The latest crazy talk from JFK Assassination Forums
by DALE K. MYERS
Having spent a good portion of the last 47-years investigating every aspect of the murder of Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit, I feel that what I have to say about the case against Oswald for the Tippit murder and the criticism of that case from less-qualified corners comes from a unique perspective.
Lately, yet again, there has been a torrent of lies and deception appearing in all sorts of forums – both public and private – that seek to undermine the case against Oswald for his obvious (that’s right, I said it) culpability in Tippit’s murder.
I will never understand why some people are so willing to abandon logic and reason in order to exonerate the avowed Marxist for a crime he was arrested for and charged with in the wake of the JFK assassination.
Some of those seeking to absolve Oswald just don’t know any better, having spent barely a fraction of the effort that I and others have, at great expense I might add, to determine the facts, eliminate the bullcrap, and set the historic record straight.
Then there are those that have absolutely no interest in any of that. Their goal is to shine a spotlight on themselves and if that means polluting the record then so be it.
In yet another category are the mental defectives who are so screwed up in the head and so in need of approval and direction that they’ve decided that hijacking a subject rich in controversy in order to find meaning for their life is a good idea. It’s this group I feel the sorriest for, because it is these poor souls who are preyed upon by the elder narcissists of the so-called “research community” who, frankly, should know better.
The latest examples of what I’m talking about are numerous and revealing. I don’t propose to bore you with material I’ve already written about or subjects I’ve covered in depth in this blog or in my 1998 book (revised and updated in 2013), With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit. Instead, I’ll simply cite where you can “Read all about it!” as the old newsboys used to shout on street corners.
Well, here we go, in no particular order.
The Dallas police recordings
Is it really true that the current crop of “researchers” (and I do use that term very loosely and with plenty of dripping-sarcasm to boot) don’t have a copy of the Dallas Police radio recordings from November 22, 1963?
Apparently not, believe it or not. I wrote about this fact in a 2017 blog article, “When J.D. Tippit was gunned down: The truth about the timing of Oswald’s murderous deed”:
Even today, the Dallas police radio transcripts are cited by the so-called “research community” in an effort to raise questions about the events of November 22nd. Yet, every assassination researcher knows that the actual Dallas police recordings have been in circulation since June, 1969. Relying on transcripts to make any kind of argument at this point in time without consulting the original recordings upon which the transcripts are based is simply foolish.
And yet, five years later, one of these so-called researchers, Sandy Larsen, posts a Tippit shooting scenario that supposedly proves that Tippit was shot at 1:06 p.m. [1] – one of the Holy Grails of Oswald exonerators – since the time, they believe, is inconsistent with Oswald being the guilty party.
Had Larsen simply consulted the actual police recordings from that day, he would have realized his timeline was fatally flawed. Case in point:
He claims that T.F. Bowley used Tippit’s police radio to notify the police dispatcher that an officer had been shot at 1:09 p.m.
But this can't possibly be true, since the recordings show the call coming in at 1:17:41 p.m. [2]
Next, he claims that the Dudley Hughes ambulance arrived at the scene at 1:10 p.m.
But this can't possibly be true either, since the recordings also show the time the ambulance left the parking lot at Dudley Hughes and arrived at the Tippit shooting scene two blocks away – 1:18:38 and 1:18:59 p.m. respectively. These transmissions were made by the attendants themselves in real time, so there is no question as to the accuracy of both.
Next, he claims that the Dudley Hughes ambulance departed the scene for Methodist Hospital sometime between 1:11 and 1:12 p.m.
Once again, this can't possibly be true given that the recordings show the attendants themselves informing the dispatcher at 1:19:49 p.m. that they are leaving the Tippit shooting scene for Methodist Hospital.
Next, he claims that Dallas Patrolman Joe M. Poe and partner Leonard E. Jez arrived at the shooting scene between 1:12 and 1:13 p.m.
Again, this can't possibly be true since the recordings show Poe and Jez arriving while another patrolman, Roy W. Walker, was broadcasting the first description of Tippit’s killer at 1:22:38 p.m. You can hear the siren of Poe and Jez’s squad car winding down in the background of Walker’s transmission.
Of course, Larsen would know all of this if he had read my book, With Malice, or, better yet, verified what I wrote in With Malice by comparing my work with a copy of the actual recordings – available to the general public since Penn Jones began selling copies in 1969!
When Larsen was confronted by researcher Bill Brown, about his claim that the ambulance arrived at 1:10 p.m. (rather than 1:18:59 p.m., as shown on the actual police recordings), Larsen replied: “You can't trust the Dictabelts or recordings from them... they’ve been proven, without a doubt, to be altered.” [3]
“The proof,” he wrote, “is here” – then citing a 1982 article [4] by Gary Mack, which appeared in Penn Jones’ newsletter “The Continuing Inquiry,” in which Mack claimed that the DPD Dictabelt recordings used by the HSCA acoustic panel were duplicates and that they had been edited and altered.
Mack’s writings on this subject have not stood the test of time. But the real question is: If the recordings have been altered, then how can Larsen use transcripts based on those altered recordings (his words) to build an argument for Oswald’s innocence?
To fill in the rest of the gaps in his argument, Larsen added, “I believe that the communications related to Tippit were simply moved. Either that or the recorded times changed.” [5] Oh, okay. I guess that solves it.
Larsen than asked Brown, “What’s your source for the DPD radio transcripts?” [6]
Transcripts? Conspiracy advocates do know that the transcripts come from recordings, right?
Another Einstein on the UK Education Forum, Gil Jesus, couldn’t resist commenting that he too had checked the transcripts (doesn’t anyone over on the UK Education Forum have the recordings?) and couldn’t find anything about the ambulance arriving at Methodist Hospital.
“What happened to the magic ambulance?” he posted. “It was never en route to the hospital? It never arrived at the hospital? It never cleared from the hospital?” [7]
The magic ambulance? Good lord.
James DiEugenio, another self-proclaimed deep-thinker on the Tippit case, thought Gil Jesus’ post was fantastic. “Nice one, Gil,” he wrote. [8]
I know it’s hard to believe, but there are even more examples of this kind of “research” from these three knuckle-heads, who make The Three Stooges look like geniuses.
The fingerprints on Tippit’s squad car
Then there is Greg Doudna, who has been pontificating on the JFK case, and the Tippit case in particular, across numerous forums on the Internet over the last year or so. Lately, he has been attributing great significance to the fact that the fingerprints taken from Tippit’s patrol car on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, don’t match Lee Harvey Oswald’s fingerprints. This, he claims, is proof that Oswald is innocent of the Tippit murder.
