The Warren Commission concluded that at approximately 1:15 p.m., Dallas Patrolman J. D. Tippit drove up in his patrol car alongside Oswald—presumably because Oswald resembled the police broadcast description of the man seen by witness Howard Brennan firing shots at the presidential motorcade. Patrolman Tippet’s encounter with Oswald occurred near the corner of East 10th Street and North Patton Avenue.[183][184] This location is about nine-tenths of a mile (1.4 km) southeast of Oswald’s rooming house—a distance that the Warren Commission concluded “Oswald could have easily walked.”[185] Tippit pulled alongside Oswald and “apparently exchanged words with [him] through the right front or vent window.” “Shortly after 1:15 p.m.”,[n 10] Tippit exited his car and was immediately struck and killed by four shots.Numerous witnesses heard the shots and saw Oswald flee the scene holding a revolver; nine positively identified him as the man who shot Tippit and fled.[188][n 11] Four cartridge cases found at the scene were identified by expert witnesses[189] before the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee as having been fired from the revolver later found in Oswald’s possession, to the exclusion of all other weapons. However, the bullets taken from Tippit’s body could not be positively identified as having been fired from Oswald’s revolver as the bullets were too extensively damaged to make conclusive assessments.
. . . .

Oswald was in the Texas Theater at the time Tippit was killed.

None of the so-called ‘witnesses’ who supposedly ID’d Oswald actually did. Many of these witnesses had obviously been coached. And they still went off script during official questioning.

The bullets taken from Tippit could not be tied to the pistol that Oswald is said to have when arrested at the theater.

The question remains. who actually had that revolver before the scuffle in the theater? It is highly likely that the entire scuffle scene was staged to plant that pistol on Oswald. Remember that gun could not be fired in the condition it was “found” in.

You have a problem on the receiving end at the PO Box where both the Carcano rifle and the 38 SW pistol were sent. An insider that we have discussed before, who also “just happened to be at Oswald’s last interrogation, and who just happened to have a birds eye view just above the sniper at the south-west end of Dealey Plaza just at the entrance to the underpass on Commerce St. — that being the US Post Office Building of course.

Then there is the issue of “Oswald’s Wallet” supposedly being found in the street near the Tippit killing. This to the rational mind is another plant.

I contend that Oswald never had possession of the Carcano or the SW 38 revolver, nor the Hidell ID card. They were all props held by the perpetrators setting LHO as the patsy.

“According to Warren H. “Butch” Burroughs, the concession stand operator at the Texas Theater, Lee Harvey Oswald entered the theater sometime between 1:00 and 1:07 P.M., several minutes before Officer Tippit was slain seven blocks away. If true, Butch Burroughs’s observation would eliminate Oswald as a candidate for Tippet’s murder. Perhaps for that reason, Burroughs was asked by a Warren Commission attorney the apparently straightforward question, “Did you see [Oswald] come in the theater?” and answered honestly, “No, sir; I didn’t.”[429] What someone reading this testimony would not know is that Butch Burroughs was unable to see anyone enter the theater from where he was standing at his concession stand, unless that person came into the area where he was working. As he explained to me in an interview, there was a partition between his concession stand and the front door. Someone could enter the theater, go directly up a flight of stairs to the balcony, and not be seen from the concession stand.[430] That, Burroughs said, is what Oswald apparently did. However, Burroughs still knew Oswald had come into the theater “between 1:00 and 1:07 P.M.” because he saw him inside the theater soon after that. As he told me, he sold popcorn to Oswald at 1:15 P.M.[431]—information that the Warren Commission did not solicit from him in his testimony. When Oswald bought his popcorn at 1:15 P.M., this was exactly the same time the Warren Report said Officer Tippit was being shot to death[432]—evidently by someone else.”~Jim Douglass – JFK and the Unspeakable
. . .

Officer Jerry Hill’s dispatch @ 1:40 PM/550-2

“Shells at the scene indicate the suspect is armed with a .38 automatic rather than a pistol.”
Anyone vaguely familiar with firearms and ammunition would know instantly the difference between a .38 special and a .38 automatic round.
Especially as the DPD used .38 special pistols as standard issue.

The casing of a .38 is practically twice as long as a .38 auto casing.

That someone of Jerry Hill’s experience would “mistake” a .38 sp with a .38 auto is simply preposterous.

When, in 1986, DPD Sgt. Gerald Hill admitted that it was he who radioed at
1:41pm, on Nov. 22, 1963,
“The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38
rather than a pistol” (DPD radio log tapes & CE 705 p28),
he couched his admission in terms which turned it into a virtual confession of
conspiracy to cover-up before the Warren Commission, in 1964. In effect, he
implied that he, fellow officers Joe M. Poe & Det. James Leavelle, & witnesses
Domingo Benavides & Sam Guinyard fed the WC an erroneous story re the handling
of the empty shells at the Tippit murder scene. The enterprising Hill took it
upon himself to rewrite all their roles, with help from Benavides. Why?….
-Don Willis – 2001!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/cFbL_8suZHc
A City of Two Tales

Representative BOGGS. Are you able to match the bullet with the cartridge case?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not possible.
Representative BOGGS. So that while you can establish the fact that the cartridge case, the four that we have, were fired in that gun–
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Representative BOGGS. You cannot establish the fact that the bullets were fired in that gun?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Dallas officer Jerry Hill and other policemen always insisted that Oswald fired his revolver in the theater in an effort to kill, but that the revolver misfired.
Hill wrote in his report that one of the shells had a hammer mark on the primer.

Firearms and toolmark expert Cortlandt Cunningham testified to the Warren Commission, “We found nothing to indicate that this weapon’s firing pin had struck the primer of any of these cartridges.” In other words, Cunningham called Hill a liar.

The shells found at the scene were marked by Officer JM Poe, but when
Poe was shown the shells during his testimony before the WC, he would
not identify them as the ones he initialled.
In fact, no one–not Poe, Sgt. Hill, the Davises or Domingo
Benevides—would identify the shells shown to them as the same ones
they found at the Tippit murder scene.

When the Dallas Police were ordered to turn over their evidence to the
FBI, they turned over one shell and only after the FBI inquired to the
whereabouts of the remaining shells were three shells “found” in a
desk drawer at Police Headquarters.

So the “chain of possession” was broken.
. . . . .
Mr. BALL.Now I have here a package from the lab. Q-74 to Q-77. Would you look those over and see if there is any identification on there by you to indicate that those were the hulls given to you by Benavides?
Mr. POE. I want to say these two are mine, but I couldn’t swear to it.
Mr. BALL. Did you make a mark?
Mr. POD. I can’t swear to it; no, sir.
Mr. BALL. But there is a mark on two of these?
Mr. POE. There is a mark. I believe I put on them, but I couldn’t swear to
it. I couldn’t make them out any more.

Click to access WH7_Poe.pdf

Affidavit In Any Fact by George Jefferson Applin, Jr. as a witness to the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. He states that he was watching a movie in the Texas Theater when an officer with a riot gun walked down the aisle. He witnessed the officer approach a seated man and shake him down. The man then took a swing at them and held up a pistol. Applin heard the pistol snap and then a large group of officers arrested the man.
. . . .
My comments:
Alpin “heard the pistol snap”…but both the officer and Oswald were holding the gun when the pistol “snapped”. As both Oswald and the officer had their hands on the pistol, Alpine cannot have known who had the gun to begin with. His testimony impugns itself on these grounds/

Also see:
The testimony of John Gibson was taken at 3:45 p.m., on April 8, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Joseph A Ball, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.

Mr. BALL. Did you see the lights come on in that theatre?
Mr. GIBSON. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Had you paid any attention to other people who had come in the theatre before the lights came on?
Mr. BALL. Tell me what happened after the lights came on?
Mr. GIBSON. Well, when the lights came on, of course, as I said before, I know most of the people that work there in the show and I got up and started to the front to ask where the head usher or the girl was that works these lights–if something was wrong–I thought maybe they had a fire.
Mr. BALL. You say you started to the front, you mean you started into the lobby?
Mr. GIBSON. I started to the lobby, and just before I got to the door there were two or three–anyway the first police officer that got to me was carrying a shotgun, I remember that, and he says, “Is there anybody in the balcony?”
I said, “I don’t know.” He went on up into the balcony and I stood around out in the lobby for–I don’t know–a minute or something, I guess, and they kept coming in and I stepped back inside the theatre just standing just behind where I had been sitting and I would say there were at least six or possibly more policemen downstairs. The rest of them were going upstairs…

Mr. BALL. What did you see happen?
Mr. GIBSON. Well, I was standing there watching all this going on and then the policeman started down the aisle–I would say there was another–I don’t know, maybe six or eight–started down the aisles.
Mr. BALL. When you say “down the aisles,” you mean all of the aisles?
Mr. GIBSON. Toward the screen–I don’t know if they were going down all of them or not. I don’t believe there was any–there was one policeman standing, it seems to me like, right on the other side of me, in the far aisle just behind me–I don’t think there was anybody going down the far aisle next to the wall on my side.
Mr. BALL. What aisles did you see policemen going down?
Mr. GIBSON. I saw them going down what I would call the two big center aisles, and then the next thing was–Oswald was standing in the aisle with a gun in his hand.
Mr. BALL. That’s the next thing you saw?
Mr. GIBSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there anybody with him–near him?
Mr. GIBSON I couldn’t swear to that–I don’t know–you mean other policemen?
Mr. BALL. That’s what I mean–was he in the aisles?
Mr. GIBSON. Well, he was in the aisle when I saw him.
Mr. BALL. What was he doing?
Mr. GIBSON. Well, he had this pistol in his hand.
Mr. BALL. Was anybody near him?
Mr. GIBSON. Just the officers.

My comments:
Oswald was not in the isle with a gun in his hand as Gibson claims, the scuffle took place at the seat where Oswald was sitting.
Gibson was standing to the entrance of the seating section in the foyer while witnessing the scuffle. As Oswald was surrounded by cops Gibson simply did not have a clear view of what was happening.
Bottom line, his assertion that Oswald was in the isle holding a gun rebukes his testimony.

This video is relevant to the planting of the pistol on Oswald in the Texas Theater in 1963:

All the officer planting the pistol had to do was what is shown in this video in how to set the hammer block so the gun won’t fire if the trigger is pulled.

This is how you can hand or plant a loaded revolver on a ‘suspect’ assuring that he won’t shoot you in the act.
Note: You will here the ‘snap’ even though the gun doesn’t fire:

. . . .

We all know by now that the HSCA was compromised by CIA interference:

Chief Counsel Blakey later stated that Joannides, instead, should have been interviewed by the Committee, rather than serving as a gatekeeper to the CIA’s evidence and files regarding the assassination. He further disregarded and suspected all the CIA’s statements and representations to the Committee, accusing it of obstruction of justice.

In the same 2003 interview, Robert Blakey, issued a statement on the Central Intelligence Agency:

“I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the [Central Intelligence] Agency and its relationship to Oswald…. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation.

The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known. Significantly, the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.

We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.

Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp.”~Robert Blakey

89 thoughts on “THE TIPPIT KILLING

  1. Testimony Of Warren H. Burroughs – Usher at Texas Theater – 11/22/1963

    Butch Burroughs, an employee of the Texas Theater, heard someone enter the theater shortly after 1:00 PM and go to the balcony. Oswald had apparently entered the theater and gone to the balcony without being seen by Burroughs. About 1:15 PM Oswald came down from the balcony and bought popcorn from Burroughs. Burroughs watched him walk down the aisle and take a seat on the main floor. He sat next to Jack Davis during the opening credits of the first movie, several minutes before 1:20 PM. Oswald then moved across the aisle and sat next to another man. A few minutes later Davis noticed he moved again and sat next to a pregnant woman. Just before the police arrived, the pregnant woman went to the balcony and was never seen again. In addition to Oswald there were seven people watching the movie on the main level (six after the pregnant woman left). Within 10 minutes, he had sat next to half of them.

    “According to Warren H. “Butch” Burroughs, the concession stand operator at the Texas Theater, Lee Harvey Oswald entered the theater sometime between 1:00 and 1:07 P.M., several minutes before Officer Tippit was slain seven blocks away.[428] If true, Butch Burroughs’s observation would eliminate Oswald as a candidate for Tippet’s murder. Perhaps for that reason, Burroughs was asked by a Warren Commission attorney the apparently straightforward question, “Did you see [Oswald] come in the theater?” and answered honestly, “No, sir; I didn’t.”[429] What someone reading this testimony would not know is that Butch Burroughs was unable to see anyone enter the theater from where he was standing at his concession stand, unless that person came into the area where he was working. As he explained to me in an interview, there was a partition between his concession stand and the front door. Someone could enter the theater, go directly up a flight of stairs to the balcony, and not be seen from the concession stand.[430] That, Burroughs said, is what Oswald apparently did. However, Burroughs still knew Oswald had come into the theater “between 1:00 and 1:07 P.M.” because he saw him inside the theater soon after that. As he told me, he sold popcorn to Oswald at 1:15 P.M.[431]—information that the Warren Commission did not solicit from him in his testimony. When Oswald bought his popcorn at 1:15 P.M., this was exactly the same time the Warren Report said Officer Tippit was being shot to death[432]—evidently by someone else.”~Jim Douglass – JFK and the Unspeakable

    • According to further Burroughs testimony, the “1:00-1:05” Oswald came back to the concession stand to buy popcorn at 1:15, then returned to the theater and sat next to a pregnant woman. Another witness in the theater that day was Jack Davis, who saw a man enter the theater and sit right next to him just after the opening credits of the 1:00 movie. Davis thought this action a bit peculiar since there were only about 20 people in the 900-seat theater.

      After sitting next to Davis for a few minutes, the man got up and moved across the aisle to sit next to another person. Shortly after this, the man got up and entered the lobby, returning to the center section of the theater a little afterwards. When the house lights came on about 20 minutes later, Davis went to the lobby to inquire about it and saw policemen rush in the front door and into the theater. The man they brought out was the man who had sat next to him, according to Davis. That man was Lee Harvey Oswald. The recollections of Burroughs and Davis rip the official version of the “roominghouse to Texas Theater” Oswald trip to shreds.

      • Officer Tippit was struck by four bullets.

        The two hulls found by Domingo Benavides at the Tippit crime scene would never be admitted. Poe told the FBI that he marked these hulls with his initials “JMP”. When he testified before the Commission, Poe stated under oath that he could not swear that he initialed these hulls. Hence, there was no chain of custody.

        Detective Jim Leavelle, a veteran of the force, told researcher Joe McBride that the hulls were useless as evidence. (Joseph McBride, Into the Nightmare). The question should be asked, however – did Poe initially lie, or were the hulls switched?

        Officer Jerry Hill complicated matters still further by claiming that Poe showed him three hulls.

        What really threw a spanner into the works was when Hill made a radio call at 1:40 pm[*] and reported that the hulls came from a 38 automatic rather than a 38 special. The 38 special bullets were used by the Dallas police and were extremely well-known. Both 38 special and 38 automatic hulls are clearly identified at their base – Hill’s misidentification cannot be passed off as a simple mistake.

        [*] > 1:40 pm (550-2)

        Hill then threw gasoline on the fire. In the face of a very carefully phrased question by attorney Belin, Hill denied under oath that he made the radio call about the finding of 38 automatic hulls at 1:40 pm. Hill claimed that he wasn’t using his call number “550-2” as much as another officer.

