Why Officer Tippit Stopped His Killer

Why Officer Tippit Stopped His Killer

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/why-officer-tippit-stopped-his-killer

New article at Jim's site. Claims that Officer Tippit was likely murdered in an attempt to further the same conspiracy.

Vinny wrote:

Why Officer Tippit Stopped His Killer

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/why-officer-tippit-stopped-his-killer

New article at Jim's site. Claims that Officer Tippit was likely murdered in an attempt to further the same conspiracy.

That article is an interesting summary of the Tippit case, Vinny (I still haven’t read the McBride book).

For what it's worth, I agree with the conclusion of the article:

'And so now at the end of this article, we have finally come full circle … back to Counsel David Bellin’s “Rosetta Stone” logic. For if President Kennedy was assassinated in downtown Dallas as a result of a conspiracy, then it follows that Officer Tippit was likely murdered in adjoining Oak Cliff in an attempt to further that same conspiracy. 10^th and Patton was a setup, the disturbance at 10^th was in all likelihood a ruse. The designated patsy sat in a darkened nearby movie theater as Officer Tippit, drawn into a trap, was shot down on a quiet residential street in a Dallas suburb. All went as planned—until the scheme to kill the patsy in the movie theater fell through. That’s when the conspirators, suddenly desperate, went into all-out damage control mode and brought in Mafia bag man Jack Ruby to silence the pasty once-and-for all—live and in front of a national television audience.'

Goban Saor wrote:

Vinny wrote:

Why Officer Tippit Stopped His Killer

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/why-officer-tippit-stopped-his-killer

New article at Jim's site. Claims that Officer Tippit was likely murdered in an attempt to further the same conspiracy.

That article is an interesting summary of the Tippit case, Vinny (I still haven’t read the McBride book).

For what it's worth, I agree with the conclusion of the article:

'And so now at the end of this article, we have finally come full circle … back to Counsel David Bellin’s “Rosetta Stone” logic. For if President Kennedy was assassinated in downtown Dallas as a result of a conspiracy, then it follows that Officer Tippit was likely murdered in adjoining Oak Cliff in an attempt to further that same conspiracy. 10^th and Patton was a setup, the disturbance at 10^th was in all likelihood a ruse. The designated patsy sat in a darkened nearby movie theater as Officer Tippit, drawn into a trap, was shot down on a quiet residential street in a Dallas suburb. All went as planned—until the scheme to kill the patsy in the movie theater fell through. That’s when the conspirators, suddenly desperate, went into all-out damage control mode and brought in Mafia bag man Jack Ruby to silence the pasty once-and-for all—live and in front of a national television audience.'

I respectfully disagree Goban. What sort of conspiracy gets wallets, guns and bullets confused? Hill initially identified the right weapon from the shells. He had to "accept" being wrong when Oswald was framed for it with a "throwdown" weapon. In any pre-planned ambush as part of a bigger conspiracy, that just would not happen.

The murder of Officer J.D. Tippit in Oak Cliff was famously cited by David Bellin, Assistant Counsel to the Warren Commission, as being the “Rosetta Stone to the solution” of the JFK assassination. (Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 340, all references are to the 1989 edition) “Once it is admitted that Oswald killed Patrolman J.D. Tippit,” the attorney for the commission observed, “there can be no doubt that the overall evidence shows that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of John F. Kennedy.”

All of this is only possible because of a totally false time-line for Oswald - which was necessary only after the event in order to tie Oswald to it. 

Following Mr. Belin’s questionable logic might also lead one to believe the opposite to be true. Once it is shown that Oswald likely did not kill Patrolman Tippit, the case for him having shot President Kennedy and Governor Connally is, therefore, demonstrably weakened.

That is as illogical as Belin's musings. The evidence for both is totally separate. 

“I emphatically deny these charges!” shouted Oswald to news reporters while in Dallas police custody. “I didn’t shoot anybody, no sir … I’m just a patsy!” Oswald denied his guilt in many ways and more than once. (Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, p. 81)

Of course he denied his guilt. He shot no one.

Was the suspect telling the truth?

Sadly, within less than 48 hours, shadowy nightclub owner Jack Ruby would all but terminate the official Dallas Police investigation into the Tippit homicide when he gunned down suspect Lee Oswald in the basement of Dallas Police Headquarters. That unfathomable event, broadcast live on national television, occurred in the presence of more than 50 Dallas policemen. It was their job to ensure Oswald’s safety while he was in custody—so the suspect might be tried on charges of assassinating President Kennedy and murdering Officer Tippit.

Why is Ruby "shadowy"? No one could be less "shadowy". He was known to just about everyone in town. Maybe the author meant "shady"? If so, I would agree with that. 

Why is the killing of Oswald by Ruby "unfathomable"? I mean, sure... it is when you have layer after layer after layer of supposition, conjecture, disinfo, misinfo, theory and mythology overlaying the event. But, like a good tune, it can be better appreciated stripped back without the wall of sound. 

Suspect won't confess ---> suspect framed ---> Normal everyday case ---> yes ---> goes to court and suspect found guilty and sentenced             |                   
                                                                                  V
                                                                                 no---> going to court too risky if e.g. large national/international media contingent present. Suspect must be killed in custody. 

