Why Officer Tippit Stopped His Killer

First topic message reminder :

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.

Greg and Mick,

The 410 1/2 Tenth Street address was given by Ruby in his FBI interview the day after he killed Oswald. He didn’t specify East or West.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0030b.htm

Of course, that may have been incorrect or she may have moved. The 424 1/2 Tenth Street address was West. Several addresses were reported to have been used by Joyce McDonald including 427 West Tenth.

Ruby’s input isn’t absolutely conclusive by any stretch but it establishes a potential red flag for me when set against Virginia Davis’s reply.

It’s the number of these little red flags that persuades me the Tippit episode was not random and unconnected to the assassination. Dallas in 1963 was not a small village and we shouldn’t really be expecting to see matches in phone numbers and car licence plates.

 

Everyone has his or her threshold of credulity beyond which they will not accept a particular version of events. This is obviously based on how plausible they believe testimony or statements to be but also on likelihood. For most people who believe a conspiracy was involved in the assassination the testimony (and comments to the media) of witnesses in Dealey Plaza were fairly conclusive. This wasn’t a case of a couple of “outliers” but of scores of people who believed at least one shot was fired from the western end of the Plaza and reacted accordingly and/or who gave evidence that clearly contradicted the official account.

Perhaps subconsciously, we look at issues in terms of probability. Why would there be so many dissenting voices? How likely was it that CE399 inflicted so much damage? When it emerged to the wider public in 1975, was the Zapruder film seen as credibly corresponding to the Warren scenario?

On a formal level, Don Thomas cut through much of what has been written about the acoustical studies in the late 70s with his “order of the data” argument. If the suspect sounds detected were simply random noise, what was the probability that they’d so closely match those of a vehicle travelling at 12 mph west from Houston to Elm? Not only that, but the spacing and sequence strongly correlated with witness accounts and what we see in Zapruder. The odds against this set of factors being entirely random in nature are extremely high.

With regard to the series of photographs taken by Stuart L. Reed, what is the probability that they were completely random and had no significance in relation to the assassination and arrest of Oswald? Vanishingly small, I’d say. So small, they alone stand as proof of a conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt because they imply foreknowledge.

 

When it comes to the Tippit episode, likelihood is particularly important. We don’t have sufficient detail to determine a precise solution. However, for the reasons given I believe it was directly related to the assassination.

Even if true, which is doubtful, the various stories (Top Ten, GLOCO, etc.) surrounding this period aren’t conclusive. Yet, I can’t see a benign explanation for the discussion between Westbrook and Barrett and, while not completely impossible, it is highly unlikely that an escaping assassin would leave such convenient and incriminating evidence at the scene of another murder. The only way this could be kicked into touch would be if Barrett was said to have been “mistaken”, although it’s hardly the sort of thing that a FBI agent would get confused about. Croy later confirmed the story, although he claimed that it showed Oswald was the real assassin.

Why Westbrook wouldn’t call in the information on radio is a moot point, but I don’t think he was primarily concerned about correct procedures. There is no mention of any kind of this wallet in official reports and no witness seems to have seen it at the scene. It seems to have emerged about half an hour after the murder and its provenance is suspect.

 

Regarding other points:

Oak Cliff wasn’t really being drained of resources more than other areas. In any case, moving an officer from area A to area B would simply leave the former depleted.

If Tippit or any other officer was to be killed to implicate Oswald further, then it would have to be within a reasonably short distance of Oswald’s known (or claimed) whereabouts – otherwise, there would be yet another hurdle in trying to explain his movements on foot.

Tippit would have faced the man who approached along 10^th Street from the east. He had a car and he had a revolver. If he felt the man was suspicious or potentially a threat he wouldn’t have spoken to him through the side-window. This is why I believe he knew his assailant.

Every piece of physical evidence supposedly implying Oswald’s “guilt” is shrouded in dubiety. The cartridges referred to by Jerry Hill as being from an automatic represent another botch. It looks like the people involved completely underestimated the level of scrutiny that would result from an event of this magnitude. I doubt whether they’d envisage the radio transcripts being scrutinised in such detail. The discrepancy with the weapon Oswald was supposed to have had may lend strength to the idea that someone or some sub-group had a different agenda.

In my view, the issues raised by Croy, Olsen and Mentzel and particularly the relationships of the first two with Ruby are just too coincidental to be written off. Croy even headed off to Austin’s Bar-B-Q where Tippit moonlighted – he had previously worked at the Texas Theatre. There are too many red flags and Ruby connections in the Oak Cliff/Tippit business.

Redfern wrote:Greg and Mick,

The 410 1/2 Tenth Street address was given by Ruby in his FBI interview the day after he killed Oswald. He didn’t specify East or West.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0030b.htm

Of course, that may have been incorrect or she may have moved. The 424 1/2 Tenth Street address was West. Several addresses were reported to have been used by Joyce McDonald including 427 West Tenth.

Ruby’s input isn’t absolutely conclusive by any stretch but it establishes a potential red flag for me when set against Virginia Davis’s reply.

It’s the number of these little red flags that persuades me the Tippit episode was not random and unconnected to the assassination. Dallas in 1963 was not a small village and we shouldn’t really be expecting to see matches in phone numbers and car licence plates.

 

Everyone has his or her threshold of credulity beyond which they will not accept a particular version of events. This is obviously based on how plausible they believe testimony or statements to be but also on likelihood. For most people who believe a conspiracy was involved in the assassination the testimony (and comments to the media) of witnesses in Dealey Plaza were fairly conclusive. This wasn’t a case of a couple of “outliers” but of scores of people who believed at least one shot was fired from the western end of the Plaza and reacted accordingly and/or who gave evidence that clearly contradicted the official account.

Perhaps subconsciously, we look at issues in terms of probability. Why would there be so many dissenting voices? How likely was it that CE399 inflicted so much damage? When it emerged to the wider public in 1975, was the Zapruder film seen as credibly corresponding to the Warren scenario?

