Did Lee Harvey Oswald Kill Officer J D Tippit?

[Bridewell]

This thread is for the continuation of a discussion commenced on another, so apologies to those (especially Jonathan H) who have already contributed at some length. I don't want to summarise the views of others and risk misrepresenting them.

The Warren Report into the assassination of President Kennedy concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald killed both Kennedy and Officer J.D. Tippit who was shot in Dallas on the same day.

Mrs Acquilla Clemons described two men who killed Tippit, one of them "kind of heavy" and the other "tall and thin", wearing "light khaki trousers and a white shirt".

The Warren Report chose to discount Mrs Clemons' account and she was not called upon to give evidence. Was it justified in doing so or did it simply ignore evidence which didn't fit the notion of Oswald as a lone gunman?



Above is the shirt Oswald was wearing on arrest which seems to suggest (in no particular order) either (a) Oswald changed his shirt, (b) Mrs Clemons was mistaken, (c) Mrs Clemons wasn't a witness or (d) the man wasn't Oswald.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jonathan H]

Moved from other thread:

To Bridewell

What you are doing is narrowing the evidence for-and-against Oswald in the killing of Tippit (whom the little coward shot several times, paused, and then methodically stood over his prone body and shot him in the head) to a single, demonstrably unreliable witness.

If you or anybody examines all the available evidence you will see that it overwhelmingly favours the official version: Oswald killed Tippit.

Not coincidentally, the same suspect pulled a loaded revolver on police in the theatre, minutes later, and tried to off a couple more.

The Oswald-as-martyr myth is a real litmus test for whether you see that not all theories are in equipoise. Some are strong and others are pathetic, to the point of intellectual fraud.

Stone's 'JFK' does not tell you that Oswald arrived at work with an oblong package, that he had changed his routine to unexpectedly go to Ruth Paine's house the night before -- where his rifle was lying under a blanket in her garage -- and that he left his wedding ring in an eggcup and all the money he had for his still sleeping ex-wife who had, also the night before, refused to take him back (understandably since he was abusive).

Leftist Buffs in the mid-60's sent the whole counter-investigation in the wrong direction, hunting as they were for evidence of more gunmen in the shadows. For if you can find another accomplice then maybe Lee Harvey was a 'patsy' as he claimed (though he meant because he had lived in the Soviet Union, not that he was being framed by some vast conspiracy).

That Oswald killed Kennedy without help in Dealey Plaza is not in serious doubt except among those who resist stubborn facts while simultaneously embracing the siren song of fantasists, who commit the buffs to fraud and fakery.

What remains a serious question is did Oswald have help, or 'encouragement' not on the day but before Nov. 22nd?

For Oswald the Communist, who had lived in Russia, who was publicly pro-Castro, who had taken a shot at General Walker (a fact strongly suspected by a dodgy, White Russian businessman who also liaised with the CIA's Domestic Contacts Division), who was seemingly impersonated in Mexico City, was an assassin made to order for certain extreme right-wingers seeking a casus belifor a second and successful 'Bay of Pigs' invasion.

That is the trail which needed to be followed by both officials and amateurs in 1963/4, among the murky, internecine world of the anti-Castro movement, one riddled with Castro's operatives, but it was not taken until -- and only fitfully -- in the late 1970's and by then it was a very cold trail indeed.

Even anti-JFK/conspiracy author Vincent Bugliosi concedes that the Odio Incident is the only tangible evidence for a possible plot; that the anti-Castro Cubans and their groupies had the means, the motive, and the opportunity, what with Oswald dropping into their midst to make it happen.

Yet he dismisses it because of a lack of hard evidence.

That's fair enough, but I believe that the Coleman-Slawson Report pointed to the possibility of a very loose 'plot' by just two wankers who met a third wanker, and fooled and misled and tempted that third oddball, eg. wound him up like a lethal toy and then let him go ...

[Roy Corduroy]

Yes of course Oswald killed Tippitt, Bridewell.

Jonathan, thank you for refreshing my memory about how Bugliosi handled the Odio incident.

Oswald initiated his defection to the Soviet Union. They didn't want him. Back in the US, he bought a gun and took a potshot at General Walker. Marina kew that. George DeMorenschild simpy made a wild guess at it. And he was right.