Ruby was given the task, possibly using a combo of sticks and carrots -- none of which Ruby believed. He tried to avoid the task by solving the case himself (his early morning photographing of billboards and surveillance of a Post Office Box) when that failed, he phoned in threats to the FBI, Sheriff's office and DPD warning Oswald would be killed during the transfer. He hoped this would make the DPD to tighten security enough to force the attempt to be aborted. No such luck. They arranged an alibi to negate any malice aforethought and held Oswald on the third floor until Ruby was in place. Oswald was brought down and Fritz broke formation and signaled a drugged up Ruby with his hand. Later, he would be supplied with a typical Reid Technique excuse for what he did (saving Mrs K testifying at trial) to help him accept sole responsibility. Ruby knew he was screwed. That he had been lied to. They kept him drugged (possibly now with psychotropics) and threatened his family. These are there reasons he wanted to testify in Washington.

But like everything else in the case... most prefer "unfathomable" because they then have license to add their own layers to the souffle. 

“We never worked on any of his (Tippit’s) murder, because there was no use making a murder case (with the suspect dead),” admitted former District Attorney Henry Wade in an interview with veteran Tippit researcher Joseph McBride. “I think we had enough evidence that Oswald did it.”

Which is total bullshit. Because the evidence (in both cases) is bullshit and would not stand up under international media scrutiny.

And despite Belin’s “Rosetta Stone” reference, not only did Dallas authorities abandon the Tippit case, but the Warren Commission, according to McBride, showed “almost no real interest in solving the crime … the commission was deliberately stonewalling a serious investigation of Tippit.”

Solving either case was never the remit of the Warren Commission. So why was this non-point even raised by McBride? Oh yeah... it helps to whip up the mob to grab the pitchforks. Get them all het up so they don't look too closely at the wool being pulled.

Any “serious” investigation into Tippit’s death must begin with one fundamental and all-important question: Why did Tippit stop Oswald?

Absolutely not. The question must be was it Oswald that Tippit stopped and if not, who was it? 

Based on the persistence of several indefatigable private researchers and investigators who kept digging into the Tippit mystery for decades, I believe we can now attempt to answer that question. The answer, it would seem, had nothing to do with the man walking on 10th Street in Oak Cliff matching the Dealey Plaza suspect’s generic description of being a young white male of average height and weight—as was suggested by the Warren Commission.

"Indefatigable" about what though? I say they are no better than the cops who pick a suspect and pursue that person to the exclusion of any other suspects, and exculpatory evidence, to the point of twisting and contorting the facts to make them fit their suspect. Just replace "cops" with "researchers" and "suspects" with "conspiracy theory" and you have the recipe for adding more crud to the swamp. 

In the words of Sylvia Meagher, writing in her 1967 book Accessories After the Fact, “The strangeness of Tippit’s actions,” suggests that “it was not probable, perhaps not even conceivable, that Tippit stopped the pedestrian who shot him because of the description broadcast on the police radio. The facts indicate that Tippit was up to something different which, if uncovered, might place his death and the other events of those three days in a completely new perspective.” (See Meagher, pp. 260-66)

Even the extremely astute Sylvia was caught up here in the conspiracy hyperbole surrounding Tippit.

But I wonder what Sylvia would have said if she had read this bit of testimony?

Mr. POTTS. When I was walking across the street there, I parked my car over at the Scottish Rite parking lot there and it's the Masonic lot and when I come across the street there at Commerce and Harwood this officer on the corner there said, "Did you hear about Tippit getting killed?" I said, "No; I didn't hear about that." He said, "Yes; I understand he got killed on a disturbance call over in Oak Cliff." 

There is a gap in the tapes where such a call-out would fit.

No doubt you could speculate that this call was used to lure Tippit to his death.

But I can equally speculate that the call was real... and that it involved members of a local criminal gang who were on parole or probation and could not afford even a minor arrest, and that Tippit was shot to avoid going to prison for breach of conditions. Murder would not have been necessary with the regular patrolman who was probably among the police being paid off to the leave the gang alone. My speculation does not have to account for such a sloppy conspiracy with multiple wallets and misidentified weapons. My speculation is supported by the main witness being a mother of one those gang members -- and another witness being William Smith - an actual gang member -- who testified 

Mr. SMITH. Saw the policeman lying on the ground. I mean on the street. 
Mr. BALL. And did a crowd gather around there? 
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL. How long did you stay there? 
Mr. SMITH. About 45 minutes. 
Mr. BALL. Did you give your name to the police? 
Mr. SMITH. No, sir. 
Mr. BALL. Why? 
Mr. SMITH. Because I was on probation. I thought it might hurt my probation record. 
Mr. BALL. All right; you did tell someone you had seen it, didn't you? 
Mr. SMITH. Yes. 
Mr. BALL. Who? 
Mr. SMITH. This boy I ran around with. 
Mr. BALL. What's his name? 
Mr. SMITH. James Markham.

According to Burt (whose account contradicts Smith on details of their whereabouts and actions prior to the murder, does state that when they got to the murder site, there were only two others there.  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/burt.htm Yet the cops do not take their names. Why?

Yet the police do not take their names... let that sink in. 

Burt's claim that he recognized Tippit as the cop that frequented the area known as "Friendly" is not backed up by Smith. There is also no indication anywhere that Tippit was known by anyone as "Friendly"... by nickname or nature.  

The “strangeness” of Tippit’s actions on 11/22/63 appear to have begun even before shots rang out in downtown Dallas. Tippit, whose normal area of patrol was in Cedar Crest, patrol area #78, was apparently called to a supermarket in the 4100 block of Bonnie View Road. Respected Tippit researcher Larry Ray Harris interviewed the Hodges Supermarket manager in 1978. As described in news reporter Bill Drenas’ oft-cited 1998 article Car #10 Where are You?, the manager told Harris he had caught a woman shoplifter on 11/22/63 and had phoned police.

