The Tippit Problem
John Locke
The Tippit murder is usually relegated to a sidebar to the Kennedy
assassination, but it's an important issue, because if Oswald is
guilty then he is 1) clearly in a desperate state of mind, and 2) clearly
a killer. It would be hard to argue that he killed policeman Tippit
other than out of fear of apprehension for the Kennedy assassination.
These are the witnesses cited in the Warren Report (Chapter IV. The
Assassin, Eyewitnesses):
At least 12 persons saw the man with the revolver in the vicinity
of the Tippit crime scene at or immediately after the shooting. By
the evening of November 22, five of them had identified Lee Harvey
Oswald in police lineups as the man they saw. [Callaway, B Davis,
V Davis, Guinyard, Markham] A sixth did so the next day. [Scoggins]
Three others subsequently identified Oswald from a photograph.
[Patterson, Reynolds, Russell] Two witnesses testified that Oswald
resembled the man they had seen. [Benavides, Smith] One witness
felt he was too distant from the gunman to make a positive
identification. [Lewis]
The number of witnesses and positive identifications of Oswald is a
severe problem for anyone trying to prove Oswald innocent. For starters,
there is no credible evidence that there was more than one person who
attacked Tippit. Furthermore, some of the witnesses saw the gunman at
the murder scene and some as he ran past a nearby car lot, but there is
no credible evidence this was not the same person at both locations. In
other words, all the witnesses saw the same person shoot Tippit or then
flee with gun in hand.
Therefore, in order to prove that the killer was not Tippit, the testimony
of all the witnesses who positively identified him must be discredited.
Merely discrediting some of the witnesses will not suffice. Consider the
simplified case where three witnesses are passed by a man with a gun.
Witnesses A and B positively identify the gunman later; witness C is too
unsure to make a positive identification. Considering witness C's
testimony alone--if that was all that was available--we can fairly say
a positive identification has not been made. But considering all three
witnesses together, we can fairly say that three witnesses saw the gunman
identified by only two, since they all saw the same person. Two
identifications are explicit, the third, implicit. The Tippit murder is more
complicated with some witnesses having varied experiences and providing
different degrees of identification, but the basic principle holds true.
A number of the witnesses positively identified Oswald and any real or
purported confusion in the testimony of the others does not disqualify
their corroboration. Only the highly unusual case of *all* testimony
being disqualified could nullify the identification.
Conspiracy authors recognize the problem. Admitting that Oswald killed
Tippit undermines the case for Oswald's innocence in the assassination.
It also means agreeing with a conclusion of the Warren Commission, which
undermines the assertion that the Commission's work was a complete fraud,
an argument which must be stated in the strongest possible terms in
order to scare the reader away from actually reading the Commission's
Report and discovering the conspiracy author's deceptively selective
presentation of the facts.
To get around the problem, the conspiracy authors pare the witness list
down to only those individuals who can be shown as having some real or
purported deficiency in their testimony, thus making it appear that *all*
witnesses are invalid, satisfying the requirement of the unusual case
that nullifies the identification. The authors neglect to mention the
other, "clean" witnesses, or they neglect to mention their positive
identifications of Oswald. The weight of the eyewitness evidence against
Oswald is neither confronted nor even acknowledged. The false impression
left with the reader is that there were very few witnesses to the Tippit
murder and that none of them testified to anything of value, thus leaving
the identification of Tippit's killer open to conjecture as anyone but
Oswald.
john
James Garrison
Jx> These are the witnesses cited in the Warren Report (Chapter IV. The
Jx> Assassin, Eyewitnesses):
Jx> At least 12 persons saw the man with the revolver in the vicinity
Jx> of the Tippit crime scene at or immediately after the shooting. By
As I illustrated in my previous post John, there are obvious glaring
errors in the Warren report regarding witness testimony. How can you
ignore the numerous colourings of testimony by the Commission in it's 'report'
with all the references I gave you? If you are one of those debators who
refuse to acknowledge an obvious point, I will direct my post's elsewhere.
