Tippit
MTGriffith
(MAR1ACH1) writes:
>
>What do people think about the role of Officer Tippit in the
>assassination? From the (admittedly small) research I have done his
>actions seem to me to be a little suspicious. Am I seeing to much or do
>others feel the same way? If anyone has any good sources on Tippit I'd
>love to know what they are whatever their viewpoint. Thanks.
You're right: Tippit's actions were suspicious. He had no business being
in quiet, middle-class central Oak Cliff, miles from his normally assigned
area.
In my opinion, Myers' book WITH MALICE is misleading and incomplete on key
issues relating to the Tippit shooting.
I would go ahead and read the book, but I'd also read the chapters on the
Tippit shooting in Henry Hurt's REASONABLE DOUBT, in Sylvia Meagher's
ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT, and in Anthony Summers' NOT IN YOUR LIFETIME.
Also, I have some articles you can check out online on my JFK
Assassination Web Page. Here's the address:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2/jfk.htm
I recommend the following articles:
- "Why Would Tippit Have Stopped Oswald?"
- "Did Mrs. Markham Identify Oswald As Tippit's Killer?"
And you'll find a section on the Tippit slaying in my online manuscript
HASTY JUDGMENT, which is also carried on my JFK web page.
Mike Griffith
MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH. Check out my Real Issues Home Page
at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2/
ritchie linton
> Order Dale Myers' *With Malice*
>
> http://www.jfkfiles.com
>
> I used to think Oz could have been innocent of Tippit's murder. If the
> Warren Commission had presented the evidence as effectively as Myers does,
> there never would have been any doubt about Oswald's guilt, regardless of
> whether he fired at JFK or not.
>
> Dave Reitzes@@@@@
@@@@@@@ Really? Have you now found the money in payment of the 'c' in the
COD order for the pistol? Are you and Dale holding something back here?
:-)
I mean, if you can't pay for the pistol in the first place, its very
unlikley that anyone would give it to you=thats how money works, right?
And of course, if you don't pay for it in the first place, then in the
first place they don't give it to you. Pretty hard then to get something
you were never given to the scene of the Tippitt killing, isn't it?
I don't think Dale's book even mentions this problem, in spite of the fact
that I brought it to his attention before the book was released.Imagine
that.
Ritchie
John McAdams
>
> >
> >>
> >>What do people think about the role of Officer Tippit in the
> >>assassination? From the (admittedly small) research I have done his
> >>actions seem to me to be a little suspicious. Am I seeing to much or do
> >>others feel the same way? If anyone has any good sources on Tippit I'd
> >>love to know what they are whatever their viewpoint. Thanks.
> >
> >You're right: Tippit's actions were suspicious. He had no business being
> >in quiet, middle-class central Oak Cliff, miles from his normally assigned
> >area.
>
> area, which the dispatcher says was done to make up for the manpower that
> had been drained from the neighborhood. I used to find this fishy, but no
> one's ever shown that the tape was altered.
>
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/capture31.ram
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/capture37.ram
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Dreitzes
>From: mtgri...@aol.com (MTGriffith)
>Date: 5/1/99 5:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <19990501170835...@ngol08.aol.com>
>>assassination? From the (admittedly small) research I have done his
>>actions seem to me to be a little suspicious. Am I seeing to much or do
>>others feel the same way? If anyone has any good sources on Tippit I'd
>>love to know what they are whatever their viewpoint. Thanks.
>
>You're right: Tippit's actions were suspicious. He had no business being
>in quiet, middle-class central Oak Cliff, miles from his normally assigned
>area.
Except that everyone who's heard the tapes says he was ordered into the
area, which the dispatcher says was done to make up for the manpower that
had been drained from the neighborhood. I used to find this fishy, but no
one's ever shown that the tape was altered.
>
>In my opinion, Myers' book WITH MALICE is misleading and incomplete on key
>issues relating to the Tippit shooting.
>
Such as . . . ? I thought he nailed it, the only serious omission being
the issue of the chain of custody of the revolver between Oswald and the
ID bureau, something that Sgt. Gerald Hill, IMO, has cleared up in
admitting that Nick McDonald improperly signed off on the revolver even
though it had left his possession. He also should have included photos of
the shells from the FBI and HSCA test firings, which would only help his
case.
>I would go ahead and read the book, but I'd also read the chapters on the
>Tippit shooting in Henry Hurt's REASONABLE DOUBT, in Sylvia Meagher's
>ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT, and in Anthony Summers' NOT IN YOUR LIFETIME.
>Also, I have some articles you can check out online on my JFK
>Assassination Web Page. Here's the address:
I won't tell you not to read these books, but I'll tell you my opinion. I
think the Henry Hurt section on Tippit is essential reading if you believe
the hard evidence exonerates Oswald, as I used to believe. If you accept
that the hard evidence is solid proof of Oswald's guilt, the material in
Hurt is irrelevant. (Dale Myers does discuss the main issue Hurt raises --
an affair that Tippit was having with an Oak Cliff woman.)
Meagher's Tippit chapter used to impress the hell out of me. Now it's
simply dated. She makes statements about the police radio transcripts that
were logical when she made them, but refuted now that the actual
recordings themselves are available. She makes statements about the hard
evidence that have been debunked. She dismisses the eyewitness testimony
far too easily. The thing about Meagher that I'll stand by -- and I've
tried explaining this to certain parties without success -- is that when
she errs, her errors tend to be logical deductions based on the evidence
she had to work with in 1967. For example, her reasons for questioning the
authenticity of the police radio recordings are 100% valid. She even makes
what used to seem to be a damning observation in support of the argument
that a transcript had been intentionally fudged. Now we have the tapes;
she was wrong -- the less likely of two answers turned out to be correct.
This is why when certain people say the work is faulty, I say that it's
dated. Either way, though, much of it is wrong.
Summers' book is very good, but I don't remember him doing anything
especially noteworthy with the Tippit case. Maybe he's added some material
to the new version Michael is citing, or perhaps my memory is failing me.
>
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2/jfk.htm
>
>I recommend the following articles:
>
>- "Why Would Tippit Have Stopped Oswald?"
>
Myers explains this convincingly for the very first time. \:^)
>- "Did Mrs. Markham Identify Oswald As Tippit's Killer?"
>
Yes, she did. A lot of people -- myself included -- have placed far too
much emphasis on minor problems with her testimony.
>And you'll find a section on the Tippit slaying in my online manuscript
>HASTY JUDGMENT, which is also carried on my JFK web page.
>
>Mike Griffith
>
>
>MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH. Check out my Real Issues Home Page
>at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2/
Michael works very hard on his research, but he has the tendency to repeat
a lot of factoids from secondary sources -- not an uncommon thing; I've
certainly repeated my fair share.
Dave Reitzes
Dreitzes
>From: ritchie linton <rli...@idirect.com>
>Date: 5/2/99 1:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <372BDD...@idirect.com>
You and John Armstrong are the only people on Earth who think this is an
issue.
DR
Dreitzes
>From: John McAdams <6489mc...@marquette.edu>
>Date: 5/1/99 10:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <372BB7...@vms.csd.mu.edu>
>
>Dreitzes wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>What do people think about the role of Officer Tippit in the
>> >>assassination? From the (admittedly small) research I have done his
>> >>actions seem to me to be a little suspicious. Am I seeing to much or do
>> >>others feel the same way? If anyone has any good sources on Tippit I'd
>> >>love to know what they are whatever their viewpoint. Thanks.
>> >
>> >You're right: Tippit's actions were suspicious. He had no business being
>> >in quiet, middle-class central Oak Cliff, miles from his normally assigned
>> >area.
>>
>> Except that everyone who's heard the tapes says he was ordered into the
>> area, which the dispatcher says was done to make up for the manpower that
>> had been drained from the neighborhood. I used to find this fishy, but no
>> one's ever shown that the tape was altered.
>>
>
>
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/capture37.ram
>
Yup. It's really not so hard to see how the transcripts got so screwed up.
DR
ritchie linton
###### So? And your point? I guess its that you put the COD pistol into
Oswald's hand without any proof of payment of the necessary cash.I don't
understand how thats supposed to work- money being money-but if you want
to do so, go ahead.Thats your problem and you ignore it at your peril.I
think most people understand how money works=and you don't see it working
here.
RJ
MTGriffith
(Dreitzes) writes:
>Except that everyone who's heard the tapes says he was ordered into the
>area, which the dispatcher says was done to make up for the manpower that
>had been drained from the neighborhood. I used to find this fishy, but no
>one's ever shown that the tape was altered.
That's just it: He had no business being dispatched to that area. Also,
there is some question about the tapes. But, even assuming they're
pristine, there was no reason to dispatch Tippit to quiet, sleepy,
suburban Oak Cliff to be on hand for "an emergency" when the police were
supposedly focused on looking for Kennedy's killers.
And of all the areas that Tippit could have been sent to in the sprawling
city of Dallas, isn't it an amazing coincidence that he "just happened" to
be sent to the area where Oswald and Ruby lived?
You should read Henry Hurt's chapter on the Tippit slaying in REASONABLE
DOUBT.
For months the DPD appeared to have no clue as to why Tippit had been in
Oak Cliff. The transmissions on the tape from the other officer who was
supposedly dispatched else clearly seem to indicate he was not dispatched.
Dreitzes
>Dreitzes wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> You and John Armstrong are the only people on Earth who think this is an
>> issue.
>>
>> DR####
>
>###### So? And your point?
You and Armstrong have to get over it. It's your problem, not ours.
>I guess its that you put the COD pistol into
>Oswald's hand without any proof of payment of the necessary cash.
We have proof of payment, Ritchie. You are the only person in the world --
not excluding John Armstrong -- who has a problem with it.
>I don't
>understand how thats supposed to work-
That's your problem. The rest of us do.
money being money-but if you want
>to do so, go ahead.Thats your problem and you ignore it at your peril.
Ritchie, you don't accept that Lee Harvey Oswald was in the damn building
at 12:30, even though he TOLD the whole world at a filmed press conference
that he was! Even though there are other films that corroborate the
identity of the man in the doorway as Billy Nolan Lovelady!
Ritchie, you grasp onto some theory and you refuse to let it go, no matter
how contrary it is to the facts, logic and commonsense!
That's not MY problem, Ritchie! That's YOUR problem! The DPD caught the
right man. It was only police incompetence and the Warren Commission's
lackluster performance that allowed there to be any doubt. Dale Myers has
put it to rest. Deal with it.
I
>think most people understand how money works=and you don't see it working
>here.
>
>RJ
Put your money where your mouth is, Ritchie -- start making sense.
DR
Dreitzes
>Message-id: <19990503005127...@ngol05.aol.com>
>
>In article <19990501212007...@ng28.aol.com>, drei...@aol.com
>(Dreitzes) writes:
>
>>Except that everyone who's heard the tapes says he was ordered into the
>>area, which the dispatcher says was done to make up for the manpower that
>>had been drained from the neighborhood. I used to find this fishy, but no
>>one's ever shown that the tape was altered.
>
>That's just it: He had no business being dispatched to that area. Also,
>there is some question about the tapes. But, even assuming they're
>pristine, there was no reason to dispatch Tippit to quiet, sleepy,
>suburban Oak Cliff to be on hand for "an emergency" when the police were
>supposedly focused on looking for Kennedy's killers.
If you don't believe the dispatcher's reason, say, "I don't believe the
dispatcher's reason. I just told you what the dispatcher's reason was. If
you state there was no reason, you are stating a falsehood. Do you have
any questions about that?
Meanwhile, the tapes have never been shown to be anything but 100%
authentic. If the tapes are authentic, your argument seems shot to hell,
doesn't it?
>
>And of all the areas that Tippit could have been sent to in the sprawling
>city of Dallas, isn't it an amazing coincidence that he "just happened" to
>be sent to the area where Oswald and Ruby lived?
>
He wasn't. He was a mile away from where Oswald lived and some distance
from where Ruby lived. Meanwhile, all your speculation avoids the question
of whether the tapes are authentic. If the tapes are authentic, J. D.