I know a great deal about this aspect of the case against Oswald, because I was the person who arranged to have the fingerprints examined by a qualified fingerprint expert for my 1998 book With Malice.
In 1994, retired Crime Scene Technician, Wayne County Sheriff’s Department, Wayne Co., MI., Herbert W. Lutz, arrived at my home on the appointed day and I showed him photographic prints obtained from the Dallas Municipal Archives and Records Center (DMARC).
I asked Mr. Lutz if the photographs were sufficient to draw a reliable conclusion? He looked at the photographic prints and said that normally he would look at the originals, but he stated that the photographs were of good quality and felt that he could make a determination based on the photographs.
He had brought a crime scene kit with him and removed a loupe magnifier and began looking at the photographs. Just as he started looking at the photos, I told him that I would be willing to loan him the photographic prints so that he could take his time examining them, but he said, “That won’t be necessary.”
He picked up the photograph of Oswald’s fingerprints and added, “I don’t believe that the fingerprints taken from Tippit’s car are Oswald’s prints.” Within a minute he confirmed his previous pronouncement, saying, “No, these don’t match.”
Lutz used the photographic image of the fingerprints taken from the right-front fender of Tippit’s squad car (DMARC 91-001/326) to demonstrate to me how the prints were those of a right hand that had been placed on the car and then dragged away, causing a smear.
Lutz pointed out the right-middle index finger among the group and had me look through the loupe magnifier. Then, he had me view Oswald’s right-middle index fingerprint taken by the Dallas police on November 23, 1963 (DMARC 91-001/314).
Lutz told me to look at the difference in the spacing between ridges. The fingerprints taken from Tippit’s car showed furrows that were wide, while Oswald’s fingerprint furrows were much narrower. In addition, the number of ridges and location of the bifurcations – or “forks” in the patterns – were different. “In short,” Lutz stated, “the fingerprints found on the right fender of Tippit’s patrol car were not Oswald’s.”
Lutz looked at the other fingerprints lifted from Tippit’s squad car. The smears obtained from the top of the right-side passenger door (DMARC 91-001/200 and 91-001/286) were of less value, according to Lutz, although he felt that the ridges and furrows were consistent with fingerprints found on the right front fender. Lutz was of the opinion that one person was probably responsible for all of them.
We discussed the meaning of what he had found. Lutz said, that it didn’t mean anything because it neither proved nor disproved that Oswald killed Tippit.
“Anyone could have touched the car before or after the shooting and left those prints,” Lutz said.
I explained that the crime scene was not secured for a good fifteen (15) minutes. Lutz said, “There you go. That was common.” [9]
Mr. Lutz also mentioned that the fingerprints could have been placed there before the shooting by any number people.
I later wrote in With Malice: “So, whose fingerprints are they? At least four minutes elapsed before the first officer arrived at the murder scene, and nearly eight minutes before police arrived in force. By then, a large crowd had gathered. Several witnesses are known to have handled Tippit’s revolver, sat in his car, and used the police radio. There were plenty of opportunities for a number of people to have touched the police car before it was secured.” [10]
None of these facts matter, apparently, to Mr. Doudna, who proclaimed that the fingerprints were left by “someone in the exact location where witnesses saw the killer’s hands on Tippit’s car” and are “from someone who was not Oswald.” (emphasis in original) [11]
But who are these witnesses that Doudna speaks of?
Doudna can’t be talking about Helen Markham, who was not only 150 feet away from the squad car at the time of the shooting, but more importantly, her vantage point precluded her from seeing what – if anything – the killer was doing with his hands. Why? Because Tippit’s squad car was between her and Tippit’s killer. She may have thought the shooter leaned down and placed his hands on the side of the car, but she couldn’t possibly have seen that happen from position on the northwest corner of Tenth and Patton.
Nor can Doudna be talking about Jack Tatum, who had a good view as he drove passed Tippit’s patrol car seconds before the shooting. Tatum said he saw the killer leaning over, alright, but he had both hands in his zipper jacket – not touching the side of the car.
Doudna then makes the claim that after shooting Tippit, the killer “went around the right front fender” of the squad car and that is when he touched the right-front fender with his right hand. [12]
When called out on who in particular witnessed the killer touch the right front fender of Tippit’s squad car, [13] Doudna acknowledged, “No witness said that, but witnesses saw the killer go around the right front fender and back around it again. The killer was witnessed going around the right front fender shooting Tippit, then witnessed (having turned around) going back around the same right front fender as he walked rapidly or ran west on Tenth (then south on Patton and etc.).” (emphasis added) [14]
Finally, Doudna coughed up a name: Domingo Benavides.
“Benavides, the witness who saw him run away,” Doudna wrote, “got a good look at the back of the killer’s head confirming he went back around that right front fender.” (emphasis added) [15]
But this is utter, provable, nonsense. Benavides testified to the Warren Commission that as he was approaching in his pick-up truck, the killer was standing on the passenger side of the squad car “right in front of the windshield on the right front fender.” [16] When Benavides heard the first shot, he pulled his truck into the curb and ducked down. He then heard two more shots. He looked up and saw Tippit stumble and fall. [17]
“Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk,” Benavides testified, “and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe five foot and then kind of stalled. He didn’t exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.” [18]
Later in his testimony, Benavides added, “As I saw him, I really – I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just turned. He was just turning away. In other words, he was pointing toward the officer, and he had just turned away to his left, and then he started – there was a big tree, and it seemed like he started back going to the curb of the street and into the sidewalk, and then he turned and went down the sidewalk to, well, until he got in front of the corner house, and then he turned to the left there and went on down Patton Street.” [19]
In providing a description about Tippit’s killer, Benavides testified, “I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of – looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off, and he looked like he needed a haircut for about two weeks…” [20]
So, in fact, Benavides never saw Tippit’s killer leave the passenger side of Tippit’s squad car, except to turn to his left (away from the right front fender) and trot west on Tenth toward Patton. It was then that Benavides observed the back of the killer’s head.
Look, folks, this is all basic stuff. Is no one capable of doing basic research before shooting their mouth off on these forums? I’m beginning to think not.
Despite these realities, Doudna, seemingly eager to exonerate Oswald for the Tippit murder at all all costs – including, apparently, twisting reality into a lie – claimed that it was now an “undisputed fact” that Tippit’s killer circled and touched the right-front fender. [21]
Wishful thinking
What causes someone to think so irrationally? Here’s a clue. In conjuring his own reality, Mr. Doudna takes a stab at explaining how others think, including yours truly.
