Re: Bullets inside Tippit
curtj...@webtv.net
WhiskyJoe wrote:
> Thank you Jean.
>
> Yes, if Oswald was innocent, he was very
> unlucky that day.
>
> Not to mention that while Oswald's handgun
> leave no, or very faint, marks on the bullets,
> it left strong identifying marks on the shells
> and the shells recovered from the murder
> scene were uniquely linked to Oswald's
> handgun.
I am no ballistics expert, but don't the cartridges from a Special, the
gun found on Oswald tend to make the cartridges bulge in the center? I
don't recall the bullets found at the Tippit scene being categorized as
bulged. Also, I find it very disconcerting that an officer would put
initials inside the cartridges found and later not have those markings in
evidence in a later period of time.
CJ
lazu...@webtv.net
Documentary Shattered Friday? You had mentioned talking to the director
in Dealey Plaza. Curious to what's on it.
curtj...@webtv.net
account intact, but still use it to sign in here.
Didn't see the special and am curious now because you are curious. The
only people I have talked to in Dealey Plaza were the guys on the GK:
Groden, Brownlow, and another fellow Felden or something like that.
Getting back to the Tippit murder here. I kind of have a hard time
thinking that Ozwald would have brought only bullets to the TSBD, and
if he had fired all those shots in Tippit still had another arsenal of
five upon his arrest when there would be no way that he could have
planned the second murder.
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtj...@webtv.net says...
Let's not forget that cartridges identified on the scene as coming from an
automatic change into revolver cartridges...
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Anthony Marsh
Some empty cartridges in some guns can bulge and even split after firing.
Jean Davison
<curtj...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1145742273.1...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> WhiskyJoe wrote:
>> Thank you Jean.
>>
>> Yes, if Oswald was innocent, he was very
>> unlucky that day.
>>
>> Not to mention that while Oswald's handgun
>> leave no, or very faint, marks on the bullets,
>> it left strong identifying marks on the shells
>> and the shells recovered from the murder
>> scene were uniquely linked to Oswald's
>> handgun.
>
> I am no ballistics expert, but don't the cartridges from a Special, the
> gun found on Oswald tend to make the cartridges bulge in the center? I
> don't recall the bullets found at the Tippit scene being categorized as
> bulged.
The best photo of the shells I've seen is in Dale Myers' With
Malice. They do appear to be bulged slightly.
>Also, I find it very disconcerting that an officer would put
> initials inside the cartridges found and later not have those markings in
> evidence in a later period of time.
If you mean Poe, he supposedly marked two of the four shells,
but did he?
Jean
>
> CJ
>
>
Ben Holmes
says...
Doesn't matter... the fact that they aren't marked *now*, means that there's no
legitimate chain of possession.
>> CJ
Jean Davison
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:e2it6...@drn.newsguy.com...
Marks aren't the only method of establishing chain of possession.
The current FBI Handbook of Forensic Services advises law enforcement
agencies *not* to mark firearms and ammo before submitting them to the FBI
Lab for examination:
QUOTE:
>>>>
a.. Do not mark bullets, cartridges and cartridge cases, shotshells and
shotshell casings, and other firearms-related evidence. The date, time,
location, collector's name, case number, and evidence number must be on the
container.
<<<<<<<<
UNQUOTE
From bottom of this page:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/handbook/intro7.htm
If you disagree, please quote a qualified source.
Jean
Ben Holmes
says...
Then all you need to do is illustrate the other method that was used to
establish the chain of possession.
But you know, and I know, that there *was* no other method used, and that there
is evidence suggesting alteration in this case.
curtj...@webtv.net
If I would have to make a choice between yes or no I would say yes. How
does one take a very peculiar and distinct act like marking the inside of
a shell, where the spotlight would be on one for the momentous day in
American History as part of that History, and somehow go to a statement
that seems very contrived to be not so sure of that event? Poe had to lie
or his ass would have been in a sling. People in this case knew what was
coming down, and who was their bosses and what they felt about the case.
Suddenly testimony became political and possibly job threatening. Try
looking at the comedy when one looks for the fingerprints on the passenger
side of Tippit's vehicle.
CJ
curtj...@webtv.net
Would you say the bulges of a Special could never be compared to the
insignificant bulging in a regular revolver?
CJ
Jean Davison
The quote I gave you suggests the general method -- recording who
found the bullet, who gave it to whom and when. (I was once an alternate
juror in a murder trial in which evidence were handled this way. Nobody
IDed his mark on a hull, but the hulls were admitted as evidence without
objection, using testimony and signatures on an evidence bag.)
W.E. Barnes of the DPD Crime Lab, testified:
QUOTE:
>>>>
Mr. BARNES. [....] There was a couple of hulls that was turned over to me.
Mr. BELIN. Do you mean empty shell casings?
Mr. BARNES. Empty .38 caliber hulls was turned over to me at the scene by
patrolman--I believe I would be safe in saying Poe, but I am not sure about
that.
Mr. BELIN. How do you spell that?
Mr. BARNES. P-o-e, I believe is the way he spells it.
>>>>
UNQUOTE
Barnes marked the hulls, and IDed his mark, according to this
document:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0217a.htm
CTs need to quote an authoritative source saying that this
wouldn't suffice for a chain in a 1960s Dallas courtroom. But noooo, all we
get is "Poe didn't mark the shells. There is no chain!"
Not that it really matters -- since there was no trial,
figuring out what was "admissible" is pretty much pointless. IMO.
Jean
Ben Holmes
Don't you think you should nail down the Poe - Barnes link first? If Barnes
isn't even sure where the cartridges came from, how do *YOU* know that they are
the same ones Poe had in his hands? Poe doesn't know...
This is what a "chain of possession" is all about. That the evidence found in
the field is the *same* evidence being used against the defendent... as I'm sure
you already know.
> CTs need to quote an authoritative source saying that this
>wouldn't suffice for a chain in a 1960s Dallas courtroom.
No, CT'ers don't. If an eyewitness cannot testify that a particular piece of
evidence is the same as what was discovered by him - either by marking, or by
placing it in a marked envelope, or tagged... any defense counsel 3 weeks out of
law school is going to *successfully* challenge such evidence.
And, of course, we need to get into the character of the eyewitnesses - as
everyone saw in the OJ trial - but that's another matter...
>But noooo, all we
>get is "Poe didn't mark the shells. There is no chain!"
Merely one of many examples, as I'm sure you are well aware of. This isn't the
*only* bit of evidence that has chain of possession problems. In fact, this
entire case could serve as an example of poor preservation of evidence and
testimony - as I'm sure you're well aware of.
I noticed that you simply bypassed my assertion that you know, and I know, "that
there is evidence suggesting alteration in this case."
Where do *you* stand on revolver vs. automatic? That a Sergeant in the DPD
didn't really know the difference? That he wasn't looking at a cartridge when
he radioed this in? That it really wasn't Hill? That Hill made a silly
mistake? I can't recall off the top of my head what the current LNT'er excuse
on this issue is.
I was rather hoping that you'd remind me.
> Not that it really matters -- since there was no trial,
>figuring out what was "admissible" is pretty much pointless. IMO.
>
> Jean
Yep... as can be traced by the autopsy report, things pretty much went slack
once it was known that there would be no cross-examination of their
"investigation". All sorts of evidential problems developed that would probably
*not* have developed had LHO stayed alive for trial.
David VP
"Poe did not mark them {the two spent bullet shells}", Detective James
Leavelle said. "There was no reason to mark them. There is an evidence
bag that is marked with the offense number along with your initials.
The evidence goes to the crime lab where it is checked and returned to
the bag and kept there until trial. I have run hundreds through that
way with no trouble and have never been contested on it", says
Leavelle.
Leavelle continues: "I talked to Poe. He said he didn't remember
marking them. But, that is something we didn't do back then."
Again, to reiterate:
"I have run hundreds through that way with no trouble and have never
been contested on it" -- J. Leavelle
WHY isn't this the end of this stupid debate re. the Poe shells?
Here's another direct quote from a very nice gentleman who isn't
gullible enough to believe every Tom, Dick, and Garrison who comes down
the repulsive CT Path (and a fabulous quote indeed):
"Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Officer J.D. Tippit and everyone with a
grain of sense knows it. CTers who try to free Oswald of all blame in
Tippit's murder are sickening beyond all tolerance." -- David Von Pein;
April 25th, 2006
aeffects
reiterate all day long, we're NOT fooled
David VP
No....you're just stupid (it would appear).
It seems that some CTers want to believe that the brainless plotters
were stupid enough to attempt to frame Oswald for Tippit's murder
(Patsy Frame-Up #2 of the day of course) by planting the WRONG type of
cartridge cases on 10th Street -- i.e., planting shells from an
automatic instead of from Lee Harvey's revolver.
Please tell the world WHY these plotters would attempt something so
dumb??
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Pages 263 and 265 of "With Malice":
>
>"Poe did not mark them {the two spent bullet shells}", Detective James
>Leavelle said. "There was no reason to mark them.
Other than the fact that he was *ordered* to do so - and the fact that virtually
everything *else* in this cas was marked.
Interesting that you didn't go to *Poe's* words on the topic... and that you
quote someone who COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN THE TRUTH.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your spin...