It was Tippit who responded to that location at about noon, just a half hour before the assassination. The manager knew Tippit, because Tippit routinely came to the market on calls for shoplifters. The interviewee said Tippit placed the woman in his squad car and left. However, Tippit appears not to have brought the shoplifting suspect back to his nearby base of operations. No record of the woman’s arrest or information on who she was or what happened to her has ever surfaced.

According to the Mary Ferrell timeline "checked out an investigation in the 4100 block of Bonnie View Road between 12:17 and 12:20". The timeline does not specify the exact location, or the nature of the investigation.  But even if we assume it was this supermarket and that Tippit made an arrest of a shoplifter, there is nothing to suggest he did not take her and hand her over at the substation he worked out of. "No record" being brought forth into the murder investigation does not mean it never happened. Like most things prior to being sent to Oak Cliff, it was probably not considered relevant. 

The rest of it is the usual mix of erroneous Tippit sightings debunked here https://www.thenewdisease.space/tippit and Oswald escape timeline debunked thoroughly her at ROKC.

Where he differs is that he does include some evidence of a disturbance call and suggests Tippit wads killed questioning a possible participant in that disturbance... which is exactly as I believe, but the lure of the Conspiracy Hunt is too great and the author jumps the shark by claiming the disturbance was rigged to lure Tippit there as part of the framing of Oswald in the JFK conspiracy. Bollocks. 

He also errs in believing the claptrap about an Oswald wallet at the scene with dual IDs and that Oswald also had dual ID's in the arrest wallet. Bollocks again to all of that. Debunked here to within an inch of its life.

Lastly, he falls for the Oswald impersonator arrest at the TT  allegedly taken out the back. Yet more bollocks.




:

I’ll try to address some of your points, Greg.

Regarding Gerry Hill, ROKC member Hasan Yusuf wrote two excellent, very detailed articles about Hill’s involvement in the JFK and Tippit cases.

One is his essay ‘Gerard Hill and the Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald’:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/gerald-hill-and-the-framing-of-lee-harvey-oswald

The other is his related article ‘[Rebuttal of] Arguments against Gerard Hill’s complicity’:

http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2014/05/arguments-against-gerald-hills.html

I couldn’t possibly summarise these articles here, other than to say that they describe numerous lies, inconsistencies and (self) contradictions on the part of Hill and other DPD officers, which nevertheless, in Hasan’s opinion, point to Hill playing a leading role in framing LH Oswald for Tippit’s murder.

Do you agree with Hasan about this?

If not, do you believe the DPD attempted to frame Oswald for Tippit’s murder and if so, when and how did that attempt begin?

You criticise Joseph McBride as follows: ‘Solving either case was never the remit of the Warren Commission. So why was this non-point even raised by McBride? Oh yeah... it helps to whip up the mob to gran the pitchforks. Get them all het up so they don't look too closely at the wool being pulled.’

You seem to be contradicted in this by the first paragraph of the introduction to the Warren Commission Report:

‘President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, commonly called the Warren Commission, by Executive Order (E.O. 11130) on November 29, 1963. Its purpose was to investigate the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy on November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas. President Johnson directed the Commission to evaluate matters relating to the assassination and the subsequent killing of the alleged assassin, and to report its findings and conclusions to him.’

Am I wrong about that apparent contradiction?

Goban Saor wrote:I’ll try to address some of your points, Greg.

Regarding Gerry Hill, ROKC member Hasan Yusuf wrote two excellent, very detailed articles about Hill’s involvement in the JFK and Tippit cases.

One is his essay ‘Gerard Hill and the Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald’:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/gerald-hill-and-the-framing-of-lee-harvey-oswald

The other is his related article ‘[Rebuttal of] Arguments against Gerard Hill’s complicity’:

http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2014/05/arguments-against-gerald-hills.html

I couldn’t possibly summarise these articles here, other than to say that they describe numerous lies, inconsistencies and (self) contradictions on the part of Hill and other DPD officers, which nevertheless, in Hasan’s opinion, point to Hill playing a leading role in framing LH Oswald for Tippit’s murder.

Do you agree with Hasan about this?

If not, do you believe the DPD attempted to frame Oswald for Tippit’s murder and if so, when and how did that attempt begin?
You criticise Joseph McBride as follows: ‘Solving either case was never the remit of the Warren Commission. So why was this non-point even raised by McBride? Oh yeah... it helps to whip up the mob to gran the pitchforks. Get them all het up so they don't look too closely at the wool being pulled.’

You seem to be contradicted in this by the first paragraph of the introduction to the Warren Commission Report:

‘President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, commonly called the Warren Commission, by Executive Order (E.O. 11130) on November 29, 1963. Its purpose was to investigate the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy on November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas. President Johnson directed the Commission to evaluate matters relating to the assassination and the subsequent killing of the alleged assassin, and to report its findings and conclusions to him.’

Am I wrong about that apparent contradiction?

Hard not to agree with Hasan about the contradictions and that Hill helped frame Oswald for Tippit. The only question is, was the framing pre-planned or post-murder and on the the fly. I believe it was the latter and that this is the very reason for the contradictions and sloppiness which would be absent in any large, well planned plot.  I fully understand that I am in the minority on this. I mean... Lone Nutters obviously see no frame at all, while most CTs see nearly everything in terms of an all-encompassing frame. 

See my recent post on John Liggett as one example. 

In your other point, you are seemingly conflating "solving" and "investigating". If so, I don't agree that those words should be taken as interchangeable because they not the same thing (in my opinion).

Greg,

If I understand you correctly, you no longer maintain that the reason the police converged on the Texas Theatre was to apprehend the President’s assassin. You now believe it was to frame Oswald for Tippit’s murder. Or it was a combination of both those things.