On a formal level, Don Thomas cut through much of what has been written about the acoustical studies in the late 70s with his “order of the data” argument. If the suspect sounds detected were simply random noise, what was the probability that they’d so closely match those of a vehicle travelling at 12 mph west from Houston to Elm? Not only that, but the spacing and sequence strongly correlated with witness accounts and what we see in Zapruder. The odds against this set of factors being entirely random in nature are extremely high.

With regard to the series of photographs taken by Stuart L. Reed, what is the probability that they were completely random and had no significance in relation to the assassination and arrest of Oswald? Vanishingly small, I’d say. So small, they alone stand as proof of a conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt because they imply foreknowledge.

 

When it comes to the Tippit episode, likelihood is particularly important. We don’t have sufficient detail to determine a precise solution. However, for the reasons given I believe it was directly related to the assassination.

Even if true, which is doubtful, the various stories (Top Ten, GLOCO, etc.) surrounding this period aren’t conclusive. Yet, I can’t see a benign explanation for the discussion between Westbrook and Barrett and, while not completely impossible, it is highly unlikely that an escaping assassin would leave such convenient and incriminating evidence at the scene of another murder. The only way this could be kicked into touch would be if Barrett was said to have been “mistaken”, although it’s hardly the sort of thing that a FBI agent would get confused about. Croy later confirmed the story, although he claimed that it showed Oswald was the real assassin.

Why Westbrook wouldn’t call in the information on radio is a moot point, but I don’t think he was primarily concerned about correct procedures. There is no mention of any kind of this wallet in official reports and no witness seems to have seen it at the scene. It seems to have emerged about half an hour after the murder and its provenance is suspect.

 

Regarding other points:

Oak Cliff wasn’t really being drained of resources more than other areas. In any case, moving an officer from area A to area B would simply leave the former depleted.

If Tippit or any other officer was to be killed to implicate Oswald further, then it would have to be within a reasonably short distance of Oswald’s known (or claimed) whereabouts – otherwise, there would be yet another hurdle in trying to explain his movements on foot.

Tippit would have faced the man who approached along 10^th Street from the east. He had a car and he had a revolver. If he felt the man was suspicious or potentially a threat he wouldn’t have spoken to him through the side-window. This is why I believe he knew his assailant.

Every piece of physical evidence supposedly implying Oswald’s “guilt” is shrouded in dubiety. The cartridges referred to by Jerry Hill as being from an automatic represent another botch. It looks like the people involved completely underestimated the level of scrutiny that would result from an event of this magnitude. I doubt whether they’d envisage the radio transcripts being scrutinised in such detail. The discrepancy with the weapon Oswald was supposed to have had may lend strength to the idea that someone or some sub-group had a different agenda.

In my view, the issues raised by Croy, Olsen and Mentzel and particularly the relationships of the first two with Ruby are just too coincidental to be written off. Croy even headed off to Austin’s Bar-B-Q where Tippit moonlighted – he had previously worked at the Texas Theatre. There are too many red flags and Ruby connections in the Oak Cliff/Tippit business.

Thanks for posting this Redfern,

I'm needing a little time to soak all of this in. Interesting stuff mate.

Redfern wrote:Greg and Mick,

The 410 1/2 Tenth Street address was given by Ruby in his FBI interview the day after he killed Oswald. He didn’t specify East or West.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0030b.htm

Of course, that may have been incorrect or she may have moved. The 424 1/2 Tenth Street address was West. Several addresses were reported to have been used by Joyce McDonald including 427 West Tenth.

Ruby’s input isn’t absolutely conclusive by any stretch but it establishes a potential red flag for me when set against Virginia Davis’s reply.

It’s the number of these little red flags that persuades me the Tippit episode was not random and unconnected to the assassination. Dallas in 1963 was not a small village and we shouldn’t really be expecting to see matches in phone numbers and car licence plates.

 

Everyone has his or her threshold of credulity beyond which they will not accept a particular version of events. This is obviously based on how plausible they believe testimony or statements to be but also on likelihood. For most people who believe a conspiracy was involved in the assassination the testimony (and comments to the media) of witnesses in Dealey Plaza were fairly conclusive. This wasn’t a case of a couple of “outliers” but of scores of people who believed at least one shot was fired from the western end of the Plaza and reacted accordingly and/or who gave evidence that clearly contradicted the official account.

Perhaps subconsciously, we look at issues in terms of probability. Why would there be so many dissenting voices? How likely was it that CE399 inflicted so much damage? When it emerged to the wider public in 1975, was the Zapruder film seen as credibly corresponding to the Warren scenario?

On a formal level, Don Thomas cut through much of what has been written about the acoustical studies in the late 70s with his “order of the data” argument. If the suspect sounds detected were simply random noise, what was the probability that they’d so closely match those of a vehicle travelling at 12 mph west from Houston to Elm? Not only that, but the spacing and sequence strongly correlated with witness accounts and what we see in Zapruder. The odds against this set of factors being entirely random in nature are extremely high.

With regard to the series of photographs taken by Stuart L. Reed, what is the probability that they were completely random and had no significance in relation to the assassination and arrest of Oswald? Vanishingly small, I’d say. So small, they alone stand as proof of a conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt because they imply foreknowledge.

 

When it comes to the Tippit episode, likelihood is particularly important. We don’t have sufficient detail to determine a precise solution. However, for the reasons given I believe it was directly related to the assassination.

Even if true, which is doubtful, the various stories (Top Ten, GLOCO, etc.) surrounding this period aren’t conclusive. Yet, I can’t see a benign explanation for the discussion between Westbrook and Barrett and, while not completely impossible, it is highly unlikely that an escaping assassin would leave such convenient and incriminating evidence at the scene of another murder. The only way this could be kicked into touch would be if Barrett was said to have been “mistaken”, although it’s hardly the sort of thing that a FBI agent would get confused about. Croy later confirmed the story, although he claimed that it showed Oswald was the real assassin.