>There is an evidence
>bag that is marked with the offense number along with your initials.
>The evidence goes to the crime lab where it is checked and returned to
>the bag and kept there until trial. I have run hundreds through that
>way with no trouble and have never been contested on it", says
>Leavelle.
>
>Leavelle continues: "I talked to Poe. He said he didn't remember
>marking them. But, that is something we didn't do back then."
Simply untrue, as history records.
>Again, to reiterate:
>
>"I have run hundreds through that way with no trouble and have never
>been contested on it" -- J. Leavelle
>
>WHY isn't this the end of this stupid debate re. the Poe shells?
Because you have to lie to support your theory, that's why.
>Here's another direct quote from a very nice gentleman who isn't
>gullible enough to believe every Tom, Dick, and Garrison who comes down
>the repulsive CT Path (and a fabulous quote indeed):
>
>"Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Officer J.D. Tippit and everyone with a
>grain of sense knows it. CTers who try to free Oswald of all blame in
>Tippit's murder are sickening beyond all tolerance." -- David Von Pein;
>April 25th, 2006
Then presumably, a very large majority of Americans are without a "grain of
sense". Fortunately, *I* don't have to believe that people are stupid. I'm
only required to believe that few people are truly stupid.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> Reiterate all day long; we're NOT fooled.
>
>No....you're just stupid (it would appear).
I know that lurkers will be able to figure out who's "stupid". For, unlike
LNT'ers, CT'ers don't have to imagine up to 90% of America is without a "grain
of sense", or "stupid".
>It seems that some CTers want to believe that the brainless plotters
>were stupid enough to attempt to frame Oswald for Tippit's murder
>(Patsy Frame-Up #2 of the day of course) by planting the WRONG type of
>cartridge cases on 10th Street -- i.e., planting shells from an
>automatic instead of from Lee Harvey's revolver.
>
>Please tell the world WHY these plotters would attempt something so
>dumb??
What's *dumb* is this particular spin on the story. You somehow imagine that
the first detectives to the scene picked up the revolver cartridge shells
belonging to LHO's revolver, and someone jumped up and said, "Heh - LHO has an
automatic, not a revolver! ... anyone have some automatic cartridges on you?"
Anyone with *half* a brain would see that what *actually* happened is far more
likely... Sergeant Hill was given some of the cartridges, he looked at them,
then radioed in: "the shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed
with an automatic .38." ... then, after LHO was arrested, someone figured out
that the LHO's pistol and the cartridges don't match.... so into the trash go
some cartridges, and into the record go others...
And because there's no legitimate chain of possession - no LNT'er can make a
legimate case that the above scenario is impossible.
The same thing happened with CE399 - it was quickly discovered that the bullet
that had been recovered matched one of the other rifles used in the
assassination - so it was simply swapped. This is why no-one who handled it is
willing to testify that it's the same bullet *now* as it was *then*.
Now, if you're looking for something *planted* at the Tippit scene, you don't
need to look any further than a wallet.
But you won't... gutless as you are.
curtj...@webtv.net
Here's some. One can go toward the bottom below to find sources for
Poe's statements and markings under Ballistic's.
> karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/ griffith/With_Malice.html - 79k
curtj...@webtv.net
curtj...@webtv.net
> Problems with the Ballistics Evidence
Myers admits the slugs from Tippit's body don't match the missile
shells in evidence. To explain this, Myers posits a fifth shot (pp.
269-271). Yet, there's no physical evidence of such a shot, and only
four shells were found on the day of the shooting.
Myers seeks to explain the fact that none of the shells in evidence
has Sergeant W. E. Barnes' or Patrolman J. M. Poe's initials on it,
even though both men said they marked two of the shells (pp. 260-265).
Myers quotes two former DPD officers as saying marking evidence was not
viewed as vital at the time (which I seriously doubt). However,
Sergeant Gerald Hill testified he told Poe to be "SURE" to mark two of
the shells. If the Dallas police didn't think marking evidence was
important at the time, why did Sgt. Hill tell Poe to be "SURE" to mark
the two shells he had received from an eyewitness?
Myers quotes a former DPD detective as saying, decades after the
fact, that Poe told him he really didn't mark the shells. However, Poe
adamantly maintained in his Secret Service and FBI statements, and in
his interview with Henry Hurt, that he marked the shells. He was
certain he had marked the shells. Even in his WC testimony he indicated
he believed he had marked them. Of course, the absence of Poe's
initials on the extant shells suggests those shells are not the same
shells that were found at the crime scene on the day of the shooting.
But Myers can have none of this. So, he must argue that Poe somehow,
for some reason, "failed" to mark any of the shells, even though Sgt.
Hill had told him to be "sure" to mark two of the shells, and even
though Poe initially said he was certain he had marked them.
Speaking of Sgt. Hill, it's worth repeating that Hill, an
experienced policeman, initially said an automatic pistol was used in
the shooting (as opposed to Oswald's revolver). Hill based his
identification on the shell casings. As noted earlier, any firearms
expert can attest that it's very easy to distinguish between automatic
shells and revolver shells. In a 1986 interview, Hill said he knew the
shells were .38-caliber shells because he picked one of them up and
examined it. This is significant because .38 automatic shells are
marked ".38 AUTO" on the bottom. Hill specifically said he looked on
the bottom of the shell that he examined. It is no wonder, then, that
Hill got on the radio and said "the shells at the scene indicate that
the suspect is armed with an automatic .38."
In conclusion, Myers' book is hardly the definitive, case-closing
book it has been touted to be. It is loaded with disturbing omissions,
outright errors, and doubtful arguments.
Chiiiiit!
Here's a little...maybe...
CJ
David VP
likely... Sergeant Hill was given some of the cartridges, he looked at
them,
then radioed in: "the shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is
armed
with an automatic .38." ... then, after LHO was arrested, someone
figured out
that the LHO's pistol and the cartridges don't match.... so into the
trash go
some cartridges, and into the record go others..."
And if that CT fairy tale won't sell a few books, we'll just move on to
the next wholly-unsupportable conspiracy theory. Right? Right.
Let me ask this ---- How many different people were SEEN DUMPING SHELLS
IN FRONT OF THE DAVIS' HOUSE ON 11/22/63?
I'll answer that -- One person was seen doing that. And that one person
was positively IDed by BOTH Davis women as Lee H. Oswald.
Now...since only ONE GUN was having its shells dumped out of it, and
the shells were positively being dumped by a Mr. Oswald to the
exclusion of all other humans, and since Oswald was arrested with his
own gun on him in the theater......which of the following choices,
then, is the logical conclusion to reach? .....
1.) Oswald shot Tippit with his own gun and dumped shells from that gun
on 10th St.
-- Or: --
2.) Some other gunman actually shot Tippit with an automatic weapon,
and dumped his automatic shells in the Davis front yard. And this
"other killer" just happens to look exactly like L.H. Oswald....enough
like LHO to fool BOTH Davis women anyhow; plus he fools at least 10
other witnesses near the scene of the murder into making a FALSE
positive identification of Oswald afterward. ....
Then, less than half-an-hour after somebody else kills Tippit, Oswald
is seen "looking funny" as he ducks into Johnny Brewer's store and then
Oswald is caught in the theater with a fully-loaded pistol on him as he
tries to use it on the policemen who apprehended him. ....
Then, the Dallas cops decide they're gonna try to frame Oswald for
Tippit's killing (which they must know he never committed...thereby
allowing the "real killer(s)" to just walk free for all time, even
though these "other" killer(s) have just shot down own of their fellow
officers in cold blood like a mad dog in the street. But, evidently,
these rotten cops of Dallas couldn't give a damn about letting Tippit's
real killer go free, just as long as they can pin the whole nine yards
on this guy "Oswald".
Anybody buyin' this looney #2 option??
Does anybody in their right mind ACTUALLY think for even two seconds
that the DPD would have not only NOT pursued Tippit's REAL
KILLERS....but that they would also have a desire to want to pin the
murder on someone they knew to be totally innocent of said slaying??
Ben.....you are totally pathetic.
The following is worth repeating a million times over........
"Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Officer J.D. Tippit and everyone with a
grain of sense knows it. CTers who try to free Oswald of all blame in
Tippit's murder are sickening beyond all tolerance." -- David Von Pein;
04/25/2006
Ben Holmes
Snip and run... snip and run... snip and run...
Yellow coward, aren't you, Davey-boy?
In article <1145999770....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> Anyone with *half* a brain would see that what *actually* happened is
>> far more likely... Sergeant Hill was given some of the cartridges, he
>> looked at them, then radioed in: "the shells at the scene indicate that
>> the suspect is armed with an automatic .38." ... then, after LHO was
>> arrested, someone figured out that the LHO's pistol and the cartridges
>> don't match.... so into the trash go some cartridges, and into the
>> record go others...
>
>And if that CT fairy tale won't sell a few books, we'll just move on to
>the next wholly-unsupportable conspiracy theory. Right? Right.
What's unsupportable about it? It actually fits the *facts* as we know them.
Hill has *stated* that he looked at the cartridge shells, he was quite clear in
his radio statement.
And you don't *dare* touch that simple fact with a ten-foot pole.