This all happened before Oswald went to New Orleans. Where he, Oswald initiated contact with Cubans, any Cubans. Just as Oswald initiated his trip to Mexico City.

Could a Cuban, or anyone, plant an idea in Oswald's mind to kill Kennedy? Sure. But that's not a conspiracy. The Odio incident and the Mexico trip occured in late September. Before Oswald happened upon his job at Book Depository. Before anyone knew JFK was coming to Big D, much less that the motorcade would pass in front of the building.

Because regardless of what anyone told him, or promised him, or anything, he was already looking to kill someone in April. But he didn't make the split decision to kill Kennedy until the day before. Thus his trip to Irving to get the gun.

That's what I meant about Bugliosi debunking it, which is not the right word. He looked a the Odio incident and Oswald's entire timeline and story and concluded, well, no, there was no conspiracy.

But you could still be right, Jonathan, in that somebody put the idea in his head. But did he need any prompting at all? It doesn't seem like it.

Roy

[Jonathan H]

'Hands Off Cuba!'

To Roy

I think that is an excellent and insightful counter-argument.

Especially as Coleman and Slawson were not claiming to be definitive, only suggestive and speculative about a potential line for further inquiry (one not taken) which might have disproved their proto-thesis.

I totally agree that Oswald is the lone assassin-futurist hunting for a suitable target, and the biggest one of all was going to pass right by his work window.

Jean Davidson in 'Oswald's Game' made a very good case for the Odio Incident being exactly what it seemed: that Oswald was infiltrating a pair of right-wing anti-Castroites -- who gave him a lift to Dallas -- and he had bragged about how they should shoot JFK for the Bay of Pigs betrayal, and 'Leopoldo' innocently mentioned this to Odio the next day.

I love Norman Mailer's 'Oswald's Tale: An American Mystery' for his extraordinary recreation of what it must have felt like for Oswald to kill JFK (and Tippit).

On the other hand ...

Oswald really was a fan of Fidel Castro, and thus he had to know that once they found his gun he would be quickly linked to the Kennedy murder, and then everything about his past would also rapidly emerge -- including his one-man 'Fair Play for Cuba' activities in New Orleans.

Surely Oswald would have realised before the fact that he was potentially causing serious trouble for the Cuban Revolutionary regime, to put it mildly?

Perhaps he didn't care after the Cuban Embassy refused his visa in Mexico City?

Nevertheless, I think Oswald would have to have been 'encouraged' to kill JFK because he thought it was what Fidel wanted -- and had seemingly threatened in a newspaper: about how if Cuban leaders were being targetted then American ones would be in danger too.

Therefore 'Leopoldo' and 'Angelo' provided the insurance that it was ok, that it was what Oswald's hero desired, and then perhaps this pair did not give the American a second thought -- until Nov. 22nd 1963.

Actually the White House had already by then announced that the President was going to make a trip to the South-West.

By the way, Roy, I don't want to write their names here but I [provisionally] believe that the two anti-Castro figures with Oswald at Odio's door were the ones first identified by the FBI in 1964, one of whom initially admitted it and then hastily retracted his confirmation as the Warren Report was being published.

[Errata]

Moved from other thread:

To Bridewell

What you are doing is narrowing the evidence for-and-against Oswald in the killing of Tippit (whom the little coward shot several times, paused, and then methodically stood over his prone body and shot him in the head) to a single, demonstrably unreliable witness.

Out of curiosity, what makes her an unreliable witness?

I'm not really for or against a conspiracy. Caesar was killed by conspiracy, as was Lincoln. Garfield and Mckinley were killed by lone gunman. Harding died at the hands of bad shrimp, and Harrison fell victim to fatal vanity. So I give it 50/50 odds. I think people focus on it because they see it as the death of the American Dream, but clearly the American Dream died earlier if the American public could suspect a conspiracy. The assassination of the other three Presidents are much more interesting in my view.

[Bridewell]

Devil's Advocate

Hi Jonathan,

I guess I'm playing devil's advocate on this as usual. I really should know better.

What you are doing is narrowing the evidence for-and-against Oswald in the killing of Tippit (whom the little coward shot several times, paused, and then methodically stood over his prone body and shot him in the head) to a single, demonstrably unreliable witness.

