JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[cobalt]

It does seem that Tippit was looking for somebody. The GLOCO sightings are very reliable since they were made by people who knew him, at a time when Tippit was misreporting his location. I would tend to accept the Top Ten Record sightings as well, which are relevant in so far as Tippit did not wish to use his police radio since he wanted to use their phone. The Andrews' (?) claim of being stopped by Tippit is a latecomer to the scene and should be treated with more scepticism. What does seem clear from various witnesses is that Tippit was alternating between very fast driving and steady cruising which is odd given his instructions were merely to keep an eye on Oak Cliff.

Again from witness testimony, there is no indication that Tippit saw any threat from his first encounter with the pedestrian. This clearly changed at some point. For me it resembles the Skripal poisoning in the UK: a rendez-vous or a pre-arranged handover of materials that goes wrong and has to be covered up, except we don't know which side the victim was actually on.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It does seem that Tippit was looking for somebody. The GLOCO sightings are very reliable since they were made by people who knew him, at a time when Tippit was misreporting his location. I would tend to accept the Top Ten Record sightings as well, which are relevant in so far as Tippit did not wish to use his police radio since he wanted to use their phone. The Andrews' (?) claim of being stopped by Tippit is a latecomer to the scene and should be treated with more scepticism. What does seem clear from various witnesses is that Tippit was alternating between very fast driving and steady cruising which is odd given his instructions were merely to keep an eye on Oak Cliff.

Again from witness testimony, there is no indication that Tippit saw any threat from his first encounter with the pedestrian. This clearly changed at some point. For me it resembles the Skripal poisoning in the UK: a rendez-vous or a pre-arranged handover of materials that goes wrong and has to be covered up, except we don't know which side the victim was actually on.

Can we take it then that you suspect that the killer was the person whom Tippit had desperately been trying to contact by phone?

[cobalt]

Not just by phone. His 10 minute (?) stop at the GLOCO station suggests he was looking for a particular vehicle crossing the viaduct. Tippit's decision to stop a man walking along an innocuous street miles from the assassination is probably connected to this search.
Whether any of Tippit's activities before his death are connected to the JFK assassination takes us down a different route. The idea of him being a planned sacrificial lamb for the conspiracy is miles too far for me. But I can accept that he was being used in some way (whether knowingly or not) to help the conspiracy: not to hinder it. Something went wrong.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Not just by phone. His 10 minute (?) stop at the GLOCO station suggests he was looking for a particular vehicle crossing the viaduct. Tippit's decision to stop a man walking along an innocuous street miles from the assassination is probably connected to this search.
Whether any of Tippit's activities before his death are connected to the JFK assassination takes us down a different route. The idea of him being a planned sacrificial lamb for the conspiracy is miles too far for me. But I can accept that he was being used in some way (whether knowingly or not) to help the conspiracy: not to hinder it. Something went wrong.

I do not know whether you have read the article from which I quote below:


In most homicide investigations it is a routine procedure to establish the activities of the victim in the last several hours of his life. Common sense tells us that this should be extremely helpful in establishing unknown information, locations of incidents, and in some cases possible motives for the murder. In the case of Officer J.D. Tippit, to my knowledge these routine procedures were never properly done. Therefore, the information presented in this article has never been assembled in one place for scholars of the Kennedy Assassination. Given the magnitude surrounding the Tippit murder, I believe that this timeline should have been done in November of 1963 while memories of events were fresh in the witnesses' minds, all the witnesses were still alive, and could have been easily located.


Professor Bill Pulte has a possible explanation for Tippit’s erratic movements in the final minutes of his life. Bill explained to me that Tippit’s movements are consistent with the actions of a man frantically looking for someone. Let us look at Tippit’s movements:

Sitting at the Gloco station watching the cars come over the Houston Street Viaduct.
Leaves the Gloco station and “tears” down Lancaster Road at a fast rate of speed.
Could have possibly been involved in a “fight” at 12th and Marsalis.
Makes a hurried phone call at the Top Ten Record Shop, and does not get an answer.
Stops James A. Andrews car by cutting in front of him, does not say a word but looks between the front and back seats, and then leaves the scene without saying a word.

The 12:45 P.M. Dallas Police Radio broadcast alerted all police units to the description of the suspect in the assassination and the ‘manhunt’ began. It is not known if Tippit was performing police business or personal business during this time frame in question, but it seems that Tippit was searching for a certain individual at certain locations for reasons that are still unknown. The best current information is that in the moments before his death, Tippit knew nothing more about the assassin than his description, which could have fit the description of hundreds of men on the streets of Oak Cliff that day.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/car10.htm

[cobalt]

Yes, I read the article some years ago and seem to have remembered most of it. What struck me on re-reading the piece was Tippit misreporting his position when at the Gloco station by around 5 miles. As a former taxi driver I am familiar with misleading the base operator over the radio but not by that distance: you could be caught out big time.