In responding to researcher Bill Brown, Doudna writes: “This is how paradigms work. You (like Myers who reported the Lutz fingerprint findings) believe it is settled fact that Oswald’s revolver was the Tippit murder weapon, i.e. that Oswald was the killer. Therefore, you reason, no matter how much the fingerprints might look like they could be from the killer, the mental response is “that cannot be correct” and “there must be some other explanation” – because of other information and/or assumptions. I am not criticizing this reasoning as method in principle, just pointing out what is going on here.” (emphasis in original) [22]
Actually, that’s not how I think, Mr. Doudna. In fact, I find it a bit presumptuous that you believe you know how I think or what my reasoning is behind the research I conduct. Allow me to help you.
I agree with the fingerprint expert, Herbert Lutz – the fingerprint evidence goes nowhere. It doesn’t prove whether Oswald was the killer of Tippit or not.
At best, even if the fingerprints did match Oswald’s, it would only put him at the car. That would be strong circumstantial evidence, yes? But it wouldn’t prove he fired a gun and killed Tippit, would it?
There is much stronger eyewitness, ballistic and forensic evidence that indicates that Oswald did in fact kill Tippit, but we both know that those seeking to exonerate Oswald in the Tippit murder reject all of that evidence – eyewitness, ballistic, and forensic. All rejected without batting and eyelash.
Had the fingerprint evidence showed Oswald’s presence at the car, it certainly would add to the mountain of other evidence that shows his guilt. But the fact that the fingerprints don’t match Oswald’s doesn’t exonerate him anymore than it convicts him, does it?
The fact of the matter is, the crime scene wasn’t secured before a great many people had access to Tippit’s squad car. That’s just a fact that cannot be gotten around. So, contrary to your assertion, I don’t reject the fingerprint evidence because it doesn’t fit some narrative I’ve concocted. I simply acknowledge that the fingerprint evidence doesn’t add anything to the case – for or against Oswald.
There’s much more that Mr. Doudna offers in his various dissertations about the Tippit shooting including his unsupported claim that the real Tippit murder weapon was not the one pulled from Oswald’s hand at the Texas Theater, but instead was the one tossed out of a car window and found in a paper bag (along with an apple and an orange) on Saturday morning, November 23, 1963, at the corner of Lamar and Ross in downtown Dallas and turned over to police. [23]
Doudna, or course, finds this all highly suspicious because the firearm was a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver (the same caliber used in the Tippit shooting) and was found just seven blocks from Jack Ruby’s Carousel Club (he doesn’t mention that it’s also only four blocks from the Texas School Book Depository). [24]
How does Doudna know that the revolver in the paper bag was tossed out of a car window? Answer: He made it up. Yup, I kid you not. There is not a single word in any of the original FBI documentation that mentions anything about how the paper bag with the revolver ended up at the corner of Ross and Lamar – only that it was discovered at about 7:30 a.m. on Saturday morning, November 23rd, “near the curb at the corner of Ross and Lamar Streets and was turned in by one Willie Flat” to Dallas Patrolman J. Raz who then brought it into the Homicide and Robbery Bureau office. [25]
And yet, Doudna mentions the revolver being tossed from a car window no less than nine times throughout his narrative. [26]
You’ll have to admit, it does make a much better story, doesn’t it? Especially if you suspect (again, without any evidence other than wishful thinking) that former Jack Ruby employee Larry Crafard was Tippit’s real killer – hang on, it gets better – and as he blew town after the Tippit killing, Crafard tossed the murder weapon out of his car window to get rid of it. [27] Sure, that makes sense.
By the way, the story of a .38-caliber revolver being recovered in downtown Dallas the day after the assassination is not new. It first appeared 26-years ago in an article by Bill Adams, published in Jerry Rose’s newsletter, The Fourth Decade. Ironically, Adams wrote the article as a warning to fellow researchers to not get sucked into making false assumptions about scant evidence.
“I hope this article will serve as a warning to other researchers,” Adams wrote. “Assumptions can lead you into false conclusions, and speculation turned into fact will lead to embarrassment and ridicule by other researchers and the public at large.” [28]
Apparently, Doudna, who cites Adams’ article, didn’t bother to read it to the end.
It’s all a dizzying, nauseous, pile of poo-poo that doesn’t amount to anything except a colossal waste of time. And on and on and on it goes. What’s next? The earth is flat?
King Pooh-Bah
None of these forum discussions can get very far before long-time assassination guru James DiEugenio shows up to promote himself and weigh-in. Jimmy D has a knack of proving again and again just how stupid some people can be when it comes to pontificating about the JFK case on these assassination forums.
It’s no secret that I find his dissertations on the subject offensive. Back in 1994, DiEugenio gave a JFK assassination lecture at Sully’s Bar in Dearborn, MI., and claimed during his presentation that CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite was part of the conspiracy to cover-up the truth about the assassination – and as such was an accessory after the fact in the murder of the president of the United States. I was sitting in the sparse crowd with good friend and researcher Todd W. Vaughan. I let what DiEugenio said about Cronkite go, for a moment, but when he continued to champion this position, I interrupted and challenged him on that issue, to his apparent shock. He was clearly ruffled, made some silly excuse why he believed that Cronkite was involved, and continued his presentation without making any more eye contact with me. [29] Let’s just say that things went south from there.
Lately, on the UK Education Forum, Jimmy D has been promoting his belief that the Oswald wasn’t even at the Tippit shooting scene and that no one can talk about the Tippit case without mentioning the roles of Kenneth H. Croy, W.R. Westbrook, William D. Mentzel, Gerald L. Hill, and R.C. Nelson – to name just a few – all conspirators in the big plot, according to DiEugenio. He urges his followers to read “Into the Nightmare” by Joseph McBride, which he claims “set a new plateau” and blew yours truly “into a tizzy.” [30]
I did respond to the release of McBride’s book when it came out. You be the judge on whether McBride’s book “sets a new plateau” in the Tippit case. Read all about here, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: New and Updated Books about the JFK Assassination,” and here, “McBride's Folly: How the conspirati avoid the truth about the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit.”
As for cabal that supposedly murdered Tippit – Westbrook, Croy, Hill, Mentzel, and Nelson, et al – be sure to read this: “Westbrook, Croy and the Tippit Murder: John Armstrong's fantasy cabal behind the killing in Oak Cliff.”
Of course, none of the footnoted articles I’ve written in response to the nonsense posted on these Internet forums have stopped people like DiEugenio from ignoring the facts in the Tippit case and plowing forward with more idiocy.
Here’s one recent example involving Johnny Brewer and his testimony that he saw Oswald duck into the Texas Theater without buying a ticket. DiEugenio claims Brewer’s testimony was a lie.