Tippit was sent into Oak Cliff. Period.
>You should read Henry Hurt's chapter on the Tippit slaying in REASONABLE
>DOUBT.
>
Read it. It's been shown to be irrelevant.
>For months the DPD appeared to have no clue as to why Tippit had been in
>Oak Cliff. The transmissions on the tape from the other officer who was
>supposedly dispatched else clearly seem to indicate he was not dispatched.
>
>Mike Griffith
You're repeating Meagher's argument, aren't you? And Meagher's argument is
. . . wrong. No one but the dispatcher would know why Tippit was sent
there. Now we know.
Dave Reitzes
Amethyst
>
.> >Subject: Re: Tippit
.> >From: mtgri...@aol.com (MTGriffith)
.> >Date: 5/3/99 12:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time
.> >Message-id: <19990503005127...@ngol05.aol.com>
.> >
.> >In article <19990501212007...@ng28.aol.com>,
drei...@aol.com
.> >(Dreitzes) writes:
.> >
.> >>Except that everyone who's heard the tapes says he was ordered into
the
.> >>area, which the dispatcher says was done to make up for the
manpower that
.> >>had been drained from the neighborhood. I used to find this fishy,
but no
.> >>one's ever shown that the tape was altered.
.> >
.> >That's just it: He had no business being dispatched to that area.
Also,
.> >there is some question about the tapes. But, even assuming they're
.> >pristine, there was no reason to dispatch Tippit to quiet, sleepy,
.> >suburban Oak Cliff to be on hand for "an emergency" when the police
were
.> >supposedly focused on looking for Kennedy's killers.
.>
.>. If you don't believe the dispatcher's reason, say, "I don't believe
the
.> .dispatcher's reason. I just told you what the dispatcher's reason
was. If
.> you state there was no reason, you are stating a falsehood. Do you
have
.> any questions about that?
.>
.> Meanwhile, the tapes have never been shown to be anything but 100%
.> authentic. If the tapes are authentic, your argument seems shot to
hell,
.> doesn't it?
.>
.> >
.> >And of all the areas that Tippit could have been sent to in the
sprawling
.> >city of Dallas, isn't it an amazing coincidence that he "just
happened" to
.> >be sent to the area where Oswald and Ruby lived?
.> >
.>
.> He wasn't. He was a mile away from where Oswald lived and some
distance
.> from where Ruby lived. Meanwhile, all your speculation avoids the
question
.> of whether the tapes are authentic. If the tapes are authentic, J. D.
.> Tippit was sent into Oak Cliff. Period.
.>
.> >You should read Henry Hurt's chapter on the Tippit slaying in
REASONABLE
.> >DOUBT.
.> >
.>
.> Read it. It's been shown to be irrelevant.
.>
.> >For months the DPD appeared to have no clue as to why Tippit had
been in
> >Oak Cliff. The transmissions on the tape from the other officer who was
> >supposedly dispatched else clearly seem to indicate he was not dispatched.
> >
> >Mike Griffith
>
> You're repeating Meagher's argument, aren't you? And Meagher's argument is
> . . . wrong. No one but the dispatcher would know why Tippit was sent
> there. Now we know.
>
> Dave Reitzes
Dave,
Yeah, Sylvia Meagher was ... "wrong" as you put it. Not the first time,
Dave.
I wonder why you didn't go after Mike for calling Oak Cliff "sleepy" etc.
It contained a large business section -- which required police protection.
Jerry
ritchie linton
>
> >From: ritchie linton <rli...@idirect.com>
>
> >I guess its that you put the COD pistol into
> >Oswald's hand without any proof of payment of the necessary cash.
>
> We have proof of payment, Ritchie. You are the only person in the world --
@@@@@
Oh, really? You have proof of the money? Good= I'd like to see that. So
please post the money= in the way the WC did with the payment for the
rifle. The FBI tracked through thousands of money orders before they found
the one for the rifle= what have you found here on the pistol? It was sent
COD right? What have you found about the "c" part of the order? I ask that
assuming that everybody else knows how money really works.Found any money
for the pistol? Or are you just going to give us a wrongly dated
"reciept"?>
> >I don't
> >understand how thats supposed to work-
>
> That's your problem. The rest of us do.@@@@
@@@@@@
No No No- I would think you know that the onus is on the accuser= thats
you, since you accuse Oswald of killing the cop= so that much is pretty
simple. If you say he killed the cop, say how he got the pistol without
apparently paying for the COD.You can't get the killing pistol from
Seaports in Los Angeles without paying for the COD first. Where is the
money? Thats why I said:
>
> money being money-but if you want
> >to do so, go ahead.Thats your problem and you ignore it at your peril.
> @@
@@@@@@
You said:
>
> Put your money where your mouth is, Ritchie -- start making sense.
>
> DR@@@
@@@@@
The money being the issue, I think its over to you.
MTGriffith
> Date: 99-05-02 19:38:46 EDT
> From: MAR1ACH1
> To: MTGriffith
>
> Thanks a lot for the information!
By the way, some newsgroup members might have cc'd you on the argument that
Tippit was in central Oak Cliff because he was dispatched to there.
I was assuming that much was understood. The point is that he had no business
being sent to that area, especially at a time when supposedly the police
department was feverishly looking for Kennedy's killers. That area was miles
outside his patrol area. Also, there are indications that the Dallas police
dispatch tapes were faked to make it seem as though Tippit had been ordered to
Oak Cliff. Henry Hurt goes into this in REASONABLE DOUBT.
It is certainly an amazing coincidence that of all the suburbs in the Dallas
area, the police "just happened" to send Tippit to Oswald's neighborhood. The
dispatch record says Tippit was sent there to be on hand for "any emergency"
that might arise. But what "emergency" would have been expected in the quiet,
middle-class suburb of Oak Cliff? It would be different if Oswald had lived in
a high crime area or something, but Oak Cliff was a quiet, middle-class
neighborhood at the time.
By the way, Jack Ruby lived only a few blocks from where Tippit was shot.
Another curious "coincidence."
Critics of the lone-gunman theory have always viewed Tippit's presence in Oak
Cliff as highly suspicious. It smells to high heaven of being a set up.
Tippit might very well have been sent there to kill Oswald, or to apprehend
him. The odds that the police "just happened" to send Tippit to Oswald's
neighborhood are very remote, assuming they sent him there at all.
Russ and Carrie Burr
>
> One big problem that the WC failed to resolve is the initial description of
> Tippit's killer that was broadcast over the police radio. This description
> went out at 1:22, no more than 15 minutes after the shooting took place.
A stop watch review of the Dallas police tapes shows that it was about
1:17:41 p.m. when Bowley broke though on the radio. From page 92, of
Myers book, "With Malice".
It
> was based on an eyewitness description, with the event still fresh in the
> person's mind. Here it is:
>
> White male, thirties, five feet eight inches, black hair, slender
> build, wearing white shirt and black slacks.
>
> My, my. One can see why this description had to be shelved. Oswald was 25,
> not in his thirties. Oswald had brown hair, not black hair. And, Oswald was
> supposedly wearing a gray jacket, yet the description says nothing about a
> jacket, only a white shirt. Uh-oh.
>
> Another description right around the same time read as above except that
> instead of "white shirt" it had "white jacket." How convenient. So supposedly
> someone couldn't tell the difference between a shirt and a jacket. But, in any
> case, "Oswald" was supposedly wearing the infamous gray jacket, which has a
> slight touch of blue.
>
> Interestingly, nearly all of the witnesses said the color of the killer's
> jacket was NOT the same as the color of the gray jacket now in evidence.
>
> Mike Griffith
Mike, As you well know many of the witnesses got the color of his jacket
wrong. That's not unusual since eyewitness testimony is not the most
reliable evidence to base a description on. If you think it is, ask any
policeman or lawyer. I have been in court on countless occasions and
have heard eyewitnesses to a crime come up with varying descriptions of
the suspect.
I'd be interested to know who was the witness who said he or she was
wearing a white shirt? Some of the witnesses said he had a white shirt
under his jacket. I searched the Hearings and found that no one had said
he was wearing just a white shirt....
The bottomline Mike, was that five witnesses identified Oswald as
Tippit's killer the evening of the 22nd. If you include Jack Tatum, that
makes six. Than we have Brewer who saw him hiding in the outside foyer
of his store as squad cars sped past on Jefferson, before he snuck into
the Texas Theater. Than, when apprehended he tried to shot MacDonald
with the same revolver he had used in killing Tippit. Why would an
innocent man behave in such a fashion. And why would he need a pistol to
"go to the movies"?
Russ
dcw...@aol.com
>
>In article <19990503013643...@ng-fp1.aol.com>, drei...@aol.com
>(Dreitzes) writes:
>
>>That's not MY problem, Ritchie! That's YOUR problem! The DPD caught the
>>right man. It was only police incompetence and the Warren Commission's
>>lackluster performance that allowed there to be any doubt. Dale Myers has
>>put it to rest. Deal with it.
>
>the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting.
>
>Indeed, in his entire section on the timing of the shooting, he somehow,
>someway "failed" to consider the one witness who actually **looked at his
>watch** as he came on the scene. This was Bowley. And guess what time
>Bowley's watch read? 1:10. Even Mrs. Markham thought it happened about 1:07.
>Other witnesses likewise put the shooting at just a few minutes after 1:00.
>The only way around Bowley's account is to suggest his watch was several
>minutes slow, which is a poor, strained argument. Most people keep their
>watches running a little fast. A less likely but less strained position would
>be that Bowley's watch might have been running a couple minutes slow. But
>several minutes? That's a reach. So, Myers just ignored Bowley's time
>reference altogether, even though, as mentioned, Bowley was the ONLY person who
>looked at this watch as he came on the scene.
>
>Tippit being shot at 1:07 or 1:09 is unacceptable to WC supporters because they
>know they can't even come close to getting the pedestrian Oswald to the scene
>in time.
>
>By the way, the last time Oswald's landlady saw him, he was STANDING across the
>street AT A BUS STOP. And the bus he would have caught would have taken him
>AWAY from the Tippit scene.
>
>Mike Griffith
>MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH. Check out my Real Issues Home Page
>at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2/
>
Mike -- And I say that the landlady didn't see O at all that afternoon.
Whaley let O out of his cab, near the theatre, saw him walking in
that direction, & lo & behold, O is caught 45mins. later wearing the
same togs he was wearing when Whaley last saw him....
dw
MTGriffith
Tippit's killer that was broadcast over the police radio. This description
was based on an eyewitness description, with the event still fresh in the
person's mind. Here it is:
White male, thirties, five feet eight inches, black hair, slender
build, wearing white shirt and black slacks.
My, my. One can see why this description had to be shelved. Oswald was 25,
not in his thirties. Oswald had brown hair, not black hair. And, Oswald was
supposedly wearing a gray jacket, yet the description says nothing about a
jacket, only a white shirt. Uh-oh.
Another description right around the same time read as above except that
instead of "white shirt" it had "white jacket." How convenient. So supposedly
someone couldn't tell the difference between a shirt and a jacket. But, in any
case, "Oswald" was supposedly wearing the infamous gray jacket, which has a
slight touch of blue.
Interestingly, nearly all of the witnesses said the color of the killer's
jacket was NOT the same as the color of the gray jacket now in evidence.
Mike Griffith
MTGriffith
(Dreitzes) writes:
>He wasn't. He was a mile away from where Oswald lived and some distance
>from where Ruby lived. Meanwhile, all your speculation avoids the question
>of whether the tapes are authentic. If the tapes are authentic, J. D.
>Tippit was sent into Oak Cliff. Period.
If they redid the tape, there'd be no way to "prove" it was not authentic.
The point is that Tippit had no business being sent to Oak Cliff. This seems
like such a self-evident fact that one would think no one would dispute it.
Of all the suburbs and neighborhoods of Dallas, just exactly why would the
dispatcher decide that Oak Cliff would be the one place where an "emergency"
might occur, when at that very moment the police were supposedly frantically
looking for Kennedy's killers?
You say Hurt's chapter on the Tippit slaying in REASONABLE DOUBT has been
proven to be "irrelevant." And just who has "proven" this?
