Re: Who Shot Tippit?
dcwi...@netscape.net
> <SNIP>
>
> > > Benavides: Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk
> > > and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of
> > > stalled. He didn`t exactly stop. And he threw down one shell and must
> > > have took five or six steps and threw the other shell up, and then he
> > > stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.
>
> > > Doesn`t sound like he is describing an ejector being used, Walt.
>
> > You're taking the word of a man who for 3 months or more said
> > *nothing* about Tippit.
>
> I don`t take his word. I view what he relates with an eye towards
> what is reasonable to believe. But, how do you know he said nothing
> about Tippit`s murder, because you don`t have it on record
Well, we/I do & we/I don't. That is, Det Leavelle stated at least
twice (in his initial report & at the hearings) that Benavides did/may
have come to police hq & made a statement. In that report, he
actually said unequivocally that Benavides was one of those who made a
statement 11/22/63. But that statement was never made public. Why?
Actually, he may have said plenty about Tippit's murder, but the
authorities perhaps did not want it on record. I don't see how he
could have avoided interviews with the FBI & the SS--all the other
witnesses connected with Tippit were interviewed at least once by the
FBI, I believe. But the fact that B made out an affidavit (as per
Leavelle) on 11/22, & it's gone missing for how many decades, & that
we have nothing from him from the FBI or the SS, makes his WC
testimony next-to-worthless. We can't compare it to *anything*. We
have to trust his memory/honesty 3 or 4 months after the fact. I
myself feel completely helpless with his story--I have no idea what it
was. Early DPD reports say, alternately, that he saw/didn't see the
shooting. That he may have made a statement. That he saw the shooter
run across a *church* lawn. That he saw the shooter run across the
Davises' lawn. There's nothing reliable to go on. Leading up to &
including his testimony....
dw
(doubtless
> so you could scour it for descrepancies)?
I think we'd all like to scour his 11/22 statement....
>
> > Made no affidavit. Spoke to no FBI agent.
> > Did not make a SS statement. Spoke to no reporters. Nada.
>
> And then told the WC what he saw. Probably imperfectly, but such is
> often the case with witnesses.
>
> > Then, 3
> > months later, after his brother is killed, he testifies...
>
> Yah, but he didn`t witness that murder, so the police didn`t ask him
> about it. They were interested in the one he saw.
You're making a gigantic assumption--that he "saw" the murder of a
police officer. Yet, for 3 months or more the record is blank as to
what he might have seen.
>
> > to what?
>
> To what he saw.
>
> > To whatever was wanted by the authorities, I'd bet....
>
> Well, as is usual with kooks, to back up extraordinary conjecture,
> they offer.... nothing.
It's not conjecture--what Benavides offered for 3 months was...
nothing. Why? Aren't you the least little bit curious? For 3
months, the cops were saying what Benavides saw. Why wouldn't he
confirm their reports?
>
> > dw
>
> <SNIP>
eca...@tx.rr.com
I'm somewhat amused that folks
are still picking around with
that lame theory that maybe it
was some other guy who killed
Tippit who looked like Oswald..
Then of course the real killer
somehow found Oswald in the
area, then he simply ( gULp::)
*planted*
the murder weapon on poor Oz..
Oswald then took the bait and
ducked in and out of stores up
and down Jefferson trying to
look suspicious with the
*planted* pistol in his pocket
that was later proven to be the
gun that killed Tippit.. And oh
yeah.. To make it look good Oz
then illegally slips into the
TT without paying for a ticket
as the ticket clerk watches..
Of course all the other
eyewitnesses who put Oswald
at the scene of Tippit's
slaying were either bribed or
mistaken or just trying to set
poor Oz up for the cold
blooded killing of a Dallas
Police Officer..
Works for me..
Yeppers it's all coming into
focus after 43 years, poor Oz
was set up on 11-22-63 for not
one but TWO separate murders.
And incredibly for some
unexplainable reason he
actually helped set himself up.
NOT TO MENTION: His prints
planted on the bag, rifle,
SN boxes, ballistics tests
rigged, the long brown bag he
brought in was really only
curtain rods which were
never found, someone swiped
his rifle from Paine's garage
and ( gULp::) *planted* it on
the 6F.. He left the TSBD
because he knew he'd be
falsely blamed when after
all, he was down in the
kitchen having a Coke and a
smile as the Crime of the
Century occurred on his
doorstep, then to top his
day off he gets the Tippit
murder weapon *planted* on
him about an hour later,
and Brennan confuses Billy
Lovelady for Lee Oswald..
(THREE *plants* in one day!)
- curse the luck! -
It was a bad day for Oswald.
MR ;~D
Ed Cage 0958Feb1707
> > <SNIP>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
guybann...@aol.com
Aat the scene of the crime?
I guess Mohammed Atta appreciated the gesture, considering how *he* so
similarly thoughtfully apparently flung his passport out the plane a split
second before crashing into WTC 2, whereupon it was then conveniently
found on the sidewalk a la LHO's wallet.
(Incidentally, if you read Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" you'll learn
that TWO LHO wallets were found on 11/22/63: one at the scene of the
Tippitt murder and *another* on LHO as he was apprehended in the texas
Theater.)
tomnln
Tell us how Oswald did a 3 minute mile?