“No one can stand on the sidewalk in front of Hardy’s Shoes,” writes Jimmy D, “and see the ticket booth at the Texas Theater. The booth is recessed back from the sidewalk. The only way to see the booth is to walk to the front of the theater. Any transaction at the booth would have been invisible to Johnny Brewer unless he was standing almost in front of the theater. Yet the very reason he claimed he was suspicious [of Oswald] was because he saw the man duck in without paying. Brewer could have seen no such thing from any location on the sidewalk anywhere near Hardy’s.” [31]
What Jimmy apparently doesn’t know, despite the fact that it’s right there in her testimony to the Warren Commission, is that Julia Postal, the Texas Theater ticker-seller, had come out of the recessed ticket booth and was standing on the sidewalk looking west along Jefferson Boulevard. A squad car, siren blaring, blew passed the Texas Theater and Mrs. Postal stepped out to see what was happening. Oswald, now between Brewer and Postal, slipped behind her back into the theater. Brewer saw this, walked up to Postal and alerted her to what happened. [32] This is all well-known and has been since 1964.
Frankly, DiEugenio knows very little about the Tippit shooting. Consequently, his forum posts are rife with large quoted selections from his favorite writers – Joseph McBride, Bill Simpich, John Armstrong and others – who themselves have proven to be largely uninformed about the doings in Oak Cliff. It’s a real case of the blind leading the blind. You would think that after nearly six-decades, some of these so-called “researchers” would have learned a thing or two. But, alas, it’s not meant to be.
In 2010, I wrote a lengthy article about all of the shenanigans that the conspirati have been claiming in their decades-long efforts to exonerate Oswald in the Tippit murder. I don’t propose to cover it all again now, but you can read all about it here, if you missed it the first time: “The Tippit Murder: Why Conspiracy Theorists Can’t Tell the Truth about the Rosetta Stone of the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald”
The wrong sandbox
Finally, if you dare cross the line and venture into one of these forums and – gasp! – actually challenge the veracity of what is being said, prepare to be chased off like a five-year-old who wandered into the wrong sandbox.
Research Bill Brown recently (June 29) joined the UK Education Forum and has been taking resident members to task for mis-statements of fact.
One of these instances involved an appearance by author Joseph McBride in a podcast in which he declared that the Dallas police had Oswald “in a line-up in which, ah, you know, they had several guys in suits and then they had Oswald, who was all disheveled and bloody and everything, and it was obvious who they [DPD] wanted people to pick.” [33]
Brown posted: “Did McBride really say that Oswald was placed in the lineups alongside men in suits? Good grief.” [34]
McBride himself responded by pointing Brown to Warren Commission Exhibit (CE) 1054, identified by McBride as “Photographs of individuals present in lineups with Oswald” – which showed Dallas Police Vice Squad Detectives William Perry and Richard Clark, and jail clerk Don Ables; three of the men who appeared with Oswald in the lineups. Two of the men (Perry and Clark) were dressed in suits and ties, and one (Ables) in a dress shirt. [35]
The implication was clear, just as McBride had said on the podcast, several men in suits stood with Oswald in a rigged lineup!
But, of course, McBride knew this was not true; and in fact, hid the relevant information from his podcast and forum audience. Par for the course, in a McBride production.
The caption for the photo that McBride used (“Photographs of individuals present in lineups with Oswald”) was lifted from the table of context of Warren Commission Vol.22 – except for one small but very significant thing: the source of the photos, which was listed next to the caption – CD1083 and CD1304.
Why is this important, you ask? Because CD1083 reveals that the pictures of the policemen who appeared in the lineups with Oswald were taken on May 14, 1964, by the Dallas Police Department, and don’t reflect how they appeared on November 22, 1963. [36]
Gee, do you think that might be something you’d want to know before making a judgement about the integrity of the lineups?
CD1304, likewise, stated that photographs of other prisoners who appeared in the lineups with Oswald were taken in December, 1963, and April, 1964 – long after the Oswald show-ups and, again, don’t reflect how the men looked on November 22-23, 1963. [37]
If anyone, including McBride, really wanted to know how the officers who stood in the lineups on November 22, 1963 looked, they only had to search out the Associated Press and NBC-TV news film that shows the officers returning from the two Friday show-ups and entering the Homicide & Robbery Bureau office behind Oswald. [38] Tidbit: They’re dressed exactly as they stated in their testimony before the Warren Commission.
But McBride doesn’t care about reality in this case, only about his own narrative; and neither do his followers who were quick to chastise Bill Brown for daring to challenge His Holiness McBride.
“Who in the hell are you to tell Professor McBride what to say on this forum?” asked one minion. “I think we all understood his point in the interview about the dubious line-up, irrespective of semantic nit-picking about the difference between a suit jacket and a sport coat. His erudition speaks for itself. Your disrespectful attitude is highly offensive, at least to me.” [39]
Maybe it’s just me, but altering the facts to fit a narrative hardly seems to be in the realm of “nit-picking”. I would call it what it is – deception.
Brown was then called out for his abusive behavior and asked to “play nice, post well-thought-out arguments (and not just recitals from the Warren Commission and Vincent Bugliosi volumes),” and perhaps start a thread “listing some Warren Commission and Vince Bugliosi conclusions you think are in error.” [40]
How sweet. Join us, or get crushed. Nice.
One forum member summed up Mr. Brown’s postings this way, “I’m wondering what Mr. Brown is doing here, educating us in our mistaken ways…I have no doubt that Jim [DiEugenio] is onto something when he uses the word propaganda. I said on a recent post that I’m here because I care, because I feel a deep sense of loss for our country and our world. Why are they here? Out of deep concern for – what exactly? Do they just enjoy being ‘right’?”
Challenging someone who foists falsehoods onto others is not about being right or even about being righteous. It’s about truth. Without it, history is lost.
Better for history
Years ago, when the Internet was in its infancy, I naively thought that forums like this would be a great way to share information, avoid duplication of effort, and generally enjoy the company of others who shared my passion for history and truth.
Unfortunately, time has proven that the vast majority of these forums are nothing more than sandboxes for children where you either knuckle under the peer pressure or get sand kicked in your face.
I’ve always found history fascinating and have spent the vast majority of my time trying to determine what is true, and what is not true, when it comes to the JFK assassination and the murder of Patrolman J.D. Tippit. To be honest, I haven’t learned one damn thing of importance from 26-years of patrolling these online forums.
My occasional visits have become fewer and farther between – each time I’m reminded of why it’s better to stay away. Better for me, better for truth, and better for history. [END]
Footnotes
[1] UK Education Forum, Thread: “Ted Callaway & The 1:15 Shooting”, Sandy Larsen, July 17, 2022, 2:28 AM
[2] DPD C-1, 1:17:41 p.m.
