. Hill was basing it on seeing the empty shells.
>Could have been from the pattern of where they were found, slightly
>scattered, not close together.
If we are to trust the man himself, he based his info on an examination of the
hulls themselves: "I looked on the bottom." But, as Dale Myers notes, then he
would have seen "38 AUTO" on the bottom. (With Malice p261) That's how he
determined the hulls were 38s & automatic.
\dw
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Anthony Marsh
Huh? Aside from the fact that such eyewitness accounts are notoriously
inaccurate, who says that Oswald has to behave as you would expect a
person to normally do so for your scenario?
> Walt
>
>
Ricky
wrote:
Clearly you do not know the design of a S&W double action ejector.
When it is pushed with the swung open cylinder all 6 (or 5 depending
upon model) cartridges are ejected about an inch but not the full
length of the cartridge shell. Even this amount of ejection does not
mean the shells will always fall from the cylinder because the shells
expand to the size of the chamber wall when fired and friction occurs
upon removal due to the tight fit. Fingers are required to remove
them if they do not fall. In a double action revolver the cylinder
swings outside the revolver frame. Most single action revolvers have
an ejection pin that removes one shell at a time as the chamber cover
is open and the cylinder is rotated inside the revolver frame. It
would be impossible to remove most shells without the aid of an
ejector pin or a tool. Even with this aid the fingers are often
needed to make the shell drop from the gun.
Anthony Marsh
I seriously doubt that your local illegal gun dealer is in the street
every day hawking such specialized ammo.
>> Found .38 Special ammo in apartments he rented?
>
> Or with people he stayed with.
>
Pure nonsense.
>
Ricky
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
What is so special about the .38 Special round? It was at one time
the most popular U. S. handgun round and carried by many police before
the .357. Street dealers in 1963 could sell any gun and ammo legally
as they are used products. A Federal Firearms License is only
required to buy from manufacturers of ammo and firearms. They do not
have to be in the street every day but only on the days Oswald was
looking for them. They are easy to find and often will come to you.
Downtown Dallas in 1963 was full of black market illegal activities.
All he had to do is ask someone like Ruby where he could get a gun and
ammo.
>>> Found .38 Special ammo in apartments he rented?
>>
>> Or with people he stayed with.
>>
>
>Pure nonsense.
>
What ever,...
>>
Anthony Marsh
My point is why would he have to see exactly the words "38 AUTO"?
>
Anthony Marsh
And who exactly said that every shell has the word AUTOMATIC printed on
it?
Walt
I've been using handguns for well over fifty years. I've learned
something about them in that time. I'm not here to argue. The
witnesses DESCRIBED the action of a man removing the spent shells from
a SINGLE ACTION revolver. I don't give a damn about that some Dallas
cop said...."the gun used was an automatic". The witnesses who were
ignorant about handguns SAW the man removing spent shells from a
revolver. They DESCRIBED the actions of a man removing spent shells
from a SINGLE ACTION revolver. End of discussion.
Walt
Donald Willis
the former...
Anthony Marsh
Myers said? You seem to miss my point. Again, why does he have to see
exactly the words "38 AUTO"? If these bullets seemed to have
disappeared, then how do we know what brand they were or even what
country they were from?
Go to your local neighborhood gun shop and ask to see all their brands
of .38 automatic rounds and look at the base to see what each brand
says. Report back your results here. Do not ask to see foreign brands.
>
Anthony Marsh
Not my argument, but there are some people who theorize that there were
two shooters there, one using an automatic and the other using a revolver.
Anthony Marsh
That's fine. I see noting wrong with looking at the bottom.
He does not have to see the words "38 AUTO."
curtj...@webtv.net
It doesn't matter. See below.
In a 1986 interview, Hill said he knew the shells were .38-caliber shells
because he picked one of them up and examined it. This is significant
because .38 automatic shells are marked ".38 AUTO" on the bottom. Hill
specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined.
It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said "the shells at
the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38."
Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
CJ
Ricky
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
At one time a .38 auto was on the market that used standard .38 revolver
rounds. I am including all .38, Special and .357. The 9 mm and .380 are
also the same size bullet diameter but the shells are different in each.