<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1171728529....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
dcwi...@netscape.net
Oh, yeah. Of course. Guess everything's settled, then. We can all go
home & go to sleep....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
I believe the wallet found on Oswald was... Oswald's! The wallet found at
the scene was almost certainly that of the man who was *first* believed to
have been the shooter--the witness who picked up Tippit's gun & gave
chase--ie, WW Scoggins.
dw
Sammy, G.
Dallas Police Oswald's wallet was taken out of his pocket AT THE STATION.
That's what it states in a supplementary report. Go figure?
Yet LN's go on and on about patterns of evidence. In all actual honest
REALITY, it's really patterns of MANGLING evidence.
Thanks
Sammy, G.
"GeorgeWashi...@adelphia.com" <guybann...@aol.com> wrote in
message news:1171747745....@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Sammy, G.
> I'm somewhat amused that folks
> are still picking around with
> that lame theory that maybe it
> was some other guy who killed
> Tippit who looked like Oswald..
> Then of course the real killer
> somehow found Oswald in the
> area, then he simply ( gULp::)
> *planted*
> the murder weapon on poor Oz..
> Oswald then took the bait and
> ducked in and out of stores up
> and down Jefferson trying to
> look suspicious with the
> *planted* pistol in his pocket
> that was later proven to be the
> gun that killed Tippit..
That gun was NEVER PROVEN to have been the one that killed Tippit. It was
impossible to conclusively link the gun to the Tippit murder due to it's
condition after having been RE-CHAMBERED. See the pattern of ignoring the
facts here?
And oh
> yeah.. To make it look good Oz
> then illegally slips into the
> TT without paying for a ticket
> as the ticket clerk watches..
The clerk stated that she couldn't remember whether she sold Oswald a ticket
or not. Burroughs placed Oz in the theater well before the supposed illegal
entry. Onlookers thought they were witnessing the arrest of Oswald, only the
man they saw being arrested was taken out the back of the theater. Oz is
smart enough to kill the President and elude authorities, and escapes the
murder scene. He was to quick for Tippit, and again eludes and escapes. Yet
having enough money to calmly(remember he a cool cold blooded murderer)buy a
ticket and walk into the theater, he blows it all forgets the ticket, blows
through the lobby into theater, which ultimately causes the demise of this
cold calculating murderer.
Don't look now Ed, there's a pattern emerging here!
> Of course all the other
> eyewitnesses who put Oswald
> at the scene of Tippit's
> slaying were either bribed or
> mistaken or just trying to set
> poor Oz up for the cold
> blooded killing of a Dallas
> Police Officer..
A wallet conveniently found at the Tippit scene. Another taken from Oz at
the arrest. Yet another DPD supplementary report specifically stating that
Oz's wallet was taken out of his back left pocket while at the Police
station. A police radio broadcast stating that an automatic was used in the
Tippit shooting. Mismatched, marked/unmarked , and disappearing(per Poe)
"hulls". Report of a short bushy haired shooter, etc, etc...................
Works for me to, heck, let's just ignore this pattern.
YEPPERS
Sammy, G.
eca...@tx.rr.com
Good point GW:
"Wasn't oh-so-thoughtful that whoever
shot Tippitt left Oswald's wallet
Aat the scene of the crime?"
Ed
On Feb 17, 11:00 pm, "GeorgeWashingtonAdmi...@adelphia.com"
guybann...@aol.com
> > Wasn't oh-so-thoughtful that whoever shot Tippitt left Oswald's wallet
> > (Incidentally, if you read Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" you'll learn
> > that TWO LHO wallets were found on 11/22/63: one at the scene of the
> > Tippitt murder and *another* on LHO as he was apprehended in the texas
> > Theater.)
On Feb 17, 9:29 pm, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> I believe the wallet found on Oswald was... Oswald's! The wallet found at
> the scene was almost certainly that of the man who was *first* believed to
> have been the shooter--the witness who picked up Tippit's gun & gave
> chase--ie, WW Scoggins.
Actually, no. Read Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" (excerpts of which are
online, as well as transcripts of the author presenting early encapsulated
versions of his theory at university forums.)
As per Armstrong, there were TWO wallets (one found at the scene of
Tippitt's murder, the other confiscated from LHO at the theater) and they
held ID's which corresponded to the LHO identity in the former instance
and to the Hidell alias in the latter.
Anthony Marsh
> Wasn't oh-so-thoughtful that whoever shot Tippitt left Oswald's wallet
> Aat the scene of the crime?
>
> I guess Mohammed Atta appreciated the gesture, considering how *he* so
> similarly thoughtfully apparently flung his passport out the plane a split
> second before crashing into WTC 2, whereupon it was then conveniently
> found on the sidewalk a la LHO's wallet.
>
Personal belongings are often found after plane crashes. In fact they
sometime need to discourage looters.
tomnln
Oswald also left $170.00 in his wallet with Marina.
Bad Point.
<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1171799940.7...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bud
Sammy, G. wrote:
> <eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:1171728529....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> > dcwill:
> > I'm somewhat amused that folks
> > are still picking around with
> > that lame theory that maybe it
> > was some other guy who killed
> > Tippit who looked like Oswald..