[3] UK Education Forum, Thread: “Ted Callaway & The 1:15 Shooting”, Sandy Larsen, July 17, 2022, 6:14 PM [Note: In a later post, Larsen claimed that a transcript of the DPD radio recordings (CE705 17H408) showed the ambulance arriving at the scene at 1:10 p.m. However, in the actual recordings, the dispatcher can clearly be heard to say “1:19” – not 1:10 as transcribed. This was pointed out in a blog article I wrote in November 2020.]
[4] Mack, Gary, “NAS Panel Stuck on Channel 1, Report Delayed,” Penn Jones’ The Continuing Inquiry, Vol. 6 No.8, March 22, 1982, pp.1-9
[5] op cit., Larsen, July 17, 2022, 6:14 PM
[6] UK Education Forum, Thread: “Ted Callaway & The 1:15 Shooting”, Sandy Larsen, July 17, 2022, 7:41 PM
[7] UK Education Forum, Thread: “Ted Callaway & The 1:15 Shooting”, Gil Jesus, July 17, 2022, 9:28 PM
[8] UK Education Forum, Thread: “Ted Callaway & The 1:15 Shooting”, James DiEugenio, July 17, 2022, 9:51 PM
[9] Memo to File, Interview of Herbert W. Lutz, June 26, 1994, 4:00 p.m., Dale K. Myers Collection
[10] Myers, Dale K., With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit, Oak Cliff Press, 2013, p.340
[11] UK Education Forum, Thread: “Lee Oswald – The Cop Killer”, Greg Doudna, July 11, 2022, 9:21 PM
[12] UK Education Forum, Thread: “Lee Oswald – The Cop Killer”, Greg Doudna, July 12, 2022, 8:58 PM
[13] UK Education Forum, Thread: “Lee Oswald – The Cop Killer”, Bill Brown, July 12, 2022, 9:47 PM
[14] op.cit., Greg Doudna, July 12, 2022, 10:02 PM
[15] op. cit., Greg Doudna, July 12, 2022, 10:07 PM
[16] 6H447 (WCT of Domingo Benavides)
[17] 6H448 (WCT of Domingo Benavides)
[18] Ibid.
[19] 6H448-449 (WCT of Domingo Benavides)
[20] 6H451 (WCT of Domingo Benavides)
[21] op. cit., Greg Doudna, July 12, 2022, 10:07 PM
[22] op. cit., Greg Doudna, July 13, 2022, 1:05 AM
[23] UK Education Forum, Thread: “The murder weapon of the Tippit killing?”, Greg Doudna, July 18, 2022, 10:46 PM
[24] Ibid.
[25] JFK Conspiracy Forum, Thread: “The Gun in the Bag,” Gil Jesus, June 24, 2020, 10:36 PM
[26] op. cit., Greg Doudna, July 18, 2022, 10:46 PM
[27] Ibid.
[28] Adams, Bill, “Second Gun or Second Guessing the Story of the Revolver in the Paper Bag,” The Fourth Decade, Vol.3, No.4, May, 1996, p.11
[29] Myers, Dale K., “What is one to make of Jim DiEugenio?” jfkfiles.blogspot.com, Spring, 1999]
[30] UK Education Forum, Thread: “Lee Oswald – The Cop Killer”, James DiEugenio, July 14, 2022, 4:17 PM; 6:33 PM
[31] op. cit., James DiEugenio, July 14, 2022, 6:58 PM
[32] 7H4-5 (WCT of Johnny Calvin Brewer); 7H10-11 (WCT of Julia Postal)
[33] Out of the Blank Podcast No.1157, 50:50 mark – Joseph McBride
[34] UK Education Forum, Thread: “New podcast on my books Political Truth and Into the Nightmare”, Bill Brown, July 13, 2022, 12:07 AM
[35] Ibid., Joseph McBride, Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:17 AM; CE1054, 22H1
[36] CD1083
[37] CD1304
[38] November 22, 1963, 4:45 p.m., WBAP-TV / NBC-Universal Archives; 6:45 p.m., Associated Press news film and WBAP-TV / NBC-Universal Archives
[39] UK Education Forum, Thread: “New podcast on my books Political Truth and Into the Nightmare”, W. Niederhut, Wednesday, July 13, 2022 5:18 PM
[40] op. cit., Pat Speer, Wednesday, July 13, 2022 9:45 PM
Posts
19 comments:
Sir Francis Bacon said, "Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.". That often requires facts to be ignored, new narrations to be created, and they must all be believed based on faith. Those are the basic tenets of any conspiracy theory. The only responses are to simply repeat the facts and ask why those facts are incorrect.
Thank you for your diligence. Keep the faith.
Don't let 'em get you down, Dale. Everyone knows it's not humanely possible to have an informed debate with those whom are either ignorant or want their 15 minutes.
The bottom line is that you believe what's on the Dictabelt recording while I believe what the witnesses said. The witnesses almost unanimously point to a shooting time before ~1:08, with a couple of them saying specifically 1:06.
Add to this the fact that Tippit was pronounced dead at the hospital at 1:15, with this time undoubtedly being his time of arrival or shortly thereafter, when attempts to resuscitate him failed. This directly contradicts what's on the Dictabelt recording, which indicates that the ambulance headed to pick up Tippit at 1:18. He'd already been at the hospital for three minutes by then!
The problem is that you assume there was no cover up, and thus the Dictabelts can be trusted. There's a ton of evidence and even proof that a coverup was conducted by the U.S. government, so there is good reason to question the Dictabelts since they contradict eyewitness testimony and other evidence.
Your timeline, Mr. Larsen, is nonsense because it is not supported by facts, not because of anything I may or may not believe. Nor is my problem that I assume that there was no “cover-up” in the JFK assassination case and “thus, the Dictabelts can be trusted”. Obviously, you must believe your clairvoyance about the root causes of the big-conspiracy extend to yours truly, yes?
Contrary to your assumptions – and none of this is a big secret, having been spelled out in the forward of my book “With Malice” – I obtained the best copy of the Dictabelts I could get from a primary source and did a linear regression analysis to see if there are any anomalies in the time sequence as announced by DPD dispatchers. I found that the time sequence was in fact accurate, to within one-minute, and that Channel 1 did in fact record continuously during high traffic sequences – which occurred in and around the time of the Tippit shooting, my primary focus.