A prototype may have existed in 1963 but Oswald would not have the money
nor access to it in the market.
Walt
believe. You stated that YOU believe that there was only ONE gunman,
and the preponderance of the evidence supports that view. Helen
Markham, and Dom Benevides, both witnessed the shooting and they only
saw one man shooting. The shooting attacted the attention of other
people close by within seconds of the shooting and thjey also only saw
one man with a gun at the scene. I'm compelled to deduce that there
was only ONE gunman, and he was armed with a SINGLE ACTION revolver.
Walt
Anthony Marsh
I see no results posted. One day is not enough time. I'll give you a
month or two.
Anthony Marsh
That's nice. But please point out to me where Hill says what he saw on
the bottom, word for word.
> because .38 automatic shells are marked ".38 AUTO" on the bottom. Hill
Could be, but not necessarily.
> specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined.
That's nice. Quote for me what he saw on the bottom, not just YOUR ideas.
> It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said "the shells at
> the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38."
>
That's fine. Cops make mistakes every day. Some cop got on the radio and
said that the TSBD shooter was armed with a Winchester. Was HE right?
> Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
>
What shells? Show me any shells from that day photographed saying
"38 AUTO."
> CJ
Anthony Marsh
> Marsh, why do you feel that you should in point out what others
> believe. You stated that YOU believe that there was only ONE gunman,
For the benefit of people who may not have heard about alternative theories.
> and the preponderance of the evidence supports that view. Helen
> Markham, and Dom Benevides, both witnessed the shooting and they only
> saw one man shooting. The shooting attacted the attention of other
> people close by within seconds of the shooting and thjey also only saw
> one man with a gun at the scene. I'm compelled to deduce that there
> was only ONE gunman, and he was armed with a SINGLE ACTION revolver.
>
So? What's wrong with that?
> Walt
>
>
curtj...@webtv.net
Can you provide examples where they are not?
> > specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined.
>
> That's nice. Quote for me what he saw on the bottom, not just YOUR ideas.
>
That's not my idea, that's Hill's quote from 1986.
> > It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said "the shells at
> > the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38."
> >
>
> That's fine. Cops make mistakes every day. Some cop got on the radio and
> said that the TSBD shooter was armed with a Winchester. Was HE right?
>
Yes. I believe he would have looked on the bottom of those or that
shell(s) and actually read it like he said, and then reported it. Are
there any possibilities of dyslexia, and mixing up the numbers you would
like to consider for another caliber?
> > Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
> >
>
> What shells? Show me any shells from that day photographed saying
> "38 AUTO."
>
I saw some within this thread I believe. Maybe it was from Myers? I
just remember seeing it. Anybody else?
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Again, I suggest that you visit your local gun shop and ask to see the
ACP ammo and examine the base. I am not going to mail ammo to you.
>>> specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined.
>> That's nice. Quote for me what he saw on the bottom, not just YOUR ideas.
>>
> That's not my idea, that's Hill's quote from 1986.
>
I saw no quote from Hill saying that he looked at the base and saw the
word "38 AUTO." That was YOUR idea.
>>> It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said "the shells at
>>> the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38."
>>>
>> That's fine. Cops make mistakes every day. Some cop got on the radio and
>> said that the TSBD shooter was armed with a Winchester. Was HE right?
>>
>
> Yes. I believe he would have looked on the bottom of those or that
> shell(s) and actually read it like he said, and then reported it. Are
> there any possibilities of dyslexia, and mixing up the numbers you would
> like to consider for another caliber?
>
>>> Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
>>>
>> What shells? Show me any shells from that day photographed saying
>> "38 AUTO."
>>
>
> I saw some within this thread I believe. Maybe it was from Myers? I
> just remember seeing it. Anybody else?
>
No, no one posted any shells from that day which say "38 AUTO."
> CJ
Donald Willis
But Myers seems to suggest that something besides "38" would have accompanied
that number.