The latter understanding would approximate mine, with one qualification: the framing of Oswald for Tippit’s murder had to be pre-planned.

The notion that individual policemen would take it upon themselves to frame an individual on the fly – and in the glare of public and media attention – for a murder is inconceivable. That’s probably why Hill passed the planted revolver on to his superior, Captain Westbrook, to make the switch.

The framing had been sanctioned by higher authority and Hill, as Hasan noted, being an intelligent operator, was only ‘following orders’ in deviating from standard procedure in doing so.

As for your suggestion that I’m conflating ‘solving’ and ‘investigating’, that is not so because I fully understand the difference between them.

However, the purpose of investigating something is to ‘carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts of (an incident or allegation) so as to establish the truth.’ (Oxford Concise Dictionary).

Hence, solving the cases was within the remit – indeed it was the very purpose, ostensibly – of the Warren Commission and McBride was right.

McBride believes that Tippit was a big part of the conspiracy. He claims that Tippit was the Grassy Knoll shooter and was Badgeman. After shooting JFK his next assignment was to hunt down Oswald in Oak Cliff and kill him. However he was double crossed and was himself killed instead.

Vinny wrote:McBride believes that Tippit was a big part of the conspiracy. He claims that Tippit was the Grassy Knoll shooter and was Badgeman. After shooting JFK his next assignment was to hunt down Oswald in Oak Cliff and kill him. However he was double crossed and was himself killed instead.

I don’t know how McBride came to basing anything on Badgeman, since to my eyes and to the eyes of many others, Badgeman is only an undifferentiated blob of pixels, to borrow John Iacoletti’s phrase.

As I mentioned before here, in skimming through a borrowed mafioso biography about twenty years ago, I came across a reference to the Tippit killing. According to the book, there was a plan involving Tippit killing Oswald. However, Tippit got cold feet at the last minute and had to be ‘whacked’.

I can’t remember the name of the book. As far as I remember, it was written by a nephew of the mafioso in question. Do you know, Vinny, if McBride mentioned any such source in his book?

Goban Saor wrote:Greg,

If I understand you correctly, you no longer maintain that the reason the police converged on the Texas Theatre was to apprehend the President’s assassin. You now believe it was to frame Oswald for Tippit’s murder. Or it was a combination of both those things.

The latter understanding would approximate mine, with one qualification: the framing of Oswald for Tippit’s murder had to be pre-planned.

The notion that individual policemen would take it upon themselves to frame an individual on the fly – and in the glare of public and media attention – for a murder is inconceivable. That’s probably why Hill passed the planted revolver on to his superior, Captain Westbrook, to make the switch.

The framing had been sanctioned by higher authority and Hill, as Hasan noted, being an intelligent operator, was only ‘following orders’ in deviating from standard procedure in doing so.

As for your suggestion that I’m conflating ‘solving’ and ‘investigating’, that is not so because I fully understand the difference between them.

However, the purpose of investigating something is to ‘carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts of (an incident or allegation) so as to establish the truth.’ (Oxford Concise Dictionary).

Hence, solving the cases was within the remit – indeed it was the very purpose, ostensibly – of the Warren Commission and McBride was right.

Sorry Goban, I seem to have confused you as to what i m getting at.

One of the tasks I try and follow is to test the validity, via the evidence, of all the main official claims.

One of the claims found wanting under such scrutiny is the claim that the police went to the Texas Theatre to arrest a suspect in the Tippit killing.

It just does not stand up. 

1. Neither Brewer (despite what he claimed) nor Postal could have heard about the Tippit murder on the radio prior to Postal phoning the police. She phones about the only crime she knows about - the assassination. She makes clear in her testimony that she knew nothing about the Tippit murder until Oswald's arrest.

2, We have a cop being overheard telling Oswald "Shoot the President will you!" 

3. The crowd is howling outside the theatre over Kennedy - not Tippit because that is what is being spread around - the capture pf the assassin - not a cop killer

4. It is a canard that the police were more interested in capturing the murderer of one of their own than in capturing the killer of Kennedy. The documentary The Thin Blue Line shows all they wanted in that case was to send someone to death row for it. If that meant letting the real killer go because he was too young to face the death penalty and framing an innocent man, so be it. What they were really interested in was was seeing their names in headlines and getting citations and promotions. They didn't give a shit about Kennedy, but they knew solving that would make them heroes.

5. The police raced to the TT from the Tippit site not because they thought this was his killer but because they happened to be the closest to the theatre.

6. The pistol they tried to plant on Oswald had nothing to do with framing him for Tippit. It was just a standard police MO to either provide probable cause search and arrest him or more likely, as an excuse to kill him. 

A frank admission from one of Dallas' finest:



Between 1973 and 1980, 120 people were shot by police in Dallas with not one cop being punished.. Interestingly, when faced with these stats, the defense was that no one had ever proved that Dallas police had ever used throwdowns. In fact, cops themselves would see that language as a sign of guilt. What we should expect to hear is that no Dallas cop ever used one. A straightforward denial - just like Oswald's. 
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=mywEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA131&ots=CaDda4LadG&dq=dallas%20police%20throwdown&pg=PA131#v=onepage&q=dallas%20police%20throwdown&f=true

In short, the evidence does not back up the later assertion that they were there to arrest a Tippit suspect.  That later assertion was necessary only in order to tie Oswald to both killings. Further, we know the throwdown was not the weapon used on Tippit because of Hill's identification of the shells. But once it was decided to frame Oswald for Tippit, it had to become the murder weapon. It is happening AFTER the event - not before. The false story is developing AFTER the event; it was not pre-existing.