The times announced by the dispatchers (“broadcast time”) could not of course be connected to “real time” (i.e., what we would call today, atomic time) with anymore precision than within that one-minute margin previously stated. How do I know it’s accurate to within that margin? Because there are several “anchors” where the announced time matches times that were documented elsewhere. For example, it is documented in many places that the DPD received the citizen call from T.F. Bowley at 1:18 p.m. This matches my own linear regression analysis within the margin I described.
Many other factors were looked at to determine the accuracy of the timeline I came up with – drive times between locations, photographs, films, testimony, interviews, etc. Bottom line: The timeline I produced, based on my own linear regression analysis of the DPD Channel 1 Dictabelts, is, I believe, within one-one minute of real-time.
You, on the other hand, claim that the police recordings are off by nine-minutes! You base your entire timeline on a presumed start time of 1:15 p.m. (which you falsely claim as the time Tippit was pronounced DOA at Methodist Hospital) and then work backwards based solely (your own words) on eyewitness testimony. I pointed out the fatal flaw in each and every one of the time points on your timeline. You have been unable or unwilling to provide support for your position other than to charge, again without support, that you know what I assume and what I trust.
Excellent response, Dale. It's interesting that the Methodist Hospital's time of death for
Tippit at 1:15 is before he arrived after the ambulance attendants recorded arriving at the
scene 1:18:59. As you said, the ambulance records confirm the DPD records of times.
Of course, as others have said, "ignore the facts and you can make up anything you want.".
As always, an excellent article, Dale. Thank you.
YOU SAID:
"You have been unable or unwilling to provide support for your position other than to charge, again without support, that you know what I assume and what I trust."
I RESPOND:
Do I really need to provide support for the (my alleged) fact that you assume the Dictabelts have not been altered in a coverup, and that you therefore trust them to be true recordings of the police communications?
The proof of this is that you use them to draw up your timeline. Sheesh.
I, on the other hand don't necessarily trust them because, after all, there WAS a government cover up. Instead, I use the eyewitness testimonies. And while it is true that I provide minimal detail for my timeline on the EF thread under discussion, that is because I and others provided the detail on another thread years ago when I developed the timeline.
YOU SAID:
"You base your entire timeline on a presumed start time of 1:15 p.m. (which you falsely claim as the time Tippit was pronounced DOA at Methodist Hospital) and then work backwards based solely (your own words) on eyewitness testimony."
I RESPOND:
First, I did not work backward beginning with Tippit's 1:15 PM DOA time. I began with the eyewitnesses' testimonies, most of which point to a shooting before 1:10 PM. Later I became aware of the 1:15 DOA time at the hospital, which is in support of the eyewitness statements. Contradictions popped up only afterward, when I began to study the police Dictabelt recordings.
Second, what I said about Tippit being pronounced dead at 1:15 at Methodist Hospital after resuscitation efforts is absolutely true. In a DPD Supplementary Offense Report written by officers R.A. Davenport and W.R. Bardin, they stated that they observed the medical staff at the hospital attempt to resuscitate Tippit. The resuscitation failed, at which time, according to the officers, "At 1:15 pm Dr. Richard Liquori pronounced him dead." This is a direct quote from the document.
I don't think that the death certificate is available, but in the Authorized Permit for Autopsy for Tippit it lists the place of death as DOA Methodist Hospital and the time of death as 1:15 PM.
So clearly Tippit was pronounced DOA at Methodist Hospital at 1:15 PM. Which contradicts the police Dictabelt recording, as it indicates that the ambulance was dispatched to pick up the body three minutes LATER (1:18 PM), after Tippit was already at the hospital!
These are the reasons I believe that the police Dictabelt recordings have been altered. Because either they were altered, or nearly all the other evidence is wrong. And there is a lot of other evidence and it is self-consistent.
If I and others are right about this, then it would have been impossible for Oswald to have shot Tippit.
Which is not a big surprise given that an overwhelming amount of evidence shows that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy either. He likely was standing outside with his boss Shelley during the shooting, which we know now was his real alibi. (Which was also covered up.)
Mr. Larsen – How does writing, “The proof of [your assumption and trust] is that you use the Dictabelt recordings to draw up your timeline. Sheesh,” constitute support for your claim that I assumed the Dictabelts were not altered, that there was no cover-up in the JFK assassination, and that I therefore trust the Dictabelt recordings to be an accurate representation of the events of Nov.22? You’ve offered nothing to support your claim, have you?
I explained in the forward of my book, “With Malice”, how I verified the accuracy the Dictabelt recordings (have you read it?) and went over it again in my above response. Given what you recently wrote on the UK Education Forum (that I’m now backing down from my claimed down-to-the-second accuracy), I don’t think you get it – or will ever get it for that matter. Here it is, one more time, in a nutshell – the second-by-second times in my timeline represent the timing between events that I obtained from my stopwatch review of the Dictabelts. These times are within one-minute, I believe, of “real-time”. Got it?
You also write, “…what I said about Tippit being pronounced dead at 1:15 at Methodist Hospital after resuscitation efforts is absolutely true. In a DPD Supplementary Offense Report written by officers R.A. Davenport and W.R. Bardin, they stated that they observed the medical staff at the hospital attempt to resuscitate Tippit. The resuscitation failed, at which time, according to the officers, ‘At 1:15 pm Dr. Richard Liquori pronounced him dead.’ This is a direct quote from the document.”
First, there wasn’t much of a resuscitation effort – if any – according to emergency nurse Lottie Thompson and attending physician Dr. Paul C. Moellenhoff. Tippit was DOA when they rolled him into the emergency room. Dr. Moellenhoff told me in a 1983 interview (and Lottie Thompson expressed the same thing in 1981) that the clock they used to document the time of death – 1:15 p.m. – was slow. Thompson said it was fifteen minutes slow, Moellenhoff thought it was ten-minutes slow. That puts the actual DOA pronouncement at about 1:25 to 1:30 p.m. – which fits the Dictabelt timeline I developed.
Furthermore, contrary to another assertion you made (“I don't think that the death certificate is available…”), the death certificate shows the time of death as 1:15 p.m. and the “Time of Injury” as 1:18 p.m. How is that possible? Simple: the time of death comes from the inaccurate time noted at Methodist Hospital (by Thompson and Moellenhoff) and the time of injury comes from the Dictabelt recordings which recorded T.F. Bowley notifying the DPD dispatcher of the shooting on Tenth Street at about 1:17:41 p.m.
But more important to your argument, DPD Officer Davenport wrote in the opening line of his report, “On November 22, 1963, we answered the shooting call of Officer Tippit.” What shooting call was that? Answer: The report of T.F. Bowley at 1:17:41 p.m. that an officer had been shot in Oak Cliff. I know that’s a fact because Davenport told me so in 1983 and the timing of his drive from the TSBD, which is where he was located when he heard the call, to Methodist Hospital checks out with the Dictabelt recordings. See how all this works?