A related point: No one has ever remarked that two witnesses described a
different escape route down 10th to Patton. That is, most (Benavides, at least
one of the Davises, Scoggins) say the gunman cut across the end-house lawn to
Patton. But Mrs Markham & Jimmy Burt maintained that the gunman kept to the
sidewalk up to the interection of 10th & Patton. In which case, he certainly
would not have left hulls of any description near the first bush, near the
driveway, nor in the bushes near the corner of the house. In which case, then,
any hulls found in those places would have to have been planted....
dw
>> would have seen "38 AUTO" on the bottom. (With Malice p261) That's how he
>> determined the hulls were 38s & automatic.
>> \dw
>>
>>
>
Ricky
Did he look before making this statement? We will never know.
>Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
>
Not to my knowledge. The .38 auto was not a popular gun and it was
hard to find and get ammo in 1963. It would be expensive and probably
traceable by word of mouth witnesses. They were not photographed at
the scene but in evidence.
>CJ
curtj...@webtv.net
already decided that the shells at the Tippit murder scene were
Automatic's. But I am curious for that in just an informative way if
anyone has any solid evidence.
> >>> specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined.
> >> That's nice. Quote for me what he saw on the bottom, not just YOUR ideas.
> >>
> > That's not my idea, that's Hill's quote from 1986.
> >
>
> I saw no quote from Hill saying that he looked at the base and saw the
> word "38 AUTO." That was YOUR idea.
>
No, it's obvious you didn't read my quote up above that was taken from
the magazine article. It stated that he looked at the bottom and saw
it.
> >>> It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said "the shells at
> >>> the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38."
> >>>
> >> That's fine. Cops make mistakes every day. Some cop got on the radio and
> >> said that the TSBD shooter was armed with a Winchester. Was HE right?
> >>
> >
> > Yes. I believe he would have looked on the bottom of those or that
> > shell(s) and actually read it like he said, and then reported it. Are
> > there any possibilities of dyslexia, and mixing up the numbers you would
> > like to consider for another caliber?
> >
> >>> Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
> >>>
> >> What shells? Show me any shells from that day photographed saying
> >> "38 AUTO."
> >>
> >
> > I saw some within this thread I believe. Maybe it was from Myers? I
> > just remember seeing it. Anybody else?
> >
>
> No, no one posted any shells from that day which say "38 AUTO."
>
I just saw the picture within days. The "38 AUTO" was about as big as
the Font here.
CJ
Anthony Marsh
That is not a proven fact just because one cop said it. You seemed to be
interested in what other ammo might have for head stamping, so I wanted
to let you know about other possibilities. They do not always say "38 AUTO."
>
>>>>> specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined.
>>>> That's nice. Quote for me what he saw on the bottom, not just YOUR ideas.
>>>>
>>> That's not my idea, that's Hill's quote from 1986.
>>>
>> I saw no quote from Hill saying that he looked at the base and saw the
>> word "38 AUTO." That was YOUR idea.
>>
> No, it's obvious you didn't read my quote up above that was taken from
> the magazine article. It stated that he looked at the bottom and saw
> it.
>
That's nice. But Hill did not say that they were stamped "38 AUTO."
>>>>> It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said "the shells at
>>>>> the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38."
>>>>>
>>>> That's fine. Cops make mistakes every day. Some cop got on the radio and
>>>> said that the TSBD shooter was armed with a Winchester. Was HE right?
>>>>
>>> Yes. I believe he would have looked on the bottom of those or that
>>> shell(s) and actually read it like he said, and then reported it. Are
>>> there any possibilities of dyslexia, and mixing up the numbers you would
>>> like to consider for another caliber?
>>>
>>>>> Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
>>>>>
>>>> What shells? Show me any shells from that day photographed saying
>>>> "38 AUTO."
>>>>
>>> I saw some within this thread I believe. Maybe it was from Myers? I
>>> just remember seeing it. Anybody else?
>>>
>> No, no one posted any shells from that day which say "38 AUTO."
>>
> I just saw the picture within days. The "38 AUTO" was about as big as
> the Font here.
>
What picture? Show me the picture.
> CJ
>
curtj...@webtv.net
He said he did, even though he was making a statement in 1986 describing
the looking he did on assassination day. I do not understand your, "we
will never know.", suggestion.