If so, why can't you explain the very odd response of the other police officer
who was supposedly dispatched? The response clearly indicates he was never
dispatched elsewhere in the first place.
MTGriffith
Mike Griffith
Russ and Carrie Burr
>
> In article <19990503013643...@ng-fp1.aol.com>, drei...@aol.com
> (Dreitzes) writes:
>
> >That's not MY problem, Ritchie! That's YOUR problem! The DPD caught the
> >right man. It was only police incompetence and the Warren Commission's
> >lackluster performance that allowed there to be any doubt. Dale Myers has
> >put it to rest. Deal with it.
>
> Dale Myers has done no such thing. He has explained none of the problems with
> the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting.
>
> Indeed, in his entire section on the timing of the shooting, he somehow,
> someway "failed" to consider the one witness who actually **looked at his
> watch** as he came on the scene. This was Bowley. And guess what time
> Bowley's watch read? 1:10. Even Mrs. Markham thought it happened about 1:07.
> Other witnesses likewise put the shooting at just a few minutes after 1:00.
Such as???
> The only way around Bowley's account is to suggest his watch was several
> minutes slow, which is a poor, strained argument. Most people keep their
> watches running a little fast. A less likely but less strained position would
> be that Bowley's watch might have been running a couple minutes slow. But
> several minutes? That's a reach. So, Myers just ignored Bowley's time
> reference altogether, even though, as mentioned, Bowley was the ONLY person who
> looked at this watch as he came on the scene.
To say that Myer's doesn't explain Bowley's arrival at the scene at 1:10
is false. On page 604, footnote 236, Myers's said that no one ever
determined if Bowley's watch was accurate the day of the shooting. If I
walk around my house, we have 9 clocks. Not one is the same. When I
attended the Lancer Conference in '97, Bill Drenas asked those in
attendance to look at their watches. There was a variance of almost 10
minutes either way.
Add to that is the time that Bowley called the DPD dispatch to report
the shooting. As I said in a previous post it was logged in at 1:17:41
p.m. So given your belief in Bowley's spring loaded watch, he waited
over 7 minutes to call the DPD from Tippit's car. That's a little hard
to believe.
Benavides tried unsuccessfully to contact the DPD using Tippit's radio
around 1:16...a mike is keyed a number of times on channel 1, as if
someone was "pumping" the microphone button of a police radio. This
continued for for a period of one minute and 41 seconds, right up to the
time T.F. Bowley successfully contacts the dispatcher. So it's pretty
obvious that Tippit had been killed just prior to 1:16 p.m.
>
> Tippit being shot at 1:07 or 1:09 is unacceptable to WC supporters because they
> know they can't even come close to getting the pedestrian Oswald to the scene
> in time.
Those times are unacceptable because there not true.
>
> By the way, the last time Oswald's landlady saw him, he was STANDING across the
> street AT A BUS STOP. And the bus he would have caught would have taken him
> AWAY from the Tippit scene.
He obviously didn't stand there very long. I stood there with Greg
Jaynes and Cecil Jones, using Greg's camcorder with a timer running and
than proceeded to walk carrying the camcorder, at a fairly good clip to
10th and Patton. I got there in 11 minutes and 50 seconds. Now
considering that Oswald was 21 years younger than I and didn't have a
bum knee like I do, plus I was carrying a camcorder, trying to keep it
steady, I think it's fairly obvious that he could have made the walk
from Beckley to 10th and Patton a bit faster than I did. Plus, I smoked
at the time which slowed me a bit.
You can see for yourself by clicking on:
HTTP://WWW.FLASH.NET/~jaynes/flight/index.htm
Russ
Dreitzes
>
>, drei...@aol.com (Dreitzes) writes:
>
>>He wasn't. He was a mile away from where Oswald lived and some distance
>>from where Ruby lived. Meanwhile, all your speculation avoids the question
>>of whether the tapes are authentic. If the tapes are authentic, J. D.
>>Tippit was sent into Oak Cliff. Period.
>
>If they redid the tape, there'd be no way to "prove" it was not authentic.
Oh, really? Are you sure about that? You don't think there's any way to detect
if a passage has been overdubbed or inserted?
>The point is that Tippit had no business being sent to Oak Cliff. This seems
>like such a self-evident fact that one would think no one would dispute it.
>
But Tippit wasn't giving the orders, was he? This seems like such a
self-evident fact that one would think no one would dispute it. And the
dispatcher has explained his reasoning. His reasoning strikes me as being more
cogent than yours.
>Of all the suburbs and neighborhoods of Dallas, just exactly why would the
>dispatcher decide that Oak Cliff would be the one place where an "emergency"
>might occur, when at that very moment the police were supposedly frantically
>looking for Kennedy's killers?
>
This has been explained, but I take it you find the explanation less than
satisfactory. You should say so rather than imply no explanation has been
offered. That's being a little disingenuous, isn't it?
Hello? Mike?
>You say Hurt's chapter on the Tippit slaying in REASONABLE DOUBT has been
>proven to be "irrelevant." And just who has "proven" this?
>
Dale Myers.
>If so, why can't you explain the very odd response of the other police
>officer
>who was supposedly dispatched? The response clearly indicates he was never
>dispatched elsewhere in the first place.
>
>Mike Griffith
Sorry, Mike, but it doesn't work. Let's weigh the arguments. If Oswald is
innocent, then the four shells in evidence have been fabricated and
substituted, one bullet may have been fabricated and substituted, the revolver
has been substituted, several bullets were planted on Oswald's person (or,
alternatively, the revolver, bullets and shells are genuine and the paper trail
to Oswald has been fabricated and the spare bullets planted on Oswald), several
key DPD men perjured themselves and may well still be lying about it, the
witnesses are all naming the wrong guy as the killer, fiber evidence was
fabricated to link a jacket found near the crime scene to Oswald, the DPD radio
tapes have been undetectably altered, the dispatcher is lying about the
instruction to the two men, *and* it's just a coincidence that Tippit was
murdered 45 minutes following the assassination nine-tenths of a mile from
Oswald's rooming house.
If, on the other hand, Oswald's guilty, then J. M. Poe may have forgotten to
mark two shells (or the marks were obliterated by others) and one DPD patrolman
failed to respond to an order broadcast at a peak moment of excitement and
radio traffic in Dallas history.
Hmm. That's a tough one . . .
Dave Reitzes
Dreitzes
>
drei...@aol.com (Dreitzes) writes:
>
>>That's not MY problem, Ritchie! That's YOUR problem! The DPD caught the
>>right man. It was only police incompetence and the Warren Commission's
>>lackluster performance that allowed there to be any doubt. Dale Myers has
>>put it to rest. Deal with it.
>
>Dale Myers has done no such thing. He has explained none of the problems
>with
>the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting.
>
Such as . . . ?
>Indeed, in his entire section on the timing of the shooting, he somehow,
>someway "failed" to consider the one witness who actually **looked at his
>watch** as he came on the scene. This was Bowley. And guess what time
>Bowley's watch read? 1:10.
And people's watches *never* are, say, four minutes off!
>Even Mrs. Markham thought it happened about 1:07.
Well, Michael, you must be aware that Mr. Myers spent a fair amount of time on
this issue. If you disagree with him, why don't you just say so instead of
implying that Myers was derelict in some way?
>Other witnesses likewise put the shooting at just a few minutes after 1:00.
I'm not playing games, Mike; cite your sources.
>The only way around Bowley's account is to suggest his watch was several
>minutes slow, which is a poor, strained argument.
\:^)
>Most people keep their
>watches running a little fast.
That's not at all a "poor, strained argument," is it?
>A less likely but less strained position
>would
>be that Bowley's watch might have been running a couple minutes slow. But
>several minutes? That's a reach.
Gosh, yes! Four whole minutes! It's absurd! By God, in that case ALL the
physical evidence must have been fabricated and planted! And ALL the
eyewitnesses must have somehow named the wrong guy! And Tippit
just HAPPENED to get killed nine-tenths of a mile from where Lee
Harvey Oswald was standing around 1 pm!
Give it up, Mike.
>So, Myers just ignored Bowley's time
>reference altogether, even though, as mentioned, Bowley was the ONLY person
>who
>looked at this watch as he came on the scene.
Yes, I do believe you mentioned that. You can't have run out of evidence
ALREADY, right?
>Tippit being shot at 1:07 or 1:09 is unacceptable to WC supporters because
>they
>know they can't even come close to getting the pedestrian Oswald to the scene
>in time.
Yes, yes, so rather than shrug and admit that a few of the witnesses were off a
few minutes on the time, we just assume that all of the physical evidence was
fabricated and planted, all the witnesses were lying or mistaken about Oswald,
and it's nothing but a coincidence that Oswald was less than a mile away around
1 pm and he just *happened* to duck into a nearby movie theater AND tried to
kill ANOTHER policeman????
Give it up, Mike!
>By the way, the last time Oswald's landlady saw him, he was STANDING across
>the
>street AT A BUS STOP. And the bus he would have caught would have taken him
>AWAY from the Tippit scene.
>
>Mike Griffith
Give it up, Mike!
And are you ever going to respond to my six-month-old critique of the New
Orleans section of your *Hasty Judgment*?
Dave Reitzes
Dreitzes
>From: Russ and Carrie Burr <l...@foxvalley.net>
>Date: 5/9/99 12:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <373514...@foxvalley.net>
>
>MTGriffith wrote:
>>
>> One big problem that the WC failed to resolve is the initial description of
>> Tippit's killer that was broadcast over the police radio. This description
>> went out at 1:22, no more than 15 minutes after the shooting took place.
>
>1:17:41 p.m. when Bowley broke though on the radio. From page 92, of
>Myers book, "With Malice".
>
How about that! Well, Mike's already asserted that the tapes may have been
phonied up, so . . .
>
> It
>> was based on an eyewitness description, with the event still fresh in the
>> person's mind. Here it is:
>>
>> White male, thirties, five feet eight inches, black hair, slender
>> build, wearing white shirt and black slacks.
>>
>> My, my. One can see why this description had to be shelved. Oswald was
>25,
>> not in his thirties. Oswald had brown hair, not black hair. And, Oswald
>was
>> supposedly wearing a gray jacket, yet the description says nothing about a
>> jacket, only a white shirt. Uh-oh.
>>
>> Another description right around the same time read as above except that
>> instead of "white shirt" it had "white jacket." How convenient. So
>supposedly
>> someone couldn't tell the difference between a shirt and a jacket. But, in
>any
>> case, "Oswald" was supposedly wearing the infamous gray jacket, which has a
>> slight touch of blue.
>>
>> Interestingly, nearly all of the witnesses said the color of the killer's
>> jacket was NOT the same as the color of the gray jacket now in evidence.
>>
>> Mike Griffith
>
>Mike, As you well know many of the witnesses got the color of his jacket
>wrong. That's not unusual since eyewitness testimony is not the most
>reliable evidence to base a description on. If you think it is, ask any
>policeman or lawyer. I have been in court on countless occasions and
>have heard eyewitnesses to a crime come up with varying descriptions of
>the suspect.
>
>I'd be interested to know who was the witness who said he or she was
>wearing a white shirt? Some of the witnesses said he had a white shirt
>under his jacket. I searched the Hearings and found that no one had said
>he was wearing just a white shirt....
>
>The bottomline Mike, was that five witnesses identified Oswald as
>Tippit's killer the evening of the 22nd. If you include Jack Tatum, that
>makes six. Than we have Brewer who saw him hiding in the outside foyer
>of his store as squad cars sped past on Jefferson, before he snuck into
>the Texas Theater. Than, when apprehended he tried to shot MacDonald
>with the same revolver he had used in killing Tippit. Why would an
>innocent man behave in such a fashion. And why would he need a pistol to
>"go to the movies"?