> > Then of course the real killer
> > somehow found Oswald in the
> > area, then he simply ( gULp::)
> > *planted*
> > the murder weapon on poor Oz..
> > Oswald then took the bait and
> > ducked in and out of stores up
> > and down Jefferson trying to
> > look suspicious with the
> > *planted* pistol in his pocket
> > that was later proven to be the
> > gun that killed Tippit..
>
> That gun was NEVER PROVEN to have been the one that killed Tippit. It was
> impossible to conclusively link the gun to the Tippit murder due to it's
> condition after having been RE-CHAMBERED.
Yah, the gun found on Oswald had the same rare chracteristics as
the gun used to kill Tippit. And the gunman was seen reloading, and
guess what Oz had on him when arrested? Extra bullets! All just
coincidence, we can think up some flimsy reasons it couldn`t be Oz if
we try real right, right?
> See the pattern of ignoring the
> facts here?
> And oh
> > yeah.. To make it look good Oz
> > then illegally slips into the
> > TT without paying for a ticket
> > as the ticket clerk watches..
>
> The clerk stated that she couldn't remember whether she sold Oswald a ticket
> or not.
No, Postal said she saw him sneak in, with a frightened look on his
face.
> Burroughs placed Oz in the theater well before the supposed illegal
> entry.
Neglected to tell the WC about it, though.
> Onlookers thought they were witnessing the arrest of Oswald, only the
> man they saw being arrested was taken out the back of the theater. Oz is
> smart enough to kill the President and elude authorities, and escapes the
> murder scene.
Smart? Maybe. Lucky? Definately.
> He was to quick for Tippit, and again eludes and escapes.
Eludes who? Mrs Markham? And doesn`t this apply to anyone shooting
Tippit, even if it wasn`t Oz? Tippit was shot, the shooter did flee
the scene.
> Yet
> having enough money to calmly(remember he a cool cold blooded murderer)buy a
> ticket and walk into the theater, he blows it all forgets the ticket, blows
> through the lobby into theater, which ultimately causes the demise of this
> cold calculating murderer.
Is his what an alibi looks like to you? that if Oz really did kill
Tippit, he would have bought a ticket?
> Don't look now Ed, there's a pattern emerging here!
Yah, but you manage to ignore it.
> > Of course all the other
> > eyewitnesses who put Oswald
> > at the scene of Tippit's
> > slaying were either bribed or
> > mistaken or just trying to set
> > poor Oz up for the cold
> > blooded killing of a Dallas
> > Police Officer..
> A wallet conveniently found at the Tippit scene. Another taken from Oz at
> the arrest. Yet another DPD supplementary report specifically stating that
> Oz's wallet was taken out of his back left pocket while at the Police
> station.
Yah, probabably the cops were riding around Oak Cliff with a wallet
with the Hidell ID in it to plant on him. Probably.
> A police radio broadcast stating that an automatic was used in the
> Tippit shooting.
Luckily there were witnesses to the shooting. They indicated a
revolver was used.
>Mismatched, marked/unmarked , and disappearing(per Poe)
> "hulls". Report of a short bushy haired shooter, etc, etc...................
Oz`s hair is dishevelled in the pictures taken of him at the time
of his arrest. Is this what you are using to say it couldn`t be him?
The jails would be empty, a person can`t be convicted if there is one
scrap of conflicting information?
> Works for me to, heck, let's just ignore this pattern.
The pattern I notice is that you focus on the same 1% of this event
that all the Oswald-defenders do.
<SNIP>
Sammy, G.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1172111997....@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
First off, I don't think Oswald was "innocent". However, innocent or not,
anyone claiming that Oswald's gun was proven to have been the one that
killed Tippit is wrong. That makes it by definition disinformation(imo).
Regardless of what inference may be drawn(LN vs CT) from any piece of
evidence, I prefer to stick with the facts. This case is difficult enough
as it is. There have been an almost insurmountable amount of erroneous
claims made from both sides, to all this is a disservice. Could you give
us a source for the "same rare characteristics" mentioned above?
And the gunman was seen reloading, and
> guess what Oz had on him when arrested? Extra bullets! All just
> coincidence, we can think up some flimsy reasons it couldn`t be Oz if
> we try real right, right?
Many do in fact believe that Oswald is innocent, however, I'm not sold.
How many "extra bullets" did he have. He must have been better prepared
for the Tippit murder, than JFK's. There were never any MC bullets, boxes,
or empty boxes found at the Paines or his rooming. He apparently had just
enough for the assassination.
>
>> See the pattern of ignoring the
>> facts here?
>> And oh
>> > yeah.. To make it look good Oz
>> > then illegally slips into the
>> > TT without paying for a ticket
>> > as the ticket clerk watches..
>>
>> The clerk stated that she couldn't remember whether she sold Oswald a
>> ticket
>> or not.
>
> No, Postal said she saw him sneak in, with a frightened look on his
> face.
Who did she tell this to? Brewer told the WC that she said she hadn't seen
anyone fitting that description(brown shirt, etc, etc).