>Let me ask this ---- How many different people were SEEN DUMPING SHELLS
>IN FRONT OF THE DAVIS' HOUSE ON 11/22/63?
One, that I'm aware of.
>I'll answer that -- One person was seen doing that. And that one person
>was positively IDed by BOTH Davis women as Lee H. Oswald.
The "positive" identification has problems that if you aren't familiar with
them, you're merely ignorant, and if you *are* familiar with them, you are
merely omitting, yet again, evidence.
It's quite certain that you know that the *closest* eyewitness refused to
identify LHO as the killer...
>Now...since only ONE GUN was having its shells dumped out of it, and
>the shells were positively being dumped by a Mr. Oswald to the
>exclusion of all other humans, and since Oswald was arrested with his
>own gun on him in the theater......which of the following choices,
>then, is the logical conclusion to reach? .....
You seem to have forgotten that the shells were *identified* as automatic, and
LHO has a revolver.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your spin...
>1.) Oswald shot Tippit with his own gun and dumped shells from that gun
>on 10th St.
If he did, then the shells turned into .38 Auto - and then back to revolver.
Hmmm... magic bullet, now magic cartridges...
A theory that should appeal to the LNT'ers, who believe in such magical things.
>-- Or: --
>
>2.) Some other gunman actually shot Tippit with an automatic weapon,
That is, sad to say for your theory, *exactly* what the evidence shows.
But you won't debate the *evidence*... you prefer omission, misrepresentations,
and outright lies, don't you, Davey-boy?
>and dumped his automatic shells in the Davis front yard. And this
>"other killer" just happens to look exactly like L.H. Oswald....
Actually, no. You really *should* read the testimony...
>enough
>like LHO to fool BOTH Davis women anyhow; plus he fools at least 10
>other witnesses near the scene of the murder into making a FALSE
>positive identification of Oswald afterward. ....
Actually, no. When you have to lie about the evidence, all you've proven is
that you're a liar.
>Then, less than half-an-hour after somebody else kills Tippit, Oswald
>is seen "looking funny" as he ducks into Johnny Brewer's store and then
>Oswald is caught in the theater with a fully-loaded pistol on him as he
>tries to use it on the policemen who apprehended him. ....
Good spin... :)
>Then, the Dallas cops decide they're gonna try to frame Oswald for
>Tippit's killing (which they must know he never committed...thereby
>allowing the "real killer(s)" to just walk free for all time, even
>though these "other" killer(s) have just shot down own of their fellow
>officers in cold blood like a mad dog in the street. But, evidently,
>these rotten cops of Dallas couldn't give a damn about letting Tippit's
>real killer go free, just as long as they can pin the whole nine yards
>on this guy "Oswald".
Yep... someone even went to the effort of planting an "Oswald" wallet. But
perhaps, you'd say, he merely had two of 'em.
>Anybody buyin' this looney #2 option??
>
>Does anybody in their right mind ACTUALLY think for even two seconds
>that the DPD would have not only NOT pursued Tippit's REAL
>KILLERS....but that they would also have a desire to want to pin the
>murder on someone they knew to be totally innocent of said slaying??
>
>Ben.....you are totally pathetic.
And faithful to the evidence.
>The following is worth repeating a million times over........
>
>"Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Officer J.D. Tippit and everyone with a
>grain of sense knows it. CTers who try to free Oswald of all blame in
>Tippit's murder are sickening beyond all tolerance." -- David Von Pein;
>04/25/2006
And yet, defending such a silly notion requires you to snip like mad, and run
away ducking all the time.
How cowardly of you!
Anthony Marsh
The bulges on Oswald's shells are more pronounced that on a regular
revolver shell.
Ben Holmes
Knowing that Tony asserts this is pretty much a guarantee that it's untrue.
Judging *only* the source of the assertion.
curtj...@webtv.net
Oswald's shells that were on him were not shot, so their was no bulges.
What I am trying to say is, what type of precedent in studies would
determine what typical bulging for each weapon? If the shells at the
Tippit crime scene were slightly bulged, if any were, would this be
normal for a regular revolver?
I can add another question too, would the bulging be any different if
an automatic revolver was used versus the other two mentioned?
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Right, we are not talking about the unfired rounds.
>
> What I am trying to say is, what type of precedent in studies would
> determine what typical bulging for each weapon? If the shells at the
> Tippit crime scene were slightly bulged, if any were, would this be
> normal for a regular revolver?
>
NRA. Various gun magazine articles would touch on it.
> I can add another question too, would the bulging be any different if
> an automatic revolver was used versus the other two mentioned?
>
I think the chances would be less for a semi-automatic pistol. Maybe
non-existent for a full auto pistol.
There is also a problem with some pistols which can use various ammos if
you pick one that is slightly undersized or traditionally has weak
cartridge material.
> CJ
>
>
curtj...@webtv.net
The shells picked up at the Tippit scene most probably were automatic's
because the officer reported that the officer had been shot by an
Automatic. Most probably the revolver was of an Automatic nature.
Was Oz's revolver at the theater arrest an Automatic? Would automatic
shells fit into a Special Revolver (a rechambered revolver to change the
characteristic of the bullet and it's idenity).?
CJ
Jean Davison
>> Thank you Jean.
>>
>> Yes, if Oswald was innocent, he was very
>> unlucky that day.
>>
>> Not to mention that while Oswald's handgun
>> leave no, or very faint, marks on the bullets,
>> it left strong identifying marks on the shells
>> and the shells recovered from the murder
>> scene were uniquely linked to Oswald's
>> handgun.
>
> I am no ballistics expert, but don't the cartridges from a Special, the
> gun found on Oswald tend to make the cartridges bulge in the center? I
> don't recall the bullets found at the Tippit scene being categorized as
> bulged. Also, I find it very disconcerting that an officer would put
> initials inside the cartridges found and later not have those markings in
> evidence in a later period of time.
It occurs to me that these two CT arguments are mutually
exclusive. The argument that the shells in evidence aren't bulged suggests
that they weren't fired from Oswald's weapon. On the other hand, the
argument that Poe's marks are missing suggests that the original shells were
switched for some that *were* fired from Oswald's weapon. In the first
argument the shells are the originals, in the second, they aren't. So which
is it, folks?
I'm reminded again of the Clavius site on moon landing conspiracy
theories, which says:
QUOTE:
>>>>
On a grander scale, conspiracists often have an elaborate explanation for
one photograph or statement and another completely different but equally
elaborate explanation for the next photo and so on. Soon these piecemeal
propositions start contradicting each other. And you get different
explanations depending on which conspiracist you ask.
>>>>
UNQUOTE
http://www.clavius.org/occam.html
Jean
>
> CJ
>
>
Walt
slightly larger diameter chamber ( the hole in the cylinder where the
cartridge is loaded ) than the newer 38 special revolver. The newer,
and smaller, 38 special cartridge can be fired in the old 38 revolver,
but it doesn't fit snuggly. Consequently the shell, or case, will
expand ( buldge) when the cartridge is fired.
I don't believe that Tippit's killer was using an 38 AUTOMATIC, for a
couple of reasons. (a) The shells that were recovered at the were
WIDELY SCATTERED. If an automic had been used the shells should have
been found in a small area. (b) One of the witnesses who saw the
gunman running away said the gunman was "holding the pistol up and
shaking the spent shells out of it as he ran. ( This accounts for the
wide distribution of the shells)
Incidently.... The wittness's DESCRIPTION of the gunman's ACTION in
removing the spent shells indicate that Tippit's killer was using a
SINGLE ACTION revolver. The spent shells are extracted one at a time
from a single action revolver, ( Pointing the barrel up and shaking the
pistol is a common practice fror removing the spent shells ONE AT A
TIME. Whereas a DOUBLE ACTION revolver like the one Oswald had extracts
the spent shells from all six chambers at THE SAME TIME. ( Therefore
the spent shells would be extracted and dumped in a tight cluster and
not widely dispersed.)
Walt
Ricky
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Yes. All revolvers cause bulging of the spent cartridge case. The
case expands to fully touch the sides of the chamber so that when
unloading the case does not freely fall to the ground. Ejector rods
are designed on most revolvers to remove spent cases. A micrometer
can be used to get the bulge size and in some cases this size could
eliminate some guns as the weapon.
>
>NRA. Various gun magazine articles would touch on it.
>
>> I can add another question too, would the bulging be any different if
>> an automatic revolver was used versus the other two mentioned?
>>
>
No. The bullet expands to the chamber size making contact with the
chamber wall. When ejected chamber marking scratches are made on the
case and these are usually traceable back to that specific gun. Each
gun has its own chamber size and characteristics within a few microns.
The bulging would not necessarily tell if it were an auto or a
revolver but the case tool markings could and should in most cases.
Ricky
The shells of an auto are different than from a revolver at the base.
Automatics do not have rims and are called rimless while revolvers
have rims so that the shell can be ejected.
>Was Oz's revolver at the theater arrest an Automatic?
It was a revolver which are never automatics.
>Would automatic
>shells fit into a Special Revolver (a rechambered revolver to change the
>characteristic of the bullet and it's idenity).?
>
They probably could not be fired from a revolver of any type without a
"C" ring half clip to hold them in place in the chamber. The C ring
acts like a rim. Reloading with C ring takes more time. The C rings
(it takes two for a full load) are easy to lose and I do not recall
them being on the market in 1963. They appeared in the market for the
.45 auto to be fired in a .45 Colt revolver.
