(PART 3)


Vincent Bugliosi is disingenuous regarding the Tippit murder--I could call it deceptive. In his chronology, VB states that it was a man named Bowley who called the police dispatcher at about 1:16 p.m. about the murder of Tippit. But you will never see (at least in the book itself--I have not checked the Endnotes) that Bowley says he checked his watch when he arrived at the scene and it was 1:10 p.m.


Vince Bugliosi covers the Bowley "1:10" timing in the book's extensive "Endnotes" section. Many, many very good VB arguments are made within the Endnotes on the CD-ROM, so those notes are essential reading in order to get the complete "VB-authored" picture.

For some reason, though, some readers just flat-out refuse to explore the 900+ pages of Endnotes on the CD-ROM. (Laziness, I would surmise.) And then those same readers think that VB hasn't covered all the bases...when, in actuality, he very likely has touched those bases on the CD-ROM disc.

I've looked up the "Bowley" material on the CD, and here's what we have.....

"For years, critics have cited T.F. Bowley's affidavit on December 2, 1963, that when he saw Tippit lying on the street next to the left front of his car, he looked at his watch "and it said 1:10 p.m." (CE 2003, 24 H 202). So the murder happened at 1:10, or even earlier they say, making it even more difficult for Oswald to have been the killer.

Of course, even if Bowley is correct, and Tippit was killed at 1:10 or earlier, it would be irrelevant, since we know Oswald killed him. How he managed to get there on time to do it would only have academic value. If we didn't know (by reference to the testimony of many eyewitnesses and firearms evidence) that Oswald killed Tippit, then Bowley's affidavit would be more relevant. But even then we can't be sure at all that Bowley was accurate.

Apart from the improbability that with an officer lying apparently mortally wounded on the ground, Bowley would want to look at his watch, we don't know that Bowley's watch was not off by several minutes, as so many watches are.

Just one example among countless others: We know the assassination took place at 12:30 p.m., yet a Dealey Plaza witness, Mrs. Phillip Willis, said she looked at her watch and "it was 12:35 p.m." (CD 1245, p.44, FBI interview of Mrs. Willis on June 17, 1964).

Indeed, if we're going to resort to citing Bowley for when the murder happened, we can't pick and choose, and Bowley, in the same affidavit, says that the first thing he did at the scene was to try to help Tippit, and he suggests that while he was doing this, Benavides was trying to operate the police radio but couldn't, so he did.

But we know from Dallas police radio dispatch records that Benavides didn't start trying to operate the police radio until 1:16 p.m. (which would prove that Bowley's watch was five to six minutes off), and Bowley established contact with the police close to 1:18 p.m."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 51-52 of "Reclaiming History" Endnotes


I also took note of this good (and related) observation by Mr. Bugliosi regarding Helen Markham's "1:06" timeline for the Tippit murder (which conspiracy theorists love to prop up like it was the "Holy Grail Of Timelines")......

"Markham is so confused on the timing that after she gave her affidavit on the afternoon of Tippit's murder, she told an FBI agent that the shooting of Tippit took place "around 1:30 p.m." (Interview of Helen Markham by FBI agent Bardwell D. Odum on November 22, 1963)" [See Commission Document 5; Page 79] -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 52 of "Reclaiming History" Endnotes

David Von Pein
September 24, 2007



Just a few more timelines......

12:54 -- Dispatcher to 78 (requesting location) (J.D. Tippit).

78 (Tippit) indicates he's at Lancaster and Eighth (in Oak Cliff section).

Approx 1:02pm -- Dispatcher 78, location? - No response.

Approx. 1:16pm -- radio call from Tippit murder scene.

So the last thing ever heard from Tippit was at approx. 12:54pm.

Tippit never responded to the dispatcher's last inquiry for his location.


So, John, do you really think Domingo Benavides waited TEN full minutes before getting on Tippit's radio and pumping the mike several times (which occurred at 1:16)?

And if Tippit was shot at 1:06, it also would mean that it took witness T.F. Bowley TWELVE full minutes to make his call on Tippit's car radio, which is a call logged in at 1:18 at the DPD. TWELVE minutes would have passed before that call. That's an absurdly long time.

In my opinion, the Benavides 1:16 "mike pumping" and the 1:18 Bowley call seal the deal regarding the approximate time when J.D. Tippit was shot -- and it sure wasn't as early as 1:06 or 1:10.



What I "think" is I don't really know because I wasn't there and neither were you.

I can only go by the evidence.

Benavides indicated he waited a while before he went over to Tippit and used the radio for fear he might also get shot.

Bowley said his watch indicated 1:10. Perhaps it was running slow, fast, or maybe it was accurate. Remember Tippit was already shot when Bowley arrived.

What I do know is, the Methodist hospital has Tippit DOA at 1:15pm as does the officers supplementary report, as did CD 5 (the FBI Report) before it was changed to 1:25.

So, we have several items which simply make things a little murky.