I doubt the DPD had anything to do with all these wallets. Nonetheless,
some type of "musical wallets" did take place. This is an established
fact, like it or not.
>
>> A police radio broadcast stating that an automatic was used in the
>> Tippit shooting.
>
> Luckily there were witnesses to the shooting. They indicated a
> revolver was used.
Come on now, you LN's know how unreliable eye and ear witnesses can be(ha
ha HAA!).
>
>>Mismatched, marked/unmarked , and disappearing(per Poe)
>> "hulls". Report of a short bushy haired shooter, etc,
>> etc...................
>
> Oz`s hair is dishevelled in the pictures taken of him at the time
> of his arrest. Is this what you are using to say it couldn`t be him?
> The jails would be empty, a person can`t be convicted if there is one
> scrap of conflicting information?
From the example above, all you choose to address is hair? Curious? Poe's
initials missing from the hulls in evidence has always been a sticking
point for me.
>
>> Works for me to, heck, let's just ignore this pattern.
>
> The pattern I notice is that you focus on the same 1% of this event
> that all the Oswald-defenders do.
It's quite a bit more significant than 1%. Curiously, it seems to
correlate quite closely to the amount of evidence that the LN's HAVE to
ignore!
Thanks
Sammy, G.
Bud
Thats why I never said that.
> That makes it by definition disinformation(imo).
I suppose if anyone actually said what you mentioned, it would be.
> Regardless of what inference may be drawn(LN vs CT) from any piece of
> evidence, I prefer to stick with the facts.
<snicker>
>This case is difficult enough
> as it is. There have been an almost insurmountable amount of erroneous
> claims made from both sides, to all this is a disservice. Could you give
> us a source for the "same rare characteristics" mentioned above?
I suppose i could. Maybe an elaboration of the point will suffice. Most
handguns leave marking on the bullets it fires, which can be used to match
the bullets to the gun. Oswald was carrying a gun that didn`t often leave
discernable markings on the bullets it fired, the same chracteristic as
the bullets found in Tippit`s body.
> And the gunman was seen reloading, and
> > guess what Oz had on him when arrested? Extra bullets! All just
> > coincidence, we can think up some flimsy reasons it couldn`t be Oz if
> > we try real right, right?
>
> Many do in fact believe that Oswald is innocent, however, I'm not sold.
> How many "extra bullets" did he have.
Five. You can maybe see where a person would feel comfortable carrying
a handgun, for protection or whatnot. It`s hard to imagine such a person
anticipating the need to reload.
> He must have been better prepared
> for the Tippit murder, than JFK's.
You`re kidding, right? Looking at the results, he was adequately
prepared for both.
> There were never any MC bullets, boxes,
> or empty boxes found at the Paines or his rooming. He apparently had just
> enough for the assassination.
Or disposed of excess prior.
> >> See the pattern of ignoring the
> >> facts here?
> >> And oh
> >> > yeah.. To make it look good Oz
> >> > then illegally slips into the
> >> > TT without paying for a ticket
> >> > as the ticket clerk watches..
> >>
> >> The clerk stated that she couldn't remember whether she sold Oswald a
> >> ticket
> >> or not.
> >
> > No, Postal said she saw him sneak in, with a frightened look on his
> > face.
>
> Who did she tell this to?
The WC.
> Brewer told the WC that she said she hadn't seen
> anyone fitting that description(brown shirt, etc, etc).
Postal told the WC that she saw Oswald duck into the theater.
It isn`t a matter of liking or disliking it. It`s a matter of
determining what is reasonable to believe. It is reasonable to believe
that Oz was carrying that wallet, despite the confusion. It is
unreasonable to believe the DPD had it prior to plant on him.
> >> A police radio broadcast stating that an automatic was used in the
> >> Tippit shooting.
> >
> > Luckily there were witnesses to the shooting. They indicated a
> > revolver was used.
>
> Come on now, you LN's know how unreliable eye and ear witnesses can be(ha
> ha HAA!).
Multiple corrobarative witnesses. Everyone in the vicintity of the
Tippit murder, if they were willing to make an ID, said it was Oz they saw
at the scene, or fleeing the area with a gun.
> >>Mismatched, marked/unmarked , and disappearing(per Poe)
> >> "hulls". Report of a short bushy haired shooter, etc,
> >> etc...................
> >
> > Oz`s hair is dishevelled in the pictures taken of him at the time
> > of his arrest. Is this what you are using to say it couldn`t be him?
> > The jails would be empty, a person can`t be convicted if there is one
> > scrap of conflicting information?
>
> From the example above, all you choose to address is hair? Curious? Poe's
> initials missing from the hulls in evidence has always been a sticking
> point for me.
Did Poe say he put them on?
> >> Works for me to, heck, let's just ignore this pattern.
> >
> > The pattern I notice is that you focus on the same 1% of this event
> > that all the Oswald-defenders do.
>
> It's quite a bit more significant than 1%. Curiously, it seems to
> correlate quite closely to the amount of evidence that the LN's HAVE to
> ignore!
We don`t ignore them. A certain amount of sticking points can be
expected, especially when the effort to develope them by amateur
lawyers is so great.
> Thanks
>
> Sammy, G.