Oswald's gun was re-chambered because it went to England which uses a
slightly different size .38 and then came back to the US which uses a
larger size .38.
>CJ
Walt
cartridges for an automatic can not be fired in a revolver, nor can the
38 revolver cartridge be loaded into an automatic.
Walt
Anthony Marsh
No, the automatic shells are slightly different. You can tell the
difference at a glance. Some stupid cop might not be able to tell the
difference.
> Was Oz's revolver at the theater arrest an Automatic? Would automatic
> shells fit into a Special Revolver (a rechambered revolver to change the
> characteristic of the bullet and it's idenity).?
>
No, there is practically no revolver sold to the public which is an
automatic. A pistol can be a semi-automatic. A revolver can not.
I don't remember any automatic rounds for that model revolver. Maybe
Google could pop up something, but it would be too esoteric for someone
like Oswald. Not in your local gun shop.
> CJ
Ben Holmes
But this isn't true for Sergeant Hill, is it, Tony? On what basis did *HE* say
he made the report that it was a .38 auto?
And what is Sergeant Hill's experience and background - that he could make such
a statment?
>> Was Oz's revolver at the theater arrest an Automatic? Would automatic
>> shells fit into a Special Revolver (a rechambered revolver to change the
>> characteristic of the bullet and it's idenity).?
>>
>
>No, there is practically no revolver sold to the public which is an
>automatic. A pistol can be a semi-automatic. A revolver can not.
>I don't remember any automatic rounds for that model revolver. Maybe
>Google could pop up something, but it would be too esoteric for someone
>like Oswald. Not in your local gun shop.
>
>> CJ
>
curtj...@webtv.net
'automatic' etched in on the bottom of the shell. Sargeant Hill would
have had to 'not notice' that in his reporting. How would anyone be so
flippant to say it was an automatic with no weapon around? The only
way he could have been 'correct' is to look on the bottom of the shell
and report it as he saw it.
CJ
Ricky
wrote:
>Curt, perhaps I can help....... The old 38 caliber revolver had a
>slightly larger diameter chamber ( the hole in the cylinder where the
>cartridge is loaded ) than the newer 38 special revolver. The newer,
>and smaller, 38 special cartridge can be fired in the old 38 revolver,
>but it doesn't fit snuggly. Consequently the shell, or case, will
>expand ( buldge) when the cartridge is fired.
>
>I don't believe that Tippit's killer was using an 38 AUTOMATIC, for a
>couple of reasons. (a) The shells that were recovered at the were
>WIDELY SCATTERED. If an automic had been used the shells should have
>been found in a small area.
The shells were found close together as if dropped out of a revo;ver
while reloading according to the testimony. An automatic ejects each
shall as it is fired thus any movement of the gun changes the landing
location yielding a scattered pattern. I think you have this
reversed.
>(b) One of the witnesses who saw the
>gunman running away said the gunman was "holding the pistol up and
>shaking the spent shells out of it as he ran. ( This accounts for the
>wide distribution of the shells)
>
Yes it would and witness testimony is conflicting. I am referring to
the officer's testimony as I recall it.
>Incidently.... The wittness's DESCRIPTION of the gunman's ACTION in
>removing the spent shells indicate that Tippit's killer was using a
>SINGLE ACTION revolver. The spent shells are extracted one at a time
>from a single action revolver, ( Pointing the barrel up and shaking the
>pistol is a common practice fror removing the spent shells ONE AT A
>TIME.
They also have ejection pins to remove each shell after rotating the
cylinder.
> Whereas a DOUBLE ACTION revolver like the one Oswald had extracts
>the spent shells from all six chambers at THE SAME TIME. ( Therefore
>the spent shells would be extracted and dumped in a tight cluster and
>not widely dispersed.)
>
Yes as reported by the witness. If walking this cluster could be a
few feet in diameter.
>Walt
>
curtj...@webtv.net
NIce to see you back around ol' boy! Where hast thou been in hiding?
I tend to think of it as automatic because of the officer reporting it,
and would have had to look at the bottom of the shell to see the word
printed on it.
Your scenario is not without merit and well-thought out. I still can
possibly see the man running with the automatic and have it scatter
that way, even though your way is more likely.
CJ
curtj...@webtv.net
more types of bullets; coupled with the fact that evidence procedure is
potentially contrary can make it exlusive or conclusive, depending on
what actually happened.
> I'm reminded again of the Clavius site on moon landing conspiracy
> theories, which says:
>
> QUOTE:
> >>>>
> On a grander scale, conspiracists often have an elaborate explanation for
> one photograph or statement and another completely different but equally
> elaborate explanation for the next photo and so on. Soon these piecemeal
> propositions start contradicting each other. And you get different
> explanations depending on which conspiracist you ask.
>
> >>>>
>
> UNQUOTE
>
> http://www.clavius.org/occam.html
>
>
If you are to apply this to your above scenario, then I think that
would be of the utmost crassnest. Apply this when the evidence
confuses you, eh?
Don't you think that if an officer reports that the pistol was an
automatic, that he would have derived that from the imprint on the
bottom of a shell, rather than trust weapon that was not there?
CJ
> Jean
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > CJ
> >
> >
Walt
Tippit murder scene were widely dispersed. In fact if it hadn't been
for Dom Benevides watching the killer after the shooting it's quite
possible a couple of the spent shells would not have been found,
because Benevides saw the killer extract one of the shells and toss it
into the bush. I'm confident that I'm correct it saying the shells
were not in a relatively small area as would be the case if the killer
had been using either an automatic or a double action revolver. The
FACT that two witnesses saw the killer removing the spent shells from a
SINGLE ACTION revolver ( like a Ruger single six) tends to exonerate
Oswald as the Killer because he was NOT carrying a SINGLE ACTION
revolver, He had a DOUBLE ACTION, S&W, 38 caliber revolver when he was
arrested.
Walt
Anthony Marsh
I don't know about that. Which brands are you thinking about? Some just
say ACP. I assume the confusion is about a .38 and a .38 Special.
The .38 Special has a rimmed cartridge case. The .38 ACP has a
semi-rimmed cartridge case.
http://www.scottsdalegunclub.com/faq/pistol_revo_difference.php
> have had to 'not notice' that in his reporting. How would anyone be so
> flippant to say it was an automatic with no weapon around? The only
> way he could have been 'correct' is to look on the bottom of the shell
> and report it as he saw it.
>
Usually you can tell the difference just by looking at the base of the
cartridge case to see if it is rimmed or semi-rimmed.
Anthony Marsh
I do not know what his basis was. I was not there. I did not interview
him and ask him that question.
> And what is Sergeant Hill's experience and background - that he could make such
> a statment?
>
He was a cop. So what? Like Weitzman calling the Carcano a Mauser.
curtj...@webtv.net
just go into a slipshod-is-ok mode? First he has to mis-identify the
rim, then you must conclude he wouldn't take the time to look
underneath for the word 'automatic'. No wonder you theories tend to be
so convoluted.
Ben Holmes
Then you illustrate, yet again, your ignorance of the evidence. For he did
indeed state what his basis was.
>> And what is Sergeant Hill's experience and background - that he could
>> make such a statment?
>
>He was a cop. So what? Like Weitzman calling the Carcano a Mauser.
Yet again, you illustrate your ignorance.
>>>> Was Oz's revolver at the theater arrest an Automatic? Would automatic
>>>> shells fit into a Special Revolver (a rechambered revolver to change the
>>>> characteristic of the bullet and it's idenity).?
>>>>
>>> No, there is practically no revolver sold to the public which is an
>>> automatic. A pistol can be a semi-automatic. A revolver can not.
>>> I don't remember any automatic rounds for that model revolver. Maybe
>>> Google could pop up something, but it would be too esoteric for someone
>>> like Oswald. Not in your local gun shop.
>>>
>>>> CJ
Anthony Marsh
No, that's slightly impossible. Revolvers do not usually come in an
automatic type.
> Was Oz's revolver at the theater arrest an Automatic? Would automatic
> shells fit into a Special Revolver (a rechambered revolver to change the
> characteristic of the bullet and it's idenity).?
>
For all practical purposes there is nothing on the market for the public
like an automatic revolver. Hill was basing it on seeing the empty shells.
Could have been from the pattern of where they were found, slightly
scattered, not close together.
Ricky
wrote:
>Ricky, I don't believe I'm incorrect in saying the spent shells at the
Then you should consider editing your original sentences as posted because
it appears you reversed the words or at least this was not made clear in
my confused head. Yes the shells were spread over several feet. A S&W
revolver will some times have shells remain in the ejector requiring
removal by fingers as one walks. Yes it was a revolver that killed
Tippit. The bullet types were found inside Tippit are that of .38
revolver which does not exclude .38 auto but such weapons were hard to
find and uncommon in 1963 and expensive.
Walt
Ricky wrote......"A S&W revolver will some times have shells remain in
the ejector requiring removal by fingers as one walks."