So, the big question for you, and it’s a rhetorical one, is how does Davenport meet an ambulance en route to Methodist Hospital with Tippit’s body six-minutes before Davenport hears the call over the police radio?
You apparently conclude, and you write: “These are the reasons I believe that the police Dictabelt recordings have been altered. Because either they were altered, or nearly all the other evidence is wrong.”
BINGO! You’ve got it! “…nearly all the other evidence is wrong.” Well, to be fair, it’s not the evidence that’s wrong, it’s – gulp – your analysis.
It’s been fun, Mr. Larsen. But to be honest, I’ve had enough. You’ve had two bites at the apple and still can’t produce one thing that supports your position. No more back-and-forth here. Please stay on those forums where “proof” like yours is acceptable.
BTW, just a reminder, this blog screens all comments for profanity, spam, and general off-topic nonsense. I don't block comments that I disagree with. Keep it clean, on topic, and promotion free and I'll post it.
Thanks for this article. it's another reminder to me on why I gave up my old conspiracy beliefs years ago. The Tippit shooting is of utmost importance to understanding the Assassination.
When you ignore the facts and evidence, the sky's the limit.
Putting all aside. I.E. Dictabelts, Witnessess, Timing, etc, the cold hard fact that the expended shells found at 10th/Patton matched the test fired bullet's breech face marks in the HSCA study using Oswald's revolver, should alone convince a logical/reasonable person beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oswald murdered Officer Tippit, no question about it.
No amount of Pretzel Logic will explain otherwise.
Oswald was at his boarding house, waiting outside for a bus at 1:03 PM. The Tippit slaying took place at 1:06 - 1:07PM based on the testimony of Helen Markham who looked at the clock in her laundry room at then walked 2-3 minutes to her vantage point where she saw Someone Other than Oswald shoot Tippit. The FBI timed her walk which is why Markham was so sure of the time of the Tippit slaying being 1:06 to 1:07PM. Oswald was 9/10ths of a mile away at 1:03 PM and physically could not have been there. Therefore, NONE of those so-called "Tippit murder" witnesses saw Oswald at the murder scene because he was NOT THERE.
Someone wrote a detailed book about the Tippit murder (I think his name is Myers) and a careful analysis of Helen Markham's timing is described, that clearly contradicts your incorrect assumptions.
“If Markham left her home at 1:04 p.m., as she claimed, then Tippit would have been shot dead at about 1:07:30 p.m. Critics have been quick to embrace Markham’s story as “proof” that Tippit was shot seven minutes earlier than officially believed. But, did it happen that way?
Markham stated that she usually caught a “1:15 p.m.” bus, when in fact, there was no bus scheduled for that time. The FBI determined that the bus was scheduled to pass the Jefferson and Patton stop at 1:12 p.m. and every ten minutes thereafter.
Presumably, Markham’s “1:15 p.m.” bus was a reference to the scheduled 1:12 p.m. bus, running a little late. Those familiar with city transit systems would not find this unusual.”
Excerpt From: Dale K. Myers. “With Malice.” Apple Books. https://books.apple.com/us/book/with-malice/id737069567
Wow. You're seriously misinformed. So, let me get this straight: Markham - who identified Lee Harvey Oswald in a line-up as Tippit's killer just two-hours and 45 minutes after the slaying - knelt next to Tippit's body in the street for 11-minutes before any one of the dozens of people who had gathered around her bothered to call the police or an ambulance? Really? You are aware that the calls for help all came in at about 1:18 p.m., right? There's the police radio recordings, the ambulance company's call log, and dozens of eyewitness testimony that backs that up. But no, you believe that Markham's recollection of the time on the washeteria clock (which BTW was never verified) and Earlene Roberts' remark that Oswald came into the rooming house at "about 1:00 p.m." (the timing shows he could have been there as early as 12:56 p.m.) and left his room "three of four minutes" later (she later said long enough to get a jacket; while the Secret Service estimated the stay at 30-seconds)? None of your so-called "evidence" demonstrates that Oswald "could not have been there." Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
My comment above was to Anonymous.
Greg Doudna wrote an email to me and stated that he had tried to post a comment to the above blog article without success. I instructed him to send it to me via email and I would post it. Here is his emailed comment. My response follows below it, in two-parts.
GREG DOUDNA – QUOTE ON
You misrepresent me. I did not claim it was "an 'undisputed fact' that Tippit's killer ... touched the right-front fender". If you will recheck your footnote to what I wrote, which I have not edited or altered, and pay attention to syntax, you will see you misread that. I agree I should have said it was an undisputed fact that the Tippit killer was "present at", rather than "circled", the area of the right-front fender. So you only misrepresented in half of that sentence, but you cite that error (on your part) as basis for accusing me of being willing to engage in "twisting reality into a lie". There are other misunderstandings.
On the possibility of the killer circling around the front of the Tippit cruiser while shooting, I agree your criticism is correct that Benavides does not establish that. However it seems to me one reading of Tatum's testimony would support that as witnessed; and there is no real witness testimony that excludes it, so it is not implausible. I am not party to most of the others you attack in this essay. I protest not the substantive criticism but the nastiness and smearing.
GREG DOUDNA – QUOTE OFF
Part 1:
Greg – I don’t believe I’ve misrepresented anything. You wrote: “Someone left full-hand prints on that right front fender. By your logic since no one saw any anyone do so then it is most likely no one left those prints. A right hand on top of a right front bumper is not a usual or normal place for a person to put their right hand full-on, and the killer was rounding that right front of the car in a situation of stress and rapidly. No witness said they saw whether he did or did not physically touch the car at that moment because no one was looking at the right front fender at that moment (Benavides, the witness who saw him run away, got a good look at the back of the killer's head confirming he went back around that right front fender). It is plausible the killer left his right hand print there, the killer was there, it agrees with the killer talking through the right passenger window vent to Tippit and the same fingerprints at the right passenger window, and the somewhat unusual position of full right-hand on something as low as the right front bumper from other causes reinforces that it looks like the killer left the right front bumper prints from a right hand. I do not understand your reasoning for making a probability judgment that the killer who went around that right front bumper (undisputed fact) "most likely never touched" the right front fender as he went around the front of the car. Where is your "most likely" coming from? Its extremely plausible and, since the prints are there in agreement with the killer's position and movements, likely that the killer was the source of those prints.”