Sammy, G.
Snicker???? I typed that with a straight face! Seriously, I have/do look
at all the circumstances, even the seemingly outlandish. However, I try to
be objective. When forming any solid opinions or conclusions, I stick
strictly to those that can be substantiated by EVIDENCE.
>
>>This case is difficult enough
>> as it is. There have been an almost insurmountable amount of erroneous
>> claims made from both sides, to all this is a disservice. Could you give
>> us a source for the "same rare characteristics" mentioned above?
>
> I suppose i could. Maybe an elaboration of the point will suffice. Most
> handguns leave marking on the bullets it fires, which can be used to match
> the bullets to the gun. Oswald was carrying a gun that didn`t often leave
> discernable markings on the bullets it fired, the same chracteristic as
> the bullets found in Tippit`s body.
The SAME characteristics? Similar? I don't believe this is an established
fact. This could have been handled much better by employing the correct in
depth testing. IMO, this was not done. I won't ask, but many do,
WHY(snicker)? This sounds more like an excuse for simple FACT that they
were unable to link that weapon to that crime. Smoke and mirrors?
>
>> And the gunman was seen reloading, and
>> > guess what Oz had on him when arrested? Extra bullets! All just
>> > coincidence, we can think up some flimsy reasons it couldn`t be Oz if
>> > we try real right, right?
>>
>> Many do in fact believe that Oswald is innocent, however, I'm not sold.
>> How many "extra bullets" did he have.
>
> Five. You can maybe see where a person would feel comfortable carrying
> a handgun, for protection or whatnot. It`s hard to imagine such a person
> anticipating the need to reload.
So he had the gun fully loaded. Emptied it on Tippit(?). Reloaded, and
still had five more on his person? If this is the case, he apparently
anticipated having quite the shootout, EH? The reason he gave for having
the gun, IMO was pure bull. From memory: you know how boys are, they just
like to carry them. I've always wondered why he didn't already have the
gun on him? If I were planning something that might require a gun to
escape, I would've taken it with me to work.
>
>> He must have been better prepared
>> for the Tippit murder, than JFK's.
>
> You`re kidding, right? Looking at the results, he was adequately
> prepared for both.
Yeah, this was supposed to sound sarcastic. You can't argue with success!
>
>> There were never any MC bullets, boxes,
>> or empty boxes found at the Paines or his rooming. He apparently had just
>> enough for the assassination.
>
> Or disposed of excess prior.
Good answer, logical, makes sense.
>
>> >> See the pattern of ignoring the
>> >> facts here?
>> >> And oh
>> >> > yeah.. To make it look good Oz
>> >> > then illegally slips into the
>> >> > TT without paying for a ticket
>> >> > as the ticket clerk watches..
>> >>
>> >> The clerk stated that she couldn't remember whether she sold Oswald a
>> >> ticket
>> >> or not.
>> >
>> > No, Postal said she saw him sneak in, with a frightened look on his
>> > face.
>>
>> Who did she tell this to?
>
> The WC.
>
>> Brewer told the WC that she said she hadn't seen
>> anyone fitting that description(brown shirt, etc, etc).
>
> Postal told the WC that she saw Oswald duck into the theater.
>
>> >> Burroughs placed Oz in the theater well before the supposed illegal
>> >> entry.
>> >
>> > Neglected to tell the WC about it, though.
Is there any merit to this? Who did he tell that Oswald was already there?
Yes, he said he put his mark on them. I believe he refused to ID the ones
shown to him by the WC.
>
>> >> Works for me to, heck, let's just ignore this pattern.
>> >
>> > The pattern I notice is that you focus on the same 1% of this event
>> > that all the Oswald-defenders do.
>>
>> It's quite a bit more significant than 1%. Curiously, it seems to
>> correlate quite closely to the amount of evidence that the LN's HAVE to
>> ignore!
>
> We don`t ignore them. A certain amount of sticking points can be
> expected, especially when the effort to develope them by amateur
> lawyers is so great.
I agree that many have, and will butcher the KNOWN evidence. However, at a
certain point, these discrepancies, or "sticking points", become so
numerous that they become overwhelming. Believe it or not, they have a
"certain pattern" all there own!
Thanks
Sammy, G.
eca...@tx.rr.com
was the *shell hulls* and
not the spent rounds that
were the proof that Oswald's
pistol killed Tippit.
Ed 0445Feb2407
On Feb 24, 12:01 am, "Sammy, G." <unome_g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1172233223.8...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sammy, G. wrote:
> >> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:1172111997....@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Sammy, G. wrote:
> >> >> <ecag...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> Sammy, G.- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
> Sammy if memory serves, it
> was the *shell hulls* and
> not the spent rounds that
> were the proof that Oswald's
> pistol killed Tippit.
>
> Ed 0445Feb2407
>
Well, the spent bullets are highly suggestive. Same caliber, same model,
same brands as what Oswald was caught with, down to a similar mixture of
brands, about half and half.
curtjester1
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1172233223.8...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sammy, G. wrote:
> >>news:1172111997....@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Sammy, G. wrote:
all they had to do was smell the gun. They probably did and it didn't
smell so they shut themselves up. The gun was hardly ordinary. It
was a Special that disguises bullet tracings, and tends to bulge the
cartridges. With words like AUTO and the so-called markings, it would
be foolish to say that it 'was' Oswald's weapon.