Why Westbrook wouldn’t call in the information on radio is a moot point, but I don’t think he was primarily concerned about correct procedures. There is no mention of any kind of this wallet in official reports and no witness seems to have seen it at the scene. It seems to have emerged about half an hour after the murder and its provenance is suspect.

 

Regarding other points:

Oak Cliff wasn’t really being drained of resources more than other areas. In any case, moving an officer from area A to area B would simply leave the former depleted.

If Tippit or any other officer was to be killed to implicate Oswald further, then it would have to be within a reasonably short distance of Oswald’s known (or claimed) whereabouts – otherwise, there would be yet another hurdle in trying to explain his movements on foot.

Tippit would have faced the man who approached along 10^th Street from the east. He had a car and he had a revolver. If he felt the man was suspicious or potentially a threat he wouldn’t have spoken to him through the side-window. This is why I believe he knew his assailant.

Every piece of physical evidence supposedly implying Oswald’s “guilt” is shrouded in dubiety. The cartridges referred to by Jerry Hill as being from an automatic represent another botch. It looks like the people involved completely underestimated the level of scrutiny that would result from an event of this magnitude. I doubt whether they’d envisage the radio transcripts being scrutinised in such detail. The discrepancy with the weapon Oswald was supposed to have had may lend strength to the idea that someone or some sub-group had a different agenda.

In my view, the issues raised by Croy, Olsen and Mentzel and particularly the relationships of the first two with Ruby are just too coincidental to be written off. Croy even headed off to Austin’s Bar-B-Q where Tippit moonlighted – he had previously worked at the Texas Theatre. There are too many red flags and Ruby connections in the Oak Cliff/Tippit business.

Fair enough. That address came from Ruby. But consider that he was in jail and going from memory. Armstrong would would have obtained the addresses from Ruby's address book.

And the address Armstrong gave was affirmed as where she lived on the day Tippit was killed. The same document also listed her other addresses.

From Livingston's last book:



"at that time" being the date Tippit was killed.

That red flag I hope is now lowered.

But in your next paragraph -- straight after admitting the Ruby info wasn't conclusive, you assume it is and add it to all of your other little red flags -- all of which are either dead in the water, or at best, remain inconclusive. What we end up with is a theory made up entire of smoke and mirrors created by conspiracy authors over 50 + years mainly based on "new" memories of old known witnesses or "old" memories of very late arriving witnesses. It is all bunk, but that of course, is just my opinion based on chasing down as much info as I could.   

You find the alleged Barrett and Westbrook discussion compelling?  Is it not possible that Barrett was confused about when and what was discussed? Yes, Croy later agreed - because he was a good ol' boy jumping on the Oswald-did-it bandwagon.

I think in a roundabout way, he told us what happened in his testimony:

Mr. GRIFFIN. Do you remember the names of the other officers who were there with you when you were interviewing this woman? 
Mr. CROY. No; I know them on sight. They all work in Oak Cliff and I don't know the names. I just know when I see them driving down the street. 
Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you talk with the taxi driver? 
Mr. CROY. Yes; I did. I talked to the taxi driver. 
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, did you talk with him on the scene of the crime? 
Mr. CROY. Yes. 
Mr. GRIFFIN. Do you remember what his name was? 
Mr. CROY. No; I didn't get his name. There was a private detective agency. There was a report that a cabdriver had picked up Tippit's gun and had left, presumably. They don't know whether he was the one that had shot Tippit, or whether the man, I think it was he, brought someone out there, something. Anyway, he saw it and he picked up Tippit's gun and attempted to give chase or something like that. 
Mr. GRIFFIN. There was a detective who was an eyewitness? 
Mr. CROY. No; he brought the taxi driver back to the scene. 
Mr. GRIFFIN. But the taxicab driver was an eyewitness? 
Mr. CROY. As far as I know. 
Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you talk to the taxicab driver? 
Mr. CROY. No; I took Tippit's gun and several other officers came up, and I turned him over to them and they questioned him. 

This shows the type of confusion that happens.  Calloway was mistaken as a private detective - that was even assumed by Scoggins (see his testimony). He only realized he wasn't when they got back to the scene. Meanwhile Scoggins was being treated as a suspect per the above testimony. He was handed over to the real detectives and there is zero doubt they would have looked through his wallet. 

I find it extremely frustrating that anyone would prefer Chinese whispers and alleged discussions that were meant only to incriminate Oswald, to what I see as a realistic solution based on actual testimony.

As for Reed... I have forgotten how it was established it was McWatters bus in the photo, but even if it is, what we know is that reed had a lot of photos on that reel of film. What if a lot of the others are of scenes that day just taken randomly? The photos that were selected were obviously selected for the very reason you want to use them - they appear to be relevant somehow. But how relevant do they remain if they are but 2 or 3 shots in a while series of random ones?  And what would be the purpose of the shots since they only came to light and into the hands of the FBI (from memory) well after the event? For the life of me... I ca't think of any reason for it, unless they were hellbent on creating a conspiratorial trail.  That said, I do think Reed is worth investigating - even without the photos being of any import.

Greg,

One or two people have pointed this out before regarding the Reed photographs but he seems to have been documenting events for some purpose.

Interest in buses coming down Elm Street would presumably concern the feasibility of using one to escape.

The initial story claimed Oswald had escaped by bus and Reed would have recorded one at least that reasonably fitted a credible timeline. However, this had to be revised because traffic jams meant that the "Marsalis bus" (as I believe it was called) would have been held up for far too long to fit in with Oswald's alleged actions. (This bus wasn't the one Oswald would normally have caught anyway - he'd have wanted one that went down Beckley.) There was therefore a need for a quicker getaway and so the bus-then-taxi story emerged the following day.