Yer right Ricky.... An old, badly worn, S&W with dirty, or rusty
chambers, sometimes won't extract all of the spent shells, but the
stuck shells are not easily removed. It usually takes a pocket knife or
a 20d nail or some other tool to remove the stuck shell. A man would
have to have steel fingernails, or some real skinny, bony, fingers to
extract the shells with his fingers....and pointing the pistol barrel
toward the sky wouldn't help very much. The witnesses said that the
killer was pointing the pistol up and shaking it to remove the shells
ONE AT A TIME as he fled the scene. Their DESCRIPTIONS of the mans
actions leaves little doubt that the killer was using a SINGLE ACTION
revolver. Oswald's pistol was a DOUBLE ACTION revolver.
Walt
Donald Willis
>>>auto pistol.problem with some pistols which can use various ammos if
>>> you pick one that is slightly undersized or traditionally has weak
>>> cartridge material.
>>>
>>
>> The shells picked up at the Tippit scene most probably were automatic's
>> because the officer reported that the officer had been shot by an
>> Automatic. Most probably the revolver was of an Automatic nature.
>>
>
>No, that's slightly impossible. Revolvers do not usually come in an
>automatic type.
>
>> Was Oz's revolver at the theater arrest an Automatic? Would automatic
>> shells fit into a Special Revolver (a rechambered revolver to change the
>> characteristic of the bullet and it's idenity).?
>>
>
>For all practical purposes there is nothing on the market for the public
>like an automatic revolver. Hill was basing it on seeing the empty shells.
>Could have been from the pattern of where they were found, slightly
>scattered, not close together.
If we are to trust the man himself, he based his info on an examination of the
hulls themselves: "I looked on the bottom." But, as Dale Myers notes, then he
would have seen "38 AUTO" on the bottom. (With Malice p261) That's how he
determined the hulls were 38s & automatic.
\dw
Donald Willis
>>> you pick one that is slightly undersized or traditionally has weak
>>> cartridge material.
>>>
>>
>> The shells picked up at the Tippit scene most probably were automatic's
>> because the officer reported that the officer had been shot by an
>> Automatic. Most probably the revolver was of an Automatic nature.
>>
>
>No, that's slightly impossible. Revolvers do not usually come in an
>automatic type.
>
>> Was Oz's revolver at the theater arrest an Automatic? Would automatic
>> shells fit into a Special Revolver (a rechambered revolver to change the
>> characteristic of the bullet and it's idenity).?
>>
>
>For all practical purposes there is nothing on the market for the public
>like an automatic revolver. Hill was basing it on seeing the empty shells.
>Could have been from the pattern of where they were found, slightly
>scattered, not close together.
If we are to trust the man himself, he based his info on an examination of the
Anthony Marsh
Huh? Aside from the fact that such eyewitness accounts are notoriously
inaccurate, who says that Oswald has to behave as you would expect a
person to normally do so for your scenario?
> Walt
>
>
Ricky
wrote:
Clearly you do not know the design of a S&W double action ejector.
When it is pushed with the swung open cylinder all 6 (or 5 depending
upon model) cartridges are ejected about an inch but not the full
length of the cartridge shell. Even this amount of ejection does not
mean the shells will always fall from the cylinder because the shells
expand to the size of the chamber wall when fired and friction occurs
upon removal due to the tight fit. Fingers are required to remove
them if they do not fall. In a double action revolver the cylinder
swings outside the revolver frame. Most single action revolvers have
an ejection pin that removes one shell at a time as the chamber cover
is open and the cylinder is rotated inside the revolver frame. It
would be impossible to remove most shells without the aid of an
ejector pin or a tool. Even with this aid the fingers are often
needed to make the shell drop from the gun.
Anthony Marsh
My point is why would he have to see exactly the words "38 AUTO"?
>
Ben Holmes
Ah! The truth...
>Could have been from the pattern of where they were found, slightly
>scattered, not close together.
A stupid comment. Considering that he radioed in the caliber, and could not
have judged the caliber by seeing them scattered on the ground, Tony once again
shows the level of his intellect. Even after admitting that he knows that Sgt.
Hill was basing his information on having *seen* the empty shells, he then
spouts nonsense.
"An experienced policeman and a former combat Marine both said an automatic
pistol was used (as opposed to Oswald's revolver). Moreover, the policeman, Sgt.
Gerald Hill, based his automatic-pistol identification on the shell casings. As
any firearms expert can attest, it's very easy to distinguish between automatic
shells and revolver shells. What's more, in a 1986 interview, Hill said he knew
the shells were .38-caliber shells because he picked one of them up and examined
it. This is significant because .38 automatic shells are marked ".38 AUTO" on
the bottom. Hill specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he
examined. It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said "the shells
at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38." -
Michael Griffith.
Anthony Marsh
And who exactly said that every shell has the word AUTOMATIC printed on
it?
Walt
I've been using handguns for well over fifty years. I've learned
something about them in that time. I'm not here to argue. The
witnesses DESCRIBED the action of a man removing the spent shells from
a SINGLE ACTION revolver. I don't give a damn about that some Dallas
cop said...."the gun used was an automatic". The witnesses who were
ignorant about handguns SAW the man removing spent shells from a
revolver. They DESCRIBED the actions of a man removing spent shells
from a SINGLE ACTION revolver. End of discussion.
Walt
Donald Willis
the former...
Walt
killer.
They DESCRIBED the ACTION of a man removing spent shells from a SINGLE
ACTION REVOLVER. There was only ONE person,( Gerald Hill), who said
that the killer was carrying an automatic pistol.... and Sgt Hill
based his report on seeing a spent cartridge. The mystery
surrounding the shells at the scene may never be resolved, but I
believe that Hill was probably simply mistaken. He saw the "38 Special"
designation on the base of a shell, and congered up an image of an
automatic.
Simply because a person is a Marine or a cop does not make him an
expert on cartridge identification. I feel confident that Hill would
have recognised the difference between a Revolver shell and a Automatic
shell if they were displayed to him, but in the haste to report from
the scene he simply imagined a "Special" as an Automatic.
Walt
Anthony Marsh
Except for the fact that Hill never used the words "38 AUTO" and except
for the fact that such bullets are not always marked "38 AUTO." Other
than that I believe that Hill really did believe the hulls were 38 AUTO.
Just as Weitzman really did believe the rifle was a Mauser.
>
Anthony Marsh
Myers said? You seem to miss my point. Again, why does he have to see
exactly the words "38 AUTO"? If these bullets seemed to have
disappeared, then how do we know what brand they were or even what
country they were from?
Go to your local neighborhood gun shop and ask to see all their brands
of .38 automatic rounds and look at the base to see what each brand
says. Report back your results here. Do not ask to see foreign brands.
>
Walt
on this point.
I don't often agree with you. ( But then everybody knows that even a
stopped clock is correct twice a day) I believe that both Hill, and
Weitzman, were simply mistaken in their statements.
Walt
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben, I believe the witnesses who DESCRIBED the ACTIONS of Tippit's
>killer.
That's fine. I also believe the eyewitnesses.
>They DESCRIBED the ACTION of a man removing spent shells from a SINGLE
>ACTION REVOLVER. There was only ONE person,( Gerald Hill), who said
>that the killer was carrying an automatic pistol....
Actually, there was another witness. "Patrolman HW Summers heard from someone
who said Tippit's assailant had "black wavy hair" and an "automatic pistol."
Summers did not testify before the WC...." - Donald Willis
In any case, as there were several eyewitnesses to *two* assailants in the
Tippit murder - it is certainly conceivable that they had different weapons.
I see *no* reason to toss out Sergeant Hill's radio report - particularly as the
WC would love to do so.
>and Sgt Hill
>based his report on seeing a spent cartridge. The mystery
>surrounding the shells at the scene may never be resolved, but I
>believe that Hill was probably simply mistaken. He saw the "38 Special"
>designation on the base of a shell, and congered up an image of an
>automatic.
>Simply because a person is a Marine or a cop does not make him an
>expert on cartridge identification. I feel confident that Hill would
>have recognised the difference between a Revolver shell and a Automatic
>shell if they were displayed to him, but in the haste to report from
>the scene he simply imagined a "Special" as an Automatic.
>
>Walt
I won't speculate, as I see no reason to do so.
Ben Holmes
Nor did he mention any .50 caliber markings. Your stupidity from above, where
you try to assert that Hill's radio broadcast resulted from his noticing how the
shells were scattered is identical to your claim that Dr. Humes burned paperwork
on Saturday... utterly without citation or support, and existing evidence
*CONTRADICTS* your assertion.
You're a liar, Tony... it's just that simple.
>and except
>for the fact that such bullets are not always marked "38 AUTO."
An assertion with no citation... nor does it matter, as a cartridge shell held
in the hand can readily be identified.
Lied, didn't you Tony?
>Other
>than that I believe that Hill really did believe the hulls were 38 AUTO.
Perhaps because it would be too silly even for *you* to assert that he was
spontaneously lying on the radio...
>Just as Weitzman really did believe the rifle was a Mauser.
Ben Holmes
And if Donald should return from the gun shop, and tell you that *NO* 38 auto
ammunition is not marked on the bottom, will you offer an apology here on this
forum?
Or will you point out that Donald merely hasn't seen all the ammo available?
When *YOU* make an assertion of this sort, it's up to *YOU* to provide the
example. Or else state in advance that you'll accept the results of such a gun
shop search.