>
>Russ
I used to believe that the witnesses had been influenced by the media blitz
about Oswald by the time they testified to the WC -- or even were taken to a
line-up, in some cases -- but Dale Myers' book showed me that the hard evidence
was unimpeachable, something I had not previously believed. That's the bottom
line for me: If you assert Oswald was innocent, you have to believe that all of
the physical evidence was fabricated and planted, all the eyewitnesses were
wrong, *and* the Tippit murder -- nine-tenths of a mile from Oswald's location
at about 1 pm -- was a complete coincidence.
Unfortunately, it's going to take more than discredited arguments (or Donald
Willis-style evasions, for that matter) to convince most folks of that.
Dave Reitzes
Dreitzes
>From: dcw...@aol.com
>Date: 5/9/99 2:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7h3bc5$8...@drn.newsguy.com>>>In article <19990503013643...@ng-fp1.aol.com>, drei...@aol.com
>>(Dreitzes) writes:
>>
>>>That's not MY problem, Ritchie! That's YOUR problem! The DPD caught the
>>>right man. It was only police incompetence and the Warren Commission's
>>>lackluster performance that allowed there to be any doubt. Dale Myers has
>>>put it to rest. Deal with it.
>>
>>Dale Myers has done no such thing. He has explained none of the problems
>with
>>the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting.
>>
>>someway "failed" to consider the one witness who actually **looked at his
>>watch** as he came on the scene. This was Bowley. And guess what time
>1:07.
>>watches running a little fast. A less likely but less strained position
>would
>>be that Bowley's watch might have been running a couple minutes slow. But
>>reference altogether, even though, as mentioned, Bowley was the ONLY person
>who
>>looked at this watch as he came on the scene.
>>
>they
>>know they can't even come close to getting the pedestrian Oswald to the
>scene
>>in time.
>>
>the
>>street AT A BUS STOP. And the bus he would have caught would have taken him
>>AWAY from the Tippit scene.
>>
>>Mike Griffith
>>at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2/
>>
>
>Whaley let O out of his cab, near the theatre, saw him walking in
>that direction, & lo & behold, O is caught 45mins. later wearing the
>same togs he was wearing when Whaley last saw him....
>
>dw
That's a good one, Donald. So let's see, ALL the physical evidence is
fabricated and planted, around half the DPD force perjured themselves to cover
up for that, ALL the eyewitnesses are lying or mistaken, the DPD -- as you've
stated elsewhere -- completely manipulated the eyewitness statements, even
among those witnesses they didn't interview, apparently, like Jack Ray Tatum,
the Tippit murder was wholly unrelated to the assassination, AND Earlene
Roberts and William Whaley were both lying, mistaken or just plain loopy. And
why was all this done? To frame a guy for killing one cop!
Donald, get real.
Dave Reitzes
martha moyer
Certain scenarios have been fairly established by corroberating evidence
regarding the Tippit murder. However, I have always been concerned with
"Where was Oz headed? And why was JD "slowly" cruising 10th - when,
according to various accounts, he was tearing around the area minutes
before? Why stop OZ - when there were at least two young men standing out
in their front yard not far from where the incident occurred? Also, if JD
- who was not exactly a rocket scientist, according to police records, stop
a suspected assassin with no call-in reporting himself out of the car, or
indicate that he was interested in a possible suspect? We could chalk that
up to bad judgment, I suppose.
In the police logs - Young called in to dispatcher inquiring if someone had
been sent to notify JD's wife. He did not have the home address and was
told to contact "5" which was Personnel. Later Young called back in and
said he had the address - 7500 South Beckley and was on his way!!! Do you
suppose he went to the wrong house?
A friend of mine from Dallas cross-checked City Directories and found that
a John Boone - who worked for Dallas Times Herald in printing presses, was
listed at living at this address. Small house - looked like a 2 bedroom
affair - and I know that he had two daughters. This friend checked Boone's
obit when he died - we were curious to see if he was related to Deputy
Sheriff Eugene Boone who was instrumental in finding the rifle on Sixth
Floor. No luck!! But we did discover that Eugene had worked at the Herald
since he was 14 years old (part-time) The house was located close to
intersection of where one would turn to go into the addition where JD lived
on Glencairn. But it does make one wonder!!! Anthony Summers wrote that he
had interviewed a Tippit neighbor who told him that Marie had been over the
morning of 11/22 - bawling her eyes out - because JD had left home that
morning and wanted a divorce. If that was true - I would hardly think that
JD went home for lunch.
I had a retired DPD officer, who was a close friend of JD's, spend the
bigger part of 2 hours telling me about what a "straight arrow" JD was -
real family man, etc. When he finished I told him I had seen some files
that suggested JD was not above playing games. He back-stroked like a
champion swimmer. I do not consider JD's sex life as a relevant issue to
the assassination - He probably was wearing a t-shirt that read
"all men are idiots and I am the king" I suspect the "long blue line"
protected JD's image. I imagine that it would have been difficult to
explain to all those sympathetic people who sent a fortune to the Tippit
family.
Would JD have been cruising looking for someone other than OZ? We know
that Joyce McDonald "Joy Dale" , stripper at Carousel, lived at 424 1/2
West Tenth. Plus - Jerry Rose discovered that at one time Joy Dale was
listed as living at the Helen Markum
apartment. Ah well - - - -
Some tidbits to digest
Martha
Russ and Carrie Burr <l...@foxvalley.net> wrote in article
<373521...@foxvalley.net>...
> MTGriffith wrote:
> >
> > In article <19990503013643...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
drei...@aol.com
> > (Dreitzes) writes:
> >
> > >That's not MY problem, Ritchie! That's YOUR problem! The DPD caught
the
> > >right man. It was only police incompetence and the Warren Commission's
> > >lackluster performance that allowed there to be any doubt. Dale Myers
has
> > >put it to rest. Deal with it.
> >
> > Dale Myers has done no such thing. He has explained none of the
problems with
> > the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting.
> >
> > Indeed, in his entire section on the timing of the shooting, he
somehow,
> > someway "failed" to consider the one witness who actually **looked at
his
> > watch** as he came on the scene. This was Bowley. And guess what time
> > Bowley's watch read? 1:10. Even Mrs. Markham thought it happened about
1:07.
> > Other witnesses likewise put the shooting at just a few minutes after
1:00.
>
> Such as???
>
> > The only way around Bowley's account is to suggest his watch was
several
> > minutes slow, which is a poor, strained argument. Most people keep
their
> > watches running a little fast. A less likely but less strained
position would
> > be that Bowley's watch might have been running a couple minutes slow.
But
> > several minutes? That's a reach. So, Myers just ignored Bowley's time
> > reference altogether, even though, as mentioned, Bowley was the ONLY
person who
> > looked at this watch as he came on the scene.
>
> To say that Myer's doesn't explain Bowley's arrival at the scene at 1:10
> is false. On page 604, footnote 236, Myers's said that no one ever
> determined if Bowley's watch was accurate the day of the shooting. If I
> walk around my house, we have 9 clocks. Not one is the same. When I
> attended the Lancer Conference in '97, Bill Drenas asked those in
> attendance to look at their watches. There was a variance of almost 10
> minutes either way.
>
> Add to that is the time that Bowley called the DPD dispatch to report
> the shooting. As I said in a previous post it was logged in at 1:17:41
> p.m. So given your belief in Bowley's spring loaded watch, he waited
> over 7 minutes to call the DPD from Tippit's car. That's a little hard
> to believe.
>
> Benavides tried unsuccessfully to contact the DPD using Tippit's radio
> around 1:16...a mike is keyed a number of times on channel 1, as if
> someone was "pumping" the microphone button of a police radio. This
> continued for for a period of one minute and 41 seconds, right up to the
> time T.F. Bowley successfully contacts the dispatcher. So it's pretty
> obvious that Tippit had been killed just prior to 1:16 p.m.
> >
> > Tippit being shot at 1:07 or 1:09 is unacceptable to WC supporters
because they
> > know they can't even come close to getting the pedestrian Oswald to the
scene
> > in time.
>
> Those times are unacceptable because there not true.
>
> >
> > By the way, the last time Oswald's landlady saw him, he was STANDING
across the
> > street AT A BUS STOP. And the bus he would have caught would have
taken him
> > AWAY from the Tippit scene.
>
Dreitzes
>>From: dcw...@aol.com
>>
>>In article , mtgri...@aol.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>>Dale Myers has done no such thing. He has explained none of the problems
>>with
>>>the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting.
>>>
>>>Indeed, in his entire section on the timing of the shooting, he somehow,
>>>someway "failed" to consider the one witness who actually **looked at his
>>>watch** as he came on the scene. This was Bowley. And guess what time
>>>Bowley's watch read? 1:10. Even Mrs. Markham thought it happened about
>>1:07.
>>>Other witnesses likewise put the shooting at just a few minutes after 1:00.
>
>>>The only way around Bowley's account is to suggest his watch was several
>>>minutes slow, which is a poor, strained argument. Most people keep their
>>>watches running a little fast. A less likely but less strained position
>>would
>>>be that Bowley's watch might have been running a couple minutes slow. But
>>>several minutes? That's a reach. So, Myers just ignored Bowley's time
>>>reference altogether, even though, as mentioned, Bowley was the ONLY person
>>who
>>>looked at this watch as he came on the scene.
>>>
>>>Tippit being shot at 1:07 or 1:09 is unacceptable to WC supporters because
>>they
>>>know they can't even come close to getting the pedestrian Oswald to the
>>scene
>>>in time.
>>>
>>>By the way, the last time Oswald's landlady saw him, he was STANDING across
>>the
>>>street AT A BUS STOP. And the bus he would have caught would have taken
>him
>>>AWAY from the Tippit scene.
>>>
>>>Mike Griffith
>>>MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH. Check out my Real Issues Home Page
>>>at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2/
>>>
>>
>>Mike -- And I say that the landlady didn't see O at all that afternoon.
>>Whaley let O out of his cab, near the theatre, saw him walking in
>>that direction, & lo & behold, O is caught 45mins. later wearing the
>>same togs he was wearing when Whaley last saw him....
>>
>>dw
>
>That's a good one, Donald. So let's see, ALL the physical evidence is
>fabricated and planted, around half the DPD force perjured themselves to
>cover
>up for that, ALL the eyewitnesses are lying or mistaken, the DPD -- as you've
>stated elsewhere -- completely manipulated the eyewitness statements, even
>among those witnesses they didn't interview, apparently, like Jack Ray Tatum,
>the Tippit murder was wholly unrelated to the assassination, AND Earlene
>Roberts and William Whaley were both lying, mistaken or just plain loopy. And
>why was all this done? To frame a guy for killing one cop!
>
>Donald, get real.
>
>Dave Reitzes
Oh, wait -- I almost forgot. Let's not overlook the fact that Oswald's
statements in custody were not only falsified, but, rather than merely
assert that Oswald, from the moment he was first asked, stated that he
took a bus, then a cab to 1026 N. Beckley, the conspirators planted a very
clever series of statements that have Oswald changing his story over a
period of time, progressing from the truth (i.e., no trip to N. Beckley at
all, apparently) to a bus to N. Beckley, to a bus and a cab to N. Beckley,
all carefully constructed so as to insure that no one would accuse anyone
of falsifying Oswald's statements on the matter -- since the conspirators
could have simply inserted the statement they *wanted* in the earlier
interrogation reports! Brilliant!
This, my friends, is a perfect example of the sleight-of-hand that's kept
us all guessing for 35 years.
Or something . . .
Dave Reitzes
Dreitzes
>From: martha moyer <m...@comteck.com>
>Date: 5/9/99 1:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <01be9a43$b41ae3a0$ed2c...@mam.comteck.com>
>
>Russ
>
>Certain scenarios have been fairly established by corroberating evidence
>regarding the Tippit murder. However, I have always been concerned with
>"Where was Oz headed?
Yup. Looks like he was the only person who could have told us, though . . .
>And why was JD "slowly" cruising 10th - when,
>according to various accounts, he was tearing around the area minutes
>before?
Well, I don't know about the importance of this one . . .
>Why stop OZ - when there were at least two >young men standing out
>in their front yard not far from where the >incident occurred?
Dale Myers has come up with a scenario that's so blindingly obvious and
compelling, I was stunned that no one had ever advanced the theory before.