It looks like all the Reed photographs were taken on foot. How would a "civilian" get from central Dallas to West Jefferson Blvd in time to take photographs of Oswald being arrested? How could he even guess? Even if he had access to police radio (rare in those days and the equipment was not portable, although it could be alleged he eavesdropped), the time from the initial call mentioning the Texas Theater to Oswald's arrest was barely five minutes.

Realistically, Reed could only have been at West Jefferson if he had foreknowledge.

It seems he was carrying out a similar operation to James Powell, another individual whose actions strike me as very suspicious.

Interview with the cab and bus drivers.

Absolutely fascinating thread gentlemen. An example of ROKC at it's very finest.
In my opinion( and remember I'm nowhere near as well acquainted with the actual on the ground mechanics and the documentary record) I think both sides are approaching the truth albeit from different angles. The location, the wallet( if genuine), the Reed photographs, Tippets erratic behavior( if reported correctly), the spare jacket hanging in the backseat, the coup de grace t the head, the Davis sisters testimony, Acquilla Clements too and the way the shells were found then unfound are strongly suggestive of pre meditation.
However maybe Tippit wasn't meant t die, maybe something went wrong maybe he thought he was just giving someone a lift. Maybe Tippits death led t some poorly thought out improvisations. Improvisations the architects of the Lone Nut angle were able t exploit. Allowing them t turn the commie loving conspirator into a violent trigger happy lone nut psychopath
I certainly think something went wrong on the ground.
Then again i maybe completely wrong. Over half a century of rumours innuendos misinformation and bullshit has made the truth almost impossible t ascertain.
Maybe there were two Tippits and one Tippit shot the other for trying t come onto his fake momma. When you entire the Armstrongesque Twilight Zone populated by test tube wielding Fez wearers and cowboy hatted buffoons anything's fucking possible.
So predictable and right on cue. One of the Ed forum's resident geniuses has started a "two Oswalds in the Texas Theatre thread"..and Ole Jimmy Hargrove comes steaming in leaving piles of reeking long debunked bullshit in his wake.
Its so fucking disheartening. It's just the same old shit. The same old pointless arguments with DVP gleefully egging them on..and there's now some Bacon t go with the scrambled eggs. Another one ascends t the jobby smeared heights of the H and L pantheon. A certain Paul Bacon who by the sound of things has all the intellectual dexterity of a half pound of his porky namesake..
I'm off for a doppelganger double cheeseburger..hold the pickles..

At this point, we should probably all just agree to disagree.

Probability is a useful tool when evidence is lacking.

In the case of evidence not forthcoming, one can examine how likely a scenario was to occur.

Note: the probability is viable only when evidence is lacking. Evidence always supplants suppositions, or it should in any event. (also, having studied statistics, one can pose a probability in different ways, different wording, to slant the results - but that's a subject for a different day)

Since so few officers were killed in Dallas, the probability of the two events occurring within a short time frame is very small. This does not mean they HAD to be connected but the probability they were not is very small. Notwithstanding, miracles and anomalies have their place in this continuum.

That said, the concept that they were PLANNED is another thing entirely.

The preponderance of evidence in the pairing of these two cases certainly does not point to any preplanning. The garbled testimonies, twisting of evidence, and bat-crap insanity going on by most of the parties concerned speak volumes to the immediacy of the events. Preplanned events usually have back-stories in place to guide the uninitiated to the desired response, one chosen by the planners.

Now, the manner in which these two could be connected are many.

The plotters wanting officers near the Texas Theater could have had Tippit shot to offer a police presence in proximity.

Gang members in Oak Cliff - sensing all the force would be busy tracking down the assassin - took revenge on Tippit at that moment assuming they would have ample opportunity for escape.

I am sure there are hundreds of scenarios through which the two could be related but, that being said, relation does not require correlation.

Nor does it imply premeditation.

Probabilities can guide us but they should only do so only in the lack of evidence.

After all, in 1963, what was the probability that a President would have been killed in Dallas?

Terry,

Thank you for those observations.

I’ve studied probability theory, but not, as far as I can remember, Bayes’ theorem.

Since you’ve studied statistics, perhaps you’ve also studied Bayes’ theorem. If you have, do you know how it might be applied to the Tippit/JFK case(s)?

Hi Goban,
I've followed your posts with great interest. Alas however being the most unmatbematical and unstastically minded of people the implications go soaring over my head.and out the window.like a warped selfie stick out a Sanibel dungeon
.. Or Martin Shackelfords credibility when Juddufki batted thr lashes of her X ray eyes at him..she can see thru walls you know..Stan Lee was going t create a superhero based on her..he was in love with her you know..but his bosses at Marvel comics thought "Mouse Piss Parasite Woman" might attract the wrong demographic..
It's what happened after Judy posed nude in Playboy..Arthur Miller refused t finish the play they were writing together.." Death of A Mafia Pilot and participant in the CIA plan t kill Castro" was meant t b the follow up t Death of A Salesman..
He only ended up with Marilyn on the rebound from Judy anyway. She was Marilyn Monroe's double..and Dickie Hooke has the ( albeit heavily stained) diagrams t prove it..
ROKC has taught me t take nothing for granted regarding this case. Every fact, no matter how hallowed they've become, must be viewed skeptically and with fresh eyes.
What I've grown t deplore most is the uncompromising almost doctrinaire stance that facts, witness statements etc are beyond scrutiny simpy because they suggest conspiracy.
Facts are facts regardless. To distort truth simply t fit prejudice and world view is beneath contempt. Is that not why we excoriated the Warren Report?
I've got an open mind about everything regarding this case. Some of the recent discoveries have caused me t re evaluate what i believed.
The Tippit case being pretty much top of the list. Although, like you i remain undecided. That's one of the things that drew me t ROKC. Folk here aren't afraid of being wrong. They change their minds, they don't allow themselves t become boxed in.
The path t wisdom is strewn with mistakes; surely it is by learning what is wrong we eventually discover what is right? Only by having the courage t b wrong do we develop the courage t b right.
I'm happy t agree t disagree but i don't think everyone's too far apart.
I don't think everything went t plan.
Again it's been an absolute pleasure t read this thread. The depth of knowledge on display, the respectful tone, the new research and the willingness t approach old problems from new angles..
ROKC is light years ahead of the other forums.

Goban Saor wrote:Terry,

Thank you for those observations.

I’ve studied probability theory, but not, as far as I can remember, Bayes’ theorem.

Since you’ve studied statistics, perhaps you’ve also studied Bayes’ theorem. If you have, do you know how it might be applied to the Tippit/JFK case(s)?

Goban,

Yes, I have studied Bayes Theorem, among others, but I was the non-math talent in my family. Three brothers went on to programming and I wound up in history.

Theoretical possibilities seem, to me at least, to be instructive when you need something to help you sort out a problem. While it might work pretty good as a tool, it doesn't seem to be much good for really complex problems like conspiracy. That's probably why I am a conspiracist rather than a theorist.

My interest in statistics was primarily how one can frame the results in different ways. My instructor called it the best way to lie, with the numbers to back it up. When a news story comes out about survey results of people, I always dig to find the real numbers. Most recently, I've done this with the climate change scare. The real numbers are not what the news sources quote and the "99% of scientists" figure is transparent as well when you view the raw numbers.

In college, I was part of a survey team that canvased the people on the streets of Los Angeles with six questions. We did fourteen thousand surveys and each of the questions had various answers but one question along had the same exact answer by every respondent. "What do you like to do most?"

When I was playing a game of Risk with my brother once, he had the last country space unconquered as they winning player threw all his forces against it. My brother had to roll two die the defend his place and he rolled double sixes for 72 straight rolls and went on to win the game. The eventual loser couldn't believe he actually lost. Probability was in his favor.

Mathematics can tell us only so much.

In conspiracy studies, especially when dealing with the ones behind this conspiracy, I believe they know the numbers as well as anyone else and intentionally mislead. That's why I don't trust the numbers in the case. Richard Gilbride had earlier attempted to show the rest of us that the Second Floor Encounter was mathematically the most likely scenario in the case. Perhaps it is but only because it was designed that way.

So, short answer, I am not the go-to person for probabilities in the case. I am more of an intuitive student. If something doesn't feel right to me, I try and find out why. If I can't find the reason, I won't attempt to convince others due to my feeling but I will still keep looking. People that are better at math can probably find some use in the same manner with Bayes but it wouldn't much help me.

Sorry.

Thanks for that, Terry. More food for thought.

For whatever compulsive reason, I feel compelled to put the finest point I can on notions regarding simultaneity and rare events. The kernel of the whole line of thinking is that exceedingly rare events are constantly occurring all around us, all the time.
The differentiating factor is the level of significance that we as human beings assign to them. A dispassionate universe (as represented by mathematics) doesn’t consider that the astronomically high odds against one specific horsefly hatched from the carcass of one specific decomposing armadillo splatting upon a single precise location on the windshield of a 65 Ford Mustang that was vehicle number 4,056 off assembly line #6 inside factory facility #2 in Detroit, MI while traveling at 65.7 mph on Highway 10 in Mississippi at 12:55 AM on 1/6/2019, as being any more significant than say the fatal car crash that occurred immediately thereafter when another automobile with as similarly rare a pedigree as that of the Mustang (say a 2018 Corvette) raced past our Mustang at 120 mph, flew off the next curve and crashed into a grove of trees (each with its own unique set of origination parameters). The dispassionate universe simply rolls on presenting one unfathomably huge conglomeration of infinitely rare events occurring everywhere at the same time, after the next. It is we humans who would or would not say, wait, you cannot tell me that the crashing Corvette cannot be related in some way to the bug splatting on the Mustang right before it happened, just look at the odds! The fact is that rare events are guaranteed to be occurring all the time, everywhere. The fact that they are doing so in and of itself, says nothing at all about whether or not they are related events in terms of cause and effect. We need more information, or evidence, to tell us that they are.

With apologies if there are no Armadillos in Mississippi. I didn't research it, but I do think that "There are no Armadillos in Mississippi" would be a nice title for a song.

If I understand you correctly, Jake, your description of neither of those two Ford Mustang incidents involves human wrongdoing of any kind. They are accidental random events and therefore the question of a conspiratorial connection between them cannot arise.

Hence, by your own definition, they cannot be compared to the JFK and Tippit murders.

There is a prima facie case for a conspiratorial connection between the JFK and Tippit murders for the following reasons: (a) the high improbability of their concurrence and colocation – it could be at least as high as 1/100,000 approx; (b) their similarly heinous nature, involving most serious criminal wrongdoing; and (c) the plethora of suspicious circumstances surrounding them.

Goban wrote:There is a prima facie case for a conspiratorial connection between the JFK and Tippit murders for the following reasons: (a) the high improbability of their concurrence and colocation – it could be at least as high as 1/100,000 approx; (b) their similarly heinous nature, involving most serious criminal wrongdoing; and (c) the plethora of suspicious circumstances surrounding them.

I could be wrong Goban, but I don't think that alone would be accepted as a prima facie case by any prosecutor. The police presenting this would likely be told that it's good grounds for suspicion, but we need the supporting evidence.

And that is where it comes unstuck. The supporting evidence is 55 years of late-arriving witnesses with new evidence, and old witnesses with changed testimony. Neither group can be deemed reliable - and that is also based on statistics. On top of that is ignoring the logic of the wallet belonging to the cab driver who was initially a suspect etc etc.. The evidence just does not hold up.

It might be regarded as prima facie for the fact that intuition, pattern seeking; call it what you will, all play their roles in shaping human perceptions. A cognizant horsefly investigating the matter may well consider the two events occurring in such close proximity are prima facie evidence that the deceased horsefly swerved to get out of the way of the Corvette and went splat against the Mustang's windshield as a result, but it's conjecture. As Greg said, evidence is required. Without evidence, it's the illusion of prima facie, which can happen.

Greg,

That is a different argument from Jake’s, which is the one I’m addressing.

My point is that in adducing a purported analogy which is fundamentally dissimilar to the JFK/Tippit murder case(s), Jake has defeated the purpose of his argument.

Paul Bentley said he lifted a good set of fingerprints off of the passenger side door under the passenger side window of Tippits patrol car at the scene of the crime.

Where in the hell have those good prints gone missing to?

Are they in evidence somewhere?

They just up and disappeared?

Also, in the Tippit murder case, when he went into the Top Ten record store and made that call, were the Top Ten phone records ever checked against who he was trying to call and what the number was?

How about the Dallas police dicta belts for the time of that whole morning transfer including before, during and after Oswald's transfer, are there any in existence?

That might make for an interesting  read.

Following is a critique of my Tippit piece at the Foo.

Milo Reech wrote:Tippit: An Alternative Solution
It's the title of a whirlwind folk history of Oak Cliff starting with Bonnie & Clyde and culminating with a "disturbance call" about the fight at 12th & Marsalis reported by Bill Pulte. [12th page]
https://www.thenewdisease.space/tippit

Greg Parker's the author. See the ROKC thread on the same topic as this thread for more info.
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion....ped-his-killer.

Folk history, my arse. It is a history derived from government and other textual records and  includes actual recording of conspiratorial meetings involving the Chicago Mob moving into Dallas. 

To relegate this history to "folk" status is pure sophistry and marks him as someone not to be trusted.

Evidently Parker had failed to keep up with the relocation of the actual disturbance from 12th to 10th, but no matter. His attention was focused on the knotty problem of establishing a causal link between the fight scene and the murder scene, achieved on the 13th page by the simple expedient of moving the "disturbance call" to the 400 block of East 10th. The fight at Marsalis fades into the void, out of the picture entirely as if it had never happened, jettisoning any support Pulte may have provided for the proposed alternative.

The evidence for this is Murray Jackson's vague reference during a 1967 interview to a "disturbance in the street at the 400 block of East Tenth." The obvious explanation is this call was one of the many neighborhood calls about the murder, but the essay rejects this by splitting hairs. It continues...

Evidently Mr Reech is unaware of the memory and motivational issues around late arriving cloak and dagger witnesses - especially when found and interviewed by amateur sleuths cum authors looking for evidence supporting pet theories.

Evidently Mr Reech never read my essay very carefully. Had he done so, he would note that witnesses such as Barbara Davis testified that she told police during her call that ͞a policeman had been shot͟, while her sister Virginia testified that Barbara had said that there had been ͞a murder out in front of our house.͟

He would also have learned that "in police jargon, a ͞disturbance call͟ is a call to private or public space where there is a threat to public safety and welfare which may include but is not limited to, the brandishing of a weapon, assault, battery, riot or unlawful assembly."

A police officer being shot and possibly murdered does not qualify as being a "disturbance". Therefore in 1967 when Jackson recalled getting a call sheet about a disturbance call on the 400 block of E 10th, he is not talking about Tippit's murder.  But Mr Reech apparently favors witnesses from later decades. Moreover he admits the issue of memory is a problem when he euphemistically says witnesses "relocated" the disturbance from 12th to 10th. In any event, Murray is never going to refer to the murder of a cop as a "disturbance". Not in 1963 and not in 1967.

Moreover, Murray goes on to say that he attempted to get ahold of Tippit after receiving that call-sheet but claims he got no response. He then got the call from a citizen using an unknown police radio and again tried to contact Tippit on the basis that he was the only cop in Oak Cliff (Nelson had been ordered there as well, but apparently ignored the order). [13th page]

Actually, Jackson said, "J. D. was the only one that should have been in Oak Cliff," but his memory was more than a little muzzy and he should have known better. Mentzel (the officer assigned to the district) had called in clear and traffic cop Summers had reported his location at 600 West Jefferson, both a few minutes before the citizen call.

Mr Reech is correct here. Jackson as above said, "J. D. was the only one that should have been in Oak Cliff" and I misquoted. It is however, immaterial. Whether we are talking about a disturbance call or the shooting of a cop, Jackson's first instinct was to try and call the only cop he had ordered to be available for any emergency that comes in for that district. 

Another essay at Kennedys and King, "Dale Myers, With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J. D. Tippit" by Joseph McBride, finishes off the local disturbance/gangster angle altogether.
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-k...cer-j-d-tippit

LOL

Edgar Lee Tippit's revelations in section II provide the correction, "that J. D. and another officer had been assigned by the police to hunt down Oswald in Oak Cliff." McBride proceeds to make a persuasive argument that the other officer was Mentzel. The identification is icing on the cake but even if wrong does not alter the reality described by Edgar Lee. His statements reduce the alternative solution's argument to a superfetation at best (i.e. by an accretion of a putative disturbance call onto a murder call, straining to get an imaginary second incident on a barren event), a fabrication at worst, and banish the local gangster ambush operation to the realm of fiction, whence it arose.

Fucking hilarious and exactly what I referred to earlier about late arriving witnesses and amateur sleuths cum authors. 

Anyone who takes the tall tales of Edgar seriously, is desperate to stop their house of cards toppling over, or simply has some deficiencies in the way they assess and process information. 

But this is the shit that the Deep Foo specializes in. 

A well-documented history is relegated to the status of "folk history"
A murder of an officer is relegated to the status of a "disturbance" call
A 90 year old finally comes clean that his son was part of a massive conspiracy and that is accepted because --- you know -- conspiracy! 

And to top it off, the two cops racing around looking for Oswald requires the belief in a number of other witnesses.

Mr Reech wisely does not mention that I fucking destroyed those witnesses in the essay. There goes the cops looking for Oswald crap. 

Where does the Foo find these guys?

greg parker wrote:Following is a critique of my Tippit piece at the Foo.

Milo Reech wrote:Tippit: An Alternative Solution
It's the title of a whirlwind folk history of Oak Cliff starting with Bonnie & Clyde and culminating with a "disturbance call" about the fight at 12th & Marsalis reported by Bill Pulte. [12th page]
https://www.thenewdisease.space/tippit

Greg Parker's the author. See the ROKC thread on the same topic as this thread for more info.
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion....ped-his-killer.

Folk history, my arse. It is a history derived from government and other textual records and  includes actual recording of conspiratorial meetings involving the Chicago Mob moving into Dallas. 

To relegate this history to "folk" status is pure sophistry and marks him as someone not to be trusted.

Evidently Parker had failed to keep up with the relocation of the actual disturbance from 12th to 10th, but no matter. His attention was focused on the knotty problem of establishing a causal link between the fight scene and the murder scene, achieved on the 13th page by the simple expedient of moving the "disturbance call" to the 400 block of East 10th. The fight at Marsalis fades into the void, out of the picture entirely as if it had never happened, jettisoning any support Pulte may have provided for the proposed alternative.

The evidence for this is Murray Jackson's vague reference during a 1967 interview to a "disturbance in the street at the 400 block of East Tenth." The obvious explanation is this call was one of the many neighborhood calls about the murder, but the essay rejects this by splitting hairs. It continues...

Evidently Mr Reech is unaware of the memory and motivational issues around late arriving cloak and dagger witnesses - especially when found and interviewed by amateur sleuths cum authors looking for evidence supporting pet theories.

Evidently Mr Reech never read my essay very carefully. Had he done so, he would note that witnesses such as Barbara Davis testified that she told police during her call that ͞a policeman had been shot͟, while her sister Virginia testified that Barbara had said that there had been ͞a murder out in front of our house.͟

He would also have learned that "in police jargon, a ͞disturbance call͟ is a call to private or public space where there is a threat to public safety and welfare which may include but is not limited to, the brandishing of a weapon, assault, battery, riot or unlawful assembly."

A police officer being shot and possibly murdered does not qualify as being a "disturbance". Therefore in 1967 when Jackson recalled getting a call sheet about a disturbance call on the 400 block of E 10th, he is not talking about Tippit's murder.  But Mr Reech apparently favors witnesses from later decades. Moreover he admits the issue of memory is a problem when he euphemistically says witnesses "relocated" the disturbance from 12th to 10th. In any event, Murray is never going to refer to the murder of a cop as a "disturbance". Not in 1963 and not in 1967.

Moreover, Murray goes on to say that he attempted to get ahold of Tippit after receiving that call-sheet but claims he got no response. He then got the call from a citizen using an unknown police radio and again tried to contact Tippit on the basis that he was the only cop in Oak Cliff (Nelson had been ordered there as well, but apparently ignored the order). [13th page]

Actually, Jackson said, "J. D. was the only one that should have been in Oak Cliff," but his memory was more than a little muzzy and he should have known better. Mentzel (the officer assigned to the district) had called in clear and traffic cop Summers had reported his location at 600 West Jefferson, both a few minutes before the citizen call.

Mr Reech is correct here. Jackson as above said, "J. D. was the only one that should have been in Oak Cliff" and I misquoted. It is however, immaterial. Whether we are talking about a disturbance call or the shooting of a cop, Jackson's first instinct was to try and call the only cop he had ordered to be available for any emergency that comes in for that district. 

Another essay at Kennedys and King, "Dale Myers, With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J. D. Tippit" by Joseph McBride, finishes off the local disturbance/gangster angle altogether.
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-k...cer-j-d-tippit

LOL

Edgar Lee Tippit's revelations in section II provide the correction, "that J. D. and another officer had been assigned by the police to hunt down Oswald in Oak Cliff." McBride proceeds to make a persuasive argument that the other officer was Mentzel. The identification is icing on the cake but even if wrong does not alter the reality described by Edgar Lee. His statements reduce the alternative solution's argument to a superfetation at best (i.e. by an accretion of a putative disturbance call onto a murder call, straining to get an imaginary second incident on a barren event), a fabrication at worst, and banish the local gangster ambush operation to the realm of fiction, whence it arose.

Fucking hilarious and exactly what I referred to earlier about late arriving witnesses and amateur sleuths cum authors. 

Anyone who takes the tall tales of Edgar seriously, is desperate to stop their house of cards toppling over, or simply has some deficiencies in the way they assess and process information. 

But this is the shit that the Deep Foo specializes in. 

A well-documented history is relegated to the status of "folk history"
A murder of an officer is relegated to the status of a "disturbance" call
A 90 year old finally comes clean that his son was part of a massive conspiracy and that is accepted because --- you know -- conspiracy! 

And to top it off, the two cops racing around looking for Oswald requires the belief in a number of other witnesses.

Mr Reech wisely does not mention that I fucking destroyed those witnesses in the essay. There goes the cops looking for Oswald crap. 

Where does the Foo find these guys?

Once again Greg, a superb set of factual data that blows the other side completely out of the water as is your norm, well done my friend.

As to Mr. Reech, I would only add......Mr Reech?

McBride interviewed Edgar Tippit in the early 1990s. What Edgar related to him was said to have been told to Marie Tippit by another cop... it is all hearsay coming from a 90 year old who McBride claims was "sharp" because, you know - CONSPIRACY - or at least certainly not based on any known criteria for determining memory function.  Yet so confident in the words of Edgar was McBride that he never bothered going and interviewing Edgar's source - Marie. 

McBride is a source that renders my thesis as "fiction"? 

What are the worst of the worst conspiracy theories in the JFK case? Those that are top-heavy reliant on dubious witnesses.