Jx> Therefore, in order to prove that the killer was not Tippit, the
Jx> testimony of all the witnesses who positively identified him must be
Jx> discredited. Merely discrediting some of the witnesses will not
Jx> suffice. Consider the simplified case where three witnesses are passed
Huh? John when will you realize you are constantly quoting a summarized
version of witnesses testimony, created by the Warren Commission. I have
given you numerous referenced examples of how the Commission coloured
the true testimony of the witnesses.
For the Commission to get *ONE* witnesses testimony wrong is just plain
unforgiveable, and points to a colouring of the facts.
Jx> Conspiracy authors recognize the problem. Admitting that Oswald killed
Jx> Tippit undermines the case for Oswald's innocence in the
Jx> assassination. It also means agreeing with a conclusion of the Warren
Jx> Commission, which undermines the assertion that the Commission's work
Negative. I highly question the fact Oswald killed Tippit, but I *AM*
willing to accept he did do it. *BUT* For you (or anyone else) to INSIST
what his (supposed) motivation was is ludicrous, it is speculation, and
it is quite rightly not allowed in any court. Let's stick to facts, not the
Warren Commissions speculation, and not yours.
(Did you miss my reference to testimony where Oswald's landlady saw a police
car stop outside the house and toot the horn twice when Oswald was inside?
I submit that it is just as easy to make the leap to the assumption Oswald
*KNEW* Tippit before the assassination, and perhaps Tippit was a PLAYER in
the assassination. Why not John, if you and the Warren Commission can guess
Oswalds (supposed) motivations were for shooting Tippit, why can't I.)
Jx> To get around the problem, the conspiracy authors pare the witness
Jx> list down to only those individuals who can be shown as having some
Jx> real or purported deficiency in their testimony, thus making it appear
Once again John it is not insufficentcies in witness testimony I highlighted,
but ERRORS in the Warren Report itself. The Commission got several of the
testimonies WRONG, and appeared to make an obvious attempt to do so.
They knew all America (just like you have illustrated) would not take the time
to read the volumes of transcribed hearings, so they were free to colour the
summarized report any way they liked. They knew those blindly faithful in
their govenment would be all too eager to quote 'Oswald did it..' just
because 'The Warren Report (whitewash)' said so.
Jx> The false impression left with the reader is that there were very few
Jx> witnesses to the Tippit murder and that none of them testified to
Jx> anything of value, thus leaving the identification of Tippit's killer
Jx> open to conjecture as anyone but Oswald.
Some witnesses DID insist it was Oswald who shot Tippit, I will gladly give
you that. (See how it's done John, and it didn't hurt a bit...)
*BUT* Many said it WASN'T him, and one said it was TWO men. What bothers me
is the Commissions obvious tampering of these statements to give a nice,
clean 'report' of how all relevent witnesses did identify him. This is why
the Warren Report (whitewash) cannot be trusted..much less quoted John.
Regards.
... DOS never says "EXCELLENT command or filename"..
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
John Locke
> -Quoting (John) Jx...@cs.nps.navy.mil-
>
> Jx> These are the witnesses cited in the Warren Report (Chapter IV. The
> Jx> Assassin, Eyewitnesses):
> Jx> At least 12 persons saw the man with the revolver in the vicinity
> Jx> of the Tippit crime scene at or immediately after the shooting. By
>
> As I illustrated in my previous post John, there are obvious glaring
> errors in the Warren report regarding witness testimony. How can you
> ignore the numerous colourings of testimony by the Commission in it's
> 'report'
>
> Jx> Therefore, in order to prove that the killer was not Tippit, the
> Jx> testimony of all the witnesses who positively identified him must be
> Jx> discredited. Merely discrediting some of the witnesses will not
> Jx> suffice. Consider the simplified case where three witnesses are passed
>
> Huh? John when will you realize you are constantly quoting a summarized
> version of witnesses testimony, created by the Warren Commission. I have
> given you numerous referenced examples of how the Commission coloured
> the true testimony of the witnesses.