> >Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
> >
> Not to my knowledge. The .38 auto was not a popular gun and it was
> hard to find and get ammo in 1963. It would be expensive and probably
> traceable by word of mouth witnesses. They were not photographed at
> the scene but in evidence.
>
Thanks for the information. Do you have any access to the shells
photographed in evidence? I think it further distances Oswald from this
shooting too, as besides what we have already discussed, with all the
apparent discrepancies that exonerate Oswald; there is the fact that he
purchased a cheap rifle or was set up to; and now he suddenly has
expensive tastes on his $1.25 hr. job.
CJ
Ricky
They are probably in the Archives and accessible upon special request.
> I think it further distances Oswald from this
>shooting too, as besides what we have already discussed, with all the
>apparent discrepancies that exonerate Oswald; there is the fact that he
>purchased a cheap rifle or was set up to; and now he suddenly has
>expensive tastes on his $1.25 hr. job.
>
Yes.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
You can probably find the pictures here.
>CJ
Anthony Marsh
> the looking he did on assassination day. I do not understand your, "we
> will never know.", suggestion.
>
>>>
>> Not to my knowledge. The .38 auto was not a popular gun and it was
>> hard to find and get ammo in 1963. It would be expensive and probably
>> traceable by word of mouth witnesses. They were not photographed at
>> the scene but in evidence.
>>
>
I have no access to the shells themselves.
I believe the National Archives Web site has digital pictures of them.
> shooting too, as besides what we have already discussed, with all the
> apparent discrepancies that exonerate Oswald; there is the fact that he
> purchased a cheap rifle or was set up to; and now he suddenly has
> expensive tastes on his $1.25 hr. job.
>
> CJ
Donald Willis
>
>dcwi...@netscape.net wrote:
>> As I've argued previously, I think there were two gunmen--one the
>> killer & the other the vigilante who picked up T's gun & ran after him.
>> Witness Warren Reynolds saw one of these two go into an old house off
>> the alley between Patton & I forget the street at the other end. The
>> other gunman took Jefferson....
>> dw
>>
>
>That's not such a bad theory if you can find some more evidence to flesh
>it out.
>
Other suggestions of a belated gunman & a different escape route (ie, other than
down Jefferson):
1) Pete Barnes' crime scene sketch noting that the gunman ran down the alley
(Barnes arrived at the scene as Mrs M was being questioned)
2) The two witnesses who testified that they called police *first*, then saw a
man with a gun running (Virginia Davis & LJLewis)
3) Sgt Croy testifying that there was a report that the cab driver picked up
Tippit's gun & gave chase
4) Reynolds changing his tune for the WC & saying he last saw the gunman going
behind the Texaco station
5) Reports of Mrs M telling police that the gunman had bushy hair, was stocky, &
rather short (a description better fitting Scoggins the cab driver than Oswald
or an Oswald lookalike)
6) Dallas Homicide Captain advising that witnesses to Oswald were needed in Oak
Cliff, because they had none in Dealey (if half of them witnessed only another
witness, out goes the Everyone in Oak Cliff Saw It Was Oswald idea)
Jim Shannon
"Donald Willis" <Donald...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:e3g5b...@drn.newsguy.com...
Several witnesses say they saw two gunmen and something about a Rambler a
few car lengths away. It was one of the Davis sisters that said he parked
there at that time most every day. Apparently JD Tippit had an affair with
an employee from Austin BBQ. This is why I wrote the post on Doris Hanlon,
or is it Holan. Anyway, it also seems odd that Markham knew JD but who was
JD's ex lover? I suspect it was Johnnie Weatherpoon (sp) and somehow her
husband coming back from an antique road show (so the story goes) got wind
of this. Speculation. Could be if the 2 gunman scenario hold true, that the
other gunman arrived Mr. Weatherpoon and did his part in the shooting. Just
tossing this out there.
Anyone got any ideas?
Jim
j.raymon...@gmail.com
this wouldn't suffice for a chain in a 1960s Dallas courtroom. But noooo,
all we get is "Poe didn't mark the shells. There is no chain!"
I agree with Jean on this issue.