My thesis does not rely on such dubious/late arriving witnesses. 

It is a fact that Decker and Fritz were exceptionally close to WO Banksoton and that Bankston was named by Chicago Mob representative Jones in secretly recorded interviews as being a go-between to fences (movers of stolen goods).

It is a fact that Decker and Bankston were instrumental in getting an early release and pardon for Floyd Hamilton, formerly of the Barrow Gang and an expert in B & E and car theft.

It is a fact that Bankston gave Hamilton a job as night security at his car dealership.

It is a fact that Hamilton took local young parolees under his wing under cover of "charity"

It is a fact that Helen Markham was a cousin to Floyd but actually raised as his sister

It is a fact that Helen's son James was part of a local gang doing B and E's and stealing cars and was himself on parole

It is a fact that Helen Markham as well as two of James' fellow gang members, were Tippit witnesses

It is a fact that Helen Markham was hysterical after the murder and again when required to view a line-up - yet given her background, none of this should have fazed her in the slightest.

It is a fact that Fritz met Decker straight after Fritz left the TSBD for a meeting - the subject of which was never revealed

It is a fact that Mrs Oswald, along with Mark lane and a reporter, tried to interview Helen Markham but instead spoke to James.

It is a fact that it would later falsely be claimed it was not James, but his brother William who talked to them.

It is a fact that soon after this talk, the police showed up to arrest James for breach of parole and that James at that time, broke his leg after falling through a second floor window.

It is a fact that Fritz never accepted a number of offers of promotion. 

It is a fact that Potts testified to being told by Harwood that Tippit was killed "on a disturbance cal" which fits in precisely with Jackson's 1967 comment that he received a call sheet on a disturbance and tried to contact Tippit. 

It is a fact that there is a gap in the police tapes where Jackson may have actually sent Tippit to investigate such a call. 

It is a fact that gang member William Smith testified he was scared he might end up in jail by coming forward as a witness.

Given all of these facts, my conjecture that Decker and Bankston got Floyd out of jail specifically to act as a kind of Fagin figure for the local gang is reasonable - as is the premise that Mentzel, Decker and Fritz (and possibly others) were getting kickbacks from the proceeds of this operation - thus Fritz's refusal to take a promotion. He needed to stay in Robbery and Homicide to stay in the loop. 

The meeting Decker called with Fritz, I surmise, was to tell him that Helen Markham would cooperate by fingering Oswald as the Tippit killer or else James would be going back to prison. Thus Helen's hysteria. Oswald had to be scapegoated for it because any real investigation from any other agency would soon uncover the cozy little deal they had going.James talking to Marguerite and others then landed him in trouble - and on the driveway from two floors up. 

Note that I don't rely on late arriving witnesses, witnesses on the verge of dementia, or real folk tales about Badge Man, and secret plots to find Oswald and/or ambush Tippit... all of which are necessary for the purpose of finding a conspiracy - no matter the cost to the truth. Conspiracy at all and any cost is the motto of those like McBride - and apparently Mr Reech.

There was no conspiracy to have Tippit and/or Mentzel find Oswald. There was no conspiracy to ambush Tippit and frame Oswald for it.

There was a conspiracy to cover up the identity of the real killer or killers in order to protect a nice revenue stream. 

Had the assassination not happened, Mentzel would have been called to the disturbance and no murder would have taken place - given that Mentzel would have been one of those on the take from this gang. Tippit got killed because he was unknown to the gang members and they feared going to jail for any breaches of parole or other court orders. Poor dumb cop, indeed.

Actually I think that Marie refused to talk to McBride. In fact she refuses to talk to him to this day.

~~~~Hargrove's Harbingers~~~~

So many Oswald's, so little time, it's like Pokemon...."Gotta Catch Em All"

I guess Hargrove could be called our "BackDoor Man"

I wonder how much Armstrong pays Hargrove every year to post this crap.

No one would post this online without compensation, would they?

Oy Vey............What a mess.

Main Floor Oswald
Balcony Oswald
Classic Oswald
Traditional Oswald
Historic Oswald
Magic Money Order Oswald
Magic Rifle Oswald
2nd Floor Lunchroom Oswald
Magic Theater Oswald Pistol
Front Door Oswald
Back Door Oswald
Safe House Oswald
Dallas Oswald
New Orleans Oswald
Hungarian Born Oswald
American Born Oswald
The Real-Life, Historical Oswald
Driving Oswald
Non Driving Oswald
The Classic Oswald
The Second Oswald
The Third Oswald
The Fourth Oswald
Emaciated Oswald
Ripped Muscles Oswald
Athletic Oswald
Skinny Pale Oswald
Buff Oswald
Smoking Oswald
Non Smoking Oswald
Drinking Oswald
Non Drinking Oswald
Whistling Oswald
Non Whistling Oswald
Marinas Husband Lee
Marinas Husband Harvey
Marguerite's Son Lee Oswald
Marguerite's Son Harvey Oswald
Popcorn Eating Oswald
Non Popcorn Eating Oswald
Ozzie #1
Ozzie #2
Disgruntled Oswald
Carefree Oswald
Penniless Oswald
Rich Oswald
Wife Beater Oswald
Perfect Husband Oswald
Two Marinas
Two Junes
Two Rachels
Two Rifles
Two Scopes
Two Ramblers
Two Pistols

"This may have been part of the set-up of Classic Oswald"

"The plotters sent the look-alike (let's call him "Lee") to 10th and Patton to murder J.D. Tippit, and then, after giving his gun, jacket, and wallet containing Oswald and Hidell ID's to Captain Westbrook, Lee went to the Texas Theater, was told to make a scene entering it to lead police there, where the other Oswald (let's call him "Harvey") had already been inside for 10 minutes or so"

"What the plotters could never get quite right (because they were juggling two Oswalds)" is....

Amazing Psychic Prediction by the Man Called "Lee Harvey Oswald"