I'd forgotten that Tippit was an occasional user of the Top Ten Record shop telephone, presumably for personal calls. But given the events of 22nd November I doubt that Tippit would have been attending to personal issues in his life at that particular time. He must have been seeking information of some sort.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, I read the article some years ago and seem to have remembered most of it. What struck me on re-reading the piece was Tippit misreporting his position when at the Gloco station by around 5 miles. As a former taxi driver I am familiar with misleading the base operator over the radio but not by that distance: you could be caught out big time.

I'd forgotten that Tippit was an occasional user of the Top Ten Record shop telephone, presumably for personal calls. But given the events of 22nd November I doubt that Tippit would have been attending to personal issues in his life at that particular time. He must have been seeking information of some sort.

Are you implying in your first paragraph that Tippit's interest was in something unconnected with his police work and in your second paragraph that he was seeking information that was related to his police work?

[cobalt]

No, to me the Gloco sighting, Tippit's false report of his position and his attempt to use the telephone are all consistent with a man pursuing an agenda of some sort and I think that agenda was connected to the JFK assassination. His stopping a man who was merely walking along the street would seem to fall into the same category.(I dismiss the suggestion that Tippit stopped the man because he fitted Brennan's description.)
However I can see that others might view his actions differently.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No, to me the Gloco sighting, Tippit's false report of his position and his attempt to use the telephone are all consistent with a man pursuing an agenda of some sort and I think that agenda was connected to the JFK assassination. His stopping a man who was merely walking along the street would seem to fall into the same category.(I dismiss the suggestion that Tippit stopped the man because he fitted Brennan's description.)
However I can see that others might view his actions differently.

One theory is that Tippit stopped Andrews' car and looked at the area between the front and back seats because he was looking for the victim of a stabbing who had reportedly been pushed into the back of a car that then drove away.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Five witnesses described a murderer with hair that obviously did not belong to Oswald: slightly bushy, bushy, wavy, curly, and black.

Mr. BENAVIDES. I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of-looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn’t taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look flat in back.

(Warren Commission Vol. VI, p 451)


Oswald does not have a square neckline in the film of him following his arrest, he does not look like he needs a haircut, and his hair is not curly.

[Fiver]

I'm not knowledgeable enough about firearms, wounds caused by them, nor possible shooting locations in Dealey Plaza, to answer your questions.

There were certainly plenty of locations on high buildings in the Plaza.

A bullet striking JFK in the back at a 60 degree downward angle would have to have been fired by God.

A throat shot from the front would have required someone hovering invisibly several feet above the overpass. Any lower and the bullet would have passed through at least one of the windshield and Connaly before hitting JFK in the throat.

I would suggest that the alternative to what I have argued is considerably more farfetched.

You're the one with high powered rifle bullets barely penetrating the skin. And bullets that disappear leaving no evidence. And bullets that are tumbling in midair before hitting their target. And bullets that leave bigger entrance wounds than exit wounds. And bullets that make a right turn inside the body.

I don't need to explain exactly how Connally was hit by a separate bullet from one that hit Kennedy to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that is what happened. Half of the occupants of the presidential limousine were quite definite about that and the Warren Commission had to falsify the location of one of Kennedy's wounds in order to claim otherwise.

The Connallys' thinking that Connally and JFK were not hit by the same bullet is proof that that is what the Connallys believed, nothing more. Human memory is imperfect, so the memories need to be compared to the physical evidence.

The autopsy was done by Navy doctors before the Warren Commission was formed and long before the Single Bullet Theory was proposed.

Autopsy X-rays and photographs show the bullet that struck Kennedy in the upper back exited his throat. Forensics show bullet wipe on the back of JFK's clothing, not the front. The Zapruder film shows JFK and Connally reacting at the same time. Forensics and medical treatment of Connally show the bullet that hit him was tumbling when it struck him in the back.

If a bullet hit JFK in the front of the neck, it could not have been fired from the grassy knoll there are solid objects inbetween. It would have to be fired from directly ahead. To miss both Connally and the front windshield would have required a elevated position - estimates are about 10 feet above the overpass.

Perhaps another bullet that could only have been fired by God?

In addition to your invisible flying shooter problem, your theory also requires a bullet to the front of JFK's throat to not exit the body and to not be found inside the body. Now that's a magic bullet.

The same goes for the Warren Commission's neurological explanation for Kennedy's being thrown backwards by a shot from behind: they could provide no reference to any precedent, and there is abundant evidence of an exit wound in the back of the head, which could not have been caused by a shot from behind.

There is no evidence for an exit would in the back of the head.

Film footage shows JFK was struck in the back of the head. Photographic evidence taken at Dealey Plaza shows JFK was struck in the back of the head. Autopsy photos JFK was struck in the back of the head. Autopsy x-rays JFK was struck in the back of the head. Clint Hill testified that JFK was struck in the back of the head.

[Fiver]

That still leaves the question of how Oswald knew that they had indeed been in that area at 12.23 since he had no contact with them thereafter. For all he knew they were either outside watching the parade or upstairs looking out of a window.

Oswald didn't claim that Jarman and Norman had been in the area at 12;23. He claimed to have eaten lunch with them in the domino room, but one of the two said he didn't eat his lunch in the domino room and the other said he left no later than 12:10. And neither saw Oswald in the domino room.

