From Perjury (Sgt Gerald Hill) to Published Lie (Vincent Bugliosi): Damned If the Tippit Murder Gun Wasn't an Automatic! (Hill & Bugliosi Aren't Just Covering up Nothing)
dcwi...@netscape.net
Damned If the Tippit Murder Gun Wasn't an Automatic!
(Hill & Bugliosi Aren't Just Covering up Nothing)
Long after it was over (1986), Sgt Gerald Hill "admitted being the cop
behind the strange broadcast" (With Malice p260) at 1:40pm, from the
site of Officer JD TIppit's murder: "The shells at the scene indicate
that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a
pistol." (DPD radio logs) In 1986, Hill indeed tried to explain why
he "assumed that it was an automatic...." (p260) But he did not even
try to explain why he committed perjury re the transmission.
At the hearings, counsel David Belin handed Hill "what has been marked
Sawyer Deposition Exhibit A, which is the transcript of the police
log...." (v7p57) Shortly afterwards--in reference to this transcript--
Belin asked him, "Was that you at that time, or not, at 1:40pm?"
Replied Hill, "That probably is RD Stringer". (v7p57) As Hill
admitted--22 years too late--it was not Stringer. It was Hill himself
who radioed that the "shells at the scene" showed that the weapon was
an automatic.
Now, just last year, author Vincent Bugliosi--first, in "Reclaiming
History", then, in "Four Days in November"--attempted, with a
corresponding lie, to quash any suggestion that the weapon with which
Tippit was killed was an automatic. After all, did not every Tippit
witness in question testify that he or she saw the killer cutting
across the southeast corner yard at 10th & Patton? And that the
killer was manually unloading his weapon? Making it quite logical,
then, that four discarded revolver shells were later found along this
so-described path.
However, one witness, Mrs Helen Markham, did not join the testimony to
the Revolver Path. Instead, she stated that the gunman "walked down
the *sidewalk* (emphasis mine) & when he got to the corner of Patton &
10th Street, he saw me...." (12/2/63 SS interview) According to Mrs
Markham, then, the killer went nowhere near the area where the shells
would later turn up.
Disagreement among witnesses is not unusual. What is unusual here is
that Bugliosi underhandedly transforms disagreement into perfect
agreement. On page 124 of "Four Days", he writes, "The gunman spots
Mrs Markham.... She... covers her face with her hands, but when she
pulls them down enough to see, she realizes that he is veering off,
cutting across the yard of the corner house." Pardon me--that's
*other* witnesses who say that. Mrs Markham never said any such
thing, either in the portion of her testimony which Bugliosi cites
(v3p34) or anywhere else. Bugliosi has pulled a Hill. Perhaps he's
uncomfortable with the fact that, if Markham is right, then the shells
submitted as evidence were not the shells left at the scene. That the
shells submitted as evidence were frauds meant to say "revolver".
But the twin lies of Hill & Bugliosi say, instead, "automatic", the
word which neither Belin nor Hill nor any other witness dared speak at
the hearings, in connection with Tippit's death. Bugliosi is so
spooked by the word that, instead of admitting divergence in
testimony, he rewrites history, rewrites Mrs Markham's testimony, & in
so doing lends her version more credence....
copr 2008 dcw
David Von Pein
Very, very weak argument here, Don (like all your silly arguments
are).
I want Donald to look at Markham's testimony below and somehow arrive
at the conclusion that Markham didn't see Oswald cutting across the
Davises' yard. If you think this testimony debunks Bugliosi or somehow
proves that Oswald wasn't Tippit's killer, you're a bigger kook than I
first thought:
================================
Mrs. MARKHAM. After I put my hands up, and when I had opened my
fingers and my eyes and slowly pulled them down, he was trotting off.
Mr. DULLES. Trotting off?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. He wasn't out of sight when I started running
to this police car. He was not out of sight.
Mr. DULLES. You didn't see which way he turned at the end of this run?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No; he cut across like this, across Patton, and went out
like that.
Mr. DULLES. Like this means to the right or to the left?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It means to the right, sir.
Mr. BELIN. To his right, to the man's right, as he was running?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He ran back, turned and came back down 10th to Patton
Street. He cut across Patton Street like this.
Mr. BELIN. Heading toward what street?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Toward Jefferson; yes, sir. Then he was still in sight
when I began to scream and holler and run to this police car, well, to
Mr. Tippit.
====================================
dcwi...@netscape.net
> Very, very weak argument here, Don (like all your silly arguments
> are).
>
> I want Donald to look at Markham's testimony below and somehow arrive
> at the conclusion that Markham didn't see Oswald cutting across the
> Davises' yard. If you think this testimony debunks Bugliosi or somehow
> proves that Oswald wasn't Tippit's killer, you're a bigger kook than I
> first thought:
>
photos on which she marked an "X" at the *corner* of the intersection,
indicating where the killer was when he looked at her.
And I notice you don't address her Secret Service interview, in which
she stated that the killer was going down the *sidewalk* on 10th--NOT
cutting across a yard.