Anthony Marsh
Not my argument, but there are some people who theorize that there were
two shooters there, one using an automatic and the other using a revolver.
Anthony Marsh
That's fine. I see noting wrong with looking at the bottom.
He does not have to see the words "38 AUTO."
curtj...@webtv.net
It doesn't matter. See below.
In a 1986 interview, Hill said he knew the shells were .38-caliber shells
because he picked one of them up and examined it. This is significant
because .38 automatic shells are marked ".38 AUTO" on the bottom. Hill
specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined.
It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said "the shells at
the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38."
Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
CJ
Ricky
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
At one time a .38 auto was on the market that used standard .38 revolver
rounds. I am including all .38, Special and .357. The 9 mm and .380 are
also the same size bullet diameter but the shells are different in each.
A prototype may have existed in 1963 but Oswald would not have the money
nor access to it in the market.
Walt
believe. You stated that YOU believe that there was only ONE gunman,
and the preponderance of the evidence supports that view. Helen
Markham, and Dom Benevides, both witnessed the shooting and they only
saw one man shooting. The shooting attacted the attention of other
people close by within seconds of the shooting and thjey also only saw
one man with a gun at the scene. I'm compelled to deduce that there
was only ONE gunman, and he was armed with a SINGLE ACTION revolver.
Walt
Anthony Marsh
I see no results posted. One day is not enough time. I'll give you a
month or two.
Anthony Marsh
That's nice. But please point out to me where Hill says what he saw on
the bottom, word for word.
> because .38 automatic shells are marked ".38 AUTO" on the bottom. Hill
Could be, but not necessarily.
> specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined.
That's nice. Quote for me what he saw on the bottom, not just YOUR ideas.
> It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said "the shells at
> the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38."
>
That's fine. Cops make mistakes every day. Some cop got on the radio and
said that the TSBD shooter was armed with a Winchester. Was HE right?
> Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
>
What shells? Show me any shells from that day photographed saying
"38 AUTO."
> CJ
Anthony Marsh
> Marsh, why do you feel that you should in point out what others
> believe. You stated that YOU believe that there was only ONE gunman,
For the benefit of people who may not have heard about alternative theories.
> and the preponderance of the evidence supports that view. Helen
> Markham, and Dom Benevides, both witnessed the shooting and they only
> saw one man shooting. The shooting attacted the attention of other
> people close by within seconds of the shooting and thjey also only saw
> one man with a gun at the scene. I'm compelled to deduce that there
> was only ONE gunman, and he was armed with a SINGLE ACTION revolver.
>
So? What's wrong with that?
> Walt
>
>
curtj...@webtv.net
Can you provide examples where they are not?
> > specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined.
>
> That's nice. Quote for me what he saw on the bottom, not just YOUR ideas.
>
That's not my idea, that's Hill's quote from 1986.
> > It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said "the shells at
> > the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38."
> >
>
> That's fine. Cops make mistakes every day. Some cop got on the radio and
> said that the TSBD shooter was armed with a Winchester. Was HE right?
>
Yes. I believe he would have looked on the bottom of those or that
shell(s) and actually read it like he said, and then reported it. Are
there any possibilities of dyslexia, and mixing up the numbers you would
like to consider for another caliber?
> > Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
> >
>
> What shells? Show me any shells from that day photographed saying
> "38 AUTO."
>
I saw some within this thread I believe. Maybe it was from Myers? I
just remember seeing it. Anybody else?
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Again, I suggest that you visit your local gun shop and ask to see the
ACP ammo and examine the base. I am not going to mail ammo to you.
>>> specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined.
>> That's nice. Quote for me what he saw on the bottom, not just YOUR ideas.
>>
> That's not my idea, that's Hill's quote from 1986.
>
I saw no quote from Hill saying that he looked at the base and saw the
word "38 AUTO." That was YOUR idea.
>>> It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said "the shells at
>>> the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38."
>>>
>> That's fine. Cops make mistakes every day. Some cop got on the radio and
>> said that the TSBD shooter was armed with a Winchester. Was HE right?
>>
>
> Yes. I believe he would have looked on the bottom of those or that
> shell(s) and actually read it like he said, and then reported it. Are
> there any possibilities of dyslexia, and mixing up the numbers you would
> like to consider for another caliber?
>
>>> Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
>>>
>> What shells? Show me any shells from that day photographed saying
>> "38 AUTO."
>>
>
> I saw some within this thread I believe. Maybe it was from Myers? I
> just remember seeing it. Anybody else?
>
No, no one posted any shells from that day which say "38 AUTO."
> CJ
Donald Willis
But Myers seems to suggest that something besides "38" would have accompanied
that number.
A related point: No one has ever remarked that two witnesses described a
different escape route down 10th to Patton. That is, most (Benavides, at least
one of the Davises, Scoggins) say the gunman cut across the end-house lawn to
Patton. But Mrs Markham & Jimmy Burt maintained that the gunman kept to the
sidewalk up to the interection of 10th & Patton. In which case, he certainly
would not have left hulls of any description near the first bush, near the
driveway, nor in the bushes near the corner of the house. In which case, then,
any hulls found in those places would have to have been planted....
dw
>> would have seen "38 AUTO" on the bottom. (With Malice p261) That's how he
>> determined the hulls were 38s & automatic.
>> \dw
>>
>>
>
Ricky
Did he look before making this statement? We will never know.
>Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
>
Not to my knowledge. The .38 auto was not a popular gun and it was
hard to find and get ammo in 1963. It would be expensive and probably
traceable by word of mouth witnesses. They were not photographed at
the scene but in evidence.
>CJ
Ben Holmes
Why not? Did you even *read* the above paragraph that you were responding to?
>>Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
>>
>Not to my knowledge. The .38 auto was not a popular gun and it was
>hard to find and get ammo in 1963. It would be expensive and probably
>traceable by word of mouth witnesses. They were not photographed at
>the scene but in evidence.
>
>>CJ
curtj...@webtv.net
already decided that the shells at the Tippit murder scene were
Automatic's. But I am curious for that in just an informative way if
anyone has any solid evidence.
> >>> specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined.
> >> That's nice. Quote for me what he saw on the bottom, not just YOUR ideas.
> >>
> > That's not my idea, that's Hill's quote from 1986.
> >
>
> I saw no quote from Hill saying that he looked at the base and saw the
> word "38 AUTO." That was YOUR idea.
>
No, it's obvious you didn't read my quote up above that was taken from
the magazine article. It stated that he looked at the bottom and saw
it.
> >>> It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said "the shells at
> >>> the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38."
> >>>
> >> That's fine. Cops make mistakes every day. Some cop got on the radio and
> >> said that the TSBD shooter was armed with a Winchester. Was HE right?
> >>
> >
> > Yes. I believe he would have looked on the bottom of those or that
> > shell(s) and actually read it like he said, and then reported it. Are
> > there any possibilities of dyslexia, and mixing up the numbers you would
> > like to consider for another caliber?
> >
> >>> Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
> >>>
> >> What shells? Show me any shells from that day photographed saying
> >> "38 AUTO."
> >>
> >
> > I saw some within this thread I believe. Maybe it was from Myers? I
> > just remember seeing it. Anybody else?
> >
>
> No, no one posted any shells from that day which say "38 AUTO."
>
I just saw the picture within days. The "38 AUTO" was about as big as
the Font here.
CJ
Anthony Marsh
That is not a proven fact just because one cop said it. You seemed to be
interested in what other ammo might have for head stamping, so I wanted
to let you know about other possibilities. They do not always say "38 AUTO."
>
>>>>> specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined.
>>>> That's nice. Quote for me what he saw on the bottom, not just YOUR ideas.
>>>>
>>> That's not my idea, that's Hill's quote from 1986.
>>>
>> I saw no quote from Hill saying that he looked at the base and saw the
>> word "38 AUTO." That was YOUR idea.
>>
> No, it's obvious you didn't read my quote up above that was taken from
> the magazine article. It stated that he looked at the bottom and saw
> it.
>
That's nice. But Hill did not say that they were stamped "38 AUTO."
>>>>> It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said "the shells at
>>>>> the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38."
>>>>>
>>>> That's fine. Cops make mistakes every day. Some cop got on the radio and
>>>> said that the TSBD shooter was armed with a Winchester. Was HE right?
>>>>
>>> Yes. I believe he would have looked on the bottom of those or that
>>> shell(s) and actually read it like he said, and then reported it. Are
>>> there any possibilities of dyslexia, and mixing up the numbers you would
>>> like to consider for another caliber?
>>>
>>>>> Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
>>>>>
>>>> What shells? Show me any shells from that day photographed saying
>>>> "38 AUTO."
>>>>
>>> I saw some within this thread I believe. Maybe it was from Myers? I
>>> just remember seeing it. Anybody else?
>>>
>> No, no one posted any shells from that day which say "38 AUTO."
>>
> I just saw the picture within days. The "38 AUTO" was about as big as
> the Font here.
>
What picture? Show me the picture.
> CJ
>
Ben Holmes
There was, of course, another witness. And Tony knows this.
>You seemed to be
>interested in what other ammo might have for head stamping, so I wanted
>to let you know about other possibilities. They do not always say "38 AUTO."