        In 1986, Hill admitted to researcher Dale Myers that he made the call. When he was asked how he determined that the hulls were 38 caliber, Hill said, “Thirty-eight’s stamped on the bottom of it. I looked on the bottom.” Hill’s problem is that the bottom of the hull will spell out for you what type of 38 it is! (Dale Myers, With Malice, p. 261).

        It could be argued that the two hulls found by two sisters, Barbara and Virginia Davis should be admitted because of the clear stories about two different officers that received them from the Davis sisters.

        However, there are several problems. The hulls provided to the police were not found at the crime scene, but down the street and later in the day – they could have been planted. Furthermore, the Davis sisters said that the marked hulls were not the hulls that they originally provided to the police.

        The biggest problem is the way that Jerry Hill poisoned the well with his lies and his widely varying stories. The history of alteration would probably result in none of the hulls being admitted into evidence.
        Also see:

      • Why did Oswald…strike Patrolman McDonald with one hand and fire the revolver with the other?

        Dallas officer Jerry Hill and other policemen always insisted that Oswald fired his revolver in the theater in an effort to kill, but that the revolver misfired.
        Hill wrote in his report that one of the shells had a hammer mark on the primer.

        Firearms and toolmark expert Cortland Cunningham testified to the Warren Commission, “We found nothing to indicate that this weapon’s firing pin had struck the primer of any of these cartridges.” In other words, Cunningham called Hill a liar.

        The Warren Commission agreed with Cunningham’s finding.

        On this basis, the court would have excluded this evidence.

        Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe the bullets in Exhibit 592, Mr. Cunningham?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; all five of them are Western .38 Special cartridges, which are loaded with copper-coated lead bullets.
        Mr. EISENBERG. So that of a total of–you have examined a total of 11 bullets, and three. are Remington-Peter–well, at any rate, of the 11 they are divided 3 and 8 into Remington- Peter and Western .38 Special bullets?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
        Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, I hand you four cartridge cases in an envelope marked Q- 74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77. And I ask you whether you are familiar with these cartridge cases.
        Mr. Cunningham, before going on to the cartridge cases I just handed you, could you explain when you received the bullets which are comprised in the last three exhibits, and who you received them from, and how they were presented to you?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. Commission Exhibit 145 consists of the two cartridges that we received–the FBI received from the U.S. Secret Service. We received them on December 3, 1963.
        That is correct. They were personally delivered to the laboratory by Special Agent Orrin Bartlett of the FBI, who is a liaison agent with the Secret Service. And he delivered them. to us on December 3, 1963.
        Mr. EISENBERG. And did he identify them in any way to you when he delivered them? Did he describe their origin to you?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; he did not describe them to us.
        Mr. EISENBERG. All right. Could you go on to the next group of five cartridges?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. I don’t know the exhibit number.
        Mr. EISENBERG. That is Exhibit 592.
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Commission Exhibit 592 was received in the FBI Laboratory from the Dallas office of the FBI on November 30, 1963.
        Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us who you received them from?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The Dallas office of the FBI. I have no first-hand knowledge. I know that they were received from the Dallas Police Department–but that was due to what I have read in an FBI investigative report. The laboratory received them from the Dallas office on November 30.
        Mr. EISENBERG. Can you go on to the last group of four bullets?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Commission Exhibit 518 was also received from the Dallas office of the FBI on November 30, 1963.
        Mr. EISENBERG. Now, for the record, I would like to state that to the best of my knowledge the group of two and the group of four bullets, which together total six, were taken by the Dallas Police from the chamber of the revolver which is Exhibit 143, after the apprehension of Lee Harvey Oswald. They were then split into two groups of two and four as we have them now, two bullets being given to the Secret Service and eventually, as Mr. Cunningham relates, to the FBI, and four bullets going to the Dallas office of the FBI.
        The group of five bullets was taken from a pocket of Lee Harvey Oswald, following his apprehension on November 22 and was kept separated from the remaining bullets, I believe, merely because they had been taken from a different source that is, the pocket rather than the chamber of the revolver.
        Mr. Cunningham, returning to Exhibit 145, do either of the two cartridges in Exhibit 145 bear any signs of having suffered an impact from the firing pin in the revolver, Exhibit 143?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. An examination of these two cartridges, the primers of these two cartridges, reveals no marks that could be associated with the firing pin in Commission Exhibit 143, or any other weapon.
        Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any nicks on either of those cartridges?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. There is a small nick, an indentation, up near the edge of the primer in the Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge.
        Mr. EISENBERG. Could this nick have been caused by the firing pin?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There was no indication, from an examination, that that nick had been so caused by a firing pin.
        First of all, it is in the wrong position, it is not in the center of the primer. And, also, a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was made by a firing pin.
        Mr. EISENBERG. Did you microscopically examine the bases of both cartridge cases?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
        Mr. EISENBERG. Now, turning to Exhibit 518, consisting of four bullets,
        Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets have been fired in this weapon?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not.
        Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
        First of all, Commission Exhibit No. 602 was too mutilated. There were not sufficient microscopic marks remaining on the surface of this bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine whether or not it had been fired from this weapon.
        However, Commission Exhibits 603, 604, and 605 do bear microscopic marks for comparison purposes, but it was not possible from an examination and comparison of these bullets to determine whether or not they had been fired–these bullets themselves–had been fired from one weapon, or whether or not they had been fired from Oswald’s revolver.
        Further, it was not possible, using .38 Special ammunition, to determine whether or not consecutive test bullets obtained from this revolver had been fired in this weapon.
        Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have an opinion as to why it was impossible to make either type of determination?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; this weapon, using .38 Special bullets, was not producing marks consistent with each other. Each time it was fired, the bullet would seem to pass down the barrel in a different way, which could be due to the slightly undersized bullets in the oversized .38 S&W barrel. It would cause an erratic passage down the barrel, and thereby, cause inconsistent individual characteristic marks to be impressed or scratched into the surface of the bullets.
        Representative FORD. When you say this weapon, will you identify what you mean by “this weapon”?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. This particular revolver, Commission Exhibit 143.
        Mr. EISENBERG. So this brings us back to your earlier testimony, that the
        gun had been rechambered for a .38 Special, which is slightly smaller in one respect than the .38 S&W, but it had not been rebarreled for the .38 Special?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
        The original .38 Smith and Wesson barrel is still on the weapon.
        Mr. EISENBERG. So that the .38 Special, when fired in that gun, might wobble slightly as it passes through the barrel?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don’t know if wobble is the correct word. But as the bullet is passing down this shortened .38 barrel, we are probably getting an erratic passage, so the marks won’t reproduce.
        Mr. EISENBERG. Is it possible to say that the bullets were not fired from this weapon, No. 143?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it is not; since the rifling characteristics of Commission Exhibit 143–this revolver–are the same as those present on the four bullets.
        Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you said that there were three bullets of Winchester-Western manufacture, those are 602, 603, and 605, and one bullet of R.-P. manufacture.
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
        Mr. EISENBERG. However, as to the cartridge cases, Exhibit 594, you told us there were two R.-P. cartridge cases and two Western cartridge cases.
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
        Mr. EISENBERG. So that the recovered cartridge cases, there is one more recovered R.-P. cartridge case than there was recovered bullet?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
        Mr. EISENBERG. And as to the bullets, there is one more recovered Winchester-Western bullet than there is Winchester-Western cartridges?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
        Representative BOGGS. How would you account for that?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The possibility exists that one bullet is missing. Also, they may not have found one of the cartridge cases.
        Representative BOGGS. Are you able to match the bullet with the cartridge case?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not possible.
        Representative BOGGS. So that while you can establish the fact that the cartridge case, the four that we have, were fired in that gun–
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
        Representative BOGGS. You cannot establish the fact that the bullets were fired in that gun?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
        Representative BOGGS. And you cannot–having the cartridge case and the bullet–you cannot match them up?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, you cannot.
        Representative BOGGS. There is no way to do it?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; other than what I have said. In other words, you can tell manufacture. But there is no way of–that I know of–of connecting or identifying a particular bullet having been loaded into a particular cartridge case.
        Representative BOGGS. But there is no doubt about the fact that the four cartridge cases came from firing in that weapon?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were fired in that weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons.
        Mr. RHYNE. Yes; you said that you were positive that these cartridge cases that were found near where Officer Tippit was killed and which are over in front of Representative Boggs now, were fired in this gun.
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As I stated the first time, in my opinion those cartridge cases were fired in that particular weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons.
        Mr. RHYNE. And with respect to the bullets that were found in the body of Officer Tippit, you testified that you could not be positive that they were fired by this weapon, Exhibit 143.
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I could not identify those bullets as having been fired from that gun. However, the rifling characteristics on the bullets are the same as produced by that weapon. Also, I could not identify consecutive tests obtained from that revolver, using .38 Special ammunition, and I could not identify, even though there are microscopic marks on three of these bullets for comparison purposes–I could not identify them with each other.
        Mr. RHYNE. Now, based on your many, many years of experience, is this usual or unusual, that you are unable to identify bullets from such a gun under these circumstances?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not unusual in this particular case. I have had other cases with these rechambered .38 S&W revolvers, that are rechambered to a .38 Special; it is not unusual to not be able to identify them. And especially when the barrel has been cut off 23 3/4 inches, it even cuts down the possibility a little bit more.
        Mr. RHYNE. I was under the impression that you people down at the FBI could identify almost any bullet as coming from almost any gun. That is not strictly true, then?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, but it is not.
        Representative BOGGS. How much has this barrel been cut off?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. About 2 3/4 inches. You measure the length of the barrel from–you see the cylinder—
        Representative BOGGS. Yes.
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And the portion coming out from the frame, that is a portion of the barrel. And the barrel is measured from there to the muzzle. And the barrel now is 2 1/4 inches long. The original barrel was 5 inches long–or at least it is similar to the model that would have a 5-inch barrel.
        Representative BOGGS. What is the advantage of reducing the length of the barrel?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Two things–sales appeal and concealment.
        Representative BOGGS. Does it affect the firing quality of the weapon?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It affects your accuracy inasmuch as it cuts down on your sight radius. Your longer barrel will be more accurate than a shorter barrel, due to the longer sight radius. The reason that rifles are inherently more accurate than a hand weapon is due, in part, to the longer sight radius. That is the reason the farther you can get away from the sight when you are firing a revolver, the more accurate. Lengthening your sight radius will increase the accuracy.
        Mr. RHYNE. Based on your experience in your study of these bullets, do you have an opinion as to whether or not they were fired by this gun?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I cannot determine that.
        Mr. RHYNE. You have no opinion at all?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The only thing I can testify to, is they could have, on the basis of the rifling characteristics–they could. have been. However, no conclusion could be reached from an actual comparison of these bullets with test bullets obtained from that gun.
        Mr. RHYNE. Even though there are a lot of similar markings.
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There are not; no, sir. There are not a lot of similar markings. They are similar. The rifling characteristics, are the same, or similar. But, in the individual characteristic marks, there are not a lot of similarities. There are not sufficient similarities to effect an identification.
        Representative BOGGS. Stating Mr. Rhyne’s question negatively, these bullets could have been fired by another weapon?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. Either this weapon or another weapon which has the same rifling characteristics.
        Representative FORD. You are limiting that to the bullets now?
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The bullets.
        Mr. RHYNE. Yes; my question related just to the bullets.
        Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I identified the cartridge cases.
        Mr. RHYNE. He was positive about the cartridge cases, but not about the bullets.

      • Benavides was driving his yellow pick-up truck west along 10th Street when he spotted Tippit exiting his patrol car. Startled by the sound of the shots, Benavides pulled his pick-up truck to the curb, almost directly across the Street from Tippit’s car. Benavides was the closet witness to the murder, but never viewed a line-up of Oswald.

        Despite being the closet witness to the shooting, Benavides failed to positively identify Oswald as the killer. The best Benavides could state is that the killer resembled Oswald. From Benavides Warren Commission testimony:

        Mr. Belin
        You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?

        Mr. Benavides
        From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.

        Lacuna (law), the lack of a law or legal source addressing a situation.
        The shells found at the scene were marked by Officer JM Poe, but when
        Poe was shown the shells during his testimony before the WC, he would
        not identify them as the ones he initialled.
        In fact, no one–not Poe, Sgt. Hill, the Davises or Domingo
        Benevides—would identify the shells shown to them as the same ones
        they found at the Tippit murder scene.

        When the Dallas Police were ordered to turn over their evidence to the
        FBI, they turned over one shell and only after the FBI inquired to the
        whereabouts of the remaining shells were three shells “found” in a
        desk drawer at Police Headquarters.

        So the “chain of possession” was broken.
        . . . . .
        Mr. BALL.Now I have here a package from the lab. Q-74 to Q-77. Would you look those over and see if there is any identification on there by you to indicate that those were the hulls given to you by Benavides?
        Mr. POE. I want to say these two are mine, but I couldn’t swear to it.
        Mr. BALL. Did you make a mark?
        Mr. POD. I can’t swear to it; no, sir.
        Mr. BALL. But there is a mark on two of these?
        Mr. POE. There is a mark. I believe I put on them, but I couldn’t swear to
        it. I couldn’t make them out any more.

        Click to access WH7_Poe.pdf

        . . . . . . . .
        Acquilla Clemons – Tippit Murder Witness

        Acquilla Clemons lived on the north side of Tenth Street in Dallas. On 22nd November, 1963, Clemons was sitting on the porch of her house when she saw Officer J. D. Tippit killed.

        Afterwards she claimed that there were two men involved in the attack on Tippit. She later testified in a television documentary that the gunman was a “short guy and kind of heavy”. The other man was tall and thin in khaki trousers and a white shirt. She also claimed that Dallas Police warned her not to repeat this story to others or “she might get hurt”.

        Anthony Summers, the author of The Kennedy Conspiracy (1980): “Obviously, Mrs. Clemons should have been questioned more thoroughly than in a television interview. She said she had been visited by the FBI, who decided not to take a statement because of her poor health. Mrs. Clemons suffered from diabetes, hardly a condition to deter efficient investigators from taking a statement. According to two reporters, who visited Mrs. Clemons several years after the assassination, she and her family still spoke with conviction of seeing two men at the scene of the Tippit shooting. Mrs. Clemons’ story finds corroboration from another witness, and he too was ignored.”

        Acquilla Clemons was not called to give evidence to the Warren Commission.

    • Gerald Hill and the murder of Officer Tippit – Part 1

      I have previously discussed the issue of whether or not Oswald actually had a revolver when he entered the Texas Theatre, as he was “escaping” after allegedly murdering President Kennedy and DPD Officer J.D Tippit. I will now discuss the likelihood that DPD Sgt Gerald Hill was attempting to plant the gun on Oswald inside the Theatre. By no means am I the first researcher to make the case against Gerald Hill. Researchers such as Duke Lane, and Lee Farley, have also discussed Hill’s complicity in framing Oswald. Although I don’t pretend to have proven Hill’s guilt, I nevertheless believe there is strong circumstantial evidence for his complicity.

      According to the Official version of Oswald’s arrest at the Theatre, DPD detective Bob Carroll allegedly grabbed the revolver when he observed it pointing toward him during Officer Nick McDonald’s scuffle with Oswald, after Oswald struck him with his fist. However, like every other aspect of Oswald’s arrest, this story is also riddled with contradictions. The following is the excerpt from McDonald’s testimony regarding Bob Carroll and the revolver.

      Mr. Ball
      What happened when you jerked the pistol free?

      Mr. McDonald
      When I jerked it free, I was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don’t know why, and when I brought the pistol out, it grazed me across the cheek here, and I put it all the way out to the aisle, holding it by the butt. I gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll at that point.