>
> For the Commission to get *ONE* witnesses testimony wrong is just plain
> unforgiveable, and points to a colouring of the facts.
I think you misunderstand the nature of eyewitness testimony. If twelve
people saw a motor vehicle accident, a bank robbery, a murder, or some
other startling event, you would end up with twelve stories. The
investigator must weight those stories and carefully consider their
similarities and differences. A rough approximation of the event is
likely to emerge. In your approach, the approximation amounts to a
coloring of the facts. I don't buy that what you represent as coloring
discounts the strong probability that Oswald killed Tippit. For that
unusual likelihood to be proved, you must convincingly discredit every
witness, for they all saw the same event.
> Jx> Conspiracy authors recognize the problem. Admitting that Oswald killed
> Jx> Tippit undermines the case for Oswald's innocence in the
> Jx> assassination. It also means agreeing with a conclusion of the Warren
> Jx> Commission, which undermines the assertion that the Commission's work
>
> Negative. I highly question the fact Oswald killed Tippit, but I *AM*
> willing to accept he did do it. *BUT* For you (or anyone else) to INSIST
> what his (supposed) motivation was is ludicrous, it is speculation, and
> it is quite rightly not allowed in any court. Let's stick to facts, not the
> Warren Commissions speculation, and not yours.
This is not a court. The facts indict Oswald as the killer and his likely
motive was to evade apprehension for the assassination. I've never seen a
case made that fits the circumstances better.
> (Did you miss my reference to testimony where Oswald's landlady saw a police
> car stop outside the house and toot the horn twice when Oswald was inside?
> I submit that it is just as easy to make the leap to the assumption Oswald
> *KNEW* Tippit before the assassination, and perhaps Tippit was a PLAYER in
> the assassination. Why not John, if you and the Warren Commission can guess
> Oswalds (supposed) motivations were for shooting Tippit, why can't I.)
You can guess all you want. But guesses aren't going to fit the current
set of facts better. You need something more comprehensive. You need to
demonstrate Oswald's acquaintance with Tippit, explain its nature, explain
why he killed Tippit after a few moments of chat. You need to explain why
Tippit would be honking in front of Oswald's house then stopping him on
the street some blocks away. You need to fit all that into a comprehensive
view of the assassination that explains both Oswald's and Tippit's
involvement.
> Jx> To get around the problem, the conspiracy authors pare the witness
> Jx> list down to only those individuals who can be shown as having some
> Jx> real or purported deficiency in their testimony, thus making it appear
>
> Once again John it is not insufficentcies in witness testimony I highlighted,
> but ERRORS in the Warren Report itself. The Commission got several of the
> testimonies WRONG, and appeared to make an obvious attempt to do so.
>
> They knew all America (just like you have illustrated) would not take the time
> to read the volumes of transcribed hearings, so they were free to colour the
> summarized report any way they liked. They knew those blindly faithful in
> their govenment would be all too eager to quote 'Oswald did it..' just
> because 'The Warren Report (whitewash)' said so.
>
Have you been reading conspiracy books, by any chance?
At any rate, I don't recall your listing of the WC's errors in the Tippit
testimony. Would you briefly recap the single most egregious example?
> Jx> witnesses to the Tippit murder and that none of them testified to
> Jx> anything of value, thus leaving the identification of Tippit's killer
> Jx> open to conjecture as anyone but Oswald.
>
> Some witnesses DID insist it was Oswald who shot Tippit, I will gladly give
> you that. (See how it's done John, and it didn't hurt a bit...)
>
> *BUT* Many said it WASN'T him, and one said it was TWO men. What bothers me
> is the Commissions obvious tampering of these statements to give a nice,
> clean 'report' of how all relevent witnesses did identify him. This is why
> the Warren Report (whitewash) cannot be trusted..much less quoted John.
If a bunch of people say it was one killer and one person says it was two,
then the one person is wrong. You can try reversing the equation, but it
doesn't go down as smooth.