Jean also wrote: "Not that it really matters -- since there was no trial,
figuring out what was "admissible" is pretty much pointless. IMO." Jean
Here I must profoundly disagree with Jean. The rules of evidence were
developed and refined over many centuries, and are a core element of legal
science. They are based on logic, and are designed to ensure that the
evidence presented to the jury (factfinders) is both relevant and
reliable.
One of the principal reasons why the Warren Report will never be believed
by a majority (let alone a consensus) is that the Commission -- even with
a Supreme Court Justice at its head -- wrote a report that is chock full
of material that the law would not consider appropriate to be considered
evidence in the case. The same is true of "Oswald's Game" and "Case
Closed."
For example, about half of Gerald Posner's book deals with the life story
of one Lee Oswald. Now I will be the first to agree that Lee Oswald led a
very interesting life, but if we are trying to solve a murder, his life
story cannot help us. The Law does not allow character evidence to be
admitted as evidence of guilt for the very simple reason that arguments ad
hominem are fallacious.
curtj...@webtv.net
> Jean Davison wrote: "CTs need to quote an authoritative source saying that
> this wouldn't suffice for a chain in a 1960s Dallas courtroom. But noooo,
> all we get is "Poe didn't mark the shells. There is no chain!"
>
> I agree with Jean on this issue.
>
While that could be argued, it is really moot point, since Hill identified
the shell as a 38 AUTO at the Tippit murder scene. Oswald didn't have a
automatic at his arrest at the theater. Bullets cannot be used from one
type of weapon into the other. Somebody else killed Tippit besides
Oswald.
CJ
Donald Willis
curtj...@webtv.net says...
Agreed. And very few of the supposed witnesses to Oswald/whomever
actually saw him, as I'm suggesting elsewhere on this thread. Among the
few I'd list only, for sure, Scoggins, Guinyard, & Harold Russell.
Ricky
Some .38 autos can use standard .38's and with half ring C clips auto
rounds can be fired in revolvers.
>CJ
Jim Shannon
<curtj...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1147218778....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Or along with Oswald. Opportunity fire.
Jim
Walt
Jim responded....Or along with Oswald. Opportunity fire.
Jim
The Evidence does not support the theory that there was more than one
person involved in the murder of J.D. Tippit. I'm 99% certain that
the killer was NOT Lee Oswald...... And in a court of law, just a
reasonable doubt will fail to convict.
BUT...In this case I would want a much greater certainty, than
"reasonable doubt".
Walt
curtj...@webtv.net
Can you or anybody expound on this a little more? It was said eariler
in the thread that this could not be the case. If, so, as stated
above, could you make a guess on the likelihood of this ballistic
scenario taking place?
Also, it should be re-emphasized that automatic's were rather expensive
and the bullets were not that easy to get, and the bullets are much
more easily traceable. The chance of LHO that worked in the TSBD,
having obtained on his own a MC rifle for so cheap, and being able to
obtain an Automatic that was so very expensive, would appear to be very
slim.
CJ
curtj...@webtv.net
Doubtful as the only witness to 'see' two was Aquila Clemmons, who by
most who have studied her testimony, thinks she saw one of the other
witnesses come up shortly after and got confused, as they went off
after the suspect.
Of course, too, it is possible that the person who was setting up TSBD
Oswald extensively at the time might have been the real LHO. He had
more naturally curly hair than the one who got caught who basically had
finer hair that laid down; and the one identified by witnesses by
consensus had bushy hair.
CJ
Jim Shannon
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:1147276013.1...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Somebody else killed Tippit besides Oswald.
>
>
>
> Jim
>
>
> The Evidence does not support the theory that there was more than one
> person involved in the murder of J.D. Tippit. I'm 99% certain that
> the killer was NOT Lee Oswald...... And in a court of law, just a
> reasonable doubt will fail to convict.
> BUT...In this case I would want a much greater certainty, than
> "reasonable doubt".
>
> Walt
Walt, based upon the two types of bullets in Tippit's body would suggest 2
gunman more then it would suggest Oswald as not the loan shooter. I think it
was Virginia Davis that said Tippit parked his car at the murder location at
the same time almost every day.Frank Wright stated the murderer wore an over
coat like garment and sped away in a gray coupe.