      Note that McDonald claimed that he had given the revolver to Bob Carroll after he allegedly jerked it free from Oswald’s hand. Carroll, on the other hand, couldn’t tell who had the revolver when he grabbed it. The following is from Carroll’s testimony.

      Mr. Ball
      I mean, were Oswald and McDonald struggling together?

      Mr. Carroll
      Yes, sir; and then when I got up close enough, I saw a pistol pointing at me so I reached and grabbed the pistol and jerked the pistol away and stuck it in my belt, and then I grabbed Oswald.

      Mr. Ball
      Who had hold of that pistol at that time?

      Mr. Carroll
      I don’t know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that’s all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.

      As we can see, Carroll couldn’t tell from whom he had taken the revolver. This could have been due to the lack of visibility inside the Theatre. Bear in mind that DPD Officer Thomas Hutson made the claim during his Warren Commission testimony that he couldn’t tell with which fist Oswald had struck McDonald, due to poor visibility inside the Theatre at the time.


  2. I propose that the “Leon” that Perry Russo was introduced to at the David Ferrie “assassination planning party” was in fact the Oswald Doppelganger that Jim Douglas postulates in his book on JFK.

    The one that was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater and spirited out the back of the theater after the real Oswald was brought out the front door.

  3. Accurate Portrait of J. D. Tippit
    Dale Myers’ Misleading Portrait of J.D. Tippit
    What Myers doesn’t tell you are a number of contributing facts and factors that question the identity and role of Lee Harvey Oswald. Myers doesn’t tell you that Oswald was also seen by eyewitnesses at the Top Ten Record shop in Oak Cliff twice that morning, and that Tippit also stopped there shortly after one o’clock, minutes before he was killed, to make a phone call.

    Eyewitnesses also placed Oswald at a nearby convenience store purchasing candy and beer and using a Texas drivers licenses as identification when the historic Oswald was at work at the Texas School Book Depository. Which Oswald killed Tippit, the one at work at Dealey Plaza or the one at the record shop and convenience store?

    Two eye witnesses at the scene of the murder say there were two men near Tippit when he was killed, one who ran away and the other who left in an old Plymouth.

    Shortly thereafter an eyewitness saw Oswald behind the wheel of a 1957 Plymouth, and wrote down the license plate number of the car that was traced to Carl Mather. When the FBI questioned Mrs. Mather, with the Plymouth sitting in driveway, she told them that on the morning of November 22, 1963, her husband had the Plymouth at his place of employment – Collins Radio Company, where he worked on the radios of the Vice President’s airplane. But in the afternoon they went to the home of their good friend and former neighbor J.D. Tippit to pay their respects to his widow.

    So the accused presidential assassin and cop killer was seen shortly after murdering J.D. Tippit riding around in the car of a good friend of the murdered victim?

    Indeed, as Myers contends, Tippit’s showdown with Oswald had momentous impact on our nation’s history, and continues to haunt us today, as the government records related to Collins Radio Company are still being withheld from the public for reasons of “national security.”
    By William Kelly

  4. Our squamous coated adversaries may slither back onto the thread hissing, but they have no more venom in their bite.

    • We proved everything conclusively and they still deny it. I have proved everyone of their talking points wrong on the Tippit page at JFKfacts. The Warren Commission is proven to be a lie. They will not admit these things — they are liars. They will relitigate forever because they are liars and they can lie because of “free speech”. That is the ding in the system, liars get a voice because it’s “fair”.

      It doesn’t matter whether they admit they are wrong, whether they admit they are liars; simply because they won’t admit it!

      McAdams is right in one sense; and that is, he leaves no recourse but to say what we know is true – that they are liars, apologists for the fascists warmongers who killed Kennedy. And McAdams can call that “abuse” when we say it, and get away with it. These fascists can twist and distort everything we say, by using rhetorical tricks such as this one:

      I made this comment:
      > Now McAdams and the other mountebanks on this forum May continue to spew their scurrilous propaganda here, but as far as I’m concerned this thread, especially the last entry by Mr Sculley is a coup de grâce. No further argument is necessary. But I am just as sure that the spooks will never give up, howsoever futile their creaking round’a’bout grinds and squeals.

      McAdams replies with:
      “Translation: I’ve been cornered on the evidence, and am now turning to abuse.”

      As if McAdams has the right to “translate” my words and put his words in my mouth in their stead.

      The last illustration is a blatant straw-man argument by the so-called “professor of political science”, John McAdams. Such academics are presumed to understand the rules of argumentation, so when they make blatant false argument such as these, it is not by ignorance, it is by design.

      McAdams is a liar and a fascist propagandist.
      . . . . . . .

  5. MAX HOLLAND — CIA Public Relations Man:

    Anyone who does not grasp that Max Holland is a CIA apologist, and asset needs to take note that Holland is published on the CIA’s very own website:

    a useful or valuable thing, person, or quality.
    . . . . . .
    After reading the apologia in Holland’s article: ‘The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination’; just try to attempt a denial that this is not “a useful or valuable thing” to assist the public image of CIA.

    And after you try that, try to tell me why we should take Holland’s spin on things seriously? He is obviously a public relations man for CIA. Anyone who can’t see that is utterly naïve.

    Jim Garrison, the KGB, and the CIA

    An open letter to Foreign Affairs magazine — by Oliver Stone
    The Nation magazine, August 5 /12, 2002

    Two important facts from the Paese Sera story remain true:

    1. CMC was forced to leave Italy (for Johannesburg, South Africa) in 1962 under a cloud of suspicion about its CIA connections.

    2. Clay Shaw was a member of CMC’s board, along with such well-known fascist sympathizers as Gutierrez di Spadaforo, undersecretary of agriculture for Mussolini; Ferenc Nagy, former premier of Hungary, and Giuseppe Zigiotti, president of the Fascist National Association for Militia Arms.


    • Max Holland Rescues the Warren Commission and the Nation
      By Gary L. Aguilar

      The Rehabilitation of the Warren Commission
      In a series of articles that have appeared over the past 8+ years, Holland has outlined the skeleton to which one imagines he intends to affix toned muscles and strong sinews in his upcoming opus, A Need to Know: Inside the Warren Commission.[8] “It would be one thing,” he sighed in the respected Reviews in American History, “if conspiracy theories were still only believed by a decided minority of Americans. It’s quite another matter when more than 80% of Americans disbelieve or cannot accept their own history, and when the questions they ask about the past are based on palpable, cunningly manufactured falsehoods.”[9]

      Conspiracists have been so successful, Holland has lamented, that, “Now the burden of proof [has] shifted decisively and unfairly from critics to defenders of the official story … Almost any claim or theory, regardless of how bizarre or insupportable, [can] now be presented in the same sentence as the Warren Report’s conclusions and gain credence.”[10] (Holland’s emphasis. Holland appears to be suggesting that it is unfair to expect advocates of the official, only-Oswald-did-it, story to bear the burden of proving their theory; that it would be fair to require skeptics to prove a negative, that Oswald did not do it.) Holland, however, isn’t troubled that the virus of mistrust has infected a few crackpots. He’s vexed at the reception of Oliver Stone’s pro-conspiracy film JFK, and the favor accorded pro-conspiracy books by authors such as Peter Dale Scott and former House Select Committee counsel Gary Cornwell.

      “Even the highest level of education is not a barrier,” he complained, “to judge from the disregard for the Warren Report that exists in the upper reaches of the academy.” In fact, “the professional historians’ most prestigious publication, the American Historical Review, published two articles (out of three) [sic] in praise of Oliver Stone’s movie JFK. The lead piece actually asserted that ‘on the complex question of the Kennedy assassination itself, the film holds its own against the Warren Report.’ In a similar vein, in 1993, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, by an English professor named Peter Dale Scott, a book conjuring up fantastic paranoid explanations, was published by no less respected an institution than the University of California Press.”[11]

      Rather than explaining why one should embrace the conclusions that bear Earl Warren’s name, Holland instead attacks skeptics by offering only two simple explanations for the skepticism: ignorance and paranoia. Virtually no one (but Holland, apparently) truly grasps the unique Cold War circumstances in which both the President’s murder and its investigation transpired. And without it, one is totally lost. The deranged act of a lonely, pro-Cuban zealot, he maintains, was the unintended consequence of Kennedy’s rabid anti-Castroism. In essence, Kennedy got from Oswald what he’d intended to give Castro through the agency of the CIA and Mafia. The Kennedy murder was a case of simple reprisal. But not from the target of Kennedy’s malice, Castro, but instead from a delusional, self-appointed pro-Castro avenger.

  6. “If you look for the social-economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth.” – George Seldes

  7. David Reitzes Meets Michael Shermer: Send In the Clowns
    By James DiEugenio

    Posted October 1, 2013

    Apparently, Dave Reitzes has an uncontrollable urge to make a fool out of himself. During those distant, far off years when he did not buy the Warren Commission fairy tale, he was in the Barr McClellan/Craig Zirbel camp i.e. Lyndon Johnson killed President Kennedy. When he inexplicably switched sides, he then became allied with John McAdams and began writing on a variety of subjects, including Jack Ruby. But he began to concentrate on the New Orleans scene and became McAdams’ water carrier on Jim Garrison. The problem was, he was about as good in this area as he was when he was backing his LBJ Texas conspiracy theorem. Which means, he was not very convincing, because the quality of his scholarship and insights is quite shoddy.

    But that did not matter to John McAdams. Because the professor isn’t really interested in scholarship or accuracy. Therefore, Reitzes fit the bill. One of the silliest and stupidest projects that the Dynamic Duo worked on was something called “One Hundred Errors of Fact and Judgment in Oliver Stone’s JFK.” What clearly happened here was that McAdams and his gang (which included Tracy Parnell at the time) were upset at the web site exposing one hundred errors of fact in Gerald Posner’s pitiful book Case Closed. A book they championed even before it came out. So they decided to put together a web site to counter this humiliation. The problem was two fold. In the Posner instance, the authors collaborated with experts in each area of the JFK field and therefore the exposed errors are actually accurate. On the Reitzes creation there is no evidence that the author consulted professionally with anyone. Secondly, Posner was writing a non-fiction book. Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar were writing a dramatic film. In the latter, one is allowed the use of dramatic license. One is not in the former. Yet Posner’s book looks so bad today that it does look like he used dramatic license in the volume. ( Which is not what non-fiction writers are allowed to do. But which the Warren Report did all the time.

  8. Where Angels Tread Lightly: The Assassination of President Kennedy Volume 1

    Review by Alan Dale on April 26, 2015

    “There is no darker story in our recent history than how the American struggle with Fidel Castro became entangled with the assassination of President Kennedy.” Dr. John M. Newman

    Buried within the records of America’s military and intelligence bureaucracies are the hidden histories of the Cold War. The Assassination of President Kennedy, Vol. 1: Where Angels Tread Lightly brings greater depth and more detail to our understanding of the roots of its subject than anything previously published. It is a story that begins with an examination of the conditions and opposing factions within Cuba which led to Castro’s 26 of July movement and the Cuban Revolution. This first book in Dr. Newman’s planned multi-volume series on President Kennedy’s assassination offers a masterful introduction to the dynamic complexities of Cuban-American relations in the wake of Fidel Castro’s emergence and ascendency to power. Understanding how the United States responded to Castro, and learning who were the figures of consequence as officers, assets and operatives within the fabric of America’s officially authorized Cuban operations is the necessary context for uncovering a hidden path which ultimately led to the assassination of President Kennedy.

    This work reads like a classic film screenplay. The characters are of such color and intrigue as to be compared with those found in the richest and most enthralling Spy Novels. Dr. Newman introduces CIA affiliated individuals and personalities, agents and double-agents who employed multiple identities engaged in multiple — sometimes overlapping — operations. We learn of deliberate deceptions perpetrated against both presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy by their intelligence executives. We encounter June Cobb and her extraordinary counterpart, Katherine Taafe, certainly among the most interesting figures ever to cross the historical stage. We find extraordinary details about the Cuban figures who defined the earliest opposition to the Batista regime, the Directorio Revolucianario and its evolution into the DRE with which Lee Harvey Oswald made news on the streets of New Orleans in the summer of 1963, and we explore the pseudonyms, cryptonyms and acronyms relevant to our understanding of the period 1959 – 1963, the most seismically volatile period of the Cold War which will be the primary focus of this work in subsequent volumes. And throughout each chapter we follow the intriguing paths of an infamous cast of players: Allen Dulles, David Phillips, William Harvey, David Morales, E. Howard Hunt, Tony Sforza, Frank Sturgis/Frank Fiorini, Rolando Cubela and many others whose identities and actions will be with us from the earliest days of the Cuban Revolution all the way through November 22, 1963 and beyond.

    This is not JFK for Beginners. There will be revelations even for the most experienced JFK assassination researchers; new details which will inform and fascinate all who are interested in history, the Intelligence agencies, their sources and methods. The Assassination of President Kennedy Volume 1, Where Angels Tread Lightly is an exemplary step in a new era of 21st century JFK research. Dr. Newman is a former Army Intelligence officer, an expert in Far Eastern studies, a scholar of Christian Theology and comparative religions, an historian, educator and author whose research has led to revelations about America’s hidden histories. Whether 4, 5, 6 or more volumes, he is doing his part to see this through, to expose and explain, and to take us further than we’ve ever been in a scholarly examination of what really happened to President Kennedy, who was responsible, and how they got away with it.

    He deserves our gratitude and support.

    “Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.” Thomas Jefferson

    “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” James Madison

  9. Bill Simpich — February 4, 2016 at 4:31 pm
    This is not yet a theory, just mulling it over…

    I think the Tippit story is about what happens when a plan is overtaken by unseen events.

    I think that after JFK was shot, Oswald was supposed to die moments later at the scene. The gun is found – the shells are found – case closed.

    I think what happened is that Marrion Baker unexpectedly came on the scene. If he saw a gun in the window – and he might have – I’m not convinced it was ever fired. But, in any case, he came on the scene like gangbusters. Within seconds. And he confronted Oswald with his gun while he had Truly in tow.

    I don’t think Baker was part of any scheme. I think Truly might have been. Again, in any case, this caused disruption. I think Oswald left the scene in the middle of that disruption. I don’t think that was supposed to happen.

    Now the planners have lost control of Oswald. I think Oswald went to the rooming house and straight to the theater without seeing Tippit, to meet a contact he was supposed to meet in case of any emergency. I’m not even 100% convinced that was him at the rooming house, Burroughs’ siting of him is a little after 1 pm – not contradicted by his WC testimony, sorry John. Jack Davis sees him at about 1:15. He’s going from seat to seat.

    The dispatcher called Tippit to go to Oak Cliff. I am more suspicious of the dispatcher than I am of Tippit. Tippit could have been a fallguy himself – but consciously looking for Oswald.

    Oswald crosses the bridge into Oak Cliff while Tippit is on the side of the road. At some point, Tippit realizes he missed him…he stops a car looking for LHO, runs into Top Ten Records and uses their phone, a block from Texas Theatre…

    -Plan one: have a cop (Tippit) kill Oswald somewhere in Oak Cliff.

    In response, would say at least capture Oswald, so someone else could kill him. Maybe Tippit was planning to kill him, maybe not

    -Plan two: have someone kill a cop (Tippit) for the purpose of framing Oswald and leading police to the Texas Theater where the conspirators plainly knew Oswald was located.

    In response, yes, Tippit was killed to frame Oswald. Tippit stopped his car – maybe because he saw someone who looked like Oswald, maybe another distraction. There are lots of LHO doubles in this case. It’s not accidental, there’s just too many powerful sightings. There’s a reason why. We remain confused to this day. It’s a powerful tool.