By the way, have you actually read the WR, or are you simply accepting
some writer's description of it?
john
John Mcadams
>
>Some witnesses DID insist it was Oswald who shot Tippit, I will gladly give
>you that. (See how it's done John, and it didn't hurt a bit...)
>
>*BUT* Many said it WASN'T him, and one said it was TWO men. What bothers me
>is the Commissions obvious tampering of these statements to give a nice,
>clean 'report' of how all relevent witnesses did identify him. This is why
>the Warren Report (whitewash) cannot be trusted..much less quoted John.
>
Just who said it *wasn't* Oswald?
Actually, you have to cough up several names, since you said "many."
.John
John Locke
Garrison, if you don't come up with at least three names of people who
claimed to see two men, then you're as deceitful as your famous namesake.
Hint: one witness saying it was a light gray jacket and another saying it
was light blue doesn't count. We want to see contemporaneous affirmative
testimony of two men.
john
N.R.Harrison
>Garrison, if you don't come up with at least three names of people who
>claimed to see two men, then you're as deceitful as your famous namesake.
>Hint: one witness saying it was a light gray jacket and another saying it
>was light blue doesn't count. We want to see contemporaneous affirmative
>testimony of two men.
>
How about Aquilla Clemons? She says she saw two men; one sounds like Owswald,
and was the one that did the shooting, the other was short and stocky and
yelled "Go on" from across the road (Summers). Or Wright who saw somebody
leave the scene and get into a grey car - ie. clearly not Oswald.
Neil...
John Locke
>
> >Garrison, if you don't come up with at least three names of people who
> >claimed to see two men, then you're as deceitful as your famous namesake.
> >Hint: one witness saying it was a light gray jacket and another saying it
> >was light blue doesn't count. We want to see contemporaneous affirmative
> >testimony of two men.
>
> How about Aquilla Clemons? She says she saw two men; one sounds like Owswald,
> and was the one that did the shooting, the other was short and stocky and
> yelled "Go on" from across the road (Summers). Or Wright who saw somebody
> leave the scene and get into a grey car - ie. clearly not Oswald.
Clemons was not contemporaneous with the event. She came up with her tale,
I believe, a year later for Mark Lane. She did not report anything at the
time.
Who's Wright? Did he report seeing two men? When did he report it?
john
N.R.Harrison
>h...@ukc.ac.uk (N.R.Harrison) writes:
>Clemons was not contemporaneous with the event. She came up with her tale,
>I believe, a year later for Mark Lane. She did not report anything at the
>time.
Nope. Clemons was visited several times by the FBI soon after the
assassination, but they declined to interview her on the grounds of her
illness (diabetes!!?!). They also told her to keep quiet about what she saw
so as not to bring danger t her family. Read Summers. Lane was the first
person who would listen to her, so her story should not be tainted because
he reported her tale.
>Who's Wright? Did he report seeing two men? When did he report it?
Read Summers. I'm too busy for lazy people.
Neil...
John McAdams
>>Garrison, if you don't come up with at least three names of people who
>>claimed to see two men, then you're as deceitful as your famous namesake.
>>Hint: one witness saying it was a light gray jacket and another saying it
>>was light blue doesn't count. We want to see contemporaneous affirmative
>>testimony of two men.
>>
>
>How about Aquilla Clemons? She says she saw two men; one sounds like Owswald,
>and was the one that did the shooting, the other was short and stocky and
>yelled "Go on" from across the road (Summers). Or Wright who saw somebody
>leave the scene and get into a grey car - ie. clearly not Oswald.
>
No, I already knew about Clemons.
You said that one person saw two people (I had assumed you meant
Clemons) and several said it wasn't Oswald.
I asked for the names of people who said it wasn't Oswald.
As for Wright, he was about a block away, and his testimony
contradicts that of people who were much closer. Further, at least
as recounted in Summers, Wright doesn't say he could identify the
shooter as *not* being Oswald. That leaves open the possibility that
he saw Oswald, but was confused about what happened thereafter.
More likely, he's just confused from point zero.
.John