As for Bardwell Odum, I will simply say the FBI 302 process isn't the best way to interview anyone in any investigation. It leaves much to be desired. (FBI agents many times "lead" witnesses and simply make mistakes.)

So, I just have a few questions.....

Why didn't Tippit respond to dispatch at approx. 1:02?


I haven't the foggiest. But even conspiracy theorists don't think Tippit was already dead by 1:02. Do you think he was dead by 1:02?


Why does the hospital, and the officers, have Tippit DOA at 1:15?


No idea. But it's provably wrong. Just look at the DPD radio tapes (and Dale Myers' book). The ambulance didn't even arrive at the Tippit murder scene until 1:18:59 PM ["With Malice", page 104].

So, obviously, one of those times is wrong. And the times recorded by the DPD radio logs are not likely to be wrong at all.


And why did someone fidoodle with CD 5?


To make the time more accurate. What else?

Why have a 1:15 time in the record when we all know that 1:25 is much more likely to be correct?

You don't object to making things more accurate, do you John?

The same thing happened with Marrion Baker's famous "drinking a Coke" scratch-out in Commission Exhibit No. 3076. The cross-out made that document more accurate. That's the only reason it was crossed out (by Baker himself).

Naturally, though, all conspiracy theorists jump right off the "It Must Have Been A Conspiracy" cliff whenever they see something like that. Instead of accepting an ordinary explanation (like the explanation of Baker making the document more accurate), the CTers insist that such changes were done as part of a "plot". Which is stupid to begin with, because if it was something the plotters wished to hide from all prying eyes, they would have merely re-written CE3076 on a fresh piece of paper and then left out the "Coke" reference entirely.

The fact that the Coke scratch-out and the "1:15" notation are still visible in these documents is virtual proof, right there, that these things weren't changed to promote some FALSE record of these occurrences. The scratch-outs show that the people performing them had nothing whatsoever to hide. And if they were conspirators, they would certainly have a desire to HIDE these things--not leave them in the documents for all to see and read.


First off, I really don't care what CT's think.

Tippit didn't have to be dead not to respond to dispatch, did he? Come now man.

So, between 12:54 and 1:16 Tippit only travelled 8 blocks?

I don't use Dale Myers for anything, but that's up to you.

The fact remains Methodist Hospital has Tippit DOA at 1:15. The DPD officers Supplementary Report has Tippit DOA at 1:15.

Marion [sic] Baker and CD 5 are apples and oranges.

Again, I'm not a conspiracy theorist so the innuendo is not well taken.

The Warren Report statement (as presented) that Oswald could have arrived at the Tippit scene sometime slightly after 1:15 doesn't cut it. Because if that is in fact when he got there, then he didn't shoot Tippit, unless you think Benavides and Bowley were liars.

It doesn't correspond with the witness statements and was very poorly presented. Giving rise to much conspiratorial conjecture.

Just a comment about CD 5 - The idea that all have seen, or could have seen, or recognized the significance of the 1:15 to 1:25 alteration is simply silly. Your logic also fails as to the great and all knowing "conspirators" idea. WHO changed CD 5??

Do you know?? I don't.

And where, since the Funeral Home was a third party, did they get the DOA time of 1:25?

From the Hospital? - nope. From the DPD officers report? - nope.

Just where did they get this "more accurate" info??


John F.,

The bullet shells, coupled with the corroborating eyewitness identification, prove Oswald killed Tippit. There is no REASONABLE doubt about that fact. Everything else is just fodder for conspiracy kooks.

And a slight discrepancy in the time of Tippit's death in a report or two cannot change that ballistic evidence. Oswald did it, and nobody can undo that basic PROVEN fact.

BTW, I wasn't relying only on Myers for the ambulance arrival time. Check the DPD radio logs. It's in there too. It's listed as "1:19" for the ambulance response in the radio logs. Therefore, Tippit could not possibly have been DOA at Methodist at 1:15.


Tippit didn't have to be dead not to respond to dispatch, did he?


Right. So why did you even bring it up in the first place then? (If it wasn't an attempt to at least imply that maybe he was already dead by 1:02?)


You're about as reasonable as the CT's.

My question was and is legitimate. If Tippit had survived, I'm sure someone, or should I say, I hope someone would have asked him what he was doing at approx. 1:02pm -- "Why didn't you respond to dispatch?"

I "brought it up", David, because I am thorough in my investigations. I am not a zealot out to prove there was no conspiracy. I go where the evidence takes me.

Let me say this first before you start another tirade......I think LHO killed JFK and Tippit.

Now, that said, (even after years and years) the idea that I needed to even say it is to me ludicrous.

However, the Warren Commission made a definitive statement in its report about LHO arriving slightly after 1:15pm. But if that's true, then again, it casts great doubt about him killing Tippit.

I didn't say it, they did.


You're overstating the Warren Commission's timeline. The WC's times (as seen in CE1119-A) are "approximate" times--not "definitive" as you claim. And on pages 156-157 of the Warren Report, we find these words: "At about 1:16 p.m.". The Warren Commission wasn't placing the 1:16 time in concrete and you know it. All times are only approximations.