Do your homework, David....
dw
David Von Pein
>>> "Now, just where does she [Helen Markham] mention a yard? And please look at the 3 CE photos on which she marked an "X" at the *corner* of the intersection, indicating where the killer was when he looked at her. And I notice you don't address her Secret Service interview, in which she stated that the killer was going down the *sidewalk* on 10th--NOT cutting across a yard. Do your homework, David." <<<
Use your common sense, Donald. You know damn well Markham saw Oswald.
There's a mile-high pile of proof that Oswald killed Officer Tippit.
Just because Mrs. Markham didn't use the exact words that other
witnesses might have used in describing how Oswald left the murder
scene, you seem to think this creates reasonable doubt as to whether
Oswald was there at all. But that's just crazy thinking.
She saw Oswald kill Tippit, and then she saw him walk toward Patton
Avenue, and then she saw him go down Patton Avenue toward Jefferson
Boulevard (which is a route that is corroborated by all other
witnesses at the crime scene).
Do YOUR homework, Don.
Who is the person Markham positively identified as Tippit's murderer?
Answer:
Lee Harvey Oswald.
Would Helen Markham have positively identified a person that she knew
WASN'T at the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder?
Answer:
Of course not.
And it's silly to think she would have done that.
Why do so many conspiracy theorists have a desire to exonerate Lee
Oswald of the Tippit murder which Oswald committed 45 years ago today?
Answer to that last question:
Unknown.
David Von Pein
"With Malice: The Tippit Murder 45 Years Later", by Dale Myers:
www.jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/11/with-malice-tippit-murder-45-years.html
Gil Jesus
Don:
The key words here are "the shells at the scene indicate...".
He READ the label on the bottom of the shells. He knew they were .38
autos. THAT'S why he broadcast it. Unless you've been a police
officer, you cannot understand how badly they want to catch the
perpetrator of the murder of a brother officer.
They don't do guessing. They WANT whoever did it.
"the shells at the scene indicate....."
"the shells at the scene indicate....."
"the shells at the scene indicate....."
"the shells at the scene indicate....."
What he broadcasted was what he read on the shells.
Bud
Says who?
> He knew they were .38
> autos. THAT'S why he broadcast it. Unless you've been a police
> officer, you cannot understand how badly they want to catch the
> perpetrator of the murder of a brother officer.
They did.
> They don't do guessing. They WANT whoever did it.
>
> "the shells at the scene indicate....."
> "the shells at the scene indicate....."
> "the shells at the scene indicate....."
> "the shells at the scene indicate....."
If an automatic was used to kill Tippit, the shells would have been
found around the front of the patrol car. This alone proves a revolver
was used.
> What he broadcasted was what he read on the shells.
Thats an idiot`s opinion.
Gil Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjiOolyy_0I
Bud
> Markham's credibility is displayed here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjiOolyy_0I
Markham`s credibility is established by the corroboration of four
other witnesses in the immediate vicinity who also saw Oswald there.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> >>> "Now, just where does she [Helen Markham] mention a yard? And please look at the 3 CE photos on which she marked an "X" at the *corner* of the intersection, indicating where the killer was when he looked at her. And I notice you don't address her Secret Service interview, in which she stated that the killer was going down the *sidewalk* on 10th--NOT cutting across a yard. Do your homework, David." <<<
>
> Use your common sense, Donald. You know damn well Markham saw Oswald.
By the same absolutist token, I might say the same of you, in
reverse: You know damn well Markham did NOT see Oswald. But I
won't.
> There's a mile-high pile of proof that Oswald killed Officer Tippit.
Hill's perjury & Bugliosi's lie suggest that roughly a third of that
proof--the hulls--must be removed from the mile of proof.
>
> Just because Mrs. Markham didn't use the exact words that other
> witnesses might have used in describing how Oswald left the murder
> scene
Chuckle, yes--"sidewalk", "alley", instead of "yard", "Jefferson"!
Yeah, not *exactly* the same!
, you seem to think this creates reasonable doubt as to whether
> Oswald was there at all. But that's just crazy thinking.
>
> She saw Oswald kill Tippit, and then she saw him walk toward Patton
> Avenue, and then she saw him go down Patton Avenue toward Jefferson
> Boulevard (which is a route that is corroborated by all other
> witnesses at the crime scene).
Very slick! Again, Markham contradicts "other witnesses" when she
tells an interviewer that the killer went down Patton (so far so
good!), then turned into the alley off Patton.
>
> Do YOUR homework, Don.
I know we both did on this point, but you failed to go further & admit
that Markham again disagreed with others re the escape route. She
never said she saw the killer go as far as Jefferson, from her initial
statement to her most recent interview. And in her interview, she
corroborated what the witness across the street told the FBI: that
the man she saw fled down the alley.
>
> Who is the person Markham positively identified as Tippit's murderer?
>
> Answer:
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
> Would Helen Markham have positively identified a person that she knew
> WASN'T at the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder?
>
Would she have dreamt up an alternate escape route for the killer--
down the sidewalk & into the alley? Seems we've got 2 irreconcilables
here....
> Answer:
>
> Of course not.
>
> And it's silly to think she would have done that.
>
> Why do so many conspiracy theorists have a desire to exonerate Lee
> Oswald of the Tippit murder which Oswald committed 45 years ago today?
>
Because the case is built on things like Hill's perjury.
dcwi...@netscape.net
I believe that *Hill* himself said he saw "38" on the shells, but I
don't have access right now to "With Malice".