As for the purpose of the WC...

this is from the Executive Order....

The purposes of the Commission are to examine the evidence developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and any additional evidence that may hereafter come to light or be uncovered by Federal or State authorities; to make such further investigation as the Commission finds desirable; to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding such assassination, including the subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination, and to report to me its findings and conclusions.

Tippit's murder is not specifically mentioned (but is not excluded either).

The evidence developed by the FBI found Oswald guilty.

Making further investigations had to be done through the same FBI.

The wording of the EO leaves little doubt that the "man charged" is a given as guilty and the facts to be found were only in regard to his means, motive and opportunity and if he had any help. 

This interpretation is supported by the FBI / Justice Dept desire that something be produced to convince the public of Oswald's guilt.

Hoover further made clear in testimony that the fbi was only investigating other leads in order to debunk them. 

Do you honestly believe the purpose given in the WCR preamble or in the EO are anything other than weasel words that mean nothing much at all except evaluating FBI reports that they already knew pointed to Oswald and Oswald alone? 

So I stand by what I said. The author was creating a flap over the lack of a Tippit investigation when in fact by a strict reading of the purpose of the commission, they could have ignored it altogether, except as further evidence against Oswald in the JFK hit. 

Do I lack respect for McBride? Yeah, I do. He never wrote the book to speak truth to power, he was writing for his CT constituency - as many others have.

I will look it up later and let you know,Goban.

Here is a old thread about McBride's book.

reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t950-was-mary-ferrell-a-disinfo-agent

Goban Saor wrote:

Vinny wrote:McBride believes that Tippit was a big part of the conspiracy. He claims that Tippit was the Grassy Knoll shooter and was Badgeman. After shooting JFK his next assignment was to hunt down Oswald in Oak Cliff and kill him. However he was double crossed and was himself killed instead.

I don’t know how McBride came to basing anything on Badgeman, since to my eyes and to the eyes of many others, Badgeman is only an undifferentiated blob of pixels, to borrow John Iacoletti’s phrase.

As I mentioned before here, in skimming through a borrowed mafioso biography about twenty years ago, I came across a reference to the Tippit killing. According to the book, there was a plan involving Tippit killing Oswald. However, Tippit got cold feet at the last minute and had to be ‘whacked’.

I can’t remember the name of the book. As far as I remember, it was written by a nephew of the mafioso in question. Do you know, Vinny, if McBride mentioned any such source in his book?

I think this is the book you're referring to Goban. Double Cross: The Explosive Inside Story of the Mobster Who Controlled America. 


Would it help dissuade you if I told you that this book has Tippit, White and Oswald as shooters?

As for McBride having Tippit as Badgeman... that should ring all the alarm bells you need. Those who believe in Badgeman and similar nonsense are his target audience

Goban Saor wrote:Greg,

If I understand you correctly, you no longer maintain that the reason the police converged on the Texas Theatre was to apprehend the President’s assassin. You now believe it was to frame Oswald for Tippit’s murder. Or it was a combination of both those things.

The latter understanding would approximate mine, with one qualification: the framing of Oswald for Tippit’s murder had to be pre-planned.

The notion that individual policemen would take it upon themselves to frame an individual on the fly – and in the glare of public and media attention – for a murder is inconceivable. That’s probably why Hill passed the planted revolver on to his superior, Captain Westbrook, to make the switch.

The framing had been sanctioned by higher authority and Hill, as Hasan noted, being an intelligent operator, was only ‘following orders’ in deviating from standard procedure in doing so.

As for your suggestion that I’m conflating ‘solving’ and ‘investigating’, that is not so because I fully understand the difference between them.

However, the purpose of investigating something is to ‘carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts of (an incident or allegation) so as to establish the truth.’ (Oxford Concise Dictionary).

Hence, solving the cases was within the remit – indeed it was the very purpose, ostensibly – of the Warren Commission and McBride was right.

Goban,

you may be right about the meaning of the word -investigate as written in the Oxford dictionary, but I respectfully disagree with your notion that - " indeed it was the very purpose, ostensibly – of the Warren Commission and McBride was right."


As you say technically the solving of the case may have been within their remit, but does anyone honestly believe with what we know now that they had the willingness or the desire to really get to the bottom of the Kennedy murder?


I put it to you that any serious investigation and any real attempt at trying to solve the Kennedy assassination even back then would not have found Oswald guilty of firing a rifle at the President. In my opinion, the fact that they did speaks volumes about what their real intentions were. In my view the Warren Report  was a con job, sold at the time to the American public. Probably more so to placate the masses. 


Of course I could be wrong.


The purpose of the WC is an interesting question - to investigate and solve the case? - Or an attempt to continue the status quo with a finding which pins the murder on the lone nut Oswald whom acted alone.

Mick,

If I’m not mistaken, I think that essentially we are in agreement that the Warren Commission 'investigation' was a whitewash.
 
Vinny,

Thanks for the link to that thread about McBride’s book. It’s interesting reading.
 
Greg,

Yes, that must be the mafioso book I had in mind. I had searched for it more than once to no avail. I think what threw me was the Sam Giancana bit, as I thought I would have remembered if he was the subject of it. Of course, it seems obvious now. So much for my research skills. Thanks for that.