Have you read Myers?
Also, if JD
>- who was not exactly a rocket scientist, according to police records, stop
>a suspected assassin with no call-in reporting himself out of the car, or
>indicate that he was interested in a possible suspect? We could chalk that
>up to bad judgment, I suppose.
I'd say we have little choice, unless you believe all of the physical
evidence is fabricated, all the witnesses fingered the wrong guy, and half
the DPD perjured themselves covering up the murder of a fellow officer.
>In the police logs - Young called in to dispatcher inquiring if someone had
>been sent to notify JD's wife. He did not have the home address and was
>told to contact "5" which was Personnel. Later Young called back in and
>said he had the address - 7500 South Beckley and was on his way!!! Do you
>suppose he went to the wrong house?
The relevance of this eludes me . . .
>A friend of mine from Dallas cross-checked City Directories and found that
>a John Boone - who worked for Dallas Times Herald in printing presses, was
>listed at living at this address. Small house - looked like a 2 bedroom
>affair - and I know that he had two daughters. This friend checked Boone's
>obit when he died - we were curious to see if he was related to Deputy
>Sheriff Eugene Boone who was instrumental in finding the rifle on Sixth
>Floor. No luck!! But we did discover that Eugene had worked at the Herald
>since he was 14 years old (part-time) The house was located close to
>intersection of where one would turn to go into the addition where JD lived
>on Glencairn. But it does make one >wonder!!!
About what?
>Anthony Summers wrote that he
>had interviewed a Tippit neighbor who told him that Marie had been over the
>morning of 11/22 - bawling her eyes out - because JD had left home that
>morning and wanted a divorce. If that was true - I would hardly think that
>JD went home for lunch.
Ummm . . .
>I had a retired DPD officer, who was a close friend of JD's, spend the
>bigger part of 2 hours telling me about what a "straight arrow" JD was -
>real family man, etc. When he finished I told him I had seen some files
>that suggested JD was not above playing games. He back-stroked like a
>champion swimmer. I do not consider JD's sex life as a relevant issue to
>the assassination -
Not unless he was having an affair with Marina . . .
He probably was wearing a t-shirt that read
>"all men are idiots and I am the king" I suspect the "long blue line"
>protected JD's image. I imagine that it would have been difficult to
>explain to all those sympathetic people who sent a fortune to the Tippit
>family.
>
>Would JD have been cruising looking for someone other than OZ? We know
>that Joyce McDonald "Joy Dale" , stripper at Carousel, lived at 424 1/2
>West Tenth. Plus - Jerry Rose discovered that at one time Joy Dale was
>listed as living at the Helen Markum
>apartment. Ah well - - - -
>
>Some tidbits to digest
Okey-dokey . . .
DR
martha moyer
Dreitzes <drei...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990509155356...@ng-cm1.aol.com>...
> >Subject: Re: Tippit
> >From: martha moyer <m...@comteck.com>
> >Date: 5/9/99 1:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <01be9a43$b41ae3a0$ed2c...@mam.comteck.com>
> >
> >Russ
> >
> >Certain scenarios have been fairly established by corroberating evidence
> >regarding the Tippit murder. However, I have always been concerned with
> >"Where was Oz headed?
>
>
Russ and Carrie Burr
his physical description, that matched what was broadcast over the DPD
radio...however, the description was rather generic. The other reason is
that (based on Myers's, "With Malice") Oswald was walking west on 10th
and upon seeing him, made and abrubt turn, going east. That, perhaps,
along with the physical description could have made Tippit suspicious.
martha moyer wrote:
>
> Russ
>
> Certain scenarios have been fairly established by corroberating evidence
> regarding the Tippit murder. However, I have always been concerned with
> "Where was Oz headed? And why was JD "slowly" cruising 10th - when,
> according to various accounts, he was tearing around the area minutes
> before? Why stop OZ - when there were at least two young men standing out
> in their front yard not far from where the incident occurred? Also, if JD
> - who was not exactly a rocket scientist, according to police records, stop
> a suspected assassin with no call-in reporting himself out of the car, or
> indicate that he was interested in a possible suspect? We could chalk that
> up to bad judgment, I suppose.
It wasn't the first time he had done that. And if he called it in as he
should have, I don't think the outcome would have been much different.
Russ
dcw...@aol.com
he was lying? And even (I believe) John McAdams thinks that Roberts was
lying re certain points. And as I stated before, all this was done to
detain Oswald until the physical evidence from the TSBD could be
developed. There was no witness evidence from Dealey--there's some
doubt it seems whether even Howard Brennan actually attended a lineup.
(And for some reason neither Fischer nor Edwards were invited to a
lineup 11/22, even tho Fischer supposedly had a good long look at
Oswald.) Note that the 11/22-23 lineups are numbered, 1,2,3,4, in the notes on
pp458-9 in Myers: Markham, McWatters, Guinyard, Callaway, the Davises,
Scoggins & Whaley are listed there--but not Brennan. The conspirators
knew there would be no Dealey witnesses to Oswald--he was going to be
shooting (I believe), but he wasn't going to be
seen. They needed witnesses elsewhere....
dw
dcw...@aol.com
dcw...@aol.com
dcw...@aol.com
ritchie linton
>
> Hi Martha, The only reasons that Tippit stopped Oswald####
######
Now now....your bias is showing.You just assume that it was
Oswald that interested Tippit when he stopped somebody.I
suppose you do not see your presumption of guilt
against Oswald at play here, but I do.
Tippit stopped somebody-that much we know.Since the shell
casings and the bullets did not later match up, one might be
tempted to think that Tippit's curiousity was piqued by two strange
men walking quickly around-especially if Tippit had heard what
had happened on his radio.The mixed variety of the bullets and
the casings suggests two shooters=which your presumption of
guilt blinds you to.
If it didn't, you might think that two guys in an apparent hurry in a
residential section in the middle of the day=after what had
happened=well, better check that out.No time for the radio call= they
were in a hurry.
You won't get this, but if you want to, ask me.
RJ
Dreitzes
So do I -- I think she made up the story about the police car stopping and
honking its horn. Dale Myers has raised some serious questions about the story.
And as I stated before, all this was done to
>detain Oswald until the physical evidence from the TSBD could be
>developed. There was no witness evidence from Dealey--there's some
>doubt it seems whether even Howard Brennan actually attended a lineup.
>(And for some reason neither Fischer nor Edwards were invited to a
>lineup 11/22, even tho Fischer supposedly had a good long look at
>Oswald.) Note that the 11/22-23 lineups are numbered, 1,2,3,4, in the notes
>on
>pp458-9 in Myers: Markham, McWatters, Guinyard, Callaway, the Davises,
>Scoggins & Whaley are listed there--but not Brennan. The conspirators
>knew there would be no Dealey witnesses to Oswald--he was going to be
>shooting (I believe), but he wasn't going to be
>seen. They needed witnesses elsewhere....
>dw
It doesn't float, Donald. Are you suggesting they killed Tippit simply to give
themselves some time to frame Oswald? Or were they going to hold Ozzie until a
murder was committed and then frame Oswald for whatever murder it happened to
be?
Why would they go to all the trouble of manufacturing an entire crime when --
if they were so evil and scheming -- all they had to do was dummy up some
evidence and witnesses to the assassination itself?
I don't get it, Donald.
DR
Dreitzes
>Russ and Carrie Burr wrote:
>>
>> Hi Martha, The only reasons that Tippit stopped Oswald####
>
>######
>Now now....your bias is showing.You just assume that it was
>Oswald that interested Tippit when he stopped somebody.I
>suppose you do not see your presumption of guilt
>against Oswald at play here, but I do.
>
>Tippit stopped somebody-that much we know.Since the shell
>casings and the bullets did not later match up
Ritchie, there are ways to explain this. Me, I think Dale Myers makes a good
case for one of the Commission's old standbys -- that a fifth shot was fired
and one shell and one bullet went undiscovered by the police. Unlikely? Not
considering that the known shells were all found by civilians who turned them
over to the police. It's not hard to imagine that one shell was kept as a
souveneir. There's even a witness who may have seen this very shell much later
on. As for the bullet, it simply could have gone anywhere -- it's probably
still buried somewhere in the dirt in somebody's yard today. (Get your metal
detectors out, bullet-hunters! Dealey Plaza need not be the only hunting
ground!)
, one might be
>tempted to think that Tippit's curiousity was piqued by two strange
>men walking quickly around-especially if Tippit had heard what
>had happened on his radio.
Two men? Ritchie, how much evidence is there for two men? How reliable is
Acquilla Clemons' story when weighed against a dozen other people? I used to
think Clemons' story was hugely important, but the fact of the matter is that
not a soul saw two men together on Tenth St. before or during the shooting, and
only Clemons thought she saw two men after the shooting. Considering that a
handful of eyewitnesses were running around, picking up Tippit's gun, etc., I
think it's likely she saw two witnesses and assumed they were the killers.
>The mixed variety of the bullets and
>the casings suggests two shooters
No, it doesn't. Oswald was found with those two brands of bullet on his person.
=which your presumption of
>guilt blinds you to.
>
>If it didn't, you might think that two guys in an apparent hurry in a
>residential section in the middle of the day=after what had
>happened=well, better check that out.No time for the radio call= they
>were in a hurry.
But NO ONE saw two guys in a hurry before the shooting.
>You won't get this, but if you want to, ask me.
>
>RJ
I'd think it over again, Ritchie. Have you read Dale's book? I think he answers
all the questions one could reasonably have.
Dave Reitzes
Russ Burr
>
> Russ and Carrie Burr wrote:
> >
> > Hi Martha, The only reasons that Tippit stopped Oswald####
>
> ######
> Now now....your bias is showing.
My bias is strictly determined by the evidence. Your bias is fueled by
speculation and too many consipiracy books.
You just assume that it was
> Oswald that interested Tippit when he stopped somebody.I
> suppose you do not see your presumption of guilt
> against Oswald at play here, but I do.
So all the witnesses that saw this encounter were wrong Ritchie? How
many ID'd Oswald that night...5 of the them. How many of witnesses
didn'?...Benevides?
>
> Tippit stopped somebody-that much we know.Since the shell
> casings and the bullets did not later match up,
Ritchie, it's time you read Myer's book, "With Malice"....The shell
casings were fired from a revolver just like Oswald's and the bullets
removed from Tippit and found in Oswald's pistol upon his arrest and in
his pocket were both of Remington-Peters manufacture and
Winchester-Western.
And the firing pin markings on the primer were identical to Oswald's
pistol.
one might be
> tempted to think that Tippit's curiousity was piqued by two strange
> men walking quickly around-especially if Tippit had heard what
> had happened on his radio.The mixed variety of the bullets and
> the casings suggests two shooters=which your presumption of
> guilt blinds you to.
>
> If it didn't, you might think that two guys in an apparent hurry in a
> residential section in the middle of the day=after what had
> happened=well, better check that out.No time for the radio call= they
> were in a hurry.
>
> You won't get this, but if you want to, ask me.
>
> RJ
What are you talking about?? If you're talking about Callaway and
Scoggins, who got Tippit's gun and took off in Scoggins cab and were
mistaken by Clemmons as the killers, that happened after Tippit was
dead.
If it's someone different, try posting some citations for a change. No
disrespect intended, but I'm growing tired of your endless proclamations
of Oswald's innocence without a drop of evidence of how he was framed
and so on...
Russ
ritchie linton
>
>I said:
> >The mixed variety of the bullets and
> >the casings suggests two shooters
>
> No, it doesn't. Oswald was found with those two brands of bullet on his person.@@@
@@@@@ Really? OK. Where and when? I mean, according to the provable stream
of eveidence.
They arrested him at the theatre- they went through his stuff and grabbed
his wallet-right? Thats when they named their suspect as "Oswald" on the
radio, right? I mean, they found Oswald's ID in Oswald's wallet as they
took it from him at his arrest at the theatre, right?
Now, just BTW= howcum no mention of the 'Hidell' name then= since he must
have had that card on him at the time=right? Unless you have a radio call
that ID's Hidell at the theater=have you got that?