Speculation. JD's affair ended the relationship with him and her husband
knew he parked at the murder location.The original gunman shot once and
Oswald probably shot 3 times. Ahem, Weather or not this is true or not I
don't know, I'm just spooning around ;-)
Jim
Jim Shannon
<curtj...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1147285635.9...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Jim Shannon wrote:
>> <curtj...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:1147218778....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Jim
>
> most who have studied her testimony, thinks she saw one of the other
> witnesses come up shortly after and got confused, as they went off
> after the suspect.
>
> Of course, too, it is possible that the person who was setting up TSBD
> Oswald extensively at the time might have been the real LHO. He had
> more naturally curly hair than the one who got caught who basically had
> finer hair that laid down; and the one identified by witnesses by
> consensus had bushy hair.
>
> CJ
There was someone else that saw 2 gunman at the Tippit murder location.
Weather this is true or not I can't spoon out or cite details at the moment.
Jim
curtj...@webtv.net
I think they were fairly common bullets as far as brand. I also think one
of the witnesses got in a car and sped after the assailant. The affair is
true and could have been his downfall, but I tend to think that his
hurried trek into the Record Store to use the phone was way out of the
ordinary. He surely wouldn't be calling from their to police headquarters
when his radio/phone inside the vehicle was working. That plus honking in
front of Oswald's rooming house makes me think he was in the conspiracy
somehow. He did know Ruby.
CJ
Ricky
>Ricky wrote:
>> On 9 May 2006 22:40:37 -0400, curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
>>
>> >j.raymon...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> Jean Davison wrote: "CTs need to quote an authoritative source saying that
>> >> this wouldn't suffice for a chain in a 1960s Dallas courtroom. But noooo,
>> >> all we get is "Poe didn't mark the shells. There is no chain!"
>> >>
>> >> I agree with Jean on this issue.
>> >>
>> >
>> >While that could be argued, it is really moot point, since Hill identified
>> >the shell as a 38 AUTO at the Tippit murder scene. Oswald didn't have a
>> >automatic at his arrest at the theater. Bullets cannot be used from one
>> >type of weapon into the other. Somebody else killed Tippit besides
>> >Oswald.
>> >
>> Some .38 autos can use standard .38's and with half ring C clips auto
>> rounds can be fired in revolvers.
>>
>> >CJ
>
>Can you or anybody expound on this a little more? It was said eariler
>in the thread that this could not be the case. If, so, as stated
>above, could you make a guess on the likelihood of this ballistic
>scenario taking place?
>
Yes I can. The desire for a .38 auto including .38, .38 S., and .357 mag.
has been around for a very long time. This resulted in the 9 mm and .380
auto being designed. The .45 auto became the Army weapon about 1911
replacing the .45 Colt. The Army has gone to the 9 mm due to magazine
capacity. Some people with .45 Colt revolvers prefer to shoot the .45
auto rounds because it is cheaper than .45 Colt rounds. To do this a half
ring C clip is used to hold the auto round in place in the revolver.
Likewise the C ring can be used to hold .38 etc. auto rounds in a
revolver. Some .38 autos have mimicked the .22 LR autos and can fire the
standard revolver rounds that have rims. The difference between auto
rounds and standard rounds is the rim. In autos the rounds are recessed
to the size of the case and are considered rimless. Standard rounds have
rims larger than the case diameter so they can be ejected and do not fall
into the chamber.
I have said this before in this thread. The cost of a .38 etc. auto and
ammo would be expensive. You are talking about a top of the line high
dollar gun in 1963. It is much cheaper to find a standard revolver and
standard ammo. I am not sure C ring clips were on the market in 1963 but
no robber in his right mind would use them during a robbery due to
reloading difficulties. It would be better to use the standard rounds.
>Also, it should be re-emphasized that automatic's were rather expensive
>and the bullets were not that easy to get, and the bullets are much
>more easily traceable. The chance of LHO that worked in the TSBD,
>having obtained on his own a MC rifle for so cheap, and being able to
>obtain an Automatic that was so very expensive, would appear to be very
>slim.
>
The bullets are not more easily traceable and cannot be determined if
fired from and auto or revolver. The cartridges are more traceable. Yes I
have said before that an auto and ammo would be expensive and out of
Oswald's budget. If an auto was used on Tippit it was probably a stolen
one.
Ricky
They did not have phones in the cars back then and it was common to call
the station on the phone and not the radio. Criminals have police band
radios and can listen to the call as can other officers and suspects near
radios. Using the phone is not unusual. I have known cops to carry
hidden quarters and extra quarters just to be able to use pay phones.
>That plus honking in
>front of Oswald's rooming house makes me think he was in the conspiracy
>somehow. He did know Ruby.
>
It is not proven that he was the one honking the horn. Yes he knew Ruby
as did over half the police force.
Jim Shannon
<curtj...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1147296525.8...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
CJ... I agree the rounds were common. I can't remember which witnesses
drove after the assailant. Do you know if Johnnie Weatherspoon worked at
the Austin BBQ? I read her testimony in the HSCA, which was very
interesting but I can't seem to locate it now. I speculate that JD might
have been so stricken by the assassination he probably tried to call his
wife from Top Ten. I dismiss Roberts Police car report, I just don't think
she was a credible enough witness.
Jim
Jim Shannon
"Ricky" <Ric...@att.net> wrote in message
news:nea562ptfmopf8alk...@4ax.com...
Which Tippit? I think there was more then one Tippit on the force at that
time.
Jim
Ricky
wrote:
Yes. Two Tippits were on the force and both probably knew Ruby. Ruby made
it a point to give free food, drinks and visits to his clubs for all cops.
Ruby visited the station often bringing food.
curtj...@webtv.net
Thanks for the detailed info, Ricky. I thought though that the ammo
and Automatic itself would be a lot more traceable because of their
scarcity. If Oswald had used an Automatic on Tippit it would be likely
stolen, or given to him, I would think. Of course the possibility of
having two weapons at the same time would appear to be slim.
Thank you for imformation on policemen at the time taking the time to
call headquarters when they suspect a criminal would be listening into
their band.
CJ
Jim Shannon
Based upon the friendly chat the Oswald look-a-like (lal) was having with JD
Tippit and Ruby's relationship with DPD cops and the direction this lal was
headed would suggest a connection. If Roberts Police car horn honk outside
Oswald's rooming house holds then one would have to look to the Tippit
murder location as a possible escape route for Oswald. But one would also
have to assume then Oswald killed Kennedy. I'm not ready to go there yet.
Jim
Ricky
wrote:
Yes these things are worth considering but will never be answered at
this time.
>
SammyG
"Jim Shannon" <ejims...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:4462520d$2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned Virginia Davis stating that
Tippit parked at the murder scene almost every day. This was supposed to
be because he was having an affair with a woman in the area.
I have read where there possibly is some truth to the affair. I do know
Ruby had set up "dates" for Dallas' finest. The fact that Virginia Davis's
phone number showed up in Ruby's address book, her close proximity to
Ruby's residence, and Tippit's relationship with Ruby, the possibilities
are endless(lol). Maybe Virginia used an alias, and applied for job
stripping in downtown Dallas.
Sammy, G.
Walt
This doesn't ring true.... People who knew J.D.Tippit personally said he
was a very cold and uncaring person. (and rather stupid) For this reason
it's not likely that he was "stricken by the assassination" and
furthermore the radio logs show that his calls and responses were routine
and terse, while other Cops were showing concern and asking for
information on their radios.
I feel sure that J.D.Tippit was a key part of the conspiracy. I speculate
that his role was to gun down, and silence Oswald, if he managed to escape
the TSBD after the murder of JFK. Somehow he failed..... I speculate that
he encountered Oswald's double ( John Doe) and thought it was the real Lee
Harvey Oswald. John Doe was well aware that he had been inpersonating
Oswald for months, and he knew he was now in "deep stuff" because of his
actions. When Tippit stopped him, and started asking questions, he
panicked. When Tippit got out of his car John dropped the hammer on him.
Walt