>
>
> >> And the gunman was seen reloading, and
> >> > guess what Oz had on him when arrested? Extra bullets! All just
> >> > coincidence, we can think up some flimsy reasons it couldn`t be Oz if
> >> > we try real right, right?
>
> >> Many do in fact believe that Oswald is innocent, however, I'm not sold.
> >> How many "extra bullets" did he have.
>
> > Five. You can maybe see where a person would feel comfortable carrying
> > a handgun, for protection or whatnot. It`s hard to imagine such a person
> > anticipating the need to reload.
>
> So he had the gun fully loaded. Emptied it on Tippit(?). Reloaded, and
> still had five more on his person? If this is the case, he apparently
> anticipated having quite the shootout, EH? The reason he gave for having
> the gun, IMO was pure bull. From memory: you know how boys are, they just
> like to carry them. I've always wondered why he didn't already have the
> gun on him? If I were planning something that might require a gun to
> escape, I would've taken it with me to work.
>
Yeah, it really 'adds' up, huh? Here he supposedly is at the TSBD and
he lines up the cartridges all neat, then he takes the time to hide
the rifle, and only carries a few bullets. Here he supposedly commits
a murder, then leaves his wallet, and cartridges all scattered right
in the open. And there is a side too that says that the cartridges in
the TSBD were scattered, but if that was so, then why did he even
bother to hide the rifle?
I think you meant to say, would've taken the gun to work? Anyway,
there is no proof either that he picked up the gun at home, and there
is witnesses saying he did receive a gun across the street from the
TSBD after the JFK shooting.
>
>
> >> He must have been better prepared
> >> for the Tippit murder, than JFK's.
>
> > You`re kidding, right? Looking at the results, he was adequately
> > prepared for both.
>
> Yeah, this was supposed to sound sarcastic. You can't argue with success!
>
Bud always argues, sometimes even with himself, unwittingly...,<grin>
>
>
> >> There were never any MC bullets, boxes,
> >> or empty boxes found at the Paines or his rooming. He apparently had just
> >> enough for the assassination.
>
> > Or disposed of excess prior.
>
> Good answer, logical, makes sense.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> See the pattern of ignoring the
> >> >> facts here?
> >> >> And oh
> >> >> > yeah.. To make it look good Oz
> >> >> > then illegally slips into the
> >> >> > TT without paying for a ticket
> >> >> > as the ticket clerk watches..
>
> >> >> The clerk stated that she couldn't remember whether she sold Oswald a
> >> >> ticket
> >> >> or not.
>
> >> > No, Postal said she saw him sneak in, with a frightened look on his
> >> > face.
>
> >> Who did she tell this to?
>
> > The WC.
>
> >> Brewer told the WC that she said she hadn't seen
> >> anyone fitting that description(brown shirt, etc, etc).
>
> > Postal told the WC that she saw Oswald duck into the theater.
>
That was the second one. The first one she got caught on, the one
that came in the theater a little after one, according to Butch
Burroughs and Jack Davis.
> >> >> Burroughs placed Oz in the theater well before the supposed illegal
> >> >> entry.
>
> >> > Neglected to tell the WC about it, though.
>
> Is there any merit to this? Who did he tell that Oswald was already there?
>
>
Of course, the WC only asked questions that pertained to what they
wanted to hear. Burroughs was interviewed by Marrs later on.
And they had two ID numbers for two wallets. Then they had to do
something.
> >> >> A police radio broadcast stating that an automatic was used in the
> >> >> Tippit shooting.
>
> >> > Luckily there were witnesses to the shooting. They indicated a
> >> > revolver was used.
>
> >> Come on now, you LN's know how unreliable eye and ear witnesses can be(ha
> >> ha HAA!).
>
> > Multiple corrobarative witnesses. Everyone in the vicintity of the
> > Tippit murder, if they were willing to make an ID, said it was Oz they saw
> > at the scene, or fleeing the area with a gun.
>
They also saw him coming from the WEST from 10th and Jefferson about 3
blocks from the murder scene. They also saw blocked hair and bushy
hair in the back. Markham was at least 3 houses from the murder scene
too.
> >> >>Mismatched, marked/unmarked , and disappearing(per Poe)
> >> >> "hulls". Report of a short bushy haired shooter, etc,
> >> >> etc...................
>
> >> > Oz`s hair is dishevelled in the pictures taken of him at the time
> >> > of his arrest. Is this what you are using to say it couldn`t be him?
> >> > The jails would be empty, a person can`t be convicted if there is one
> >> > scrap of conflicting information?
>
> >> From the example above, all you choose to address is hair? Curious? Poe's
> >> initials missing from the hulls in evidence has always been a sticking
> >> point for me.
>
> > Did Poe say he put them on?
>
> Yes, he said he put his mark on them. I believe he refused to ID the ones
> shown to him by the WC.
>
Poe won't go away. I think there was another cop too that put his
initials on a couple.
>
>
> >> >> Works for me to, heck, let's just ignore this pattern.