Regarding McBride’s book, indeed it doesn’t seem the unblemished masterpiece I was hoping it would be. However, Stan’s words on the first page of the thread Vinny linked are worth bearing in mind:

‘Moral of the story (for me) goes to comments made by Terry earlier in "The Autumn of the Patriarch" thread: there is no such thing as "all black" or "all white." There are many shades of gray in between. Just because somebody fails a person's checklist item or two, doesn't necessarily make them an enemy and invalidate all their work and everything thing they say. And vice versa.’
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t950-was-mary-ferrell-a-disinfo-agent

Since my last post I’ve read most of the Texas Theatre Theatrics thread again. Great stuff by Ed, Mick, Barto and all concerned. However, I don’t think I’m any the wiser about what actually happened than I was after reading Hasan’s articles, given the unreliability of witnesses among other things, as discussed on the thread.

However, some at least of the participants in that discussion agree that the convergence of the police on the Texas Theatre was due to a telephone call by someone other than Julia Postal. For example, at one point Jake said:

‘Yes Mick. My speculation based on your keen observation would be that the whole Brewer thing is made up to cover for that call, which had no possible justification in and of itself, except that the caller knew Oswald was in the theater, so we got the Brewer thing.’
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1760-texas-theatre-theatrics

That telephone call would point to the pre-planning I was talking about, as does the Oswald look-alike arrested on the balcony.

And then there’s my mathematical argument based on the fact that back then only one DPD officer per year was killed in the course of his duty, which (factoring in concurrence and collocation) puts the odds against the JFK and Tippit murders being part of the same plot as something like 10,000 to one or even longer.

The nearest anyone came to logically rebutting that argument was Jake when he provided a link to the work of Professor David Hand, author of The Improbability Principle. While Professor Hand doesn’t appear to have analysed the Tippit case specifically, the fact that he referred to Oswald as ‘the assassin’ rather than ‘the alleged assassin’ may indicate a less than rigorous approach on his part to politically contentious events.

By the way, since when has the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and its derivates taken on such derogatory connotations here? Has the CIA taken over the forum?

'According to John Ayto, the phrase conspiracy theory was originally a neutral term and acquired a pejorative connotation only in the 1960s, with an implication that the theorist is paranoid. Lance deHaven-Smith has similarly suggested that the term was deployed in the 1960s by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to discredit John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Robert Blaskiewicz rejects such claims, asserting instead that the term has always been derogatory and pointing to examples demonstrating that this has been so since the nineteenth century.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
 
It is clear from this passage that the term “conspiracy theory” has always been derogatory and is used to smear people as paranoid and therefore mentally ill. Thus, ironically, it is those who disparage others as conspiracy theorists who are the irrational ones, since at the very least they are committing the ad hominem logical fallacy.

There’s a good article about this, ‘In defence of conspiracy theories (and why the term is a misnomer)’ by David Coady, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, here:
https://theconversation.com/in-defence-of-conspiracy-theories-and-why-the-term-is-a-misnomer-101678

Greg,

Yes, that must be the mafioso book I had in mind. I had searched for it more than once to no avail. I think what threw me was the Sam Giancana bit, as I thought I would have remembered if he was the subject of it. Of course, it seems obvious now. So much for my research skills. Thanks for that.

We often overlook the obvious and simple in favor of the search for the complex and hidden. I suspect you are above par in research skills but below par in utilizing them. 

Regarding McBride’s book, indeed it doesn’t seem the unblemished masterpiece I was hoping it would be. However, Stan’s words on the first page of the thread Vinny linked are worth bearing in mind:

‘Moral of the story (for me) goes to comments made by Terry earlier in "The Autumn of the Patriarch" thread: there is no such thing as "all black" or "all white." There are many shades of gray in between. Just because somebody fails a person's checklist item or two, doesn't necessarily make them an enemy and invalidate all their work and everything thing they say. And vice versa.’
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t950-was-mary-ferrell-a-disinfo-agent

 If PM is a litmus test for those serious about the assassination, then Badge Man has to also be seen as a litmus test - showing those who have jumped the shark. In the end, McBride's book is just another conspiracy theory  based on friendly witnesses, assumptions and a continuation of false data and misreadings. 

Stan of course is right. No all black or all white... but some things come so close to one or the other, making any distinction is moot. I mean, how close to black and white is the PM issue? 

Since my last post I’ve read most of the Texas Theatre Theatrics thread again. Great stuff by Ed, Mick, Barto and all concerned. However, I don’t think I’m any the wiser about what actually happened than I was after reading Hasan’s articles, given the unreliability of witnesses among other things, as discussed on the thread.

However, some at least of the participants in that discussion agree that the convergence of the police on the Texas Theatre was due to a telephone call by someone other than Julia Postal. For example, at one point Jake said:

‘Yes Mick. My speculation based on your keen observation would be that the whole Brewer thing is made up to cover for that call, which had no possible justification in and of itself, except that the caller knew Oswald was in the theater, so we got the Brewer thing.’
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1760-texas-theatre-theatrics

That telephone call would point to the pre-planning I was talking about, as does the Oswald look-alike arrested on the balcony.

Any telephone call other than by Postal is speculative, but compelling anyway for any number of reasons. The problem is in proving it or even finding supporting evidence. In any case, such a call does not have to tie into the Tippit murder. It is more likely that any such call was made because the plan was to kill Oswald in the theater and plant a weapon and half a box top on him as the latter would duplicate the alleged methods of the Rosenbergs group in meeting contacts in theaters.  It instantly makes Oswald a communist agent.

I do not believe there was any arrest on the stairs. According to reporter Jim Ewell who was up there, the balcony had a bunch of high school kids.  It is these kinds of errors in documents that easily play into conspiracy theories. I think what was witnessed was most likely Bentley searching those up there and taking their names.
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/06/0636-001.gif

The person seen taken out the back is just as non-mysterious.  Taken out the back because that was where the car of the officer was. Pretty sure the person involved was Applin being taken in for his statement. There was testimony from one of the cops that a witness was taken in.

And then there’s my mathematical argument based on the fact that back then only one DPD officer per year was killed in the course of his duty, which (factoring in concurrence and collocation) puts the odds against the JFK and Tippit murders being part of the same plot as something like 10,000 to one or even longer.

The nearest anyone came to logically rebutting that argument was Jake when he provided a link to the work of Professor David Hand, author of The Improbability Principle. While Professor Hand doesn’t appear to have analysed the Tippit case specifically, the fact that he referred to Oswald as ‘the assassin’ rather than ‘the alleged assassin’ may indicate a less than rigorous approach on his part to politically contentious events.

By the way, since when has the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and its derivates taken on such derogatory connotations here? Has the CIA taken over the forum?

'According to John Ayto, the phrase conspiracy theory was originally a neutral term and acquired a pejorative connotation only in the 1960s, with an implication that the theorist is paranoid. Lance deHaven-Smith has similarly suggested that the term was deployed in the 1960s by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to discredit John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Robert Blaskiewicz rejects such claims, asserting instead that the term has always been derogatory and pointing to examples demonstrating that this has been so since the nineteenth century.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
 
It is clear from this passage that the term “conspiracy theory” has always been derogatory and is used to smear people as paranoid and therefore mentally ill. Thus, ironically, it is those who disparage others as conspiracy theorists who are the irrational ones, since at the very least they are committing the ad hominem logical fallacy.

There’s a good article about this, ‘In defence of conspiracy theories (and why the term is a misnomer)’ by David Coady, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, here:
https://theconversation.com/in-defence-of-conspiracy-theories-and-why-the-term-is-a-misnomer-101678

Your mathematics is not evidence of anything, Goban. According to your math, if Dallas had been around for 10, 000 years, this accidental confluence would happen at least once.  Where along that timeline could it happen? Anywhere from day 1 to day 36, 500,000.

This was never a conspiracy theory site, although they will be discussed from time to time. Theorizing for over 50 years has done nothing for this case.

And it is apparent that authors like McBride are only interested in carving out theories for the converted. 

I got an email this morning from someone describing himself as a research assistant for a very well known author. This author already has a book on the case which espouses a particular theory that, though not outlandish, is hardly one that holds any water. The reason for the email was a post I had made years ago at the Ed Forum. The email was requesting further info and contact details of one of my sources.

my reply was that I was no longer helping anyone add more layers to the conspiracy cake, but would make an exception if he and the author would help enlist the Innocence Project to help exonerate Oswald.

I am disappointed, but hardly surprised that I got no reply. 

Lastly, I want to make sure you understand that your input here is just as welcome as any other member.  I am confident that Stan and others would be disappointed if anyone felt they could not hold or voice a different view (within reason!!!! ). It is certainly true that I now see the pursuit of conspiracy theories by authors, researchers and casual readers as a road-block to having this case taken seriously, let alone getting it reopened.

McBride bases his theory about Tippit being the badgeman based on what Tippit's dad told him. Tippit's dad told him that his son JD was an excellent shot. However Tippit Sr was 105 years old when McBride interviewed him. I do not think that one should build theories based on the recollections of a 105 year old guy. At that age their memories are not very good.

Also McBride believes in Harvey and Lee and in Lifton's body alteration theory among others.

Vinny wrote:McBride bases his theory about Tippit being the badgeman based on what Tippit's dad told him. Tippit's dad told him that his son JD was an excellent shot. However Tippit Sr was 105 years old when McBride interviewed him. I do not think that one should build theories based on the recollections of a 105 year old guy. At that age their memories are not very good.

Also McBride believes in Harvey and Lee and in Lifton's body alteration theory among others.

Kinda says it all doesn't it?
Say no more!

Say no more! There's a catchcry if ever I heard one.

greg parker wrote:It is certainly true that I now see the pursuit of conspiracy theories by authors, researchers and casual readers as a road-block to having this case taken seriously, let alone getting it reopened.

Strife, Improbability and the pursuit of Wackiness.

That could make for a very good song title. Say no more.

Greg,

The Oxford Dictionary of Law defines evidence as, ‘That which tends to prove the existence or nonexistence of some fact.’

Since my mathematical argument tends to prove the existence of a plot comprising both the JFK and Tippit murders, it seems to fit the above definition of evidence. Perhaps you have a different definition.

You say, ‘According to your math, if Dallas had been around for 10, 000 years, this accidental confluence would happen at least once.’

It’s not ‘my math’ in the sense that it’s probability theory, which was developed long before I was born. As I understand that theory, what you say is correct to a high degree of certainty – so long as the relevant conditions remain constant.

(As I said before, I'd like to know what an expert in probability theory would think of my attempt to apply the theory to the Tippit case.)

The only way the odds would shorten is if there were a link between the JFK and Tippit murders. One possible link would be Tippit being shot by the JFK murder suspect resisting arrest (Scenario 1).

Another would be a plot comprising both murders, with the Tippit murder made to look like that in Scenario 1. (Scenario 2).

A third possible link would be Tippit being shot by somebody for reasons which had nothing to do with the JFK assassination but thinking that the assassination created chaotic conditions enabling them to escape detection (Scenario 3). Your Markham gang theory might fit that scenario.

I think we both reject the first scenario of Oswald shooting Tippit. I’m reluctant to accept the third scenario because there’s far more evidence against it than for it.

The preponderance of evidence for me points to Scenario 2, the scenario in which Oswald being framed as a cop killer reinforces the framing of him as the JFK assassin.

As I understand it, theories are tools which are necessary for rational thinking. Some are valid, some are not. The same applies to conspiracy theories.  