I wasn't seeking to narrow anything down. She claimed to be an eye witness to the Tippit shooting and so I thought it important to throw her evidence into the mix. Obviously what she had to say must, like any other evidence, stand or fall on its own merits. Why is she "demonstrably unreliable" by the way? I'm not saying she isn't, just don't know the answer.

If you or anybody examines all the available evidence you will see that it overwhelmingly favours the official version: Oswald killed Tippit.

If you or anybody examines all the available evidence

The Warren Report alone runs to 26 volumes. No, I haven't examined "all the evidence".

I guess the accounts given by William Scoggins, Domingo Benavides and Mrs. Helen Louise Markham are the clincher for your view, taken together?

What's your take on the notion of Oswald having killed Tippit but not JFK - not a suggestion I'd heard of before today? :

http://www.jfklink.com/articles/Tippit.html

Regards, Bridewell.

[Wickerman]

Leftist Buffs in the mid-60's sent the whole counter-investigation in the wrong direction, hunting as they were for evidence of more gunmen in the shadows. For if you can find another accomplice then maybe Lee Harvey was a 'patsy' as he claimed (though he meant because he had lived in the Soviet Union, not that he was being framed by some vast conspiracy).

That Oswald killed Kennedy without help in Dealey Plaza is not in serious doubt except among those who resist stubborn facts while simultaneously embracing the siren song of fantasists, who commit the buffs to fraud and fakery.

The most important issue at stake both with the Kennedy assassination & the Ripper murders is that we simply do not, will not, and cannot know the truth.

Very few people today seem to be able to appreciate the historical content, the various potential scenario's, and on the one hand, eye-opening singular testimonies, or often contradictory statements, which are unfortunately all too prevalent in both 'mysteries'.
The cases themselves are of interest without resorting to speculation. Whether it be for Oswald or Druitt, there simply is insufficient evidence in both cases for anyone today to be so "sure".

As always there are those like yourself who insist they know the truth, often at the expense of any contemporary witnesses who saw something different, who are then subsequently labelled "unreliable" or "unverified".
This is the same type of argument we see in the Hutchinson threads.

In keeping with this thread, the evidence as we have it, not police speculation but actual evidence, does not convincingly demonstrate that Oswald shot Tippit, and due to Jack Ruby we never will know.

With respect to Jack Ruby, we read in the Warren Commission Reports such meaningless observations that they could find no "grounds for believing that Ruby's killing of Oswald was part of a conspiracy."
Thats pretty innocuous because it didn't need to be "part of a conspiracy" in the first place, and if any evidence did exist towards such a conclusion that evidence could only have been provided by the Mob.
That comment in itself was therefore, meaningless. The Warren Report, in denial, contained a number of contrived conclusions.

We are all familiar with what "Government Officials in Denial" looks like..... "there is no such thing as organized crime in America" (J Edgar Hoover)

Regards, Jon S.

[Jonathan H]

To Wickerman


If you read more carefully you will see that I do not put Druitt and Oswald in equipoise, in terms of our certainty regarding their culpability for murder(s).

The former, Druitt, was never the subject of an official police investigation -- at all -- and was deceased by the time he did come to the [unofficial] attention of a single police chief (yes, he put his name in an official file but nobody at SY knew that; it had no impact on the state) while the latter, Oswald, was arrested, charged -- but obviously not tried -- for crimes for which the evidence is overwhelming.

The only remaining question is did Oswald have some kind of help; did somebody manipulate him or not?

There is no hard evidence that Oswald was so 'encouraged', but from an historical p.o.v. the Coleman-Slawson Sub-Report, as a primary source, goes against the expected institutional bias and thus remains a tantalizing trail not followed to [maybe] some kind of evidential conclusion.

Yet that loose end is good enough for an historical, eg. provisional theory.

Where I do find a similar attitude and mentality between Dallas and the Ripper, in many people like yourself, is a bias towards conspiracy or a bias towards a larger mystery where none necessarily exists.

It is a bias which is so inherent and entrenched that you cannot see it, pal.

That we cannot know the absolute truth about the Ripper is correct, then and now, unless he was caught in the act -- and he wasn't.

That Macnaghten was sure it was Druitt is good enough for history but not for the kind of 'truth' you are asserting -- that's true.

I have always said so.