And of course, at the arrest, since they got his wallet, they can be
presumed to have gotten the shells then clanking about in his pockets
somewhere= got anything on that?
If not= just answer each above with the appropriate ciation in the
evidence= if not...well, then=when did the Hidell card and the ammo enter
the case, exactly?
If you think Oswald did something, its up to you to provide the
proof.Those are good questions, I said:
>
> =which your presumption of
> >guilt blinds you to.
> >
> >If it didn't, you might think that two guys in an apparent hurry in a
> >residential section in the middle of the day=after what had
> >happened=well, better check that out.No time for the radio call= they
> >were in a hurry.
>
> But NO ONE saw two guys in a hurry before the shooting.@@@
@@@@@ You acknowledged that this is not true, by mentioning Clemmons.You
discredit her, but before we do that, lets hear your answers to the above
questions.
Ritchie
>
> >You won't get this, but if you want to, ask me.
> >
> >RJ
>
> I'd think it over again, Ritchie. Have you read Dale's book? I think he answers
> all the questions one could reasonably have.
PS=Maybe= but he has not even shown where the money went in payment of the
COD.Do you know anything about business? How long does one survive that
delivers a COD without any proof of the money?I assume here that everyone
in life quickly learns how money works.
ritchie linton
>
> ritchie linton wrote:
> >
> > Russ and Carrie Burr wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Martha, The only reasons that Tippit stopped Oswald####
> >
> > ######
> > Now now....your bias is showing.
>
Glad to see that.That was the whole point of the frame, as it always is
when you frame a guy.So in spite of the flaws in execution of the plan, we
others see the power of the frame= and the bias that ensues.Since you do
not see that, you say:
Your bias is fueled by
> speculation and too many consipiracy books.@@
@@@@ Which is the usual Yada' yada'.Point of fact is that I rely upon the
evidence your theory produces to show, MERELY, that your theory does not
work.Your theory is that Oswald did it. The evidence, I say, shows he did
not. From that, I deduce that your theory is a failed one. Stop there.You
said:
>
> If it's someone different, try posting some citations for a change. No
> disrespect intended, but I'm growing tired of your endless proclamations
> of Oswald's innocence without a drop of evidence of how he was framed
> and so on...
>
> Russ@@@
@@@@@ And that is your error, as I see it.Its up to you to make your
theory of the crime work out sensibly. If it does not= and I say the
evidence shows it does not= then when all else is said and done, you are
just left with another failed theory.
You think you are tired= think of me.It was not Oswald= thats a failed
theory= yet it LOOKS like it was Oswald= thats a frame.
Unless you can prove it was Oswald in a way that has never been done
before, so that reasonable people would believe it. So far, I'd say, the
evidence is against you= most people do not believe the Oswald story.
Its up to you to make your theory of the crime work out= otherwise, if you
cannot, I would say we are looking at the the frame.
Rhetorical question= what do you see when you look at the frame?
RJ
McSpooky00
>From: ritchie linton <rli...@idirect.com>
>Date: 5/12/99 2:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <37391E...@idirect.com>
This is getting tiresome, Ritchie. If you want to cling to your illusions,
obviously no one is going to be able to change your mind.
Good luck,
DR
elec...@my-dejanews.com
mcspo...@aol.com (McSpooky00) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Tippit
> >From: ritchie linton <rli...@idirect.com>
> >Date: 5/12/99 2:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <37391E...@idirect.com>
> >
was found by the slain officer? Then what wallet was found on Oswald in
the theater?=====================
> >> >The mixed variety of the bullets and
> >> >the casings suggests two shooters
========================Now, down here, I read an argument that Oswald
was found with these two brands of bullets, and I read that they were in
his pocket. How could he have gone through the knock-down scuffle and
still had these things in his pocket? yet he can drop his wallet by
Tippit's body? And how come Oswald had money on him, incl. dollar
bills? If his wallet was at Tippit's scene, how come money is in
Oswald's pocket? I am a new voice
here.==============================================================
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't. Oswald was found with those two brands of bullet on
his person.@@@
> >
> >@@@@@ Really? OK. Where and when? I mean, according to the provable
stream
> >of evidence.
> >
> >They arrested him at the theatre- they went through his stuff and
grabbed
> >his wallet-right? Thats when they named their suspect as "Oswald" on
the
> >radio, right? I mean, they found Oswald's ID in Oswald's wallet as
they
> >took it from him at his arrest at the theatre, right?
> >
> >Now, just BTW= howcum no mention of the 'Hidell' name then= since he
must
> >have had that card on him at the time=right? Unless you have a radio
call
> >that ID's Hidell at the theater=have you got that?
> >
> >And of course, at the arrest, since they got his wallet, they can be
> >presumed to have gotten the shells then clanking about in his pockets
> >somewhere= got anything on that?
> >
> >If not= just answer each above with the appropriate ciation in the
> >evidence= if not...well, then=when did the Hidell card and the ammo
enter
> >the case, exactly?
> >============================================and here I see the answer
to your question is not given to you--instead, the thing is thrown back
in your face. But you brought up a good point. I've read this forum for
awhile and I notice that when a good question is asked, the one who is
pushed into a corner often answers, "prove it!" Is this a forum to
discover the truth or just to develop your own thesis despite any new
evidence that might crop up? I notice all you did was make fun of this
new woman who says she knows something. That was very open-minded of
you. Maybe because I'm female I will side with her. Are you interested
in learning the truth, or just promoting your own hobby
horse?==================================================================
==
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Russ Burr
What is your evidence that there was a frame? What is your evidence that
Oswald didn't shoot Tippit? I and others have supplied ample amounts of
evidence and yet you have yet to produce anything.
>
> You think you are tired= think of me.It was not Oswald= thats a failed
> theory= yet it LOOKS like it was Oswald= thats a frame.
Please, for a change, present some evidence.
>
> Unless you can prove it was Oswald in a way that has never been done
> before, so that reasonable people would believe it. So far, I'd say, the
> evidence is against you= most people do not believe the Oswald story.
Most people don't know what the evidence is against Oswald. Most base
their facts on conspiracy books or "JFK". Most people believe what they
read in a few conspiracy oriented books without any knowledge of the
original sources. People have a hard time believing that one slightly
disturbed man could bring down one of the world's most powerful men.
>
> Its up to you to make your theory of the crime work out= otherwise, if you
> cannot, I would say we are looking at the the frame.
For the last time. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? PROVE THAT THERE WAS A FRAME
WITH PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTATION AND STOP SPECULATING. I AND MANY
OTHERS HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH PRIMARY SOURCES AND FORENSIC EVIDENCE. YOU
HAVE YET TO SUPPLY ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE, PHYSICAL OR OTHERWISE TO EVEN
COME CLOSE TO BACKING YOUR CLAIMS.
>
> Rhetorical question= what do you see when you look at the frame?
Nothing because there is no evidence of a frame and you don't have any
to support your endless speculations and mindgames.
Russ
>
> RJ
Russ Burr
Oswald didn't shoot Tippit. I and others have supplied ample amounts of
ritchie linton
>
> itchie linton wrote:
> >
> > Its up to you to make your theory of the crime work out= otherwise, if you
> > cannot, I would say we are looking at the the frame.
>
> For the last time. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? PROVE THAT THERE WAS A FRAME
> WITH PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTATION AND STOP SPECULATING. I AND MANY
> OTHERS HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH PRIMARY SOURCES AND FORENSIC EVIDENCE. YOU
> HAVE YET TO SUPPLY ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE, PHYSICAL OR OTHERWISE TO EVEN
#### Don't shout. In polite circles its considered unbecoming, and is
usually seen as some evidence of frustration.
If you quiet down,you will see that it works this way:
You have a theory which you call simple and inclusive, which you say
proves that Oswald did it.All the evidence you say supports that theory.
I have said that when you go through all the minutae of that evidence, the
analysis fails to support your theory. Your theory cannot make the
shooting work out with Oswald the assassin, without at some critical
juncture accusing the evidence of being "mistaken"= as your theory says
the doctors were, who described the hole in the throat as one of entry; or
"in error", as your theory says Humes was when he disputed the xray that
alledged the wound of entry in the head as 4 inches higher than he said he
measured on the body; or "simply out to lunch" whem your theory tries to
explain why the guy in the photo from MEXI was NOT Oswald....and so on and
so on.Your theory 'bunches' the clothes because it knows that the hole in
them does not align with the place you need in order to transit the neck.
Your theory says all the nine=9!=reports that say that hole did not
transit are "simply mistaken".And so on and so on...
So at some point, I choose to take the accumlation of ALL of these things
to mean that your theory of the case is a failed one.I mean, c'mon=at what
point will you start applying the presumption of innocence to this theory
of yours and realize that it does not work?
Now, when once you do that, you will see that there is ample evidence
still remaining that APPEARS to implicate Oswald. Thats proof of the
frame=someone left that rifle tracable to him under those boxes, and it
was not him.It was not him because your theory of the case has failed.
Thats the evidence, so please stop shouting.
You say the evidence supports your claim that Oswalad did it= I say that
can only stand if you accept ALL the "errors", "mistakes"=people being
"out to lunch" and so on. If you don't do that=if you apply the
presumption correctly in this case= you conclude on the evidence that
Oswald did not do it. Thats a frame, since it was a rifle tracable to
him.There is no question it looks like Oswald did it, so thats why I ask:
>
> >
> > Rhetorical question= what do you see when you look at the frame?
Ritchie
Russ Burr
>
>Russ Burr wrote:
>>
>> itchie linton wrote:
>> >
>> > Its up to you to make your theory of the crime work out= otherwise, if you
>> > cannot, I would say we are looking at the the frame.
>>
>> For the last time. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? PROVE THAT THERE WAS A FRAME
>> WITH PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTATION AND STOP SPECULATING. I AND MANY
>> OTHERS HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH PRIMARY SOURCES AND FORENSIC EVIDENCE. YOU
>> HAVE YET TO SUPPLY ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE, PHYSICAL OR OTHERWISE TO EVEN
>> COME CLOSE TO BACKING YOUR CLAIMS.##
>
>#### Don't shout. In polite circles its considered unbecoming, and is
>usually seen as some evidence of frustration.
Sorry Ritchie, but I am frustrated that you don't use evidence to back your
claims. And I consider you a bright guy.
>
>If you quiet down,you will see that it works this way:
>
>You have a theory which you call simple and inclusive, which you say
>proves that Oswald did it.All the evidence you say supports that theory.
>
>I have said that when you go through all the minutae of that evidence, the
>analysis fails to support your theory. Your theory cannot make the
>shooting work out with Oswald the assassin, without at some critical
>juncture accusing the evidence of being "mistaken"= as your theory says
>the doctors were, who described the hole in the throat as one of entry; or
>"in error", as your theory says Humes was when he disputed the xray that
>alledged the wound of entry in the head as 4 inches higher than he said he
>measured on the body; or "simply out to lunch" whem your theory tries to
>explain why the guy in the photo from MEXI was NOT Oswald....and so on and
>so on.Your theory 'bunches' the clothes because it knows that the hole in
>them does not align with the place you need in order to transit the neck.
>Your theory says all the nine=9!=reports that say that hole did not
>transit are "simply mistaken".And so on and so on...
When you study any crime to the degree this crime has been subjected too
it's not all going to fit neatly together not matter who much minutae you
find that questions the theory. It's the real world Ritchie and there
always conflicts in evidence...that is no excuse, just a simple fact. I
can explain a lot of the things you brought up but you still won't be
convinced..because your sold on the patsy idea.
>
>So at some point, I choose to take the accumlation of ALL of these things
>to mean that your theory of the case is a failed one.I mean, c'mon=at what
>point will you start applying the presumption of innocence to this theory
>of yours and realize that it does not work?
>
>Now, when once you do that, you will see that there is ample evidence
>still remaining that APPEARS to implicate Oswald. Thats proof of the
>frame=someone left that rifle tracable to him under those boxes, and it
>was not him.It was not him because your theory of the case has failed.