And yet, Tony can't cite for this assertion.
The Warren Commission is certainly happy with Tony right now...
>>>>>> specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined.
>>>>> That's nice. Quote for me what he saw on the bottom, not just YOUR ideas.
>>>>>
>>>> That's not my idea, that's Hill's quote from 1986.
>>>>
>>> I saw no quote from Hill saying that he looked at the base and saw the
>>> word "38 AUTO." That was YOUR idea.
>>>
>> No, it's obvious you didn't read my quote up above that was taken from
>> the magazine article. It stated that he looked at the bottom and saw
>> it.
>>
>
>That's nice. But Hill did not say that they were stamped "38 AUTO."
Yep, by Hill's own admission, he had a cartridge shell in his hand, he
*specifically* looked at the bottom of it, gets on the radio and then uses
psychic powers to report that the murderer was using a 38 automatic.
>>>>>> It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said "the shells at
>>>>>> the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38."
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's fine. Cops make mistakes every day. Some cop got on the radio and
>>>>> said that the TSBD shooter was armed with a Winchester. Was HE right?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes. I believe he would have looked on the bottom of those or that
>>>> shell(s) and actually read it like he said, and then reported it. Are
>>>> there any possibilities of dyslexia, and mixing up the numbers you would
>>>> like to consider for another caliber?
>>>>
>>>>>> Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
>>>>>>
>>>>> What shells? Show me any shells from that day photographed saying
>>>>> "38 AUTO."
>>>>>
>>>> I saw some within this thread I believe. Maybe it was from Myers? I
>>>> just remember seeing it. Anybody else?
>>>>
>>> No, no one posted any shells from that day which say "38 AUTO."
>>>
>> I just saw the picture within days. The "38 AUTO" was about as big as
>> the Font here.
>>
>
>What picture? Show me the picture.
>
>> CJ
>>
>
curtj...@webtv.net
He said he did, even though he was making a statement in 1986 describing
the looking he did on assassination day. I do not understand your, "we
will never know.", suggestion.
> >Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
> >
> Not to my knowledge. The .38 auto was not a popular gun and it was
> hard to find and get ammo in 1963. It would be expensive and probably
> traceable by word of mouth witnesses. They were not photographed at
> the scene but in evidence.
>
Thanks for the information. Do you have any access to the shells
photographed in evidence? I think it further distances Oswald from this
shooting too, as besides what we have already discussed, with all the
apparent discrepancies that exonerate Oswald; there is the fact that he
purchased a cheap rifle or was set up to; and now he suddenly has
expensive tastes on his $1.25 hr. job.
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Another witness seeing the shells and saying "38 AUTO"?
BTW, I still hold open the possibility that someone pocketed one of the
shells and it may appear some day.
>
>> You seemed to be
>> interested in what other ammo might have for head stamping, so I wanted
>> to let you know about other possibilities. They do not always say "38 AUTO."
>
>
> And yet, Tony can't cite for this assertion.
>
Junk. I just did.
> The Warren Commission is certainly happy with Tony right now...
>
>
>>>>>>> specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined.
>>>>>> That's nice. Quote for me what he saw on the bottom, not just YOUR ideas.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's not my idea, that's Hill's quote from 1986.
>>>>>
>>>> I saw no quote from Hill saying that he looked at the base and saw the
>>>> word "38 AUTO." That was YOUR idea.
>>>>
>>> No, it's obvious you didn't read my quote up above that was taken from
>>> the magazine article. It stated that he looked at the bottom and saw
>>> it.
>>>
>> That's nice. But Hill did not say that they were stamped "38 AUTO."
>
>
> Yep, by Hill's own admission, he had a cartridge shell in his hand, he
> *specifically* looked at the bottom of it, gets on the radio and then uses
> psychic powers to report that the murderer was using a 38 automatic.
>
>
No, it is a logical conclusion for someone who is not familiar with ammo.
Ricky
They are probably in the Archives and accessible upon special request.
> I think it further distances Oswald from this
>shooting too, as besides what we have already discussed, with all the
>apparent discrepancies that exonerate Oswald; there is the fact that he
>purchased a cheap rifle or was set up to; and now he suddenly has
>expensive tastes on his $1.25 hr. job.
>
Yes.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
You can probably find the pictures here.
>CJ
Anthony Marsh
> the looking he did on assassination day. I do not understand your, "we
> will never know.", suggestion.
>
>>>
>> Not to my knowledge. The .38 auto was not a popular gun and it was
>> hard to find and get ammo in 1963. It would be expensive and probably
>> traceable by word of mouth witnesses. They were not photographed at
>> the scene but in evidence.
>>
>
I have no access to the shells themselves.
I believe the National Archives Web site has digital pictures of them.
> shooting too, as besides what we have already discussed, with all the
> apparent discrepancies that exonerate Oswald; there is the fact that he
> purchased a cheap rifle or was set up to; and now he suddenly has
> expensive tastes on his $1.25 hr. job.
>
> CJ
Ben Holmes
Why bother to introduce a strawman and an implied lie, Tony?
You know very well that there was an eyewitness that asserted that an automatic
was seen in the gunman's hand.
>BTW, I still hold open the possibility that someone pocketed one of the
>shells and it may appear some day.
>
>>
>>> You seemed to be
>>> interested in what other ammo might have for head stamping, so I wanted
>>> to let you know about other possibilities. They do not always say "38 AUTO."
>>
>>
>> And yet, Tony can't cite for this assertion.
>>
>
>Junk. I just did.
Why bother to lie, Tony? You know quite well what a 'citation' is, and you've
*NEVER* cited for your assertion that 38 caliber automatic cartridges do not
always state '38 Auto' on the bottom...
>> The Warren Commission is certainly happy with Tony right now...
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined.
>>>>>>>That's nice. Quote for me what he saw on the bottom, not just YOUR ideas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not my idea, that's Hill's quote from 1986.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I saw no quote from Hill saying that he looked at the base and saw the
>>>>> word "38 AUTO." That was YOUR idea.
>>>>>
>>>> No, it's obvious you didn't read my quote up above that was taken from
>>>> the magazine article. It stated that he looked at the bottom and saw
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>> That's nice. But Hill did not say that they were stamped "38 AUTO."
>>
>>
>> Yep, by Hill's own admission, he had a cartridge shell in his hand, he
>> *specifically* looked at the bottom of it, gets on the radio and then uses
>> psychic powers to report that the murderer was using a 38 automatic.
>>
>>
>
>No, it is a logical conclusion for someone who is not familiar with ammo.
Tell us about Hill's psychic powers, Tony...
And, gutless coward that you are, you still haven't mentioned the fact that Hill
was former military, and *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN* unfamiliar with ammo.
>>>>>>>>It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said "the shells at
>>>>>>>> the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's fine. Cops make mistakes every day. Some cop got on the radio and
>>>>>>> said that the TSBD shooter was armed with a Winchester. Was HE right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. I believe he would have looked on the bottom of those or that
>>>>>> shell(s) and actually read it like he said, and then reported it. Are
>>>>>> there any possibilities of dyslexia, and mixing up the numbers you would
>>>>>> like to consider for another caliber?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What shells? Show me any shells from that day photographed saying
>>>>>>> "38 AUTO."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I saw some within this thread I believe. Maybe it was from Myers? I
>>>>>> just remember seeing it. Anybody else?
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, no one posted any shells from that day which say "38 AUTO."
>>>>>
>>>> I just saw the picture within days. The "38 AUTO" was about as big as
>>>> the Font here.
>>>>
>>> What picture? Show me the picture.
>>>
>>>> CJ
dcwi...@netscape.net
that the position or clustering of the hulls indicated "automatic".
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
witness is usually held to be used car dealer Callaway. I question
that since his only info on reaching the scene was that the policeman
appeared to be dead. Nothing about which way the gunman was going....
Not very helpful
dw
Anthony Marsh
That's not the issue. I don't care how many witnesses you find that
THINK it was an automatic. The issue is what Hill saw that led him to
think it was an automatic. Someone said that the only possible thing is
the wording "38 AUTO." That is not true.
>
>> BTW, I still hold open the possibility that someone pocketed one of the
>> shells and it may appear some day.
>>
>>>> You seemed to be
>>>> interested in what other ammo might have for head stamping, so I wanted
>>>> to let you know about other possibilities. They do not always say "38 AUTO."
>>>
>>> And yet, Tony can't cite for this assertion.
>>>
>> Junk. I just did.
>
>
> Why bother to lie, Tony? You know quite well what a 'citation' is, and you've
> *NEVER* cited for your assertion that 38 caliber automatic cartridges do not
> always state '38 Auto' on the bottom...
>
I know very well that I suggested where to look.
>
>
>>> The Warren Commission is certainly happy with Tony right now...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined.
>>>>>>>> That's nice. Quote for me what he saw on the bottom, not just YOUR ideas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not my idea, that's Hill's quote from 1986.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I saw no quote from Hill saying that he looked at the base and saw the
>>>>>> word "38 AUTO." That was YOUR idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's obvious you didn't read my quote up above that was taken from
>>>>> the magazine article. It stated that he looked at the bottom and saw
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>> That's nice. But Hill did not say that they were stamped "38 AUTO."