>
> >> > The pattern I notice is that you focus on the same 1% of this event
> >> > that all the Oswald-defenders do.
>
> >> It's quite a bit more significant than 1%. Curiously, it seems to
> >> correlate quite closely to the amount of evidence that the LN's HAVE to
> >> ignore!
>
> > We don`t ignore them. A certain amount of sticking points can be
> > expected, especially when the effort to develope them by amateur
> > lawyers is so great.
>
> I agree that many have, and will butcher the KNOWN evidence. However, at a
> certain point, these discrepancies, or "sticking points", become so
> numerous that they become overwhelming. Believe it or not, they have a
> "certain pattern" all there own!
>
And the pattern is pin the tail on the donkey.
CJ
> Thanks
>
> Sammy, G.- Hide quoted text -
eca...@tx.rr.com
MR :~? ED
> > > at the scene, or fleeing the area- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
eca...@tx.rr.com
It wasn't "3 minutes."
Ed
On Feb 17, 11:13 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Hey ed;
> Tell us how Oswald did a 3 minute mile?
>
> <ecag...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> >> > > > have took five or six steps and threw the othershellup, and then
eca...@tx.rr.com
summary.. After 43 years
no evidence *pattern* of
anyone else killing Kennedy
has ever surfaced.
Good night.
MR ;~D
> dw- Hide quoted text -
Sammy, G.
Other than the "wallet(s)" dilemma, I admittedly haven't examined the Tippit
murder as closely as I have other matters in this case. What I do know of
this aspect of the case, it seems rather hard to exculpate Oswald. If Oswald
were completely innocent of the JFK murder, it makes no sense for him to
have resisted arrest what so ever. Being admittedly "new" at least to ALL
the minute details, I'm aware of the standard: After the shooting of JFK, he
realized he was being framed. Putting myself in that predicament(being
COMPLETELY innocent), upon realizing the alleged "frame up", I believe I
would go straight to the authorities! Suspecting that he was being framed,
he MUST have had some type of suspicion as to who may have been framing him.
So at this point, I cannot accept Oswald as being completely innocent of
either murders. I hope this makes sense(?).
As for the hulls, was that the firing pin mark that was compared? If not,
any further elaborations would be appreciated. Thanks Ed.
Sammy, G.
<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1172314005.8...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Sammy, G.
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172341932....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
CJ is it safe to say that Oswald's gun could NOT be conclusively linked to
the Tippit murder?
>
>>
>>
>> >> And the gunman was seen reloading, and
>> >> > guess what Oz had on him when arrested? Extra bullets! All just
>> >> > coincidence, we can think up some flimsy reasons it couldn`t be Oz
>> >> > if
>> >> > we try real right, right?
>>
>> >> Many do in fact believe that Oswald is innocent, however, I'm not
>> >> sold.
>> >> How many "extra bullets" did he have.
>>
>> > Five. You can maybe see where a person would feel comfortable
>> > carrying
>> > a handgun, for protection or whatnot. It`s hard to imagine such a
>> > person
>> > anticipating the need to reload.
>>
>> So he had the gun fully loaded. Emptied it on Tippit(?). Reloaded, and
>> still had five more on his person? If this is the case, he apparently
>> anticipated having quite the shootout, EH? The reason he gave for having
>> the gun, IMO was pure bull. From memory: you know how boys are, they just
>> like to carry them. I've always wondered why he didn't already have the
>> gun on him? If I were planning something that might require a gun to
>> escape, I would've taken it with me to work.
>>
> Yeah, it really 'adds' up, huh? Here he supposedly is at the TSBD and
> he lines up the cartridges all neat, then he takes the time to hide
> the rifle, and only carries a few bullets.
Whether he brought the Carcano to the TSBD or not, he obviously(IMO
impossible) didn't bring it in the way the WC claims.
Here he supposedly commits
> a murder, then leaves his wallet, and cartridges all scattered right
> in the open. And there is a side too that says that the cartridges in
> the TSBD were scattered, but if that was so, then why did he even
> bother to hide the rifle?
The circumstances you mention above are all "problematic" to say the least.
>
> I think you meant to say, would've taken the gun to work? Anyway,
> there is no proof either that he picked up the gun at home, and there
> is witnesses saying he did receive a gun across the street from the
> TSBD after the JFK shooting.
Yes, I've heard this before. There were actually some claims that Ruby was
identified as the person that handed him the weapon. I know a female witness
that worked in the TSBD stated that she saw Ruby at the corner of Houston
and Elm asking questions in an efficacious manner. Can you elaborate any as
to your source for this?
I'm missing something here. Can you explain?
JEZ?
>
>>
>>
>> >> >> Works for me to, heck, let's just ignore this pattern.
>>
>> >> > The pattern I notice is that you focus on the same 1% of this
>> >> > event
>> >> > that all the Oswald-defenders do.
>>
>> >> It's quite a bit more significant than 1%. Curiously, it seems to
>> >> correlate quite closely to the amount of evidence that the LN's HAVE
>> >> to
>> >> ignore!
>>
>> > We don`t ignore them. A certain amount of sticking points can be
>> > expected, especially when the effort to develope them by amateur
>> > lawyers is so great.