    I think the killing of Tippit was opportunistic. The wallet was held as a prop to be used at some point, now was the time to use it.

    It was given by an “unknown party” to Kenneth Croy, a “bad-reputation” cop who I think may have shielded Ruby’s body in the moments before he killed Oswald. Croy gave it to his boss, who gave it to Westbrook. The witnesses, including John M’s favorite Ted Callaway, says the wallet was never on the ground near Tippit.

    -Plan three: have cops kill Oswald at the theater.

    My response: An Oswald double gets Johnny Brewer’s attention, then runs past the ticket-taker and into the balcony. The idea? Draw the cops. Works like a charm. Hill, Bentley, all the bad guys storm the balcony, hoping Oswald is there. Miscommunication again. Oswald throws a punch to create a diversion, manages to survive.

    -Plan four: have Ruby kill Oswald at police HQ.

    My response: Late, better than never. Horn beeps, time to shoot. TV lights in the eyes of LHO’s custodians, perfect moment to strike. If that hadn’t worked, LHO would have died days later.

    Yes, a great screenplay, especially with the phony evidence. But that’s how assassinations are done. You plan to get away with it. Except for the sacrificial Ruby, they did.

  10. FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 232 – pg. 57

    FBI Memeo of February 25, 1967, 2:02 PM CST

    “xxxxxxxxxx [name whited out] advised this date that Aura Lee (last name unknown), Clay Shaw’s former secretary at the International Trade Mart, New Orleans, who is employed byt the Heart Fund at Ochsner Clinic, stated in front of Dr. Charles B. Moore and others at Ochsner Hospital (31 last) after Shaw’s press conference where he advised he had never met David Ferrie, that she had seen Ferrie go into Shaw’s office in the International Trade Mart Building on a number of occassions, and believed Ferrie had privileged entry into Shaw’s office.”

    Read page 58 as well…hell read the whole thing on Mary Ferrell’s website (139 pages)

  11. “It appears now, on the surface at least, that Jim Garrison’s investigation and arrest and prosecution of
    Claw Shaw was a contrivance, the players, including Shaw, witting participants. If this is indeed the case,”
    ~Tom Sculley
    * * * * * *
    It may ‘appear’ that way to Tom, but it certainly doesn’t appear that way to me!
    How did this backflip in Tom’s thinking come about?
    I hear the clinking of champagne glasses between Jean, McAdams, and Photon.


  12. “He (Edward M. Baldwin) enumerated or spelled out his personal dislike for Jim Garrison, that he personally thought he should be destroyed, that Sheridan’s so-called mission in the City of New Orleans with this so-called documentary was to end the problem, destroy Garrison or to get him to resign” ~Judge O’Hara

    “Garrison happens to be married to my godchild and first cousin”~David Baldwin

    So Tom, How do you put these two data points together to come up with Baldwin and Garrison coming together in a plot together?

    You ask: “what is it they vehemently want to conceal from us?” ( Dirty Laundry!! )

    So what do you think that could possibly be?

    It seems to me concealing a family feud, would be the most simple answer here.
    . . . . .
    Consider here that this whole affair ended up in Garrison and his wife splitting up, and they eventually divorced. He said later that it was devastating to him, when asked if he would do it all over again considering the personal costs…he thought a moment and said, “I don’t know, probably not.”

    . . .
    “We’re kicking this around to attempt how it could all be reasonably explained, Willy. You’ve offered
    an incomplete explanation.”~Tom

    Well at least I have offered an explanation. Tom isn’t offering anything but more questions. We are entering an abyss of unanswerable questions; a morass, a quagmire of confusion. I am not going to play this game.
    [Update 2/12/2016]:

    I think what is at the root of this whole thing is larger than simply the family thing with Garrison. I think that Garrison was considered a traitor to the Genteel Class of New Orleans. This was Jim Garrison’s real SIN according to his detractors.
    I should think anyone who has ever lived in the deep south would grasp what a deadly sin this was considered to be by these hypocritical candy coated scoundrels of ‘Southern Hospitality’ and the Carpetbagger Heritage that put on such phony displays of “Class”. If you are not Born into this clique you cannot join. If you are born into this clique you cannot bow out from it with your hide in tact.

    Apparently Garrison’s in-laws felt he had married above his rank in the first place. Another sin, perhaps forgivable if one kowtowed to the genteel rule-book closely, dotting all the “i’s” and crossing all the “t’s”.

    Now Clay Shaw was considered a “nice man” an “upstanding citizen” and a part of this genteel clique where ‘Appearances’ are everything. One can be ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ in these instances, but never openly Mr Hyde. So Shaw was pardoned for being Bertrand, precisely because that was proper etiquette, the ONLY thing to do in his unfortunate conundrum of being a gay man of high society.

    So to me, the above are the underlying sociological integers that lay the foundation to the situation we are attempting to resolve.

    So now we have set the table, let’s talk about REVENGE. Long simmering, deep seated revenge against an interloper into not only one’s class, but one’s family. Let’s talk about “Dirty Laundry” and the long held strictures against airing such in the open by members of the “Upper Crust”.

    I propose that THIS is the answer to the problem you are trying to solve here.

    I suggest this is at the heart of Baldwin’s intense hatred of Jim Garrison. I suggest that Garrison’s prosecution of Clay Shaw was merely a convenient excuse for attacking Garrison, whom he loathed in the first place.

    So now we come to this trumped up case these hypocritical socialites played against Garrison, using all the covert pressures of deceit and defamation at their disposal. We both know what powerful forces these were, levied against Garrison.

    Garrison was sabotaged – not just his case against Clay Shaw/Bertrand; but his entire life was sabotaged.

    Like those who feel that Kennedy was a traitor to his class, and to this day indict him for his sexual escapades (that they ALL partake in themselves), Jim Garrison is to this day pilloried for being a traitor to his class.

    I think it is misplace enthusiasm to join in on such defamation of Garrison in the search for what is now euphemistically called “truth” in this case. It is no more than a rerun of what Lemann, Sheridan, and Baldwin did in 1967.

    And although this is my opinion as to what is going on here; I cannot and do not insist on anyone agreeing with me.
    Argumentum Verbosium

    • Bill Clarke — February 12, 2016 at 12:59 am
      “I guess the other main theory of the thread is it means all of DiEugeio and Mellen’s work, as well as Garrison’s is junk?”~Ronnie Wayne on February 11, 2016 at 10:01 pm
      . . . . .
      I wouldn’t say “all of” DiEugeio’s stuff is junk but the sections of this history that I’m familiar with (JFK/Vietnam Policy) his stuff is pure junk. That would be because he regurgitates his junk from John Newman’s junk. Never have I seen such a blatant lie accepted by so many.
      Fuck Bill Clarke, He is an asshole who calls anyone who disagrees with him a liar. He calls John Newman a liar, he calls Fletcher Prouty a liar, The fact is that Bill Clarke is a hack, not an expert. He can’t hold a candle to either Newman nor Prouty as far as direct experience and expertise on the subject of JFK and Vietnam.

      Vietnam ate Bill Clarke’s brains!

    • Willy Whitten — February 13, 2016 at 3:17 pm
      Let’s just make these issues clear.

      Is it not a fact that Baldwin revealed that Garrison was married to his first cousin and god daughter to Clay Shaw in a private correspondence?

      The point I am trying to determine is WHEN did this information Baldwin gave to Shaw become public knowledge?

      When this is cleared up, I will have more to say on this subject.
      Willy Whitten
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      February 13, 2016 at 5:33 pm

      “From what I have been able to learn, the relationship between David Baldwin and Jim Garrison’s wife was presented only once, publicly, without accompanying comment, by author Donald H Carpenter in his 2014 Clay Shaw biography.”~Tom S.

      Okay, so as far as is known no one knew this information aside from the families concerned besides Clay Shaw, until 2014.

      That is what I thought would be the case.

      “I feel like a Spring Lamb!”~Clay Shaw, after his acquittal in the garrison trial.

      Some have interpreted this as Shaw saying he felt like a lamb meant for slaughter. Or that he was a pawn in a big game. And I would think that Baldwin’s note to him may have given him that impression.

      But WHO’S GAME? I would posit it was Baldwin’s game as O’Hara seems to indicate in his Grand Jury testimony.

      I won’t assert, but will ask; isn’t it supposition to include any others but Baldwin and his co-conspirators who set out to destroy Garrison?

      Yes Garrison knew that his wife was Baldwin’s 1st cousin and god-daughter. But exactly how is him keeping mum on this fact tie him in with Baldwin and the others in a plot to destroy himself?
      So the question naturally arises; Why didn’t Clay Shaw in turn around, file a defamation of character suit against Garrison? Could the answer to that be that he would have gone to legal council for assistance in such; and who was his legal assistance? We know of course that legal assistance were the people associated with Baldwin. So why would these people advise against such a suit against Garrison?

      This brings me back to the “Dirty Laundry” taboo of the upper crust of New Orleans society. By this time Garrison was crushed professionally, his wife had left him. Other political machinations were still abroad, as revealed by O’Hara. The addition of a defamation suit by Shaw would be a small addition to Garrisons troubles — but would be a HUGE PUBLIC SCANDAL for Baldwin’s extended family. What would be the bigger payoff, with less problems for these people?
      I say avoiding a tabloid style scandal would have been the prime interest of these people.


      • leslie sharp — February 13, 2016 at 9:28 pm
        “I say avoiding a tabloid style scandal would have been the prime interest of these people.” — Willy Whitten

        “Willy, are you suggesting that the Baldwins, Lemanns, Zieglers and Jim Garrison were so small-minded that their worry about tabloid style scandal interfered with the investigation into the assassination of the leader of the free world? This was not a local, state or even regional murder investigation that could be buried in family, social or cultural dynamics. By all appearances, these were professionals, trained attorneys with credentials including in the diplomatic corp and high profile government and civic positions, so assigning them a parochial defense seems to me a weak observation. When you weave into the later story Walter Sheridan and NBC news – with the board of that broadcast system in the deep shadows – I don’t think it’s possible to employ such a simplistic rationale for Garrison’s failure to state up front that the very individuals he should have been investigating were in fact related to his wife. And in spite of the reticence to focus on Stephen Lemann, that is where the Baldwin and Core story leads, imo”
        “Willy, are you suggesting that the Baldwins, Lemanns, Zieglers and Jim Garrison were so small-minded that their worry about tabloid style scandal interfered with the investigation into the assassination of the leader of the free world?”

        Excusing Garrison himself from that mix; YES I do think that.

        Why am I excusing Garrison from that mix? Because he indicted Shaw. Because the others were involved with Shaw and CIA, and likely had ties to the assassination themselves, just like Shaw did. They didn’t WANT the investigation to who really killed Kennedy to bear fruit__because they themselves were the fruit.

        Why did Garrison originally bring in Ferrie? Because of tips from Jack Martin who saw Ferrie hanging around Banister’s office. Martin knew that Banister and Ferrie were involved with the anti-Castro Cubans. Martin tipped off Garrison about the sudden trip to Texas during a huge thunderstorm. Being an investigator Martin felt that was suspicious.

        Also see:

      • Where is the MOTIVE?

        Okay Leslie, Tom,

        If this elaborate patrician’s charade was meant as a distraction from some DEEPER connection to the JFK assassination; what could that possibly be? Surely you must have some theory as to what purpose all of this was meant to serve.

        Why would they raise a stink at all. Why not let it all lie quietly beneath the covers? Why would they bring attention to themselves?

        If you are positing that it was all meant to distract from the “industrial concerns” of these people, how does bringing their names into the open at all serve as such a cover?

        I have come to the point of being fed up with Leslie Sharp’s puerile shenanigans — 2/15/2016

  13. The Right to Know as an informed citizenry verses the “Need to Know” doctrine of military compartmentalization is an issue that is lacking in the public dialog in the postmodern era.
    The concept that the right to know was in fact a need to know was generally understood by the founding generation of this nation.

    However, during the Industrial Revolution persuasive propaganda began to emerge which had deep effects as techniques of indoctrination were beginning to be perfected in a technological and psychological sense.
    The War Between the States occurred in this same time period, and a profound change in the values and understanding of the people took place. The ‘Republic’ was soon reframed as a ‘Democracy’, and the grasp of the founding documents began to fade from the public consciousness.

    As the early 20th century dawned new ideas took shape in the halls of power, while the importation of the Prussian “Educational” system was begun in earnest by those who would rule rather than govern.

    • Lessons From My Father: How To Run A Secret Agent

      “Intelligence agents have no friends. It’s like international affairs. Nations have no friends. They have relationships. Sometimes they’re close, and then? Then things change. But that’s the thing about espionage, and especially liaison, you have to be on their side, you have to speak their language, you have to see their whole way of looking at things, and address yourself to that, and take it on as your own.” ~John Hadden

    • “Information by itself is meaningless. A pile of facts is just raw material. It’s not a piece of work until you carve it into something. Otherwise it’s just a piece of wood that you might toss into the fire. Until you’ve done something with it, until you’ve worked it, it hasn’t done anything. And words are like that. What good are words until you’ve put them together in some understandable fashion so that you can communicate an idea? The words themselves are nothing. It’s only when you string them together in an interesting way that something happens.”~~John Hadden

    • James Galbraith has rather settled the question of what JFK would have done in Vietnam. From “The Nation”:
      JFK’s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation
      A response to Rick Perlstein.
      By James K. Galbraith NOVEMBER 22, 2013

      Ten years after my articles on JFK’s October 1963 decision to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, Rick Perlstein attempts a rebuttal. His technique is to concede the point, but then to misstate the context, deny the importance and spatter the mess with scornful phrases.

      My essays in Boston Review and Salon established that the plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam by the end of 1965 existed. And that President Kennedy had decided to implement that plan. In 2003, this was controversial. Many historians had denied it. Peter Dale Scott, John Newman, and Arthur Schlesinger were exceptions. They were right, and documents and tapes released under the JFK Records Act proved them right. The issue was resolved by early 2008 when Francis Bator, who had been President Johnson’s Deputy National Security Adviser, opened his reply to my letter in the New York Review of Books with these words:

      Professor Galbraith is correct [Letters, NYR, December 6, 2007] that “there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965…. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died.

      Bator followed with a qualification, which Perlstein repeats:

      But… that plan was explicitly conditioned on Secretary McNamara’s and General Taylor’s ‘judgment that the major part of the US military task can be completed by the end of 1965…,’ that ‘the long term program to replace US personnel with trained Vietnamese [could go forward]without impairment of the war effort [emphasis added].

      We disagree on this point, specifically on what the phrase “the major part of the US military task” meant. On the White House tapes of October 2, Robert McNamara differs with General Taylor on whether the war can be won by 1965. Instead he says: “ But I am sure that if we don’t meet those dates in the sense of ending the major military campaigns, we nonetheless can withdraw the bulk of our US forces according to the schedule we’ve laid out, worked out, because we can train the Vietnamese to do the job.” [emphasis added]. Taylor’s memorandum to the Joint Chiefs on October 4, 1963, which conveys the decision, contains no contingency. The troops were to be withdrawn. “All planning” would be based on that decision.

      JFK and Vietnam, James Galbraith, Part II:

      Training would end. Support for South Vietnam would continue. They had an army of over 200,000. The end of the war was not in sight. After the end of 1965, even under the withdrawal plan, 1,500 US troops were slated to remain, for supply purposes. But the war would then be Vietnamese only, with no possibility of it becoming an American war on Kennedy’s watch.