>>>
>>> Yep, by Hill's own admission, he had a cartridge shell in his hand, he
>>> *specifically* looked at the bottom of it, gets on the radio and then uses
>>> psychic powers to report that the murderer was using a 38 automatic.
>>>
>>>
>> No, it is a logical conclusion for someone who is not familiar with ammo.
>
>
> Tell us about Hill's psychic powers, Tony...
>
>
> And, gutless coward that you are, you still haven't mentioned the fact that Hill
> was former military, and *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN* unfamiliar with ammo.
>
So what if he was former military. That does not mean the ammo said "38
AUTO."
dcwi...@netscape.net
killer & the other the vigilante who picked up T's gun & ran after him.
Witness Warren Reynolds saw one of these two go into an old house off
the alley between Patton & I forget the street at the other end. The
other gunman took Jefferson....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
container would be easier to mark than a hull.
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
of the first points here) dumped shells in the bushes on the Davis
property, near the house, then who was the gunman that witnesses Helen
Markham & Jimmy Burt saw running down the *sidewalk* to the
intersection of 10th & Patton?
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
another witness saw (as per Pt. Summers). They would not have been
planted. However, the real question is (& it bugs me), why would
another gunman *use* an automatic, when Oswald was known (I assume it
was known) to use a revolver. This question is what makes me not
subscribe to the "automatic" story 100%. But, then, the hired gunman
who looked somewhat like Oswald maybe preferred the speed of an
automatic, despite reservations about its misfiring....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
the first (the actual killer), & was at first thot to have been the
killer himself--wielding gun, at the scene of the crime, out of
breath.... This is perhaps why the FBI agent, Barrett, thot the wallet
belonged to Oswald, who was *later* thot to have been the killer (WRONG
AGAIN!). He was shown the wallet of "the killer", first thot to have
been (I believe) the cabbie Scoggins, later.... An understandable
mixup.... Upshot: don't think the wallet was planted, but it had to be
forgotten to keep it straight that there was only one shooter.
dw
Donald Willis
was a .38?
dw
Ben Holmes
You asserted that "That is not a proven fact just because one cop said it."
You were clearly ignorant of the facts, weren't you?
>I don't care how many witnesses you find that
>THINK it was an automatic. The issue is what Hill saw that led him to
>think it was an automatic. Someone said that the only possible thing is
>the wording "38 AUTO." That is not true.
Your suggestion has *ZERO* evidence for it.
You're just going to have to face the evidence, Tony.
>>> BTW, I still hold open the possibility that someone pocketed one of the
>>> shells and it may appear some day.
>>>
>>>>> You seemed to be
>>>>> interested in what other ammo might have for head stamping, so I wanted
>>>>>to let you know about other possibilities. They do not always say "38 AUTO."
>>>>
>>>> And yet, Tony can't cite for this assertion.
>>>>
>>> Junk. I just did.
>>
>>
>> Why bother to lie, Tony? You know quite well what a 'citation' is, and
>> you've *NEVER* cited for your assertion that 38 caliber automatic
>> cartridges do not always state '38 Auto' on the bottom...
>>
>
>I know very well that I suggested where to look.
That is *NOT* a citation. You're asking *US* to prove *YOUR* assertion.
You're a liar, Tony... you've never cited for this, nor, I suspect, will you
ever do so.
You have a habit of not citing, don't you?
>>>> The Warren Commission is certainly happy with Tony right now...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>specifically said he looked on the bottom of the shell that he examined.
>>>>>>>>>That's nice. Quote for me what he saw on the bottom, not just YOUR ideas.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's not my idea, that's Hill's quote from 1986.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I saw no quote from Hill saying that he looked at the base and saw the
>>>>>>> word "38 AUTO." That was YOUR idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's obvious you didn't read my quote up above that was taken from
>>>>>> the magazine article. It stated that he looked at the bottom and saw
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's nice. But Hill did not say that they were stamped "38 AUTO."
>>>>
>>>> Yep, by Hill's own admission, he had a cartridge shell in his hand, he
>>>> *specifically* looked at the bottom of it, gets on the radio and then uses
>>>> psychic powers to report that the murderer was using a 38 automatic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, it is a logical conclusion for someone who is not familiar with ammo.
>>
>>
>> Tell us about Hill's psychic powers, Tony...
>>
>>
>> And, gutless coward that you are, you still haven't mentioned the fact
>> that Hill was former military, and *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN* unfamiliar with
>> ammo.
>>
>
>So what if he was former military.
It was a fact that I asked you to provide earlier, and you failed to do so -
even though you certainly knew that this was evidence that he knew what he was
talking about.
>That does not mean the ammo said "38 AUTO."
Nor does your naked assertion otherwise... Provide the citation, or accept the
fact that Hill was holding a 38 Auto cartridge shell in his hand.
>>>>>>>>>>It is no wonder, then, that Hill got on the radio and said "the shells at
>>>>>>>>>> the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That's fine. Cops make mistakes every day. Some cop got on the radio and
>>>>>>>>> said that the TSBD shooter was armed with a Winchester. Was HE right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. I believe he would have looked on the bottom of those or that
>>>>>>>> shell(s) and actually read it like he said, and then reported it. Are
>>>>>>>>there any possibilities of dyslexia, and mixing up the numbers you would
>>>>>>>> like to consider for another caliber?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Weren't the shells photographed with the 38 AUTO on them?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What shells? Show me any shells from that day photographed saying
>>>>>>>>> "38 AUTO."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I saw some within this thread I believe. Maybe it was from Myers? I
>>>>>>>> just remember seeing it. Anybody else?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, no one posted any shells from that day which say "38 AUTO."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just saw the picture within days. The "38 AUTO" was about as big as
>>>>>> the Font here.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What picture? Show me the picture.
>>>>>
>>>>>> CJ
Ben Holmes
dcwi...@netscape.net says...
>
>That's the wrong question. The hulls would be from the automatic which
>another witness saw (as per Pt. Summers). They would not have been
>planted. However, the real question is (& it bugs me), why would
>another gunman *use* an automatic, when Oswald was known (I assume it
>was known) to use a revolver.
You assume a connection here. Two completely separate crimes, and Oswald within
a mile at one, and within 100 yards at the other...
It's easy to assume such a 'connection' after the fact, but there was no real
effort to frame Oswald with the Tippit killing. Not beforehand, that is.
>This question is what makes me not
>subscribe to the "automatic" story 100%.
It has too much evidence in support of it to *not* believe. It explains the
known facts...
>But, then, the hired gunman
>who looked somewhat like Oswald maybe preferred the speed of an
>automatic, despite reservations about its misfiring....
>dw
Anthony Marsh
That's not such a bad theory if you can find some more evidence to flesh
it out.
Donald Willis
down Jefferson):
1) Pete Barnes' crime scene sketch noting that the gunman ran down the alley
(Barnes arrived at the scene as Mrs M was being questioned)
2) The two witnesses who testified that they called police *first*, then saw a
man with a gun running (Virginia Davis & LJLewis)
3) Sgt Croy testifying that there was a report that the cab driver picked up
Tippit's gun & gave chase
4) Reynolds changing his tune for the WC & saying he last saw the gunman going
behind the Texaco station
5) Reports of Mrs M telling police that the gunman had bushy hair, was stocky, &
rather short (a description better fitting Scoggins the cab driver than Oswald
or an Oswald lookalike)
6) Dallas Homicide Captain advising that witnesses to Oswald were needed in Oak
Cliff, because they had none in Dealey (if half of them witnessed only another
witness, out goes the Everyone in Oak Cliff Saw It Was Oswald idea)
Walt
crimes, and Oswald within a mile at one, and within 100 yards at the
other...
It's easy to assume such a 'connection' after the fact, but there was
no real
effort to frame Oswald with the Tippit killing. Not beforehand, that
is.
Excellent, a healthy dose of skeptisizm. You don't often see that. Most
people just ASSUME the two crimes are connected, and both were
committed by Lee Oswald.
I believe there is a connection between the two crimes.... but NEITHER
were committed by Lee Oswald.
I suspect that Tippit, and Oswald's double were assigned to kill Oswald
on the street near his rooming house, if he escaped the TSBD alive.
Either Tippit, or Lee's double could have killed Lee, and Tippit would
have been credited with killing the assassin and there would have been
no questions asked. The Fact that Oswald managed to elude Tippit, and
lived long enough to open the "can of worms" threw a monkey wrench into
the whole rotten scheme.
Walt
Walt
Date: Fri, May 5 2006 10:28 am
Email: Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net>
Groups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> As I've argued previously, I think there were two gunmen--one the
> killer & the other the vigilante who picked up T's gun & ran after him.
> Witness Warren Reynolds saw one of these two go into an old house off
> the alley between Patton & I forget the street at the other end. The
> other gunman took Jefferson....
> dw
Marsh Wrote:.....That's not such a bad theory if you can find some more
evidence to flesh it out.
Damn! I find myself compelled to agree with Marsh again. That's twice
in a two week period.... I'm getting worried:)
I think you're right Don.... The witnesses who actually saw the
shooting, saw only one man. People who saw things a couple of minutes
later saw things differently than the actual witnesses. The may have
seen Scroggins with a pistol standing over Tippit and assumed he was
the killer.
Walt