Oswald's testimony also has the problem that he didn't mention t Troy West, Danny Acre, and Jack Dougherty having lunch inside the domino room and they all said the Oswald wasn't in the domino room.

[Fiver]

Shelley saw Oswald shortly before noon. Instead of arranging an assassination, Oswald was going about his usual work routine. He was not on the 5^th floor per the testimony of Givens since Shelley had led the floor laying crew off to lunch.The 12-7-63 Secret Service report on Oswald's co-workers describes an interview of William Shelley, Oswald’s direct boss. It relates: "Mr. Shelley last saw Oswald at about 11:50 A.M., at which time Oswald was working at his normal duties on the first floor."

Your initial claim was "Oswald's alibi is as follows so far as we can gather.
12 00: Seen on first floor by both Shelley (or Truly?) and Piper, the janitor. He actually spoke to Piper."

"Mr. Shelley last saw Oswald at about 11:50 A.M." doe not give Oswald an alibi for noon.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

You're the one with high powered rifle bullets barely penetrating the skin. And bullets that disappear leaving no evidence. And bullets that are tumbling in midair before hitting their target. And bullets that leave bigger entrance wounds than exit wounds. And bullets that make a right turn inside the body.


On the contrary: it is the SBT that requires a bullet to perform magic by entering Kennedy's back and changing direction in order to exit the front of his throat and leave what in the unanimous view of the doctors who saw it was an entrance wound.



The Connallys' thinking that Connally and JFK were not hit by the same bullet is proof that that is what the Connallys believed, nothing more. Human memory is imperfect, so the memories need to be compared to the physical evidence.


The Connallys' recollection is supported by the Zapruder film.

Connally could not have been hit by a bullet that had hit Kennedy, because he reacted to being shot so much later than Kennedy did.



There is no evidence for an exit would in the back of the head.


There is.

Clint Hill saw it lying in the back of the Presidential limousine.



Film footage shows JFK was struck in the back of the head.


It shows him being thrown violently backwards by an exploding bullet that could not have been fired from behind.



Clint Hill testified that JFK was struck in the back of the head.


Clint Hill testified that he saw a bullet wound in Kennedy's back, about six inches below the neckline, that the right back of his skull was missing, and that he found a large piece of skull in the back of the limousine.

His testimony contradicts the conclusions reached by the Warren Commission.

Like Clint Hill, Connally supported the conclusions published in the Warren Commission Report, but he stated repeatedly and categorically that he was not hit by a bullet that had struck Kennedy.

Both Hill and Connally between them have destroyed the Single Bullet Theory.

[cobalt]

If Fiver read previous posts more carefully he would be aware that Oswald's claim to have 'eaten lunch' with Jarman and Norman was not supported by the FBI agent present and taking notes. Oswald merely said he saw them passing through, which we know they did at 12.23.
Oswald never claimed to have eaten his lunch in the Domino Room either but, again according to the FBI interrogator, in the Lunch Room.
Fiver is under no obligation to accept either of these points of evidence in favour of Oswald but he should be aware of them, otherwise there is little point engaging on the site.

The 11.50 statement by Shelley- seeing Oswald on the 1st floor- contradicts one version offered up by Givens which was significant for the WC conclusion.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Benavides waited in his truck until the gunman disappeared, and then "a few minutes" more, before assisting Tippit. He then tried, unsuccessfully,^[19] to use the radio in Tippit's car to report the shooting to police headquarters. Then another, unidentified, person used the radio in the car and reported the shooting to a police operator for the first time.

The first report of Tippit's shooting is timed at 1:17:41.

The Warren Commission's finding that the murder of Tippit took place at 1.15 or 1.16 is irreconcilable with Benavides' testimony.

(# 2462)



According to Earlene Roberts' affidavit, Oswald was standing at a bus stop near her home at somewhere in the region of 1.05 p.m.

According to Domingo Benavides' testimony, the shooting of Tippit could not have taken place later than about 1.12 p.m.

How could Oswald have got to the scene of Tippit's shooting in less than seven minutes and why would he have done so?

(# 2464)



Six witnesses confirmed that he could not both have been wearing the grey jacket found and have shot Tippit: four witnesses to the shooting who were definite that the jacket was darker, Mrs Roberts, who saw him leaving his rooming house with a dark jacket, and Frazier, who said he had never seen him wearing a jacket like that found.

Two witnesses said that Tippit's murderer was wearing a sport jacket.

Oswald did not own a sport jacket.

Five witnesses described a murderer with hair that obviously did not belong to Oswald: slightly bushy, bushy, wavy, curly, and black.

Based on Roberts' and Benavides' evidence, Oswald had perhaps seven minutes to get from the bus stop to Oak Cliff, find Tippit, and shoot him.

(# 2473)



Mr. BENAVIDES. I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of-looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off, and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn’t taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look flat in back.

(Warren Commission Vol. VI, p 451)


Oswald does not have a square neckline in the film of him following his arrest, he does not look like he needs a haircut, and his hair is not curly.

(# 2484)


It is remarkable sometimes how difficult it is to receive a 'rebuttal' from anyone.