All that proves to me, is that Oswald, who ordered it under the name of
Hidell and hide it after the shooting.
Russ
ritchie linton
> >to mean that your theory of the case is a failed one.I mean, c'mon=at what
> >point will you start applying the presumption of innocence to this theory
> >of yours and realize that it does not work?
> >
> >Now, when once you do that, you will see that there is ample evidence
> >still remaining that APPEARS to implicate Oswald. Thats proof of the
> >frame=someone left that rifle tracable to him under those boxes, and it
> >was not him.It was not him because your theory of the case has failed.
>
> All that proves to me, is that Oswald, who ordered it under the name of
> Hidell and hide it after the shooting.
>
> Russ
@@@@
@@@@@
Fine.You conclude that the evidence supports your theory. I conclude that
it does not.For me, there are away too many conflicts and
inconsisencies-so many that in the end(for me) the theory of Oswald's
guilt fails.Once that happens, I say, he must have been framed. Thats all,
as above.
So don't say there is no evidence of the frame=there is...like the rifle
under the boxes.The evidence is there-the difference is you accept your
theory of Oswald's guilt as explaining it, and I obviously do not.
That part is really quite simple, I think.
RJ
Russ and Carrie Burr
>
> Russ Burr wrote:
> >
> > In article <373A75...@idirect.com>, ritchie says...
> > >
> > >So at some point, I choose to take the accumlation of ALL of these things
> > >to mean that your theory of the case is a failed one.I mean, c'mon=at what
> > >point will you start applying the presumption of innocence to this theory
> > >of yours and realize that it does not work?
> > >
> > >Now, when once you do that, you will see that there is ample evidence
> > >still remaining that APPEARS to implicate Oswald. Thats proof of the
> > >frame=someone left that rifle tracable to him under those boxes, and it
> > >was not him.It was not him because your theory of the case has failed.
Who was it then?
> >
> > All that proves to me, is that Oswald, who ordered it under the name of
> > Hidell and hide it after the shooting.
> >
> > Russ
>
> @@@@
>
> @@@@@
>
> Fine.You conclude that the evidence supports your theory. I conclude that
> it does not.For me, there are away too many conflicts and
> inconsisencies-so many that in the end(for me) the theory of Oswald's
> guilt fails.Once that happens, I say, he must have been framed. Thats all,
> as above.
There are always inconsistencies and conflicts in crimes Ritchie. The
closer one looks the more you'll find. As I said earlier that's the
reality of most crimes. Try spending a day in court...it's a real eye
opener.
I'm fully aware of the conflicts and inconsistencies of this case but
the overall weight of the evidence suggests that Oswald is guilty. You
can't ignore that anymore than you can take him out of the picture.
>
> So don't say there is no evidence of the frame=there is...like the rifle
> under the boxes.The evidence is there-the difference is you accept your
> theory of Oswald's guilt as explaining it, and I obviously do not.
How the heck is is the hidden rifle a sign of a frame? Please enlighten
me.
>
> That part is really quite simple, I think.
Please explain. BTW, I admire your tenacity;-)
Russ
ritchie linton
>
> >
> > Russ Burr wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <373A75...@idirect.com>, ritchie says...
> > > >
> > > >So at some point, I choose to take the accumlation of ALL of these things
> > > >to mean that your theory of the case is a failed one.I mean, c'mon=at what
>
> > > >point will you start applying the presumption of innocence to this theory
> > > >of yours and realize that it does not work?
> > > >
> > > >Now, when once you do that, you will see that there is ample evidence
> > > >still remaining that APPEARS to implicate Oswald. Thats proof of the
> > > >frame=someone left that rifle tracable to him under those boxes, and it
> > > >was not him.It was not him because your theory of the case has failed.
>
**** I do not know. Do you? What I said was that it was not Oswald, since
for ALL the other reasons, your theory of his guilt is a failed one.So- I
say- it must have been someone else. Thats a frame, I said=proven by the
failure of your only theory. Unless, I say, you have a better one.Do you
know who left the rifle? I know it wasn't Oswald.Thats why I said thats
the proof he was framed. Thats pretty simple. Its the 'who did it' that
appears complex.You say:
All that proves to me, is that Oswald, who ordered it under the name of
> > > Hidell and hide it after the shooting.**
*** So, according to your theory of Oswald's guilt, tell us all when it
was that the Hidell name first entered the stream of evidence? Was it
before the FBI tracked the rifle backward from Kliens, or afterward?
I mean, if Oswald had the Hidell ID on him at his arrest at the movies, we
would have had heard about that first, donncha' think?
You say he had the Hidell card upon him at the time=yes?
At what time did the card name of Hidell enter the evidence?
Please answer each question seperatley in sequence, as asked.
-If you do that, I think you might understand what I said next:
> > >
> > @@@@@
> >
> > Fine.You conclude that the evidence supports your theory. I conclude that
> > it does not.For me, there are away too many conflicts and
> > inconsisencies-so many that in the end(for me) the theory of Oswald's
> > guilt fails.Once that happens, I say, he must have been framed. Thats all,
> > as above.
>
> There are always inconsistencies and conflicts in crimes Ritchie. The
> closer one looks the more you'll find. As I said earlier that's the
> reality of most crimes. Try spending a day in court...it's a real eye
> opener.@@@
@@@@ Huhmmm..,do you recall things one day to the next? Many days ago I
told you I am a lawyer by profession=so I hazard that I have spent many
more days than you in the courts.Usually there, the 'presumption of
innocence' is properly applied.Here, in this case, I see all the time the
reversal of the onus.You exemplify that, saying:
>
> I'm fully aware of the conflicts and inconsistencies of this case but
> the overall weight of the evidence suggests that Oswald is guilty. You
> can't ignore that anymore than you can take him out of the picture.
>
> >
> > So don't say there is no evidence of the frame=there is...like the rifle
> > under the boxes.The evidence is there-the difference is you accept your
> > theory of Oswald's guilt as explaining it, and I obviously do not.
>
> How the heck is is the hidden rifle a sign of a frame? Please enlighten
> me.
>
> >
> > That part is really quite simple, I think.
>
> Please explain.@@@
@@@@ Over and over=but since your theory that Oswald hid the rifle is a
failed one, its clear that someone else hid the thing, hoping that the it
would explain Oswald in the shooting.
Who?= I do not know.But its evidence of the frame nontheless.
Why was Oswald framed in the way it was done? Thats the next question.
That part is really quite simple, I think.
RJ
Clark Wilkins
>Hi Martha, The only reasons that Tippit stopped Oswald could have been
>his physical description, that matched what was broadcast over the DPD
>radio...however, the description was rather generic. The other reason is
>that (based on Myers's, "With Malice") Oswald was walking west on 10th
>and upon seeing him, made and abrubt turn, going east. That, perhaps,
>along with the physical description could have made Tippit suspicious.
>
There is evidence Oswald made such a direction change. It would also be
consistent with Oswald's actions at the shoe store. It would, indeed, make
Tippit suspicious.
Problem: If Tippit is suspicious why does he not check-in? Why talk to a
possible killer from a car window? And why does he not have his hand on
his gun when he gets out to confront Oswald?
Tippit seems to have failed to treat Oswald as a dangerous suspect. And
if he didn't think of him as dangerous, then he did not connect Oswald to
the assassination (Which is not too much of a surprise, since the
suspect's description included carrying a 30-30 rifle and this obviously
does not pertain to Oswald).
Just a thought.
.Clark
Dreitzes
>
>
>>Hi Martha, The only reasons that Tippit stopped Oswald could have been
>>his physical description, that matched what was broadcast over the DPD
>>radio...however, the description was rather generic. The other reason is
>>that (based on Myers's, "With Malice") Oswald was walking west on 10th
>>and upon seeing him, made and abrubt turn, going east. That, perhaps,
>>along with the physical description could have made Tippit suspicious.
>>
>
>There is evidence Oswald made such a direction change. It would also be
>consistent with Oswald's actions at the shoe store. It would, indeed, make
>Tippit suspicious.
Yes. Dale Myers has made a stunning case for this scenario. I honestly
believed Ozzie was framed until reading Dale's work.
>Problem: If Tippit is suspicious why does he not check-in?
His record shows that he wasn't Mr. By-the-Book, although he was not
careless either. (An incident several years before in which he came
extremely close to meeting his maker had taught him to be prepared.)
Why talk to a
>possible killer from a car window? And why does he not have his hand on
>his gun when he gets out to confront Oswald?
>
Fair questions, but remember -- he was miles away from downtown Dallas; he
didn't have any reason to seriously believe he was going to run into a
killer. More likely he simply thought Oswald was acting suspiciously and
wanted to see what he was up to. Cops do that, occasionally with good
reason.
>Tippit seems to have failed to treat Oswald as a dangerous suspect. And
>if he didn't think of him as dangerous, then he did not connect Oswald to
>the assassination (Which is not too much of a surprise, since the
>suspect's description included carrying a 30-30 rifle and this obviously
>does not pertain to Oswald).
>
>Just a thought.
>
>
>.Clark
Right, but keep in mind that Tippit was ordered into Oak Cliff to be at
large for routine disturbances. He was specifically called there because
all the Oak Cliff officers had headed for the TSBD. His mindset may well
have been that of a cop who knows that in the wake of an event like the
assassination, there are probably going to be some people who'll take
advantage of the chaos. (Think of all those folks in LA carrying off TVs
while the riots were going on.) He may simply have been on the lookout for
ordinary mischief, and have had the misfortune of stopping the wrong guy
at the wrong time.
Dave
ritchie linton
@@@@@@ Boy, you are righter than you know. Did you know that Mrs. Tippit
was telephoned from the Tower Suite at Bethesda that Friday night by
Robert Kennedy offering his condolences? Later, Jackie sent her a note
saying, "there is another bond that we share".
Tippit certainly stopped the wrong guy.
'Course it wasn't Oswald; but you are right about everything else.
Here- just so it helps ya'- the patsy had inadvertently slipped away from
the scene, so of course they went looking for him.They checked the
library=they knew he liked books, but it wasn't Oswald at the library,
right?= and they looked near where he lived.Poor Tippit, as you say...
RJ
BTW= it helps if you chose to respond if you send a copy by Email. Stuff
comes and goes so quickly around here its hard to catch it all. Thanks.
ritchie linton
$$$
$$$$
Now now- take a cold shower or something, maybe= and then lets look:
>
>
> Electlady, Ritchie brings up a point that was discredited 35 years ago.
> There is no doubt whatsoever that Oswald manufactured false IDs under the
> "Hidell" alias. These ID cards were taken from him on 11-22-63 and entered
> into the record the following day when the FBI recorded all of the items
> on his person.$$$
$$$$ If the Hidell alias card was on Oswalds person at his arrest- you
said, "these ID cards were taken from him on 11-22-63"= why no mention of
the Hidell name at the arrest? I mean, if it had been known that the
suspect was using an alias right away at the arrest, why didn't that
information go out right away? You said above that this information went
"into the record the following day". Thats true.So you answered my
question above, and the next one remains= why the next day as the first
day that anyone heard of Hidell, if the cops had found the false ID upon
arrest?
The answer is that Hidell was only discovered AFTER the FBI had tracked
the rifle backwards through Kleins= thats right, isn't it? You say:
You can find this information in the Warren Report. It's no
> secret. It's simply not worth people's time to post a dozen source
> citations when Ritchie already knows all about the evidence and chooses to
> ignore it. You're new here and he's not -- he's had dozens of people try
> to explain the evidence to him, and he believes what he wants to believe.@@@@
@@@@@@ Well, I believe on the evidence that the first mention of the
Hidell name came AFTER the FBI had tracked the rifle order backwards.Thats
certainly what the reports say=near midnight Friday. What do you say?
Do you say that the cops reported the Hidell card upon Oswald at his
arrest? You say that they had his real wallet at the arrest= what do you
say?
So far, you have said the card was entered the next day.The next day is
after midnight Friday, right?=and certainly a long time after you say
Oswald was arrested with the card on his person.
Are you saying that if the cops had found a 'false alias' card on Oswald
at his arrest, they would have said nothing about it at the time? They
took his wallet from him, right?