      Did Kennedy believe the war was being won? Perlstein accuses me of neglecting this question; in fact I devoted almost two thousand words of my Boston Review essay to it. Here is Robert McNamara’s summary of the October 2, 1963 meeting, my comment, and his description of the outcome:

      One faction believed military progress had been good and training had progressed to the point where we could begin to withdraw. A second faction did not see the war as progressing well and did not see the South Vietnamese showing evidence of successful training. But they, too, agreed that we should begin to withdraw. . . . The third faction, representing the majority, considered the South Vietnamese trainable but believed our training had not been in place long enough to achieve results and, therefore, should continue at current levels.

      As McNamara’s 1986 oral history, on deposit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, makes clear (but his book does not), he was himself in the second group, who favored withdrawal without victory—not necessarily admitting or even predicting defeat, but accepting uncertainty as to what would follow. The denouement came shortly thereafter:

      After much debate, the president endorsed our recommendation to withdraw 1,000 men by December 31, 1963. He did so, I recall, without indicating his reasoning. In any event, because objections had been so intense and because I suspected others might try to get him to reverse the decision, I urged him to announce it publicly. That would set it in concrete. . . . The president finally agreed, and the announcement was released by Pierre Salinger after the meeting.’

      On the day Kennedy died, the course of policy had been set. This is not speculation about a state of mind. It is a statement of fact about a decision.

      Had Kennedy lived, the withdrawal plan would have remained policy, and the numbers of US troops in Vietnam would have declined, unless and until policy changed. Might Kennedy still have “reversed the decision” at some point? Of course he might have. But there is no evidence that he intended to do so.

      Lacking evidence, Perlstein drifts off into puerile commentary on JFK’s “machismo” and image of “youthful vigor.” Against these, he conjures phrases that reveal nothing except his own state of mind: “Bugout plans.” “…cutting and running.” “…pants-pissing fears.” And he pretends that the issue turns, in two words, on whether President John F. Kennedy was a “closet peacenik.”

      Just consider the connotations of that pseudo-Russian epithet. Or those of the word “closet.” What— exactly— do you suppose— was that intended to bring to mind?~Gary Aguilar
      February 16, 2016 at 9:23 pm

    Paul Craig Roberts

    Presstitute Media, such as the UK Telegraph, spend a lot of energy debunking exposes of government conspiracies. For example, the thousands of highrise architects, structural engineers, physicists, nano-chemists, demolition experts, first responders, military and civilian pilots, and former government officials who have provided vast evidence that the official story of 9/11 is a made-up fairy tale at odds with all evidence and the laws of physics are dismissed by presstitutes as “conspiracy theorists.”

    Similarly, those, such as James W. Douglass, who have proven beyond all doubt that President John F. Kennedy was not assassinated by Oswald but by his own paranoid anti-communist military-security complex, are dismissed as conspiracy theorists.
    * * * * * * * * *
    Man Shot Alongside RFK Say Sirhan Sirhan Should Be Granted Parole
    By Steve Fiorina

    February 11, 2016 “Information Clearing House” – “C10” – Paul Schrade, now 91 years old, was shot in the head on June 5, 1968, at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles while standing alongside Kennedy.
    Schrade contends that Sirhan was not the only shooter that night. In an exclusive interview that aired on 10News Tuesday night, Schrade stated that Kennedy was actually killed by a second gunman.
    – See more at:

  15. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
    ~Lewis Carroll


  16. Willy Whitten — February 16, 2016 at 12:24 am [JFKfacts]

    “The witnesses include O’Connor, Jenkins and Stringer. That is evidence, so accept it.”~Rob H

    That is ‘testimony’ not ‘evidence’, whether their testimony is valid or not is the issue here.

    “In my opinion, anyone who thinks CE 399 “worked its way out of Connally’s wound” is not a moron, but a total, lying weasel like McAdams.”~Ibid

    I did not say that CE 399 “worked its way out of Connally’s wound”, I said that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back may have worked itself out during Dr Perry’s desperate attempts to start Kennedy’s heart beating again. I made ZERO reference to CE399.

    I have read Lifton’s book BEST EVIDENCE. I think the body altering theory and stealing the JFK’s body is hogwash. If you don’t like it tough.

  17. JFK remix: ‘The Motorcade Sped On’
    From a rare 7″ track given away free with the NME magazine in February 1987.


  18. Ronnie Wayne – February 11

    “…. I guess the other main theory of the thread is it means all of DiEugenio and Mellen’s work, as well as Garrison’s is junk?”

    Tom S. — February 16, 2016 at 3:01 pm
    “Why do we seem to have so much difficulty considering what we have had no prior awareness of and how it relates to what we’ve already accepted and highly regard? What do we stand for? Are the stakes for each book author or researcher really all, or nothing?

    Are we open to learning new things, even if they seem to us to conflict with what we know with confidence? Do we know what we know, with confidence? I can understand to a degree the defensiveness of a book author who has a comparatively large investment of time and self
    in a book intertwined with the author’s reputation, but what explains
    the similiar reaction of the rest of us?

    Is accuracy in opposition to what we know we know? How did that happen?

    I am concerned that there are individuals who have learned things they think may be important but decide not to present because they anticipate the reaction to their facts will be broadly negative and reflect on the presenter, personally.”

    • “How credible can this site be if there is the slightest hint of attempt to shut down a discussion among the regulars, let alone any suggestion that as Tom mentions, that someone who is walking around with keys should ‘walk on by’ jfkfacts because they will be raked over the coals if their information challenges Garrison’s case against Shaw.”Leslie Sharp

      The only people “raked over the coals” in the conversation that took place on the thread Ronnie Wayne made his comment on, are those who challenge Leslie Sharp’s interpretation of the new information about Garrison’s case.

      Mine is not a challenge to the links and connections that Garrison had, but the way in which those connections are interpreted, what they meant. I have followed and grasped every jot and tittle of that information, and I have another interpretation as to what it stacks up to. I said so, and Ms Sharp became obviously agitated, tetchy, and peeved that I would disagree with her, even though I explained exactly why I felt she was reading her own opinions into the facts; facts that could be interpreted more accurately in a different manner.

      I see no benefit in confronting the irascible Ms Sharp any further, as she is determined to force her interpretation onto the data, whether that interpretation stands to reason or not. If she doesn’t understand the points I have made already, it is because she doesn’t want to understand them, she simply wishes to enforce her will on the rest of the forum.

      Thus I have nothing further to say to Lady Macbeth.

    • “…it is possible to think that Garrison was onto something in that Shaw and Ferrie were connected to Oswald for purposes other than plotting the demise of JFK.Possibly to help build his legend and to help him get into Cuba to spy or to do the dirty deed to Fidel. The CIA as well as RFK’s protege Walter Sheridan would certainly want to sabotage any investigation that might disclose that.”~Brian Joseph
      February 16, 2016 at 10:10 pm

      There are a myriad of ways in which to interpret the connections Garrison had with people like Walter Sheridan, David Baldwin, Stephen Lemann, and others. However to accept Mr Joseph’s suppositions, one would have to disregard the connections that have been firmly established by other routes that CIA was involved in the plans and executing the agenda to perform the coup d’etat.

      Baldwin’s intense hatred of Jim Garrison is not taken account of in this proposed scenario of Mr Joseph, nor Sheridan’s attempt to bribe Perry Russo to disclaim his testimony of what he witnessed at David Ferrie’s party. Nor does it address Banister and his connections with Ferrie, and Shaw in training and outfitting the anti-Castro Cubans.

      We can make suppositions to our hearts content, but every avenue of information must be accounted for beyond the connections of Garrison and his family members. Those who wish to abandon the known facts of CIA involvement in the assassination of President Kennedy, are free to do so only at the price of also abandoning reason.

      • Willy Whitten — February 17, 2016 at 5:54 am

        “In regards to the comment of the week: Of course it would not necessarily mean that all their work is junk, just that it can be viewed in different contexts.”~Brian Joseph

        Yes it can be viewed by a literal penumbra of contexts as pure data. But it is uncommon for information to be presented simply as pure data by any commentator. The reasons a commentator finds certain data compelling has to do with what that data might mean to that commentator personally.

        There is no such thing as an unbiased point of view. The angle that data is assessed at effects the data. Anyone who has studied quantum physics should grasp the significance of “viewer as participant”.

        Not to go too deeply into the epistemic implications inherent in the discussion here, I would say that there has already developed a semiofficial narrative on this topic here.
        Opinions may very, but don’t walk too far.

        The choice of context is not binary, but multifaceted and complex.
        The intellectual grasp of what the key of “E” means in music is useless to the tone deaf.
        There is more than one way to skin a cat, unless one is trapped by bias or habit.
        The moderator has the bully pulpit regardless of venue.

      • A Critique & Complaint in Metaphor

        The Human Skeleton

        The jaw bone is connected to the skull bone, the skull bone is connected to the backbone, the backbone is connected to the hip bone, the hip bone is connected to the femur, the femur is connected to the fibula/tibula, the fibula/tibula is connected to the tarsals, the tarsals are connected to the metatarsals, the metatarsals are connect to the phalanges…

        So you have the skeletal connections for the Garrison-Shaw Trial.
        Now where is the meat of your argument as applied to that skeleton?

        All I have encountered thus far is a detailed analysis of the skeleton; the counting of vertebrae, designation of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae – making note of the structure of the shoulder and the full rotary capabilities of such a design. And on down the structure from head to toe. What I haven’t seen is the meat of the argument applied to the structure, only implications that are not fully articulated; suppositions as to the width or length of some muscles, but no actual measurement or exact placement on the skeleton.
        This allegory may tire you, but I think it shows my point without trudging through every detail of the connections Garrison had, and what that connection actually meant in regard to the trial of Clay Shaw/Bertrand.


  19. NSAM 263 2 October declaring its intention to bring home 1000 troops by Dec, 1963…By 1965, a unilateral withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam.

    This NSAM was still in effect when Kennedy was killed. He never saw nor approved NSAM 273.




    “The President has reviewed the discussions of South Vietnam which occurred in Honolulu, and has discussed the matter further with Ambassador Lodge. He directs that the following guidance be issued to all concerned”
    Which “President” discussed the matter further with Ambassador Lodge?

    Which “President” reviewed and directed?

    Certainly NOT President Kennedy.

  20. Willy Whitten
    February 17, 2016 at 9:32 pm

    Of critical import is the fact that in 1963 there were no “combat troops” in Vietnam, only ‘Advisers’…and CIA.

    The point that many miss is the fact that NSAM 263 sought to bring home the bulk of “US Personnel”. This would include any Advisers still in country by 1965 – but more critically, the removal of CIA from Southeast Asia.

    Kennedy’s larger agenda was to shut down Covert Operations world wide; to put a definitive end to the global charade of the Cold War; to disavow Empire.

    Those who might attempt to argue against my closing remarks above, have not properly considered the man Kennedy himself, in his own words and deeds. The foundation of his sociopolitical philosophy is crystallized by the time of his speech to Congress in 1957, deploring empire, and making a stirring and profoundly prescient case against the structure of empire; that it was at it’s core the rejection of the unalienable rights of human beings. We cannot loose track of this as we follow his career in the practical political arena. Kennedy was a brilliant political tactician who could “play the game” against itself. Replacing Kennedy the man in the core of his being, with the actor in politics, is a mortal error for those who argue that Kennedy was a “Cold Warrior” and a ‘Hawk’ at any time in his political career.
    Also see:

    • It was the machinations of Henry Cabot Lodge that led to Diam’s assassination. Kennedy was set to fire Lodge the Sunday following the trip to Dallas.
      Of course Kennedy came back from Dallas dead. And Lodge had a great deal with setting Kennedy up for that assassination and coup d’etat.

    • Willy Whitten — February 18, 2016 at 11:14 am

      There were NEVER any combat troops in Vietnam during the Kennedy administration. ALL of the military personnel there were in an advisory position.

      Anyone who makes claims to the contrary is misinformed or spreading disinformation.

      The 400 Special Force Troops sent to Vietnam were there in an adviser capacity as well.

      Bill Clarke IS A FUCKING LIAR. His pretense of being an expert in the history of the Vietnam war is laughable bullshit.

      “A pivotal period of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, punctuated by three important events: the overthrow and assassination of South Vietnam’s president Ngo Dinh Diem; President Kennedy’s decision on October 2 to begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces; and his assassination fifty days later.”~Robert McNamara – Chapter 3, “The Fateful Fall of 1963: August 24–November 22, 1963” – ‘In Retrospect’ (1995)
      * * * * *
      Newman’s argument was not a case of “counterfactual historical reasoning,” as Larry Berman described it in an early response. It was not about what might have happened had Kennedy lived. Newman’s argument was stronger: Kennedy, he claims, had decided to begin a phased withdrawal from Vietnam, that he had ordered this withdrawal to begin. Here is the chronology, according to Newman:

      (1) On October 2, 1963, Kennedy received the report of a mission to Saigon by McNamara and Maxwell Taylor, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). The main recommendations, which appear in Section I(B) of the McNamara-Taylor report, were that a phased withdrawal be completed by the end of 1965 and that the “Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1,000 out of 17,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in Vietnam by the end of 1963.” At Kennedy’s instruction, Press Secretary Pierre Salinger made a public announcement that evening of McNamara’s recommended timetable for withdrawal.

      (2) On October 5, Kennedy made his formal decision. Newman quotes the minutes of the meeting that day:

      The President also said that our decision to remove 1,000 U.S. advisors by December of this year should not be raised formally with Diem. Instead the action should be carried out routinely as part of our general posture of withdrawing people when they are no longer needed.

      The passage illustrates two points: (a) that a decision was in fact made on that day, and (b) that despite the earlier announcement of McNamara’s recommendation, the October 5 decision was not a ruse or pressure tactic to win reforms from Diem (as Richard Reeves, among others, has contended3) but a decision to begin withdrawal irrespective of Diem or his reactions.

      (3) On October 11, the White House issued NSAM 263, which states:

      The President approved the military recommendations contained in section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

      In other words, the withdrawal recommended by McNamara on October 2 was embraced in secret by Kennedy on October 5 and implemented by his order on October 11, also in secret. Newman argues that the secrecy after October 2 can be explained by a diplomatic reason. Kennedy did not want Diem or anyone else to interpret the withdrawal as part of any pressure tactic (other steps that were pressure tactics had also been approved). There was also a political reason: JFK had not decided whether he could get away with claiming that the withdrawal was a result of progress toward the goal of a self-sufficient South Vietnam.

      The alternative would have been to withdraw the troops while acknowledging failure. And this, Newman argues, Kennedy was prepared to do if it became necessary. He saw no reason, however, to take this step before it became necessary. If the troops could be pulled while the South Vietnamese were still standing, so much the better.4 But from October 11 onward the CIA’s reporting changed drastically. Official optimism was replaced by a searching and comparatively realistic pessimism. Newman believes this pessimism, which involved rewriting assessments as far back as the previous July, was a response to NSAM 263. It represented an effort by the CIA to undermine the ostensible rationale of withdrawal with success, and therefore to obstruct implementation of the plan for withdrawal. Kennedy, needless to say, did not share his full reasoning with the CIA.

      (4) On November 1 there came the coup in Saigon and the assassination of Diem and Nhu. At a press conference on November 12, Kennedy publicly restated his Vietnam goals. They were “to intensify the struggle” and “to bring Americans out of there.” Victory, which had figured prominently in a similar statement on September 12, was no longer on the list.