It seems to me that your views on the assassination-related activities of Ruth Paine and others, disinformation about where Oswald was really living, how he travelled from the TSBD to the TT, the framing of Oswald and so on are in effect conspiracy theories.

I view any such theories which are well founded on evidence and logic as vital to the aim of reopening the case, not hindering it.

Goban Saor wrote:Greg,

The Oxford Dictionary of Law defines evidence as, ‘That which tends to prove the existence or nonexistence of some fact.’

Since my mathematical argument tends to prove the existence of a plot comprising both the JFK and Tippit murders, it seems to fit the above definition of evidence. Perhaps you have a different definition.

You say, ‘According to your math, if Dallas had been around for 10, 000 years, this accidental confluence would happen at least once.’

It’s not ‘my math’ in the sense that it’s probability theory, which was developed long before I was born. As I understand that theory, what you say is correct to a high degree of certainty – so long as the relevant conditions remain constant.

(As I said before, I'd like to know what an expert in probability theory would think of my attempt to apply the theory to the Tippit case.)

The only way the odds would shorten is if there were a link between the JFK and Tippit murders. One possible link would be Tippit being shot by the JFK murder suspect resisting arrest (Scenario 1).

Another would be a plot comprising both murders, with the Tippit murder made to look like that in Scenario 1. (Scenario 2).

A third possible link would be Tippit being shot by somebody for reasons which had nothing to do with the JFK assassination but thinking that the assassination created chaotic conditions enabling them to escape detection (Scenario 3). Your Markham gang theory might fit that scenario.

I think we both reject the first scenario of Oswald shooting Tippit. I’m reluctant to accept the third scenario because there’s far more evidence against it than for it.

The preponderance of evidence for me points to Scenario 2, the scenario in which Oswald being framed as a cop killer reinforces the framing of him as the JFK assassin.

As I understand it, theories are tools which are necessary for rational thinking. Some are valid, some are not. The same applies to conspiracy theories.  

It seems to me that your views on the assassination-related activities of Ruth Paine and others, disinformation about where Oswald was really living, how he travelled from the TSBD to the TT, the framing of Oswald and so on are in effect conspiracy theories.

I view any such theories which are well founded on evidence and logic as vital to the aim of reopening the case, not hindering it.

Goban, can you show any examples of a court accepting probability theory as evidence for the prosecution or defense? 

This paper suggests that probability theory could be used as a test of circumstantial evidence.
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4593&context=caselrev I can accept this as reasonable. I cannot accept that it is evidence in and of itself.

As a test of circumstantial evidence in the JFK and Tippit killings, I also accept that this test would support the WC evidence OR your evidence. 

And there is the crux of this issue: in order for this test to be valid, the circumstantial evidence has to be valid. I do not accept the WC evidence, or yours - and therefore probability theory as you use it, is useless in my opinion).

All of the tricks used by the DPD, FBI and Secret Service to make the case are some of the same tricks used by authors to make THEIR case. 

I can give you example after example from both sides of the coin.

As for conspiracy theories... I think I need to define what I mean for you - I am talking about the overall, big-picture whodunit, whoplannedit, whoauthorizedit etc... you know.... the cases put for the Mafia, the CIA, Castro and etc etc... what I do and what is generally done here is a micro-examination of aspects of the case as put by the DPD/FBI/WC and reconstructing those scenarios from the TOTALITY of the evidence. There is a world of difference between that and what conspiracy authors do.  We are testing the official timeline and the official case. We are not saying for example Texas Oilmen hated Kennedy, therefore they did it, and then cherry-picking and twisting evidence to make that case. 

I am not opposed to conspiracy theories per se. The issue is that chasing conspiracies in this case has been ongoing for 55 years without any effect... and in that respect, it is disheartening to see it still going as strong as ever with everything from Jackie did it, to the driver did, to a Ruby impersonator shot Oswald and so on. Absolute lunacy and that includes McBride's entry into the genre. 

In fact, madness can be defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

We are trying a different tack here, simple as that.

WHAT???? You mean it wasn't a toupee wearing Jack Ruby lookalike FBI who shot Harvey? I don't believe you!! Look at the film closely..
Jack Ruby lookalike#1( with the hand painted sunglasses) clearly passes the gun t the Jack Ruby lookalike FBI agent who waits until the Will Fritz double( Fritz Will..and if youd seen the graffiti in the gents of the Birkenau Indoor Solarium and Doggie Groomers youd know there was very VERY little ol' Fritz wouldn't do..isn't that right MrsTrotterImage..wink wink) gives the ok before he shoots a blank into Harvey's gut..sheesh..call yourselves researchers..
That nice Mr Josephs explained it all so clearly and concisely..he even drew some lovely photo montages
Wait....what the fuck am i saying all the photos and films were faked by a crafty band of travelling Hungarian gymnasts..the Cunning Runts..or Stunning Cunts..they were the one's driving the truck through Dealey Plaza..they knew what photos t alter BEFORE the photos were even taken!!!
Boy these Hungarians were good..
Are you trying t tell me all that didn't happen?

Has anyone, I mean anyone linked Tippit's murder to the JFK assassination using anything other than circumstantial evidence and speculation to date? I may have this all arse about but it would appear to me that so far there is no real link - at least not that anyone knows of between the assassination and Tippit's death. A lot of speculation to be sure but nothing concrete. Or am I missing something here.

If as some are saying - that the Tippit murder was preplanned and linked to the assassination in some way then the amount of conspirators involved just keeps growing. 

Most of the finger pointing at Oswald surely came after the fact. Just my 2 cents. Nothing more.