>>
>> I agree that many have, and will butcher the KNOWN evidence. However, at
>> a
>> certain point, these discrepancies, or "sticking points", become so
>> numerous that they become overwhelming. Believe it or not, they have a
>> "certain pattern" all there own!
>>
> And the pattern is pin the tail on the donkey.
I would be very interested in hearing your idea as to how this actually
happened. If you don't want to post it here, a private E- mail would be
welcome.
Thanks
Sammy, G.
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
conclude that 'an Oswald' did not shoot Tippit.
The Ralph Yates interview by the FBI was enough for me. He brought a
hitchhiker with a 4 foot brown paper bag package and dropped him off
in front of the TSBD two days prior to JFK's murder.
> Here he supposedly commits
>
> > a murder, then leaves his wallet, and cartridges all scattered right
> > in the open. And there is a side too that says that the cartridges in
> > the TSBD were scattered, but if that was so, then why did he even
> > bother to hide the rifle?
>
> The circumstances you mention above are all "problematic" to say the least.
>
It can even become more problematic when the second floor is closely
examined with witnesses, doors, stairwells.....and such.
>
>
> > I think you meant to say, would've taken the gun to work? Anyway,
> > there is no proof either that he picked up the gun at home, and there
> > is witnesses saying he did receive a gun across the street from the
> > TSBD after the JFK shooting.
>
> Yes, I've heard this before. There were actually some claims that Ruby was
> identified as the person that handed him the weapon. I know a female witness
> that worked in the TSBD stated that she saw Ruby at the corner of Houston
> and Elm asking questions in an efficacious manner. Can you elaborate any as
> to your source for this?
>
FBI interview with Mrs. Lopez. I believe her daughter as well as
fellow workers saw it. I believe I have read someplace that Oswald
had an occasion to eat lunch with them and speak a little Spanish.
Postal was interviewed by a Jones Harris who when pressed Postal about
the ticket, broke down, not once but twice. It was obvious to me that
she sold the early arriving Oswald a ticket when Burroughs and Davis
corroborated his presence and time of arrival to the theater. The
later sneaker imo was just leading a trail to get the cops to TSBD
Oswald. That person that Postal described went up into the balcony.
There was also another arrest at the theater from the Stringfellow
report of one in the balcony. He was taken out the side door into the
alley and put in a police vehicle which was witnessed by Bernard
Haire, a nearby shop owner. The clothing description would have
matched up better than the arrested Oswald too.
CJ
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
thought I would give it a boost.
CJ
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
dyandell
How many "Oswalds" were there at work in Dallas that day?
Why was "the TSBD Oswald" in the theater for the police to be led to him?
Did he or any other Oswalds shoot JFK?
The syntax of this sentence is a bit confusing, and I can't quite make out
what you are saying: "Postal was interviewed by a Jones Harris who when
pressed Postal about the ticket, broke down, not once but twice." Are you
saying Postal cried twice while Harris was questioning her?
Also, what would that show? Did she say anything that leads you to regard
it as obvious that she sold "an Oswald" a ticket earlier, or are you
somehow getting that from her being upset? Do you know what was being
asked / said when she "broke down"?
Thanks,
Dave
David Von Pein
Answer --- Our boy Lee (of course). That's who. It's not even remotely
debatable.
More......
curtjester1
> Curt:
>
> How many "Oswalds" were there at work in Dallas that day?
>
to late in the afternoon of the two.
> Why was "the TSBD Oswald" in the theater for the police to be led to him?
>
It will always be somewhat of an enigma, but the fact is that it was
very convenient to have him there to be arrested. Once arrested the
blame could be concentrated on him and the controlling of the hit on
JFK could be monitored. Having Tippit killed, setting a patsy wallet
by, and acting crazy and guilty going down Jefferson, and sneaking
into the theater, would surely make sure that the police would have a
means and right to be in the theater. Since Tippit was at least
somewhat involved, by honking in front of the TSBD Oswald's
roominghouse, somehow he was able to be hooked into a situation where
he could be confronted to lose his life.
> Did he or any other Oswalds shoot JFK?
>
I don't think it's ultimately that important, but the answer is as far
as I am concerned a possibility with the Lee Oswald that was not an
employee of the TSBD and an most probably not with the one that worked
there. Clear as mud?
> The syntax of this sentence is a bit confusing, and I can't quite make out
> what you are saying: "Postal was interviewed by a Jones Harris who when
> pressed Postal about the ticket, broke down, not once but twice." Are you
> saying Postal cried twice while Harris was questioning her?
>
Yes.
> Also, what would that show? Did she say anything that leads you to regard
> it as obvious that she sold "an Oswald" a ticket earlier, or are you
> somehow getting that from her being upset? Do you know what was being
> asked / said when she "broke down"?
>
It means that she was holding back about the early visit by Oswald. I
really think she got confused with the enormity of it all, but when
she recollected later, she let the situation lead her to a defensive
position. You can get that interview online if you google it right.
Here's a Probe article on the Tippit murder. Maybe it will have it
there.
http://www.ctka.net/pr198-jfk.html
CJ
> Thanks,
> Dave