      (5) The Honolulu Conference of senior cabinet and military officials on November 20–21 was called to review plans in the wake of the Saigon coup. The military and the CIA, however, planned to use that meeting to pull the rug from under the false optimism which some had used to rationalize NSAM 263. However, Kennedy did not himself believe that we were withdrawing with victory. It follows that the changing image of the military situation would not have changed JFK’s decision.

      (6) In Honolulu, McGeorge Bundy prepared a draft of what would eventually be NSAM 273. The plan was to present it to Kennedy after the meeting ended. Dated November 21, this draft reflected the change in military reporting. It speaks, for example, of a need to “turn the tide not only of battle but of belief.” Plans to intensify the struggle, however, do not go beyond what Kennedy would have approved: A paragraph calling for actions against the North underscores the role of Vietnamese forces:

      7. With respect to action against North Vietnam, there should be a detailed plan for the development of additional Government of Vietnam resources, especially for sea-going activity, and such planning should indicate the time and investment necessary to achieve a wholly new level of effectiveness in this field of action.

      (7) At Honolulu, a preliminary plan, known as CINCPAC OPLAN 34-63 and later implemented as OPLAN 34A, was prepared for presentation. This plan called for intensified sabotage raids against the North, employing Vietnamese commandos under U.S. control—a significant escalation.5 While JCS chief Taylor had approved preparation of this plan, it had not been shown to McNamara. Tab E of the meeting’s briefing book, also approved by Taylor and also not sent in advance to McNamara, showed that the withdrawal ordered by Kennedy in October was already being gutted, by the device of substituting for the withdrawal of full units that of individual soldiers who were being rotated out of Vietnam in any event.

      (8) The final version of NSAM 273, signed by Johnson on November 26, differs from the draft in several respects. Most are minor changes of wording. The main change is that the draft paragraph 7 has been struck in its entirety (there are two pencil slashes on the November 21 draft), and replaced with the following:

      Planning should include different levels of possible increased activity, and in each instance there be estimates such factors as: A. Resulting damage to North Vietnam; B. The plausibility denial; C. Vietnamese retaliation; D. Other international reaction. Plans submitted promptly for approval by authority.

      The new language is incomplete. It does not begin by declaring outright that the subject is attacks on the North. But the thrust is unmistakable, and the restrictive reference to “Government of Vietnam resources” is now missing. Newman concludes that this change effectively provided new authority for U.S.–directed combat actions against North Vietnam. Planning for these actions began therewith, and we now know that an OPLAN 34A raid in August 1964 provoked the North Vietnamese retaliation against the destroyer Maddox, which became the first Gulf of Tonkin incident. And this in turn led to the confused incident a few nights later aboard the Turner Joy, to reports that it too had been attacked, and to Johnson’s overnight decision to seek congressional support for “retaliation” against North Vietnam. From this, of course, the larger war then flowed.
      • • •
      As McNamara’s 1986 oral history, on deposit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, makes clear (but his book does not), he was himself in the second group, who favored withdrawal without victory—not necessarily admitting or even predicting defeat, but accepting uncertainty as to what would follow. The denouement came shortly thereafter:

      After much debate, the president endorsed our recommendation to withdraw 1,000 men by December 31, 1963. He did so, I recall, without indicating his reasoning. In any event, because objections had been so intense and because I suspected others might try to get him to reverse the decision, I urged him to announce it publicly. That would set it in concrete. . . . The president finally agreed, and the announcement was released by Pierre Salinger after the meeting.

      • Willy Whitten — February 18, 2016 at 7:08 pm

        I find it remarkable that not only are some here still fighting the Vietnam War, but are still fighting the Cold War: with all this twattle about “Commies” and “Pinkos” under every bed.

        It is the 21st century for gawd sake.

        I will remind every one of my detractors of this fact. I have read every document connected with MSAM 263. I need no one to interpret them for me.

        It is a raw unmitigated FACT that all military personnel in Vietnam were there under the auspices of “Adviser” — it is only gross assumption based on hot air to claim otherwise. There was warfare going on in that country while these advisers were there, it is not some sneaking mystery that some of them were killed.

        As far as withdrawal including CIA, and my making up that 263 would necessarily mean their withdrawal as well…is it really necessary to point out that CIA were and are US personnel?

        All of the points made by Photon, McAdams, and our little soldierboy Bill Clarke are spin, and PR BS.

        It is established that Kennedy was determined to withdraw all US personnel from Southeast Asia by 1965. It is in the record. It is the previously mentioned trio who are misstating that record.
        . . .

        As McNamara’s 1986 oral history, on deposit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, makes clear (but his book does not), he was himself in the second group, who favored withdrawal without victory—not necessarily admitting or even predicting defeat, but accepting uncertainty as to what would follow. The denouement came shortly thereafter:

        After much debate, the president endorsed our recommendation to withdraw 1,000 men by December 31, 1963. He did so, I recall, without indicating his reasoning. In any event, because objections had been so intense and because I suspected others might try to get him to reverse the decision, I urged him to announce it publicly. That would set it in concrete. . . . The president finally agreed, and the announcement was released by Pierre Salinger after the meeting.

      • The Kennedy and Vietnam thing is very simple really: When the military thought that framing the war as going well would keep the men and equipment coming in to Vietnam, they fudged the information in that direction. When Kennedy decided to change tactics as it seemed the war was going well enough to begin bringing troops home as the training of the Vietnamese troops seemed to be working, the military suddenly reversed their assessment to show that the war wasn’t going well after all. Kennedy had it figured out at that point, that the military would frame it either way as long as they could keep the guns and men going into Vietnam.

        No longer trusting the military’s own assessments Kennedy had his own assessment done by his direction; The Taylor-McNamara Report, which was overseen and written in DC on Kennedy’s personal direction. This resulted in NSAM 263 and it’s referrals to the Report as addendum.

        NSAM 273 is often cited as being an extension of the same policy of Kennedy’s directive.
        But it was not, point # 7 of the McNamara report was penciled out by Lodge and Johnson and subtly changed to read that US advisers would only be withdrawn when victory was assured. This eventually led to the introduction of ground troops under Johnson, and an escalation to full-on total war against Vietnam.

        NSAM 263 essentially became Kennedy’s death warrant. The coup was hatched and carried out in Dallas.
        * * * * * * *
        Before a large audience at the LBJ Library on May 1, 1995, McNamara restated his account of this meeting and stressed its importance. He confirmed that President Kennedy’s action had three elements: (1) complete withdrawal “by December 31, 1965,” (2) the first 1,000 out by the end of 1963, and (3) a public announcement, to set these decisions “in concrete,” which was made. McNamara also added the critical information that there exists a tape of this meeting, in the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston, to which he had access and on which his account is based.
        >The new version of paragraph 7 in the final draft of NSAM 273 signed by Johnson on November 26 opened the way for OPLAN 34A and the use of U.S.–directed forces in covert operations against North Vietnam.

      • Those who grasp the true architecture of political power understand this:

        The point is NOT to win the war. The point is to FIGHT the war.

        This was true of the Vietnam War just like it is true of all modern wars.

        $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
        $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $


  21. Like you I can’t stop myself from going back to check on T&S. I notice that TamborineMan is still spinning like a twirlybird with his jejune “philosophy/theology”

    Quoting Kierkegaard on “necessity”. He and perhaps Kierkegaard miss the fact that necessity is inherent in the time-space manifestation of being in the illusory medium of Time. That in the mortal situation ‘Survival’ is the necessity – not a creation of man, but a creation of the author of all that is.

    Now is the moment of Power – For Now is the ONLY moment that is.

  22. In response to; GENERAL WALKER and the murder of PRESIDENT KENNEDY
    new book September 29 2015. By Jeffrey H. Caufield, MD.

    It is my view that those of us who have studied the assassination of John Kennedy for the last 50 years, understands Walker’s roll as a propagandist against Kennedy as a closet-Red. The alleged shooting by Oswald is unproven, Even Walker himself disputes that the bullet he saw personally recovered at the crime scene was NOT the bullet put into evidence.

    Although Caufield makes a good, and perhaps hyperbolic case for this conspiracy involving Walker, he does not sufficiently connect Walker and his compatriots to any actual actions. He is distant from the actual plotters that were part of the assassination. Caufield seems to insinuate a Walker to Banister connection, but this alas is built on pure speculation.

    As has been proven time and again, the assassination was not carried out by some clique, some confined extremist group, it was a systemic coup d’etat originating in the highest circles of government, military, intelligence and financiers: best known as The Military-Industrial-Complex.

    At best promotion of the Walker plot as the key to the assassination is a limited hangout, whether consciously or unconsciously manifested.

  23. Willy Whitten — February 21, 2016 at 12:15 am

    Okay Tom… now I get it! Shaw wasn’t connected to anybody… whew, he was a poor innocent man persecuted by an evil DA out for fame.

    Thanks for finally convincing me! It was definitely Poe’s opinion that cinched it for me.

    Wow!!! I have finally seen the light! I have been a crazy conspiracy theorist all my life. But I was wrong! There are no conspiracies, it has all been in my paranoid imagination.

    I have Tom Scully to thank for finally releasing me from all of my delusions.

    Free at last! Free at last! Thank Gawd Almighty I’m free at last!!!!!!!!!!

    And for those too stupid, & miss that I was being facetious in the remarks above…
    fuck ya if you can’t take a joke.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
    In 1968, Robert Kennedy seemed likely to follow his brother, John, into the White House. Then, on June 6, he was assassinated – apparently by a lone gunman. But Shane O’Sullivan says he has evidence implicating three CIA agents in the murder…

    • facetious
      treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.
      synonyms: flippant, flip, glib, frivolous, tongue-in-cheek, ironic, sardonic, joking, jokey, jocular, playful, sportive, teasing, mischievous; etc,etc, etc.

  24. “Until more is precisely known…the existence of a second gunman remains a possibility. Thus, I have never said that Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy.”
    ~Thomas T. Noguchi, Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner, who performed Robert Kennedy’s autopsy.

    “I thought they’d get one of us, but Jack, after all he’s been through, never worried about it. I thought it would be me.”~Robert Kennedy — shortly after his brother’s assassination

    “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
    Nobody’s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.”~Jesse Curry
    retired police chief of Dallas, Texas, ‘JFK Assassination File.’

  25. Willy Whitten
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    February 22, 2016 at 11:00 am
    “What Tom has proven is that many if not most of the White elite in a relatively small Southern city knew or were related to each other. It was a class thing not uncommon for the times.”~Photon

    And what Photon proves is that he can write an opinion with no basis in a single substantial counterargument, by pure rhetorical gymnastics.

    And I do wonder if Photon realizes this even as he sets out to compose one of his flatulent screeds of scurrilous banter. He surely is aware that few would actually buy his nonsense.

    Of the Crypt-Tickled-Three, Photon has the least substance to his haunting.

  26. “It may seem to those nourished on the exploits of James Bond,…that journalistic activities have little to do with intelligence work. But intelligence is a mosaic. General material about background and people’s interrelationships can be both illuminating and important. Quite often missing pieces of the mosaic emerge that make a previously incomprehensible picture unexpectedly clear.” – Mary Bancroft (Autobiography of a Spy, William Morrow, 1983 p. 150)

    “We now know what happened at Dealey Plaza to a fairly good degree of certainty. The motives were piling up – the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, the two-track backchannel to Cuba – the motives were piling up to the point they had to assassinate him. I think it’s now pretty obvious, with the information we have today, that the mechanism of it came out of the allegiance between the CIA and the Mafia. They already had an assassination apparatus set up for killing Castro, and they just switched targets and they killed JFK instead.”~Former FBI agent William W. Turner at Dallas COPA 2003

  27. “Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea…. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex…. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.”~Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

    TO: Secretary of State
    Secretary of Defense
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    SUBJECT: South Vietnam
    At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.
    The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1 -3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
    After discussion of the remaining recommendations of the report, the President approved the instruction to Ambassador Lodge which is set forth in State Department telegram No. 534 to Saigon. McGeorge Bundy
    Copy furnished: Director of Central Intelligence
    Administrator, Agency for International Development 11/21/63

  28. Willy Whitten
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    February 22, 2016 at 4:34 pm
    Since the current sub-thread is so long that it is awkward to keep scrolling up and down to find the correct spot to post on, I am posting this down here.

    Jean asked if Tom agrees with me that Garrison’s trial against Shaw was sabotaged. I would like to know what Tom thinks as well.

    HOWEVER: Regardless of what Tom’s opinion is on that matter, I think the accumulation of data that he has presented on this and other threads concerning Garrison’s connection to those involved in sabotaging the case against Shaw prove beyond doubt that there was a conspiracy to destroy not only Garrison’s case, but to destroy him as well.

    Garrison obviously recovered both politically and personally from the tribulations he went through in that period. But that does not change the facts we have been presented with here.

    This is my opinion based on reading every bit of what has been offered here by all sides in this ‘debate’. This opinion is not derived merely from the information that Tom has brought to the table recently, but on more than 40 years of studying the JFK Assassination. There are a great many avenues to take that prove that the assassination was in fact a systemic coup d’etat by the “Military Industrial Complex”.

    For the last several decades, no one has made the slightest dent in the proofs of this event having been a coup d’etat. This is my firm opinion and conviction.

    And I will add here what I cannot say on JFKfacts: I don’t give a rat’s ass what anyone else thinks about this. I have full confidence in my own reasoning abilities and research capabilities.

  29. According to the Warren Commission Lee HARVEY Oswald left his job at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall on the morning of March 12, walked 9 blocks to the downtown post office, purchased a postal money order, and then mailed the money order to Klein’s Sporting Goods in Chicago. But the letter was postmarked 10:30 am, while company time records show that Oswald never left his job. He worked continuously from 8:00 am through 12:15 pm on 9 different printing jobs.

    The Warren Commission never pointed out that the letter to Klein’s was time stamped 10:30 am, while company time records showed that Oswald never left work.

    NOTE: All original records from Crescent Arms (Louis Feldsott’s company) and Klein’s Sporting Goods disappeared while in FBI custody.

  30. Leslie sharp — February 22, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    Here are two contemporary instances of conflict of interest in New Orleans’ courts, both related to the same case, and ironically involving an Arthur B. Lemann (who has the same name as the son of Thomas B. Lemann).

    “The situation was further complicated by an implication that Mose Jefferson needed to obtain a new lawyer, in that Arthur “Buddy” Lemann, according to U.S. attorney Daniel Friel, faced a CONFLICT OF INTEREST in having once represented Stacy Simms, daughter of Ellenese Brooks-Simms. Lemann was to represent Mose Jefferson in the racketeering case. Stacy Simms had assisted her mother in laundering the bribe (in the other case), through Stacy’s bank account and, after pleading guilty to the felony, joined her mother in becoming a witness for the prosecution of Mose Jefferson.

    Lemann himself was not Mose Jefferson’s original attorney; Lemann had replaced Ike Spears, who had earlier been disqualified on a CONFLICT OF INTEREST inherent in his having previously represented Brenda Jefferson Foster, younger sister of Mose and William J. Jefferson.”

    conflict of interest
    n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual’s personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official’s personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer.

    Read more:
    What Ms Sharp fails to consider here is that Garrison had no ‘conflict of interest’ – Garrison was not related to Clay Shaw. That he was related to those attempting to sabotage his case has no bearing on Garrison’s case against Clay Shaw.