I would say that since the cops said nothing about the false ID at the
arrest, they found nothing about it in his wallet at the time.So what do
you say, keeping in mind that you have already disagreed with Hosty's
story about another wallet.
Ritchie
Dreitzes
>From: elec...@my-dejanews.com
>Date: 5/12/99 2:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7hb7mk$f5d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article <19990512003621...@ng66.aol.com>,
> mcspo...@aol.com (McSpooky00) wrote:
>> >Subject: Re: Tippit
>> >From: ritchie linton <rli...@idirect.com>
>> >Date: 5/12/99 2:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <37391E...@idirect.com>
>> >
>> >=============I just wish to comment. Wasn't it said Oswald's wallet
>was found by the slain officer? Then what wallet was found on Oswald in
>the theater?=====================
>
Exactly one person claims Oswald's wallet was found at the Tippit scene.
He's almost certainly mistaken.
See Dale Myers' *With Malice.*
>> >> >The mixed variety of the bullets and
>> >> >the casings suggests two shooters
>========================Now, down here, I read an argument that Oswald
>was found with these two brands of bullets, and I read that they were in
>his pocket. How could he have gone through the knock-down scuffle and
>still had these things in his pocket?
Just lucky, I guess.
yet he can drop his wallet by
>Tippit's body?
If you say so.
And how come Oswald had money on him, incl. dollar
>bills? If his wallet was at Tippit's scene, how come money is in
>Oswald's pocket?
Sounds like the wallet report's wrong, doesn't it?
I am a new voice
>here.==============================================================
>> >>
One FBI agent believes Oswald's wallet was found at the crime scene. He
didn't say anything about it for almost 35 years. The evidence does not
support him.
See Dale Myers' *With Malice* for a close look at the claim.
Electlady, Ritchie brings up a point that was discredited 35 years ago.
There is no doubt whatsoever that Oswald manufactured false IDs under the
"Hidell" alias. These ID cards were taken from him on 11-22-63 and entered
into the record the following day when the FBI recorded all of the items
on his person. You can find this information in the Warren Report. It's no
secret. It's simply not worth people's time to post a dozen source
citations when Ritchie already knows all about the evidence and chooses to
ignore it. You're new here and he's not -- he's had dozens of people try
to explain the evidence to him, and he believes what he wants to believe.
Dave Reitzes
Viking8350
>>was found by the slain officer? Then what wallet was found on Oswald in
>>the theater?=====================
>Exactly one person claims Oswald's wallet was found at the Tippit scene.
>He's almost certainly mistaken.
>
>See Dale Myers' *With Malice.*
>
maybe that the reason he didn't pay to get in the movies===he had lost his
wallet at the tippit murder scene
viking 8350
dcw...@aol.com
DR -- Check Myers--several places, he notes that Fritz & co. needed lineup
IDs of LHO in order to hold him. Apparently, he was considered a flight
risk....
dw
dcw...@aol.com
>>From: dcw...@aol.com
>>Date: 5/27/99 9:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <7iks2p$l...@drn.newsguy.com>
>
>>>Why would they go to all the trouble of manufacturing an entire crime when
>>--
>>>if they were so evil and scheming -- all they had to do was dummy up some
>>>evidence and witnesses to the assassination itself?
>
>bothered to read Dale's book -- or did you just skim it to grab onto any
>loopholes you could dream up?
>
>Dave Reitzes
>
Dave -- If you've read "With Malice," you'll note that Myers quotes
authorities like Fritz, who (p207) tells his men,
"I instructed them to get those witnesses [re Tippit] over for ID just as soon
as they could, & for us to prepare a real good case on the officer's
killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we
investigated the President's killing, where we didn't have so many
witnesses."
Seems Fritz thot the Tippit witnesses were pretty important, their ID
of LHO urgent....
dw
Dreitzes
Dreitzes
>>
>>>>Why would they go to all the trouble of manufacturing an entire crime when
>>>--
>>>>if they were so evil and scheming -- all they had to do was dummy up some
>>>>evidence and witnesses to the assassination itself?
>>
>>Give it up, Donald. And Michael. I have to wonder if you guys even
>>bothered to read Dale's book -- or did you just skim it to grab onto any
>>loopholes you could dream up?
>>
>>Dave Reitzes
>>
>Dave -- If you've read "With Malice," you'll note that Myers quotes
>authorities like Fritz, who (p207) tells his men,
>"I instructed them to get those witnesses [re Tippit] over for ID just as
>soon
>as they could, & for us to prepare a real good case on the officer's
>killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we
>investigated the President's killing, where we didn't have so many
>witnesses."
>
>Seems Fritz thot the Tippit witnesses were pretty important, their ID
>of LHO urgent....
>dw
Gee, I wonder why.
Buh-bye, Don.
DR
MTGriffith
writes:
>
>Yeah, Sylvia Meagher was ... "wrong" as you put it. Not the first time,
>Dave.
No, she was not wrong. Just exactly what "emergency" would have been
expected to take place in suburban Oak Cliff in the middle of the city's
biggest manhunt right after the shooting of the President of the United
States?
And it's just a big, whopping coincidence that Tippit "just happened" to
get sent to central Oak Cliff, which "just happened" to be where Oswald
lived, right?
And it's a further coincidence that Mrs. Roberts saw a police car pull up
in front of the boarding house and tap its horn just after Oswald had
entered the house, right?
>I wonder why you didn't go after Mike for calling Oak Cliff "sleepy" etc.
>It contained a large business section -- which required police protection.
Oh, please! Then why wasn't Tippit cruising the business section, if it
really needed protection?! And did it need protection in the middle of
the day just after Kennedy had been shot? Why weren't any other areas of
the city similarly afforded such special attention while the police were
supposedly engaged in a frantic search for the president's killers?
When the other officer who was supposedly dispatched next got on the
radio, why did he give the distinct impression that he was never
dispatched? Have you even read Hurt's treatment of this issue?
Oak Cliff was a nice, clean area in 1963. It was a middle-class
neighborhood that bordered a prosperous business section. Hardly the kind
of area in which one would expect to encounter an "emergency," especially
at a time when the city was in shock over the shooting of the president.
Dreitzes
Hi, Mike. Thanks for forwarding your post to me, despite the fact that
it's in response to Gerard J. "Amethyst" McNally. At any rate, before you
reiterate your familiar arguments, I would prefer you show me the courtesy
of responding to my previous post on the subject.
From: drei...@aol.com (Dreitzes)
Subject: Re: Tippit
Date: 09 May 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19990509052511...@ng-ck1.aol.com>
>From: mtgri...@aol.com (MTGriffith)
>
>, drei...@aol.com (Dreitzes) writes:
>
[snip]
[I wrote:]
Meanwhile, all your speculation avoids the question
>>of whether the tapes are authentic. If the tapes are authentic, J. D.
>>Tippit was sent into Oak Cliff. Period.
[Michael wrote:]
>If they redid the tape, there'd be no way to "prove" it was not authentic.
Oh, really? Are you sure about that? You don't think there's any way to
detect if a passage has been overdubbed or inserted?
>The point is that Tippit had no business being sent to Oak Cliff. This seems
>like such a self-evident fact that one would think no one would dispute it.
>
But Tippit wasn't giving the orders, was he? This seems like such a
self-evident fact that one would think no one would dispute it. And the
dispatcher has explained his reasoning. Jackson's reasoning strikes me as
being more cogent than yours.
>Of all the suburbs and neighborhoods of Dallas, just exactly why would the
>dispatcher decide that Oak Cliff would be the one place where an "emergency"
>might occur, when at that very moment the police were supposedly frantically
>looking for Kennedy's killers?
>
This has been explained, but I take it you find the explanation less than
satisfactory. You should say so rather than imply no explanation has been
offered. That's being a little disingenuous, isn't it?
Hello? Mike?
>You say Hurt's chapter on the Tippit slaying in REASONABLE DOUBT has been
>proven to be "irrelevant." And just who has "proven" this?
>
Dale Myers.
>If so, why can't you explain the very odd response of the other police
>officer
>who was supposedly dispatched? The response clearly indicates he was never
>dispatched elsewhere in the first place.
>
>Mike Griffith
Sorry, Mike, but it doesn't work. Let's weigh the arguments. If Oswald is
innocent, then the four shells in evidence have been fabricated and
substituted, one bullet may have been fabricated and substituted, the
revolver has been substituted, several bullets were planted on Oswald's
person (or, alternatively, the revolver, bullets and shells are genuine
and the paper trail to Oswald has been fabricated and the spare bullets
planted on Oswald), several key DPD men perjured themselves and may well
still be lying about it, the witnesses are all naming the wrong guy as the
killer, fiber evidence was fabricated to link a jacket found near the
crime scene to Oswald, the DPD radio tapes have been undetectably altered,
the dispatcher is lying about the instruction to the two men, *and* it's
just a coincidence that Tippit was murdered 45 minutes following the
assassination nine-tenths of a mile from Oswald's rooming house.
If, on the other hand, Oswald's guilty, then J. M. Poe may have forgotten
to mark two shells (or the marks were obliterated by others) and one DPD
patrolman failed to respond to an order broadcast at a peak moment of
excitement and radio traffic in Dallas history.
Hmm. That's a tough one . . .
Dave Reitzes
********************************************************************
Whenever you're ready to respond, Mike . . .
BTW, I still eagerly await your response to my point-by-point refutation
of the New Orleans section of your *Hasty Judgment.* It's only been about
seven months now . . .
DR
dcw...@aol.com
>
>>From: dcw...@aol.com
>>
>>In article , drei...@aol.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Why would they go to all the trouble of manufacturing an entire crime when
>>>>--
>>>>>if they were so evil and scheming -- all they had to do was dummy up some
>>>>>evidence and witnesses to the assassination itself?
>>>
>>>Give it up, Donald. And Michael. I have to wonder if you guys even
>>>bothered to read Dale's book -- or did you just skim it to grab onto any
>>>loopholes you could dream up?
>>>
>>>Dave Reitzes
>>>
>>Dave -- If you've read "With Malice," you'll note that Myers quotes
>>authorities like Fritz, who (p207) tells his men,
>>"I instructed them to get those witnesses [re Tippit] over for ID just as
>>soon
>>as they could, & for us to prepare a real good case on the officer's
>>killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we
>>investigated the President's killing, where we didn't have so many
>>witnesses."
>>
>>Seems Fritz thot the Tippit witnesses were pretty important, their ID
>>of LHO urgent....
>>dw
>
>
>Buh-bye, Don.
>
>DR
>
agreement....
dw
Marck Franssen
<dcw...@aol.com> schreef in berichtnieuws 7j58s5$v...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article , drei...@aol.com says...
> >
> >>From: dcw...@aol.com
> >>
> >>In article , drei...@aol.com says...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Why would they go to all the trouble of manufacturing an entire crime
when
> >>>>--
> >>>>>if they were so evil and scheming -- all they had to do was dummy up
some
> >>>>>evidence and witnesses to the assassination itself?
> >>>
> >>>Give it up, Donald. And Michael. I have to wonder if you guys even
> >>>bothered to read Dale's book -- or did you just skim it to grab onto
any
> >>>loopholes you could dream up?
> >>>
> >>>Dave Reitzes
> >>>
> >>Dave -- If you've read "With Malice," you'll note that Myers quotes
> >>authorities like Fritz, who (p207) tells his men,
> >>"I instructed them to get those witnesses [re Tippit] over for ID just
as
> >>soon
> >>as they could, & for us to prepare a real good case on the officer's
> >>killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we
> >>investigated the President's killing, where we didn't have so many
> >>witnesses."
> >>
> >>Seems Fritz thot the Tippit witnesses were pretty important, their ID
> >>of LHO urgent....
> >>dw
> >
> >
> >Buh-bye, Don.
> >
> >DR
> >
> Dave -- Gawd, I didn't realize that we were in such complete
> agreement....
> dw
>
Hello,
I've got one question too.
Who says both (or more) ID's where in the wallet at all at the he was
arrested ?