And we know for a fact that anyone saying Tippit was "DOA" at Methodist at 1:15 was simply wrong. Because, as mentioned previously, the ambulance didn't even arrive at 10th Street to pick up Tippit until about 1:19 PM.

Do you really think that BOTH the Dallas Police radio logs AND the Hughes ambulance records are wrong? Dudley Hughes filled out the ambulance call slip before the ambulance left for 10th Street, and the slip was stamped "1:18 PM". ["With Malice"; page 101.]

Yes, yes, I know, you don't rely on a single thing uttered by Dale K. Myers (which, of course, is very very silly, since Myers has spent more time studying the Tippit murder than anyone else in the world; but, for some reason, Mr. Fiorentino doesn't like Mr. Myers' work, so anything in Myers' book must be dismissed by John F., even though Dale has come to the exact same bottom-line conclusion that John Fiorentino has come to--Oswald murdered Tippit). Go figure. ~shrug~

And the crap about the bullets not being tied conclusively to Oswald's revolver is not nearly enough to raise "reasonable doubt". (And as you know, of course, Joseph Nicol--the NON-Government firearms expert--did say that one of the four bullets could be linked conclusively to Oswald's gun.)

Another often overlooked aspect of the bullets that killed Tippit is this -- Those bullets showed characteristics of being fired through a gun that had been re-barreled, meaning the bullets wobbled going down the barrel. And--voila!--Oswald's revolver did have such a barrel, causing the bullets to wobble.

But the key physical evidence are the bullet shells, two of which did not go through J.M. Poe's hands at all and, as such, they have a clear chain of custody (even for most conspiracy kooks).

The only possible way for Lee Harvey Oswald to be innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit is if the following idiotic situation occurred (which nobody could possibly even begin to believe happened on November 22, 1963):

Somebody other than Lee Oswald shoots Tippit with Oswald's revolver. This "non-Oswald" shooter (who looks just exactly like Lee Harvey Oswald, but really isn't him) then flees the scene of the Tippit crime, dumping four shells on the ground as he runs away. This non-Oswald shooter then meets up with the real Lee Oswald and hands off the Tippit murder weapon to LHO. Oswald then proceeds to the Texas Theater where he is arrested while in possession of the gun that somebody else used to kill Officer Tippit just 35 minutes earlier.


Obviously we have some screw ups in the timing here, Methodist Hospital DOA 1:15, DPD supplementary Report 1:15, FBI Report 1:15. (Markham, if you want to include her 1:06 and Bowley 1:10)

I do question how 3 separate accounts could have the same time of 1:15. I'm curious about that, you must excuse me.

I'm pointing out that the Commission was at times its own worst enemy by making statements that themselves cause people to question (in this case rightly so) their conclusions.

There are numerous examples of this throughout the report, such as their statement about the ammunition used to kill JFK being currently manufactured (in 1964) - that's wrong, it was not.

BTW, as an old legal hound, the ballistics on the Oswald revolver wouldn't have convicted Al Capone. While the cartridges were tied to the revolver, the bullets recovered from Tippit were not. There was also a discrepancy in the number and make of cartridges found.

A good defense lawyer would have destroyed the prosecution's case.


You're silly.

It would seem as though the tactics of Anthony Marsh have now rubbed off on John Fiorentino. (You know, the "always argue with someone just for the sake of arguing, even though you agree with them" tactic.)

The only way a jury would have acquitted Oswald in the Tippit murder is if the entire jury was comprised of the "OJ Twelve" (the same dimwitted jury which let Simpson go free).

The evidence against Oswald in the Tippit murder is so strong and foolproof, no sensible person would have any trouble at all convicting him.

1.) The many "It Was Oswald With A Gun" witnesses.

2.) The bullet shells.

3.) Joseph Nicol's testimony too (don't totally dismiss this).

4.) Oswald's incredibly incriminating statements made to Officer C.T. Walker in the police car.

5.) And the clincher--Oswald still had the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM just half-an-hour after Tippit was killed.

Even with some anomalies and discrepancies in the timelines and the "Remington" vs. "Winchester" bullet shells, the totality of evidence hangs Oswald for Tippit's murder and always has. And anyone saying otherwise just flat-out does not want to face the reality that exists within that "totality" of evidence.


So you think Tippit was still alive when the ambulance arrived? Do you know what DOA means? Dead on arrival. The person could have died an hour earlier. Sometime they have to guess what the time of death was.


Exactly. They would need to guess as to the precise time of death. In fact, in almost all cases, a certain degree of guesswork is required when trying to figure out the time of death of a victim.

But the CTers here seem to embrace the notion that the "DOA" time marked down at Methodist positively means that Tippit's body ARRIVED AT THE HOSPITAL at exactly 1:15. And all of the most reliable timestamps (e.g., the DPD radio log and the Hughes ambulance call slip) indicate that Tippit could not have been inside the hospital at 1:15.