  31. “The main question I have now is, did Garrison “con” Ms. Mellen, Mr. Sklar, and Mr. Stone, et al, or did they learn the newly emerged background details and conduct themselves as disingenuously as Nicholas B Lemann did?”~Tom Scully

    In my opinion the one’s being as disingenuous as Nicholas B Lemann at this point is none other than Tom Scully and Leslie Sharp. It is an attack on Garrison no less than Leman’s was. Obviously Garrison had a case against Clay Shaw/Bertrand, it was made stronger when Garrison learned of the connections Shaw had with those attempting to sabotage his case. And as pointed out before, Garrison had no familial connection to Shaw himself, and therefore had no conflict of interest in prosecuting him.

    If Clay Shaw had been convicted, Shaw may have appealed that conviction and revealed that he was associated with Baldwin and others, including CIA. At this point Garrison may have had technical cause to recuse himself from further proceedings. But this did not happen. Shaw was acquitted for the very reason that Garrison’s case was subverted by Shaw’s confederates in the plot to kill Kennedy.

    All the assumptions now put to this situation by Tom and Leslie are based on a “what if” that never actually took place.

    What we actually learn from this new information is that indeed Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand, that he was in league with CIA, and others who were involved in the plot against Kennedy. Shaw was guilty as charged. To now double back on these facts and make assertions against Garrison for bringing frivolous charges against Shaw is absurd.

  32. ‘Retired Dallas police chief, Jesse Curry reveals his personal JFK assassination file’ – 1969
    by Jesse E Curry (Author)

    Quotes from the book:

    >”The physical evidence and eyewitness accounts do not clearly indicate what took place on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Speculative magazine and newspaper reports led the public to believe that numerous eyewitnesses positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the sniper in the sixth floor window. The testimony of the people who watched the motorcade was much more confusing than either the press or the Warren Commission seemed to indicate.” When witnesses told of seeing two men in the Depository window to the FBI, “No statement about the ‘second man’ or mention of an accomplice appeared in the FBI report.”

    >”Dr Malcolm Perry at Parkland Hospital had maintained that the President had been shot from the front. Investigators were awaiting the results of the autopsy with the naive assurance that the government would release a detailed autopsy which could be used in the investigation. The photographs and autopsy evidence was never released by the government. Apparently portions of the material have even been destroyed. The Warren Commission yielded to political pressure and never examined the autopsy photographs.”

    >”The evidence gathered during the assassination weekend was dispersed in many directions. The FBI had already begun to seize evidence at the scene. Secret Service Agents had seized the President’s body before the required autopsy could be performed. Although most of the evidence was gathered by the Dallas Police Department, it did not remain in our hands very long. Early Friday evening [11/22/63] FBI Agents were anxious to have all physical evidence released to them.” “Although Captain Fritz in the Dallas Homicide Bureau should have been soley in charge of the interrogation of Oswald, an orderly and private interrogation proved impossible. Because of the constant pressure from other investigative agencies, Captain Fritz was never allowed to carry out an orderly private interview with Lee Harvey Oswald. I have also wondered whether or not Captain Fritz could have obtained crucial information from Oswald if he had been allowed to spend two to three hours alone with him under normal interrogative conditions.”

    >”…the motorcycle officers on each side of the rear of the Presidential car knew that he was hurt and hurt badly…A red sheet of blood and brain tissue exploded backward from Kennedy’s head into the face of Officer Hargis. The trajectory must have appeared to Hargis to have come from just ahead and to the right of the motorcade.” “The physical security arrangements provided by the Dallas Police Force for the Secret Service were carried out exactly as they requested. In my opinion, all police officers involved gave their complete and whole-hearted co-operation. Yet the Dallas Police Department was never given any information or asked to cooperate with the FBI or Secret Service in any attempt to locate possible conspirators. The Dallas Police Department was never informed of the presence of Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas.”

    >”Witnesses to the shooting wondered if there wasn’t a gleam of recognition in Oswald’s eye when Ruby stepped out from the newsmen. Police investigation was never able to turn up a definite link between the two men.” He believes the “Secret Service” agent at the Grassy Knoll “must have been bogus – certainly the suspicion would point to the man as being involved, some way or other, in the shooting, since he was in an area immediately adjacent to where the shots were – and the fact that he had a badge that purported him to be Secret Service would make it seem all the more suspicious.”

  33. Willy Whitten — March 13, 2016 at 12:00 am

    Yes the time of the Tippit shooting is “controversial” – also the obvious tampering with the evidence in that hand-drawn ‘2’. Considering MO and established habit routines that plague this entire case; I am willing to hypothesize, what I consider to be elementary deductions.

    What we find in the testimonies, and “side discussions” between the witnesses and the interrogators are ‘scripted’ testimonies worked out before the official questioning (We find this to be a constant in this case as well).

    The only reasonable adduction from these points is a conspiracy to obscure the facts and hide the truth.

  34. The Art and Science of Misrepresenting Evidence
    by Stewart Galanor

    How the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations
    minipulated evidence to dismiss witness accounts of the assassination.

    Over six hundred people witnessed the assassination of President Kennedy. The FBI acting on behalf of the Warren Commission interviewed at least two hundred of them.
    Regrettably, the Commission seemed unconcerned that the FBI reports on seventy of these interviews did not reveal if the witness had an opinion on the source of the shots. Nor did the Commission conduct an analysis of witness accounts or give any credence to those accounts of witnesses who thought the shots came from the grassy knoll.

    Analysis of 178 Witnesses

    In 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations analyzed the accounts of the witnesses taken by the Warren Commmission and from FBI reports publised in the 26 Volumes of Hearings and Exhibits that accompanied the Warren Report. In analyzing witness accounts, a diligent investigator would consider various issues that the House Committee faild to address.

    Accommodating Witnesses

    One delicate issue to confront is the truthfulness of some of the witnesses. James Altgens, Associated Press photographer, told the Warren Commission he thought the shots came from behind the Presidential limousine (i.e., the direction of the Depository). (7H517) But on November 22, he wrote in an AP dispatch, “At first I thought the shots came from the opposite side of the street [i.e., the knoll]. I ran over there to see if I could get some pictures . . . I did not know until later where the shots came from.” (See Document 28 in Cover-up)

    Jesse Curry, the Dallas chief of police, told reporters on November 23 that although he was driving the lead car of the motorcade, he “could tell from the sound of the three shots that they had come from the book company’s building near downtown Dallas.” (The New York Times, 11/24/63) However, when confronted with the transcript of the police radio transmissions, Curry admitted that just after the shots were fired, he broadcast over his car radio: “Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there.” (23H913; 4H161)

    Bill Decker, the Dallas Sheriff, was riding with Curry in the lead car, and according to the police transcript, Decker called over Curry’s radio: “Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there.” (23H913) When Decker testified to the Warren Commission, he did not reveal, nor was he asked, where he thought the shots came from.

    House Speaker Tip O’Neill revealed in his autobiography that five years after the assassination:
    “I was surprised to hear [Presidential aide Kenneth] O’Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence.
    “That’s not what you told the Warren Commission,” I said.
    “You’re right,” he replied. “I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn’t have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn’t want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family.”
    “Dave Powers [another Kennedy aide] was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O’Donnell’s.” (Man of the House,178)

    Over six hundred people witnessed the assassination of President Kennedy. Regrettably,
    the Warren Commission did not conduct an analysis of witness accounts, nor did it give any
    credence to the accounts of those witnesses who thought the shots came from the grassy knoll.

    In The Art and Science of Misrepresenting Evidence we examine how the Warren
    Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations manipulated evidence to
    dismiss witness accounts of the assassination.

    The Survey of 216 Witness Accounts is our tabulation of where the witnesses placed the
    source of the shots.

    All witness accounts obtained by the Warren Commission can be found by clicking on the
    witness’ name at the left. A white dot on the Dealey Plaza photograph represents the
    approximate location of the witness at the time of the fatal shot. Excerpts from reports or
    testimony of the witness are presented below the map. To see the full report or testimony,
    click on the interview title (FBI REPORT, DEPOSITION, etc.).
    216 Witnesses to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
    Sorted by Source of Shots
    216 Witnesses

    52 Knoll

    48 Depository

    5 Knoll & Depository

    4 Elsewhere

    37 Could Not Tell

    70 Not Asked

  35. John McAdams and the Siege of Chicago Part 2
    By James DiEugenio with Brian Hunt

    “The evidence linking him [Oswald] to the weapon is overwhelming.”~John McAdams, JFK Assassination Logic

    In that interview the professor was asked to summarize the evidence in the Warren Commission that validates its conclusion about Oswald. McAdams responded thusly: “A solid paper trail connects Oswald to the rifle. Hard forensic evidence (bullet fragments, shell casings) connect the rifle to the shooting. Oswald almost certainly brought the rifle in to work on the morning of the assassination.”

    This might impress someone who knows nothing about the JFK case. To someone who does know something about the case, it is simply dishonest. And knowingly so. The paper trail that connects the rifle to Oswald is not at all solid. Researchers like Gil Jesus and John Armstrong have raised serious doubt about whether Oswald ordered the rifle in question, or picked it up. (Click here for Gil’s work.) The incredible part of their work is that they have brought every single step of that rifle transaction into question, and on both sides of the equation i.e. the mailing of the money order, and the picking up of the rifle through the post office. It is true that the first generation of critics accepted this part of the Commission’s case i.e. Josiah Thompson, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Mark Lane etc. But since the film JFK came out, there has been a whole new rank of writers and researchers who have rethought the case anew. And this includes its very foundations e.g. the provenance of the Mannlicher Carcano rifle. That is not a given anymore. As far back as 1998, the late Raymond Gallagher brought up a rather logical question that McAdams-or Robert Blakey for that matter–did not confront. The official story says that Klein’s Sporting Goods in Chicago got the money order on March 13, 1963 and deposited it that day. But the mailing envelope is stamped as leaving Dallas on March 12, 1963. (Probe Magazine, Vol. 5 No. 6, p. 10) How could an envelope travel over 700 miles, be resorted at the main Chicago post office, be rerouted to a delivery route carrier, be dropped off, be resorted at Klein’s, and then be run over and deposited in their bank–all within 24 hours and all before the advent of computers. This is logical thinking?

    But further, the way McAdams treats this subject in his book is even worse than in the interview. With hyperbole worthy of a lawyer, namely Vincent Bugliosi, McAdams writes that the evidence linking Oswald to this weapon is “overwhelming”. (McAdams, p. 158) But yet on the next page, he is quite unconvincing on how the rifle could be delivered to Oswald’s post office box in Dallas. For if he had ordered it in the name of Alek Hidell-which the Commission says he did–there were postal rules that prevented the package from being deposited in Oswald’s box. Because the box itself was not rented in that name-it was in Oswald’s name. And according to postal rules, that rifle shipment should have been marked “returned to sender.” In other words, the rifle should have never gotten to the box. (Armstrong, p. 453; Post Office letter to Stewart Galanor, May 3, 1966)

  36. The Hegelian Dialectic


    Introduction: Why study Hegel?

    “…the State ‘has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State… for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.’” Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959, page 144)

    In 1847 the London Communist League (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels) used Hegel’s theory of the dialectic to back up their economic theory of communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure. The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision. When we remain locked into dialectical thinking, we cannot see out of the box.
    . . .
    “Dialectic ….the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite… development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism ….any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict …
    ….the dialectical tension or opposition between two interacting forces or elements.” “Dialectical Materialism … 1 : the Marxist theory that maintains the material basis of a reality constantly changing in a dialectical process and the priority of matter over mind.”
    The Hegelian dialectical formula: A (thesis) versus B (anti-thesis) equals C (synthesis).
    For example: If (A) my idea of freedom conflicts with (B) your idea of freedom then (C) neither of us can be free until everyone agrees to be a slave.
    The Soviet Union was based on the Hegelian dialectic, as is all Marxist writing. The Soviets didn’t give up their Hegelian reasoning when they supposedly stopped being a communist country. They merely changed the dialectical language to fit into the modern version of Marxist thinking called communitarianism. American author Steve Montgomery explores Moscow’s adept use of the Hegelian dialectic in Glasnost-Perestroika: A Model Potemkin Village.

    Click to access What%20is%20the%20Hegelian%20Dialectic.pdf


  37. McAdams you are spinning word games here. “either or’ does not mean specifically one rather than another; it means one OR the other. Deducing that the sounds of the shots Bowers heard as coming from the TBDB is absurd, as he said plainly “No; I could not”, to Ball’s question; “Can you tell me now whether or not it came, the sounds you heard, the three shots came from the direction of the Depository Building or the triple underpass?”

    Since Bowers couldn’t tell which himself, no one – not the Commission nor McAdams can deduce the shots he heard came from the Depository Building. That was EXACTLY the point that Galanor makes.
    But as Galanor points out the Commission did consider Bowers to mean he heard shots from the TBDB, which is utterly dishonest.

  38. The impetus of both of the earliest critics of the Warren Report had its genesis in actually reading the thing:

    “The only way you can believe the Warren Report is not to have read it.”~Mark Lane

    “Finally, I put aside all other business and started to wade through the Warren Commission’s own 26 volumes of supportive evidence and testimony. That was the clincher. It’s impossible for anyone possessed of reasonable objectivity and a fair degree of intelligence to read those 26 volumes and not reach the conclusion that the Warren Commission was wrong in every one of its major conclusions pertaining to the assassination. For me, that was the end of innocence.”~Jim Garrison

    What is yet to be determined is the impetus of those who rebuke such critics of the Warren Report.

  39. Did Lee Harvey Oswald Kill J.D. Tippit?

    “The Warren Report claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible not only for the assassination of President Kennedy, but also for that of a Dallas policeman, J.D. Tippit, who was shot dead on a suburban street around 40 minutes after Kennedy had been shot in Dealey Plaza (see Warren Report, pp.156–176).
    Although Oswald was blamed for Tippit’s murder, the timing of the incident alone exonerates him, at least as the lone assassin.”

  40. Did Lee Harvey Oswald Kill J.D. Tippit?

    The Essential JFK Assassination Book and E–Book22 November 1963: A Brief Guide to the JFK Assassination
    The JFK assassination: all of the important questions, clearly explained and fully referenced.
    22 November 1963: A Brief Guide to the JFK Assassination is available from Amazon as a paperback and ebook.

    The Warren Report claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible not only for the assassination of President Kennedy, but also for that of a Dallas policeman, J.D. Tippit, who was shot dead on a suburban street around 40 minutes after Kennedy had been shot in Dealey Plaza (see Warren Report, pp.156–176).
    Although Oswald was blamed for Tippit’s murder, the timing of the incident alone exonerates him, at least as the lone assassin.


    Click to access WH3_Markham.pdf
    See also:
    The star witness to the shooting was Mrs. Helen Markham, a Dallas waitress. She was supposedly the only person to see the shooting in its entirety. The official version accepted her as “reliable” and credited her with watching the initial confrontation between Tippit and his murderer peeping fearfully through her fingers as the murderer loped away and thus being able to identify Oswald at a police lineup. Yet this “reliable” witness made more nonsensical statements than can reasonably be catalogued here. She said she talked to Tippit and he understood her until he was loaded into an ambulance. All the medical evidence, and other witnesses, say Tippit died instantly from the head wound. A witness who also saw the shooting – from his pickup truck – and then got out to help the policeman, put it graphically: “He was lying there and he had – looked like a big clot of blood coming out of his head, and his eyes were sunk back in his head…. The policeman, I believe, was dead when he hit the ground.” Mrs. Markham said it was twenty minutes before others gathered at the scene of the crime. That is clearly nonsense. Within minutes men were in Tippit’s car calling for help on the police radio, and a small crowd was there when the ambulance arrived three minutes later, at 1:10 p.m. Mrs. Markham is credited with recognizing Oswald within three hours at the police station. It turns out that she was so hysterical at the police station that only after ammonia was administered could she go into the lineup room. When she appeared before the Commission Mrs. Markham repeatedly said she had been unable to recognize anyone at the lineup and changed her tune only after pressure from counsel. The star witness in the Tippit shooting was best summed up by Joseph Ball senior counsel to the Warren Commission itself. In 1964 he referred in a public debate to her testimony as being “full of mistakes” and to Mrs. Markham as an “utter screwball.” He dismissed her as “utterly unreliable,” the exact opposite of the Report’s verdict.

    Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
    The testimony of Domingo Benavides was taken at 2:30 p.m., on April 2, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. David W. Belin, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.
    Mr. BELIN – Did you see the Policeman as he fell?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – Yes, sir.
    Mr. BELIN – What else did you see?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He didn’t exactly stop. And he threw 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.
    Mr. BELIN – You saw the man going around the corner headed in what direction on what street?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – On Patton Street. He was going south.
    Mr. BELIN – He was going south on Patton Street?
    Mr. BELIN – All right, after you saw him turn around the corner, what did you do?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – After that, I set there for just a few minutes to kind of, I thought he went in back of the house or something. At the time, I thought maybe he might have lived in there and I didn’t want to get out and rush right up. He might start shooting again.
    That is when I got out of the truck and walked over to the Policeman, and he was lying there and he had, looked like a big clot of blood coming out of his head, and his eyes were sunk back in his head, and just kind of made me feel real funny. I guess I was really scared.
    Mr. BELIN – Did the Policeman say anything?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – The Policeman, I believe was dead when he hit the ground, because he didn’t put his hand out or nothing.
    Mr. BELIN – Where was the Policeman as he fell, as you saw him?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – I saw him as he was falling. The door was about half way open, and he was right in front of the door, and just about in front of the fender. I would say he was between the door and the front headlight, about middleway when he started to fall.
    Mr. BELIN – Did you notice where the gun of the policeman was?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – The gun was in his hand and he was partially lying on his gun in his right hand. He was partially lying on his gun and on his hand, too.
    Mr. BELIN – Then what did you do?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – Then I don’t know if I opened the car door back further than what it was or not, but anyway, I went in and pulled the radio and I mashed the button and told them that an officer had been shot, and I didn’t get an answer, so I said it again, and this guy asked me whereabouts all of a sudden, and I said, on 10th Street. I couldn’t remember where it was at at the time. So I looked up and I seen this number and I said 410 East 10th Street.
    Mr. BELIN – You saw a number on the house then?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – Yes.
    (My interjection here: Where was Mrs Markham while all of this was happening? Did Markham actually go up to Tippit at all that day?)
    Mr. BELIN – Anything else you can think of about the man after you saw him? What was he wearing? What did he look like?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – Well, he was kind of, well, just about your size.
    Mr. BELIN – About my size? I am standing up.
    Mr. BENAVIDES – You are about 5′ 10″?
    Mr. BELIN – I am between 5′ 10″ and 5′ 11″. Closer to 5′ 11″, I believe.
    Mr. BENAVIDES – I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
    Mr. BELIN – Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
    Mr. BELIN – What color was the trousers?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – They were dark.
    Mr. BELIN – Do you remember what kind of shirt he had on?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – It was dark in color, but I don’t remember exactly what color.
    Mr. BELIN – Was he average weight, slender, or heavy?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – I would say he was average weight.
    Mr. BELIN – What color hair did he have?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – Oh, dark. I mean not dark.
    Mr. BELIN – Black hair?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – No. Not black or brown, just kind of a—-
    Mr. BELIN – My color hair?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – Yes.
    Mr. BELIN – You say he is my size, my weight, and my color hair?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – He kind of looks like—well, his hair was a little bit curlier.
    Mr. BELIN – Anything else about him that looked like me.
    Mr. BENAVIDES – No. that is all.
    Mr. BELIN – What about his skin? Was he fair complexioned or dark complexioned?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – He wasn’t dark.
    Mr. BELIN – Average complexion?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – No; a little bit darker than average.
    Mr. BELIN – My complexion?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – I wouldn’t say that any more. I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine. (Benavides is Latin obviously)
    Mr. BELIN – His skin looked ruddier than mine? I might say for the record, that I was not in Dallas on November 22, 1963.
    Mr. BENAVIDES – No, just your size.
    Mr. BELIN – Did he look like me?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – No; your face, not your face, but just your size.
    Mr. BELIN – Did he ever take you to the police station and ask you if you could identify him?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – No; they didn’t.
    Mr. BELIN – You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
    Mr. BELIN – Were they newspaper pictures or television pictures, or both, or neither?
    Mr. BENAVIDES – Well, television pictures and newspaper pictures. The thing lasted about a month, I believe, it seemed like. […]

    • Joseph Ball

      Named to numerous federal commissions. In 1964, he was appointed senior counsel to the Warren Commission, the body named to investigate the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. In addition, he was president of the Long Beach Bar Association in 1951-52 and of the State Bar in 1956-57.
      Born in Stuart, Iowa, in 1902, Ball graduated from Creighton University and received a law degree from the University of Southern California in 1927. He became one of the first admittees to the State Bar of California when it was established by the legislature that year.

    Testimony of – William Scoggins, March 26, 1964, 3 H 322-40
    . . . . . . .
    This is the only verbatim testimony I have found of the Scoggins testimony – and it cannot be copy and pasted. So I will give my impressions of what I read there.
    I find it somewhat dubious that Scoggins, crouched behind his cab as the man with the pistol trots by and glances towards the cab sideways for what can only be a quick glimpse by Scoggins, that he can be so certain that it was Oswald. That was the best look he actually got of the face, and apparently it was through the back window of the cab.

  42. Now as to the seeming positively positive identification of Oswald by the Davis sisters Callaway and others. There are many complications to this apparent conclusive conclusion.
    Some being the weird ballistics evidence. The lack of chains of custody on the bullets and shells yet again.But mostly the fact that Oswald seems to have actually been in the Texas Theater at the time that Tippit was killed.

    It is therefore reasonable to bring up the Oswald doppelganger hypothesis, as “far out” as the Warrenistas will complain this theory to be. I do not mean in the Harvey and Lee Oswald aspect, I mean the real possibility that US Intelligence came up with an actor, character that had a very strong facial resemblance to Oswald.

    It should be recognized that if this operation to frame Oswald was to be successful, he would have to be ‘SEEN’ at various crime scenes and pre-assassination locations to create a legend to draw upon after the fact. It is far from impossible to hypothesize such a scenario, it in fact makes sense of a lot of the very unusual anomalies of this case. I am of the opinion that it is more than merely likely. I think the proposition is most probable.

    See: JFK and the Unspeakable by James W. Douglass

    Oswald’s Doubles:
    How Multiple Lookalikes Were Used to Craft One Lone Scapegoat

    The following segments of Jim Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable – Why He Died and Why It Matters examine the composite scapegoat served up to the world in the guise of Lee Harvey Oswald and the domestic intelligence network that was writing his story. Recently I read Norman Cousins remarkable “Asterisk to the History of a Hopeful Year, 1962-1963,” The Improbable Triumvirate: John F. Kennedy, Pope John, Nikita Khrushchev. In it, Cousins describes his experiences as an emissary between President Kennedy, Pope John XXIII, and Nikita Khrushchev.

    In an April 1963 meeting with Khrushchev at his retreat in Gagra, Cousins asked, “What would you say your principal achievement has been during your years in office?” Khrushchev replied, “Could I talk about two achievements and not just one? The first was telling the people the truth about Stalin. There was a chance, I thought, that if we understood what really happened, it might not happen again. Anyway, we could not go forward as a nation unless we got the poison of Stalin out of our system. He did some good things, to be sure, and I have acknowledged them. But he was an insane tyrant and he held back our country for many years.” (pp. 108-109).

    Just as Khrushchev chose to reveal to the people of Russia what had truly occurred during Stalin’s reign of terror so they could all move forward, it is of utmost necessity for all of us in America to finally choose to know the facts concerning why our President was publicly executed in 1963 for becoming, in the eyes of his national security state managers, a traitor and a national security risk. John Kennedy was turning toward peace in the critical imperatives of seeking to end the Cold War with the enemy, his Russian counterpart, and a rapprochement with Cuba’s Fidel Castro, the “thorn in the side” of the American military-industrial-intelligence complex.

    The following truth-telling of Butch Burroughs, Bernard Haire, T. F. White, Wes Wise, Robert G. Vinson, and Ralph Leon Yates allows us to peel back layers of obfuscation and unspeakable deception that have been directed at this country’s people for fifty years about why their beloved President was murdered by elements of U.S. national security state personnel that evermore direct the affairs of this corporate empire state. Peace is possible and can manifest when we are willing to see and acknowledge the unspeakable.

    From: Jim Douglass, JFK and The Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
    Orbis Books, (New York: Simon & Schuster 2010),
    pp. 286-303, 350-355, 464-470, 481-483.
    Book excerpts reproduced with the permission of Orbis Books.

    pages 286-303

    Warren Commission counsel David Belin wrote: “The Rosetta Stone [the key to Egyptian hieroglyphics] to the solution of President Kennedy’s murder is the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit.”[391] From the Warren Commission’s standpoint, the killing of Tippit, who presumably challenged the assassin’s flight after he killed Kennedy, was said to prove “that Oswald had the capacity to kill.”[392]

    Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg saw Tippit’s murder instead as the government’s way of poisoning the public mind against Lee Harvey Oswald: “Immediately the [flimsy] police case [against Oswald] required a willingness to believe. This was provided by affixing to Oswald the opprobrious epithet of ‘cop-killer.’”[393]

    According to the Warren Report, the tracking of Oswald from Dealey Plaza to Tippit’s murder began with eyewitness Howard Brennan, a forty-five-year-old steamfitter who was standing across the street from the Texas School Book Depository watching the presidential motorcade. Brennan told a police officer right after the assassination that he saw a man standing in a sixth-floor window of the Depository fire a rifle at the president’s car.[394] The Warren Report says Brennan described the standing shooter as “white, slender, weighing about 165 pounds, about 5’ 10” tall, and in his early thirties,” a description matching Oswald that was radioed to Dallas Police cars at approximately 12:45 P.M.[395] Yet, as Mark Lane pointed out, “There could not have been a man standing and firing from [the sixth-floor window] because, as photographs of the building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window was open only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position would have been obliged to fire through the glass.”[396] Moreover, Brennan’s testimony that the man firing the rifle “was standing up and resting against the left windowsill”[397] was also impossible because the windowsill was only a foot from the floor, with the window opened about fourteen inches.[398] So if it was impossible for key witness Howard Brennan to have provided such a description, and if the Warren Commission could cite only him as a source for the 12:45 P.M. police description, who put out that Oswald-like alert if not the conspirators?

    Supposedly on the basis of nothing more than that radioed description, Officer Tippit stopped his car at 1:15 P.M. to confront a man walking on East 10th Street in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. The man then shot Tippit to death. The murderer fled the scene on foot. Half an hour later, the man was reported sneaking into the Texas Theater, which the Dallas police then stormed, arresting a man who was soon identified as Lee Harvey Oswald.

    As Weisberg pointed out, the killing of Tippit provided a dramatic reinforcement of Oswald’s assumed killing of Kennedy. At the same time, the killing of a fellow police officer helped motivate the Dallas police to kill an armed Oswald in the Texas Theater, which would have disposed of the scapegoat before he could protest his being framed.

    Once again, however, the assassination script was imperfectly carried out. Oswald survived his arrest in the theater. And as in a flawed movie where scene variations are shot, doubles are used, and the director is in a hurry, the final version of this film for our viewing doesn’t add up. The Warren Commission’s attempt to squeeze it all into a lone-gunman explanation has resulted in an implausible narrative.

    Click to access 978-1-57075-755-6.pdf


  43. Testimony Of S. M. Holland
    The testimony of S. M. Holland was taken at 2:20 p.m., on April 8, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex, by Mr. Samuel A. Stern, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission. Mr. S. M. Holland was accompanied by his attorney, Mr. Balford Morrison.
    Mr. STERN – Did you hear a third report?
    Mr. HOLLAND – I heard a third report and I counted four shots and about the same time all this was happening, and in this group of trees–[indicating].
    Mr. STERN – Now, you are indicating trees on the north side of Elm Street?
    Mr. HOLLAND – These trees right along here [indicating].
    Mr. STERN – Let’s mark this Exhibit C and draw a circle around the trees you are referring to.
    Mr. HOLLAND – Right in there. (Indicating.)
    There was a shot, a report, I don’t know whether it was a shot. I can’t say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn’t as loud as the previous reports or shots.
    Mr. STERN – What number would that have been in the—-
    Mr. HOLLAND – Well, that would–they were so close together.
    Mr. STERN – The second and third or the third and fourth?
    Mr. HOLLAND – The third and fourth. The third and the fourth.
    Mr. STERN – So, that it might have been the third or the fourth?
    Mr. HOLLAND – It could have been the third or fourth, but there were definitely four reports.
    Mr. STERN – You have no doubt about that?
    Mr. HOLLAND – I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either.
    Mr. STERN – Mr. Holland, do you recall making a statement to an agent of of the FBI several days after?
    Mr. HOLLAND – I made a statement that afternoon in Sheriff Bill Decker’s office, and then the Sunday or the Sunday following the Friday, there were two FBI men out at my house at the time that Oswald was shot.
    Mr. STERN – Did you tell them that you heard distinctly four shots at that time?
    Mr. HOLLAND – Yes.
    Mr. STERN – You were certain then?
    Mr. HOLLAND – I was certain then and I—in that statement I believe that I—
    Mr. STERN – Well, the FBI report that I have said that you heard either three or four shots fired together, and I gather the impression of the agent was that you were uncertain whether it was three or four.
    Mr. HOLLAND – At the time I made that statement, of course, I was pretty well shook up, but I told the people at the sheriffs office, whoever took the statement, that I believed there was four shots, because they were so close together, and I have also told those two, four, six Federal men that have been out there that I definitely saw the puff of smoke and heard the report from under those trees.
    Mr. STERN – Did you realize that these were shots then?
    Mr. HOLLAND – Yes; I think I realized what was happening out there.
    Mr. STERN – You did?
    Mr. HOLLAND – When Governor Connally was knocked down in the seat.
    Mr. STERN – What did you then do?
    Mr. HOLLAND – Well. immediately after the shots was fired, I run around the end of this overpass, behind the fence to see if I could see anyone up there behind the fence.
    Mr. STERN – That is the picket fence?
    Mr. HOLLAND – That is the picket fence.
    Mr. STERN – On the north side of Elm Street?
    . . . . .
    “In contrast to the testimony of the witnesses who heard and observes shots from the Depository, the commission investigation DISCLOSED no credible evidence that shots were fired from anywhere else”… pg. 61 … “No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other thatn the Texas School Book Depository Building.”
    These statements by the Commission are in direct opposition with the testimony of Mr. Holland, as shown above.

    • “S. M. (Skinny) Holland was born in 1906. When he was 32 years old he began working for the Union Terminal Railroad. Holland, who lived in Irving, Texas, eventually became a supervisor for railroad track and track signals for the company.

      On 22nd November, 1963, Holland watched the motorcade of President John F. Kennedy from the overpass in Dealey Plaza. He said that when Kennedy was shot he saw a puff of gunsmoke under the branches of a tree on the grassy knoll.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s