I responded to your claim that, in fact, there is no witness (in particular, Domingo Benavides did not witness such a thing as you claimed) to Tippit’s killer going around the right front fender to shoot Tippit as he lay on the ground. I concluded my dissection of your claim by writing: “Despite these realities, Doudna, seemingly eager to exonerate Oswald for the Tippit murder at all costs – including, apparently, twisting reality into a lie – claimed that it was now an “undisputed fact” that Tippit’s killer circled and touched the right-front fender.”
Now you claim that you should have written “present at, rather than circled, the area of the right front-fender” (as if it makes any difference, given the fact that NO ONE saw the killer do such a thing!) and that somehow I misrepresented what you said and meant, and that my “error” then became the basis of a false accusation that you were willing to “engage in ‘twisting reality into a lie’.”
What I wrote, of course, is that you *seemingly* were eager to exonerate Oswald for the Tippit murder at all costs – including, *apparently*, twisting reality into a lie. I was very careful in what I wrote because I couldn’t possibly know what you actually think, only what YOU WRITE. And it *seems* to me, based on your own writings, that you *apparently* are willing to substitute fact with supposition, innuendo, and opinion. Am I wrong? Did I mis-read all of your writings on this subject? I don’t think so.
Part 2:
In fact, Greg, you acknowledge your own misrepresentation in your response above: “I agree your criticism is correct that Benavides does not establish that [Tippit’s killer circled around the right-front fender of the squad car while shooting].”
But then, to justify your original false claim, you take another swing, writing: “However it seems to me one reading of Tatum's testimony would support that as witnessed; and there is no real witness testimony that excludes it, so it is not implausible.”
Wow. No one – and by that, I mean no reasonable, rational person – can read the entirety of Tatum’s statements (and look at the diagram he drew for the HSCA) and conclude that Tatum is a witness to the hokum you’re suggesting here.
Your additional claim that “there is no real witness testimony that excludes it, so it is not implausible” is mind-blowingly silly. Actually, there *is* eyewitness testimony that excludes it. But putting that aside for a moment, you seem to be suggesting that anything is plausible even if there is no evidence of it. I’m sure you mean anything is *possible* given that “plausible” means you could make a reasonably valid case for something, while “possible” means something is capable of becoming true, though it’s not always reasonable.
In this instance, your claim that Tippit’s killer circled the right-front fender to gun down Tippit is not “plausible” (you’ve certainly made no case that it is) and while “possible” (isn’t *anything* possible by this standard?) you haven’t offered one single fact that nudges your notion toward it being “capable of becoming true.”
That’s really the rub here, isn’t it?
Finally, as to your objection to my alleged “nastiness and smearing” (in the wake of your self-proclaimed admiration for my work and book, “With Malice”, which you offer elsewhere as evidence of your fairness and unbiased approach to this subject), I can only say that I too have objections.
I object to the willful dissemination of supposition, innuendo, and opinion as fact.
It's been nearly sixty-years since Patrolman Tippit was gunned down in cold-blood. And I, and others, have put a lot of work into uncovering and publishing the facts as they exist in this case.
If you’ve got something factual and new to add, great; have at it – we’re all interested.
On the other hand, in my humble opinion, anyone joining the long conga line of miscreants who have tried to re-write the narrative of this case by passing off unsubstantiated nonsense as truth and rational thought deserve a swift kick.
Greg Doudna sent me another email asking me to post an additional comment. Here it is:
[GREG DOUDNA QUOTE ON]
The misrepresentation was you wrote that I said it was “undisputed” (agreed upon by everyone) that the killer touched the right-front fender, which of course is ludicrous (that that is undisputed) . . . which I did NOT say. You added that claim to something else I did say was undisputed. Your misattribution to me of that added claim makes me look ridiculous and worse to your reading audience. Nothing of your response addresses this specific misrepresentation directly and I ask that you retract and correct that specific misrepresentation.
I acknowledged I misspoke on what I DID erroneously refer to as undisputed, that the killer “went around that right front fender”. I corrected that: “I should have said it was an undisputed fact that the Tippit killer was ‘present at’, rather than ‘circled’, the area of the right-front fender”.
[GREG DOUDNA QUOTE ON]
[NOTE: There was a second part to his comment – a 1,300-word dissertation – in which Mr. Doudna claims to make a plausible case for the idea of Tippit’s killer going around the front of the car to shoot Tippit. I have informed Mr. Doudna via email that his comment (and its word count) amounts to an entire article which is inappropriate and off-topic for this space.]
Again, I don’t see how anything I wrote, regarding the “undisputed facts” in your original argument, was not a quote from you or at the very least in keeping with the spirit of your entire contention. You seem to want to split hairs over whether the phrase an “undisputed fact” mischaracterized your *own* claim that Tippit’s killer circled the right-front fender and that he touched the right-front fender in the process.
You now freely acknowledge that what you wrote [“…the killer who went around that right front bumper (undisputed fact…”] is not what you meant. You wrote: “I should have said it was an undisputed fact that the Tippit killer was ‘present at’, rather than ‘circled’, the area of the right-front fender”. Okay. But I was opining on what you *wrote*, not what you *meant*.
The real bugaboo here is that you insist that you never wrote that it was an “undisputed fact” that Tippit’s killer touched the right-front fender of the car – you wrote “which of course is ludicrous (that [it] is undisputed)” – and that my saying that you had makes you look ridiculous and worse to this blog’s audience. You ask that my assertion be retracted. Really?
Are you now saying that Tippit’s killer never touched the right-front fender or just that it’s not an “undisputed fact” that he did? I’m confused. Didn’t you argue vigorously that the fingerprints taken from the right-front fender of Tippit’s squad car by the DPD *were* the killer’s fingerprints and didn’t you also offer several scenarios of how the killer could have placed his hand on the fender as he circled around the front of the car? Or am I dreaming?
As a matter of fact and fairness, on July 12, 2022, you posted on the UK Education Forum the following: “The point is those fingerprints at the right front door window of the Tippit cruiser, and at the right front fender, almost certainly came from the killer, who was seen at that right front door window talking to Tippit, then shooting Tippit as he (the killer) went around the right front fender. Handprints on the right front fender are an unusual position for handprints, but well explained as from the killer associated with the shooting while the killer was at that position at the car.”
Sounds to me like you’re arguing that it’s a done deal – that the killer circled the front of the squad car, touching the right-front fender in the process as he gunned down Tippit. In fact, in part two of your comment (which I’m sure you will post elsewhere), you present all the reasons why you believe Tippit’s killer was standing in front of the squad car as he finished pumping lead into Tippit’s prone body.
No, I don’t think a retraction is necessary. Besides, the readers of this blog certainly don’t need me to tell them what to think. There is an abundance of your *own* writings – past and future – upon which your credibility will rest.
Post a Comment