So, if the "DOA" time is really meant to be "Time Of Death" (and not "Time When Arrived At Hospital"), then the 1:15 time is just about spot-on accurate. Because from the weight of the evidence, Tippit was shot at about 1:14 or 1:15.

And the "1:25" time shown in Commission Document No. 5 (next to the words "PRONOUNCED DEAD") is most certainly a more accurate time than 1:15 is. And I think it's quite possible that someone might have originally put 1:15 in that location, thinking that the "Time Of Death" estimate belonged there--and then somebody realized that they were in error and realized that Tippit was "PRONOUNCED DEAD" at a later time, and then an estimate of 1:25 was put into this document.

And, again, I'll reiterate my previous belief --- If conspirators or "cover-up" agents had wanted to change stuff in the official records of the JFK and Tippit murder investigations, then they would not be LEAVING IN THE PROOF OF THEIR ALTERATIONS for future conspiracy theorists to find. That's just plain silly.

Therefore, it stands to reason that any "alterations" of this nature are changes that were made by people who were merely attempting to correct an incorrect record, and for no other "sinister" reason.


The original DPD transcript was 1:10 for the call in...later was changed to 1:19.


I sure would love for a CTer to produce this 1:10 ambulance dispatch. That would be the bombshell that would prove Tippit was killed before 1:10.

Of course, nobody will ever produce it, because it doesn't exist--and never did.

And there's also the Dudley Hughes ambulance slip, which Hughes stamped in a time clock at "1:18 PM" [see "With Malice", page 101].

So the Hughes slip must be a forgery too, if the CTers are right.


Logic, logic, logic, Von Pein. I'm just speaking as a good defense attorney would. (AT the time to a jury) NOT 50 years later, as some things have become clearer.

In any event, let me deal with the WR [Warren Report] statement. I said "definitive" in the sense that they indicated LHO could have reached the scene by slightly after 1:15pm. Notice they didn't say "approx 1:15pm", indicating they didn't believe he would have made it by 1:15 or before.

The 1;16 time of the radio call is really a red herring. The issue is "When was Tippit murdered?"

His failure to respond at approx. 1:02 to dispatch is a legitimate avenue of inquiry.

Based on Benavides' statements alone, it's quite apparent that Tippit was murdered prior to 1:16 and probably earlier.

Markham's bus was due (to be precise) at 1:12, not 1:15. It would appear it was late.

Between approx. 12:54 and his murder, let's say at approx. 1:12-1:14, Tippit travelled only a distance of 8 blocks in--let's say--18 minutes--to be fair.

The HSCA could not tie the bullets to the gun, neither could Cunningham or anyone else at the FBI. Only Nicol indicated 1 slug came from the gun.

However, that was easily impeachable.

You cannot "backdoor" evidence and comments about the state of the barrel are irrelevant (perhaps inadmissible) and indicative, in fact, of nothing.

IOW, if you can't tie the slugs to the gun, then the rest is superfluous.


Horse hockey! A "bullet shell match" is every bit as good and solid and definitive as a "bullet (slug) match".

Those bullet shells positively and conclusively came out of the same gun that was used to kill Tippit just seconds before those shells were dumped on the ground. And you know it, John. And Oswald was still holding onto that gun just 35 minutes later.

Knowing that those circumstances exist in the Tippit murder case, it's impossible for Oswald to be innocent. So why even pretend that the "1:06" and "1:10" timelines make a lick of difference in the long run? Because they don't. Nor does the "Remington vs. Winchester" mismatch. The wheat convicts Oswald. The chaff can be discarded.


The cartridges are indicative of nothing that could be used as direct incriminating evidence.


More nonsense.

Why on Earth are you uttering such B.S., John? You think Oswald killed Tippit too. So what are you resting that belief on--a gut feeling? Or is it the EVIDENCE, such as the bullet shells, coupled with the eyewitness identification of Oswald?

You're surely relying on SOMETHING other than intuition when you claim Oswald shot Tippit, aren't you? And if it isn't those shells (in conjunction with those witnesses), then what makes you think Oswald did it? Did you merely flip a coin and it came up "guilty"?

Perry, your witness....


"Perry" says.............."Davey" doesn't know the law.

The cartridges "prove" they were fired in the revolver, and that IS ALL!

We're talking points of law and evidence here, David.

Why did they perform the ballistics on the JFK bullets? I mean they had the damn cartridges, right? For that matter, why did they perform the ballistics on the Tippit slugs?

Unfortunately, the ballistics were inconclusive. Were, are and always will be.

Do some research.............and don't pout, Yes I still think Oz killed Tippit.


John, I can see your point from a narrow court of law perspective. However, are we arguing a legal case here (which some CT's do Ad Nauseum with no seeming concern as to whether Oswald was actually guilty of the crime), or are we discussing the ACTUAL totality of facts that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Oswald killed Tippit?

Even if we are proceeding along the lines of a court case, I would say you are agruing from a fairly "narrow" perspective. Yes, a good defense attorney would certainly harp on the failure to match the actual bullets to the gun. However, an equally good prosecutor would also insist that the jury go beyond that. And if they do go beyond that, what would they see?

1) They would see that the cartridges which several witnesses saw LHO dump out, and that were recovered near the scene of the crime, were tied to the same gun that he was apprehended with shortly thereafter.

2) They would see that there were records that Oswald purchased that self-same gun.

3) They would hear testimony from multiple eyewitnesses claiming to have either seen LHO shoot JD Tippit or seen him approaching/fleeing from the scene.

4) They would hear testimony that indicates that, while the bullets cannot be conclusively matched to LHO's revolver, they cannot be excluded either. (I readily admit that alone this means little, but the lack of an exclusion means the bullets COULD have come from his gun and the combination of 1-3 mean they almost certainly did, with LHO being the shooter.)

I don't really see the point of arguing the JFK assassination from a strictly legal perspective, since what we should all really care about nearly 50 years later is establishing as clearly as possible what ACTUALLY happened, rather than what a court of law would rule. However, even if it is approached from that direction, I just don't see why the other facts and circumstances wouldn't come into evidence and wouldn't be enough to convict him.


[Brock T.] George:

You are essentially correct.

I'm trying to demonstrate how an honest CT can use the Warren Report itself (in some instances) to make an exculpatory case for Oswald.

Re: Tippit -- there was no reason for the Commission to state Oswald could have arrived shortly after 1:15pm.

He could have arrived there earlier, as his arrival at his rooming house is an estimate, as is his departure time.

No one saw him travel, so perhaps he even ran some of the way.

Even though in their graphic they state all times are approximate, in the body of the report their statement was much more definitive. That wording is one reason we have all of this conjecture today.

I simply think the Tippit murder could have been dealt with much better than it was.

As for the witnesses, Markham was a mess. Benavides wouldn't even I.D. Oswald, and Bowley was never even called before the Warren Commission.

I don't want to beat this to death, but I'll simply say, there is a fair chance that a really good defense attorney could have shredded the prosecution's case if Oz had survived.

They screwed up several important things, and it's made for much conspiracy fodder.


I'm trying to demonstrate how an honest CT can use the Warren Report itself (in some instances) to make an exculpatory case for Oswald.


Only if that "honest CT" [Conspiracy Theorist] decides to ignore the sum total of the evidence--which is a sum total that irrevocably proves Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder.

And I'd have to doubt the overall integrity and "honest" status of a CTer who decides to isolate only a small portion of the evidence in the Tippit case, all the while dismissing the overall totality of the evidence -- which is the exact type of "isolating" that "burgundy" just did in his last post by pointing out (as those "honest" CTers always do) that the two Poe shells don't have J.M. Poe's initials on them.

Of course, even there, burgundy is not telling the whole story, because Officer Poe is on record, plain as day, telling the Warren Commission that he might not have marked any shells at all:

JOSEPH A. BALL -- "Did you put any markings on the hulls?"
OFFICER J.M. POE -- "I couldn't swear to it; no, sir."

An "honest CT"? I wonder if such an animal even exists.


Poe testified he gave the hulls to Pete Barnes of the Indentification Bureau.

Barnes said Poe gave them to him, and that he (Barnes) marked them. Barnes identified his marks in the hulls.

So the two hulls Poe collected (as well as the other two) would have been admissible at a Lee Harvey Oswald murder trial.

In fact, the rules for a chain of custody are actually more lenient than even this:


The jury has every right to ask whether it makes any sense that conspirators got hold of Oswald's revolver, and faked the hulls.

If you are trying to get Oswald off, you might try some crazy theory of the crime like that, but the jury probably would not buy it.


Some of us CTers are not interested in making an exculpatory case for Oswald. We go where the evidence takes us.


Good. Then Oswald's guilty of killing Officer Tippit.

Nice to have that settled.


The cartridges only prove they were fired in the revolver. Can't demonstrate when, etc.


The witnesses tell us WHEN those cartridges/bullets were fired from that gun -- seconds after Tippit was shot with the ONE AND ONLY GUN that was seen by those witnesses.

Tell me, John F., how would a defense lawyer squirm and weasel his way out of the situation that positively exists in the Tippit case? This situation---

Gunman shoots Tippit.

Gunman is seen emptying shells from the GUN THAT SHOT TIPPIT.

Multiple eyewitnesses I.D. Oswald as that gunman.

Oswald is captured 35 minutes later with the GUN THAT SHOT TIPPIT.

How does a Johnnie Cochran-eque defense attorney attempt to convince the jury that his client didn't shoot Tippit with the above circumstances staring him (and the jury) in the face?

Does the Cochran-like lawyer tell the jury that ALL FOUR shells were planted? (Even though the prosecuting attorney is going to undoubtedly tell the jury--with great force and conviction--that two of those four bullet shells have a chain of custody that is solid as a rock.)

And in the above "planted shells" scenario, the jury is going to have to buy into the notion that the Dallas Police had a desire to frame an innocent man (Oswald) for the murder of their fellow officer, all the while those cops don't give a rat's ass about the fact that they've allowed Tippit's real killer to go free.

Would ANY jury buy that preposterous notion (other than perhaps the "O.J. 12")? It's idiotic.


Does the Cochran-like barrister plead with the jury to totally dismiss the positive identification of ALL of the witnesses who said they saw OSWALD (not someone else) shoot Tippit or leave the scene, gun in hand, immediately after the shooting?

That last scenario would mean, therefore, asking the jury to believe that William Scoggins, Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, Ted Callaway, Sam Guinyard, and others were all wrong--or were liars--when they each said the gunman was Lee H. Oswald. Which would be practically impossible for any jury to believe in this particular case, since those bullet shells are confirming, to a large degree, that the man those witnesses saw definitely WAS Oswald, since Oswald decided to hang onto the gun after shooting J.D. Tippit.

So your technicality regarding the shells ("The cartridges only prove they were fired in the revolver. Can't demonstrate when") does not apply in this case. Because the "WHEN" can be proved in this case. Davis, Davis, and Scoggins are the ones who can prove it. And Markham too.


Naturally you leave out Acquilla Clemmons because you know her statement says a different person killed Tippit than Oswald, and lends evidence that the FBI intimidated witnesses that told other than the 'lone nut' story.


Clemmons didn't see the shooting itself, and the first CT researchers to interview her in fall 1964 (George & Patricia Nash) wrote, "Her version of the slaying was rather vague, and she may have based her story on second-hand accounts."

[This] document also indicates that the FBI hadn't heard of Clemmons until the Nashes' article appeared.

Five witnesses were closer to the scene and saw only a shooter they IDed as Oswald, not a second man. Were they all lying or blind?


Clemons didn't see the shooting [as Jean Davison also pointed out in her post above]. Clemons saw the aftermath. And every person who DID see the shooting said there was only ONE man involved. Not two.

But, naturally, [Chris] wants to ignore the majority of witnesses and believe that Clemons' statements exonerate Oswald. No surprise there. It's what "clever defense attorneys" do in order to get their guilty clients off.

It's the same with Roger Craig. The CTers like his story about the Mauser too, even though they know it's a blatant lie.

CTers never change. But, thankfully, the physical evidence in the JFK/Tippit murders doesn't change either. And that's why we know Oswald was a double-murderer.



She [Acquilla Clemons] was known to the FBI, but had been shut up by threats, so they didn't need to mention her name in a report.


It makes sense that the FBI had never heard of Clemmons until the Nashes found her. The FBI and the DPD had no reason to canvass the neighborhood looking for witnesses when they had seven or eight people who were closer to the scene and had already IDed Oswald. They had no reason to threaten her, or even talk to her.


Prove to me that she was known to the FBI and shut up by threats. Because she said so?

The FBI faked documents, got all the other witnesses to lie -- all to refute Clemmons? That's not plausible, Chris.


Since the FBI was involved, the other witnesses may have been scared to tell the truth based on Clemmons' statement of how they threatened her. The FBI has been accused of going quite far to make sure witnesses said only the 'lone nut' story. Clemmons was made afraid by them for a couple years.

Clemmons made it clear that the FBI knew of her and came and spoke to her only a few days after the incident that she witnessed.


Do you think the FBI arrived at the Tippit murder scene and immediately threatened the witnesses?

The police sent out an APB with one shooter's description, no accomplices. How do you explain that?


Clemmons heard the shots and came out immediately and saw a short, swarthy, chunky guy reloading his revolver. A man looking like Oswald was nearby and the short guy was motioning him to go on ahead. The Oswald looking guy took off and no doubt was seen by some other witnesses as he moved away.


You don't know that she came out immediately or what she saw. You only know what she said. She may have come out a little later and saw someone pick up Tippit's gun and get in Scoggins' cab.


If you go through the stories of the very few witnesses that saw anything of importance, you find that they weren't really looking at the critical moment. A cab driver wasn't able to see directly to the police car where Tippit was shot because of bushes on the corner where he was trying to look, and similar stories of others.


Yeah, that's what conspiracy theorists want you to believe. Scoggins could see the police car. He witnessed the shooting and saw Oswald's face when he passed by him holding a gun and muttering "Poor dumb cop" or "poor damn cop."

Why not read his testimony?


Scoggins didn't see Oswald fire the shots but he saw him heading his way with a gun in his hand immediately thereafter. What, he's supposed to think Oswald dropped out of the sky with a S&W [Smith & Wesson]?


Scoggins, Markham, the Davis women, Benavides, Jack Tatum -- all at the scene, none saw two men. All lying?


I don't give a flip about the FBI's reputation. I'm asking you to back up the assertion that this witness [Acquilla Clemons] was known to the FBI and shut up by threats.

Witnesses who were closer to the scene, some of whom actually saw the shooting, have disputed her account, and it won't wash to claim they were intimidated, because many gave their accounts to the first cops who got there. Their description of one suspect, who was "slender" -- not "kind of chunky" -- was broadcast at 1:22pm. Surely the FBI didn't rush in to intimidate these people that quickly?

My guess is you believe Acquilla mostly because she claimed the FBI (or a policeman) threatened her. But this is a frequent claim by people I'd call "would-be witnesses" -- Gordon Arnold, Beverly Oliver, and others. What evidence is there that Clemmons is telling the truth?


Was the "chunky" man Clemmons claimed she saw the same man the Davises IDed as Oswald? I hope you don't think there [were] two different gunmen there and NOBODY saw both of them. But if Acquilla saw the same gunman, why accept her description over everyone else's?


Again, the witnesses gave police a description that matched Oswald less than 15 minutes after the shooting. Do you really think the FBI intimidated them before the cops got there?


What evidence is there that any witness ever tells the truth?


Corroborating evidence. That's what.


We know that B. Davis, V. Davis, Markham, Scoggins, Guinyard, and Callaway all told the "truth" when they said it was Oswald (vs. those witnesses all telling a deliberate lie about it being Oswald when they knew it wasn't him they each saw) because the gun still in Oswald's hands when he was arrested was the Tippit murder weapon.

Can any "Oswald Didn't Kill Tippit" conspiracy theorist please tell me HOW Oswald can be innocent when we know he had the Tippit murder weapon IN HIS HANDS just 35 minutes after Tippit was slain?

Has any CTer ever answered the above question in a reasonable and believable fashion without having to pretend that the bullet shells were planted? I think not. Because that's impossible to do.


There have been some discussions in other threads here recently touching on the evidence that Oswald murdered Tippit. I have been playing devil's advocate and in a sense acting as a defense attorney.

My purpose is simply to initiate some critical thinking, to raise some legitimate questions and generally throw out some thought provoking ideas.


I believe a clever defense attorney may have prevailed in the case.


But why do you want to play the part of "clever defense attorney" for Oswald--particularly in the Tippit murder case, which is a murder that all sensible people know was committed by Lee Harvey Oswald?

And you, yourself, think Oswald killed both Kennedy and Tippit. So what's the point of pretending that the overall weight of the evidence indicates anything OTHER than Oswald's guilt? Even YOU believe that that "overall weight" hangs Oswald.'s obviously the combination of the witness testimony and those four bullet shells littering Tenth Street in Oak Cliff that are the things that led you to your "Oswald's Guilty" belief. If not those things, then what? Tea leaves?

Do you have a desire to be compared to "clever" defense attorneys like Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck, who would do anything and isolate every piece of evidence separately in order to convince a jury of something that's obviously not true?

If you were one of the Internet's many silly "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorists, then I could easily understand why you, John, would want to actively engage in such "clever" defense lawyer antics. But you're not. You think, as do I, that Oswald killed Tippit (and Kennedy).

And in the long run, WHO CARES whether a slick lawyer could have gotten Oswald off the hook in front of a jury? The fact remains that that same basic "totality" of evidence (which has obviously also convinced John E. Fiorentino of Oswald's guilt) will still always be there for reasonable people to examine as a SUM TOTAL, and not by isolating just the Poe shells or Acquilla Clemons' statements, etc.

The parlor games that some conspiracists like to play in their efforts to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt are games that, in my opinion, are only played by desperate conspiracy believers, who (like Cochran in the O.J. Simpson case) would do and say almost anything (no matter how silly, improbable, or impossible) in their efforts to exonerate a guilty murderer.

People can participate in those "defense lawyer" parlor games if they so desire. But I, for one, prefer the game called "Sum Total Of Evidence", which is a game that has only one outcome: OSWALD DID IT.

David Von Pein
June 2013



[Acquilla Clemons] said that, after hearing the shots, she left the house she was working in and started towards the source of the shots up the block. She said she then saw a man with a gun reloading his weapon and leave the scene. This man has some verbal communication with a man going the opposite direction on the other side of the street, which she remembered as "go on." Then the gunman continued on his way and the other man proceeded east on 10th.

Ted Callaway was at a used car lot on the corner Jefferson and Patton, one block south of Tenth. He started North on Patton, where he sees a man with a gun coming down Patton on the opposite side of the street. Callaway called out to the guy "what's going on?" but didn't understand the other man's response. The other man continued down Patton, and Callaway continued on to 10th, then turned East to get to Tippit's squad car.

From the video record, Callaway looks like he's a bit chunky and doesn't appear to be too tall. Put it together, and Clemons describes the encounter between Oswald and Callaway, but with Callaway switched with Oswald.

The filmed interview with Lane was a few years after the fact, and her memory might not have been the most lucid at that point. Also, Callaway wound up grabbing Tippit's pistol and enlisting Scoggins (and his cab) in a fruitless search for the killer, which may well have influenced Clemons' later remembrances.

Domingo Benavides, Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Ted Callaway, and Sam Guinyard all positively identified Oswald as the man with the gun.


But how would that have even been possible [i.e., Acquilla Clemons describing an encounter between Oswald and Callaway] from Clemons' location? Clemons lived on Tenth Street, not on Patton, right? And the only "Callaway/Oswald" encounter occurred on Patton, not on Tenth.

~big shrug~


She said that, after she heard the shots, she left the house and made her way down 10th to the intersection with Patton. The closer she got, the further down Patton she would have been able to see.


Okay, Mitch. Thanks.

I haven't done any in-depth study of Acquilla Clemons or her statements. I didn't realize she even said she left her front porch that afternoon (actually, it would have been the house of her employer at 327 East Tenth Street, which was not her own dwelling). I thought she said she observed everything from the front porch of the house. (You don't think I've been brainwashed by watching Oliver Stone's version of events, do you? Oh God, no!! Anything but that.)

I'm ashamed to admit that even though I have Mark Lane's "Rush To Judgment" film in my video collection (and I've watched the film MANY times), I was under the (false) impression (until today) that Mrs. Acquilla Clemons did all of her "witnessing" on 11/22/63 from the front porch of the house. I must have been erroneously influenced by Oliver Stone's filmed re-creation featuring Mrs. Clemons, which shows the actress playing Clemons never leaving the front porch, as I recall.

But after watching Clemons' interview with Mark Lane in "RTJ" again just now, I can see where I was mistaken in that "Only From The Front Porch" belief. She clearly says in the Lane interview that she left her employer's house and then "ran back down the street". (See video below.)

The same information about Clemons leaving the front porch of her employer's house can also be found on pages 72 and 73 of Dale Myers' book "With Malice" (which apparently I also had forgotten completely about, too) -- although in his book, Myers doesn't say that Clemons ran down the street to Tippit's police car. Myers only states that Clemons "ran down from the front porch", and then "looked up the street where Tippit's patrol car was parked--approximately three-quarters of a block from her location" ["With Malice", page 72] -- which is slightly different from what Clemons told Mark Lane in her 1966 filmed interview.

After re-evaluating Clemons' statements in the Mark Lane film, I can see that what you (Mitch Todd) have said about her possibly seeing the "Oswald/Callaway" encounter is certainly possible and makes a lot of sense.

Apart from her observation about the "other man" (who didn't have a gun) being rather "thin" (which, as you pointed out, does not really fit Callaway's physique as of 1963 or 1964), there are several things in Clemons' story that fit perfectly with Callaway being part of the "encounter" that Acquilla talked about in her 1966 interview with Mark Lane.

David Von Pein
May 9-10, 2017




On February 23, 2015, one of my good friends at Facebook, Michael Giampaolo, provided me with some interesting information concerning the controversial discrepancy surrounding the "1:15 PM" time of death that appears in some of the documents pertaining to J.D. Tippit's murder. Michael received the following e-mail from "With Malice" author Dale K. Myers on February 7, 2015:

[Quoting Mr. Myers:]

"The death certificate "discrepancy" - as I noted in "With Malice" - was explained during a 1983 interview I conducted with the late Dr. Paul Moellenhoff, who attended Tippit at Methodist. He told me that the clocks within the emergency area at Methodist showed different times - neither of them accurate as it turns out.

He used the 1:15 p.m. time shown on one of the clocks. The time reported to the FBI by Dr. Liquori (With Malice [WM], 2013 [edition], p.557) - 1:24 pm - is probably the accurate one based on the recorded timing of Bowley's call, the recorded departure of the ambulance from 10th and Patton, and the known drive time from 10th and Patton to Methodist Hospital.

DPD Officer Davenport noted that Moellenhoff removed one slug from Tippit's body at 1:30 pm (WM 2013 p.536). That same time (1:30 pm) made its way into Leavelle's homicide report (WM 2013 p.519) as the time Tippit was pronounced DOA (which couldn't possibly be true, right? You don't pull a slug from a body until after he's pronounced dead). This matches up with Moellenhoff's 1983 recollection that he removed a slug from the body within ten minutes of declaring Tippit DOA.

My caption under the death certificate (WM 2013 p.506) seeks to clarify the discrepancy between the Time of Injury (1:18 pm) and the time Death Occurred (1:15 pm). Again, it stems from my conversation with Dr. Moellenhoff. The 1:18 pm time, of course, probably refers to the time that Bowley's radio call was received - not the actual time Tippit was shot.

The 1:15 p.m. notation (although close in time to the actual moment of the shooting, as far as I can calculate) probably stems from Dr. Moellenhoff's use of an inaccurate Methodist emergency room clock.

Interesting, huh? All this fuss because no one at Methodist bothered to synchronize the clocks to actual time (some running fast, some running slow).

Can you imagine how many other death certificates were marked with times that were off by a few minutes? But what does it matter in those cases? Not one whit."

[End Dale Myers' Quote.]

Thank you, Dale.
And thank you, Michael Giampaolo.

David Von Pein
February 24, 2015