But to apply such opacity to the Kennedy Assassination is a cliche and a cop-out.

The Warren Report is a flawed document, for sure, but its essential conclusions have been confirmed by any objective standard: Oswald, acting alone in Dealey Plaza, killed the President, wounded the governor and killed a policeman. Jack Ruby, acting alone -- and impulsively -- killed Oswald.

No foreign governments or domestic agencies were involved. Consider that it was a Commission of 100% anti-Reds yet it cleared Moscow and Havana of any complicity, whatsoever, in the crimes -- thank God!

There was dissent behind the scenes by certain Commission members over the Single-Bullet solution.

But people experienced with ballistics show that it was the FBI tests which were wrong (firing directly into bone), and that a fully-metal-jacketed bullet could indeed cause so many wounds, as it tumbled and slowed between JFK and Connally and moving sideways (neotron-activation tests, sort of the DNA-ing of a bullet, in the 1970's showed that fragments from the former governor matched the so-called 'magic bullet')

Of course Oswald did it, but did he have any confederates of any kind?

Well, if they existed they sure weren't in Dealey Plaza to give him a lift.

Therefore if they existed they must have been happy for him to be caught, and to be identified, and to be interrogated -- and to be seen, inevitably, as an agent of the International Communist Conspiracy (as the Dallas D.A. initially charged Oswald, until the hard word came from LBJ-Washington to drop it!)

In my opinion, if there were a couple of anti-Castroites who stumbled upon Oswald and -- briefly -- fed his desires to blow the head off somebody important, they could not have chosen better if they wanted to link Castro and the Russian to the crime, but must have been aghast that it did not lead to the re-invasion of Cuba.

I think the story of the Kennedy Assassination is, ironically, the story of a small-scale, low-level plot which both succeeded and failed spectacularly.

[Roy Corduroy]

In my opinion, if there were a couple of anti-Castroites who stumbled upon Oswald and -- briefly -- fed his desires to blow the head off somebody important, they could not have chosen better if they wanted to link Castro and the Russian to the crime, but must have been aghast that it did not lead to the re-invasion of Cuba.

I think the story of the Kennedy Assassination is, ironically, the story of a small-scale, low-level plot which both succeeded and failed spectacularly.

Good morning Jonathan,

Oswald sought out Cubans, not the other way around. The Cuban situation was in the forefront, and was escpecially interesting to Oswald. And the only Cubans in America were anti-Castro. (Well, duh) If he boasted to them he would kill Kennedy to avenge the Bay of Pigs, that was his own doing. He hardly needed encouragement to take a shot at somebody. Even the president.

Roy

[Jonathan H]

Double Agents?

To Roy

Yes, I think this is a very strong position -- arguably the strongest. Jean Davidson put it very well in her 'Oswald's Game'.

Nevertheless, I subscribe to the provisional theory of Coleman-Slawson that Oswald was 'encouraged' as this would explain why he, a Fidelista, was so secure in putting his hero, Fidel Castro, in such [potentially] dire jeopardy.

That 'Leopoldo' and 'Angelo' pretended to be Castro's agents and thus Oswald killed JFK, and not because of 'betrayal' at the Bay of Pigs from a rightist pov, but leftist one.

This is a notion-motive forever unacceptable to leftist Conspiracy Buffs.

It was the greatest failure of the FBI and the Warren Commission not to positively identify these two figures -- or did they?

[Tel]

More to the point, did Oswald kill anyone at all? I am convinced that JFK was struck by a bullet from an AR15, accidentally fired from his rear.

Oswald was certainly a twisted and confused individual, but a killer?

[Cogidubnus]

For god's sake don't anybody mention the Grassy Knoll...oops...shhhh!

Dave

[Bridewell]

Accident?

I am convinced that JFK was struck by a bullet from an AR15, accidentally fired from his rear.

JFK = Accidental Death? It's certainly original!

Was the gun accidentally pointed at him, or just accidentally fired?

Regards, Bridewell.

[DVV]

Then why did Ruby shoot Oswald ? (some aircraft deal gone wild ?)

[lynn cates]

Blow it out your . . .

Hello Tel.

"I am convinced that JFK was struck by a bullet from an AR15, accidentally fired from his rear."

I wonder, did JFK REALLY fire a lot of bullets from his rear? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC