JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

Three witnesses who were ignored by Dallas Police and never testified before the Warren Commission were Acquilla Clemons, Frank Wright, and Doris Holan. These people told very different stories than the official Warren Report witnesses. '

'OF COURSE THEY DID''







Mrs. Clemons was taking care of an elderly client in a house on E. 10^th Street just west of the intersection with Patton Avenue. Clemons saw the police car stop on the next block but said there were two persons in the vicinity of Tippit’s patrol car, not just the man who spoke with the officer.

After Clemons had stepped back into her client’s home, she heard gunshots. Hurrying back outside, Clemons saw Officer Tippit lying on the ground next to his squad car and two suspicious people running away in opposite directions. One man was tall and slender, while the other man she described as short and chunky. The shorter man was reloading his pistol and escaping south on Patton Avenue. Clemons said this man was not Lee Harvey Oswald.

Frank Wright lived at the corner of E 10^th & Denver, just east of where Tippit was slain. Wright said he was standing in his living room near the front door when he heard the gunshots. Wright opened the door and stepped onto his porch, just in time to see Tippit’s body roll over and come to rest in the street. Next Mr. Wright observed a man running west from the police car. This man jumped into the driver’s seat of an old, grey coupe and drove away going west on E. 10^th. A second man in a long-sleeved coat, possibly a trench coat, then stepped into the street. The man appeared to be standing over Tippit, looking down. This second individual then returned to the sidewalk and disappeared out of sight onto one of the properties on the south side of the block.

Doris Holan lived in a second-floor apartment directly opposite the scene of Tippit’s murder. Her front window afforded the Dallas hotel employee a commanding view of the tragedy. Just after 1 o’clock Holan, who had been sitting in a chair smoking a cigarette, heard the gunshots. Startled, Holan dropped her cigarette but picked it up and put the cigarette on an ash tray. She then hustled to her front window and pulled back one side of the curtain. Holan saw a young man who looked similar to Oswald beginning to walk west away from Tippit’s police car. The movement of Holan’s curtain caught the attention of the suspect as he began to walk away, because he paused for a moment and looked up at Holan’s window, then turned again and began hurrying toward Patton. Holan next saw a police car roll forward from the alleyway behind 10^th and move towards the street using a narrow driveway between the two houses. A man in a long coat got out, stepped into the street, looked down at Tippit’s body, then walked back up the driveway to the police car. The second police car then backed up out of sight into the rear alleyway. Holan knew this was a police vehicle because she could see the “cherry” on top. (Although Dale Myers has tried to discredit Holan, as Tom Gram has shown, he has not succeeded. Click here for that discussion)

Patton Avenue witness Sam Guinyard would later confide to researcher Michael Brownlow that he too had seen police activity in that alleyway at about the time Tippit was killed. The car lot where Guinyard worked sat adjacent to E 10^th Street’s rear alleyway. The problem is, according to Dallas Police records, no other Dallas police were known to be in that immediate vicinity. Summary


The witness testimony in the Tippit murder case is so confusing and contradictory that it tends to exonerate Lee Oswald as much as it implicates him. Most witnesses were either too far away or had only a fleeting glimpse of the killer to make a solid identification. Oswald was wearing a long-sleeved brown shirt that day, which no one in the vicinity of 10^th & Patton remembered seeing. When we factor in the tainted police lineups as well as the seemingly impossible time element in getting Oswald to the crime scene in time to be the shooter, the case against the 24-year-old tends to fall apart. The Dallas Police Report had the killer walking west, not east, as did all that day’s witnesses except for the roundly discredited Mrs. Markham. Someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald almost assuredly killed Officer Tippit.

There can be little doubt that a person or persons unknown impersonated Lee Oswald leading up to the murders on November 22, 1963. How can anyone be positive that Lee Oswald shot Tippit at just after 1 p.m. when so many factors argue against it?

Meanwhile, two credible witnesses at the Texas Theater put the real Lee Oswald in the movie theater at the time J.D. Tippit was being slain several blocks to the east. We know the real Lee Oswald was in the movie theater because he was soon arrested there. Patron Jack Davis said Oswald was there at about the time the 1:15 movie began, and was oddly moving from seat to seat, as if looking for someone. He even briefly sat next to Davis. Theater manager and ticket-taker “Butch Burroughs” said Oswald came in between 1:00 and 1:07 p.m., and that he sold popcorn to Lee Oswald at nearly 1:15 p.m. If true, how could Lee Oswald have murdered J.D. Tippit?

Very good cutting and pasting

Any thoughts/discussion points/rebuttals, evaluations of your own though Fishy?

[Herlock Sholmes]

That Nasty Palmprint



Heres an idea , lets do a Mock Trial with this infomation Presented to the jury .





The Dallas Police....developed by powder and lifted a latent palmprint from the underside of the barrel....the latent palmprint was identified as the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald. ( Report, pgs. 565-566 )

This is what the Commission's Report said about the palmprint, probably the most important piece of evidence tying Oswald to the rifle.

But it's not what the Report says, as much as what it learned in testimony and chose not to say.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY how the Dallas were able to "develop" the palmprint using a black powder on the dark surface of the barrel.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that it never corroborated that Lt. J.C.Day lifted the palmprint. It chose not to say that Day never told the FBI that the palmprint was on the rifle.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that Lt. Day failed to photograph the palmprint in situ before lifting it.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that contrary to Day's claim that there was a remnant of print left on the barrel after the lift, the FBI found no residual of any palmprint or that any lift had occurred.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that no mention of the discovery of a palmprint was made known until the evening of November 24th, after Oswald was dead.

This narrative is not to reject the palmprint as being Oswald's, nor is it to reject that it was lifted off the gun barrel, but rather it is to refudiate the manner in which it was obtained.

I do not accept that the palmprint was lifted off of the barrel of the rifle on November 22nd, but rather sometime between November 24th and November 26th, well after Oswald was dead.

And the following evidence supports my theory.

Let's start with Lt. Day's story and look at the evidence that refutes it.



LT. DAY'S STORY

Sometime on the evening of the assassination, Dallas Police Lt. J.C. Day allegedly found a palmprint on the underside of the barrel of the rifle.

The palmprint was reportedly under the wooden stock and could not have been disturbed without disassembling the rifle. Day testified that he lifted it from the underside of the barrel, not the wooden stock.

Mr. BELIN. Let me clarify the record. By that you mean you found it on the metal or you mean you found it on the wood ?

Mr. DAY. On the metal, after removing the wood. ( 4 H 260 )

At 11:45pm, FBI Agent Vincent Drain picked up the CE 139 rifle and flew with it to Washington aboard an Air Force plane to be examined by FBIHQ.

Early the next morning, the rifle was examined by Latona along with the cartridges and the clip. He processed the entire weapon using GRAY POWDER. In order to do this, he completely disassembled the rifle. His examination could find no identifiable prints.

Lt. Day testified that when he released the rifle to the FBI at 11:45pm on Friday, he thought that "the print ......still remained on there...there were traces of ridges still on the barrel." ( 4 H 261-262 )

But when the rifle arrived at FBI Headquarters, there was no trace of the print.

Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip ?

Mr. LATONA. It included the clip, it included the bolt, it included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock. ( 4 H 23 )

On 11/23, there was no palmprint on the rifle.


HOW DO YOU DEVELOP A PRINT ON A DARK SURFACE USING BLACK FINGERPRINT POWDER ?

When dusting for fingerprints, we're always trained to use black powder for lighter surfaces and the lighter grey powder for dark surfaces. This is Criminal Investigation 101. It's common sense that you'd use a powder that brings the print out, not blends the print in with the background.

The point was made to the Commission during testimony by its FBI expert on fingerprints, Sebastian Latona:

These powders come in various colors. We use a black and a gray. The black powder is used on objects which are white or light to give a resulting contrast of a black print on a white background. We use the gray powder on objects which are black or dark in order to give you a resulting contrast of a white print on a dark or black background. ( 4 H 4 )

But Lt. Day testified that everything he dusted, he dusted using black powder. ( 4 H 259 )

The Commission never asked him why he would use a black powder to bring out a print on the dark colored barrel. More importantly, how he was able to dust a print on a dark surface with black powder without damaging it.



THERE IS NO CORROBORATION THAT LT. DAY LIFTED THE PALMPRINT ON 11/22

No witness can corroborate the act of the lifting of the print. Day told the FBI that "he had no assistance when working with the prints on the rifle and that he and he alone did the examination and lifting of the palmprint from the underside of the barrel ( CE 3145, 26 H 832 )."

Not only were there no witnesses to Lt. Day's discovery and lifting of the palmprint, he apparently told two different stories, one to the Commission and one to the FBI.

In his April 1964 testimony, Lt. Day told the Commission that he could not identify the palmprint as being Oswald's:

The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself that it was his palm. ( 4 H 262 )

Mr. BELIN. Did you make a positive identification of any palmprint or fingerprint ?

Mr. DAY. Not off the rifle or slug at that time ( ibid. ).

But in September 1964, Day told the FBI that he made a tentative identification of the palmprint as Oswald's on the evening of 11/22 and only told two people about it, Chief Curry and Capt. Fritz. Day said that "he could not remember the exact time he made the identification nor the exact time that he told them", but it was "prior to the time he released the rifle to SA Agent Vincent Drain" at 11:45 pm. ( CE 3145, 26 H 832 )

During the period that oswald was in custody, both Curry and Fritz were reeling off an abundance of information to the press, yet neither one mentioned the incriminating palmprint. ( CE 2141-2173 )

If Day had lifted a palmprint and hadn't been able to identify it on the evening of the 22nd, why didn't he send the lifted print off to the FBI with the rest of the evidence for identification ?

If he had told Chief Curry about lifting the palmprint and tentatively identifying it as Oswald's, why did the Chief express disappointment the next day that Oswald's prints had not been found on the rifle ?



11/23: CHIEF CURRY EXPRESSES DISAPPOINTMENT THAT OSWALD'S PRINTS HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND ON THE RIFLE

The next day, when asked by a reporter about fingerprints on the rifle, Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry never mentioned that police had lifted a palmprint from the rifle the night before.

In fact, he implied the opposite, lamenting, "if we can put his prints on the rifle" meaning that as of Saturday the 23rd, police still had not found Oswald's prints on the weapon.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/curry-if-we-can-put-his-prints-on-the-rifle.mp4

This exchange was ( according to Lt. Day ) AFTER Day had notified him that he had lifted a palmprint from the underside of the barrel and identified it as Oswald's.

So why is the Chief expressing disappointment at not having Oswald's prints on the rifle when he knows a palmprint has been found and identified as Oswald's ?

Because he hadn't been told. The palmprint didn't exist on 11/23.

The Chief wasn't the only one who Lt. Day never told about the palmprint.



LT. DAY NEVER TOLD THE FBI ABOUT THE PALMPRINT

Not only did Lt. Day not tell the Chief or Capt. Fritz about the palmprint, he never told the FBI about it.

But FBI agent Sebastian Latona, who examined the rifle in Washington on 11/23, testified that, "we had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle." ( 4 H 24 )

If the palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22, why was there no verbal or written communication to the FBI from Lt. Day addressing it ?

Day never communicated it to the FBI because the palmprint didn't exist on 11/22.

Of course, as has been seen many times in this case, whether or not there was a remnant of palmprint left on the barrel and whether the FBI had been told about it could have been resolved by Agent Drain, who picked up the rifle from the Dallas Police both times, on 11/22 and on 11/26.

But Agent Drain was never called to testify.

Not only did the FBI have no knowledge of the palmprint's existence on 11/23, when they examined the rifle, they found no evidence that a palmprint had existed.

Sebastian Latona testified that, "There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other ( than the trigger guard ) prints." ( ibid. )



LT. DAY TOOK NO PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PALMPRINT

Lt Day testified that this omission was because he was ordered by Chief Curry to "go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete..." ( 4 H 260-261 )

But the normal procedure in lifting fingerprints is to photograph the dusted print first, then lift it, as described by Latona:

"Our recommendation in the FBI is simply in every procedure to photograph and then lift." ( 4 H 41 )

Lt. Day knew this, because he attended, "an advanced latent-print school conducted in Dallas by the Federal Bureau of Investigation" ( 4 H 250 ).

He admitted that "it was customary to photograph fingerprints in most instances prior to lifting them." ( CE 3145, 26 H 832 )

If the Chief really had interrupted him in the middle of his processing the palmprint, he should have ended up with the photograph and not the lift.

So why did he choose to lift the print before photographing it ? The Commission never asked. It simply accepted his excuse that his work was interrupted by the Chief.

Either Lt. Day neglected every possible procedure that would have provided proof that he found and lifted a palmprint on the rifle, or the palmprint did not exist until 11/24, after Oswald was dead.

The first revelation of the palmprint came on the evening of Sunday, 11/24.


WADE MENTIONS THE PALMPRINT FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 11/24

The first mention of a palmprint was during DA Henry Wade's Sunday night press conference, after Oswald was dead. This except is taken from a video at @Vince Palamara's Youtube Channel:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/palmprint-wade.mp4

Wade did not mention the palmprint in any of his interviews on Friday night or Saturday ( CEs 2142, 2169-2173 ), even when asked specifically by reporters if fingerprints had been found on the rifle.

Wade's announcement of a palmprint caused the FBI to take notice. They had examined the rifle the day before and had found no palmprint or any evidence that a lift had been done.

So if the palmprint did not exist before 11/24 but it did exist when the Dallas Police sent it to the FBI on 11/26, how did the police come into possession of it ?

The answer could lie in a visit to the Miller Funeral Home on the night of 11/24.



THE POST MORTEM FINGERPRINTING OF OSWALD

Late in the evening of November 24th, authorities descended on the Miller Funeral Home, where Oswald's corpse was beng prepared for burial. Mortician Paul Groody alleged that during their time there, Oswald's body was fingerprinted.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/groody.mp4

The purpose for this post-mortem fingerprinting has never been offically explained. Authorities had Oswald's fingerprints on record from the Marine Corps ( 17 H 289 ), his arrest in New Orleans ( 2 HSCA 379 ) and his arrest in Dallas ( 17 H 282 ).

Why would they need a fourth set of his prints ?

They wouldn't. The only purpose for such a visit would be to finally place Oswald's palmprint on the rifle in order to connect him to the weapon.

IMO, the post-mortem fingerprinting of Oswald's corpse was a ruse to give authorities access to the body and to hide the fact that Oswald's palmprint was being placed on the rifle.


THE LIFTED PALMPRINT IS FINALLY SENT TO THE FBI

Two days after the post mortem fingerprinting, on November 26th, the "lifted palmprint" was finally sent to the FBI with all the other evidence. It is listed as the 14th item on the evidence list. The evidence was turned over once again to Agent Drain.



Although the fingerprint card with the lifted palmprint is dated 11-22-63, that date could have been added to the card anytime between 11-22 and 11-26.




The card is initialled by Capt. George Doughty, who may have cleared up the time and day of the lift, but he was never called to testify.

The FBI received the "lifted palmprint" on November 29th. ( 4 H 24 )



THERE'S ALWAYS AN INDICATION THAT A LIFT HAS BEEN PERFORMED

The Commission concluded that Day's lift was so perfect, that it was the reason that Latona found no trace of the print on the rifle when he examined it, nor "any indication that a lift had been performed." ( Report, pg. 123 )

While it's possible to lift a print without leaving a remnant of that print behind, it is not possible to lift a print without disturbing the power surrounding it.

This video shows how to dust a print on a dark surface and what happens to the surrounding powder when that print is lifted:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/lifting-a-fingerprint.mp4

As you can see, the tape pulls all of the powder off in the area under where the tape contacted the surface. This leaves the surface to appear shiny.

The point is that when you lift a fingerprint, there is always evidence that a lift has been done because there is an area surrounding the print where no powder exists.

Even if the lift of the palmprint was so perfect as to completely lift the print off the gun barrel, it would have also taken with it the surrounding loose powder and the absence of that powder would have made it obvious that a lift had been performed.

The fact that the FBI did not find "any indication that a lift had been performed" means that no lift could have been done prior to their examination of 11/23.

As I said in the beginning of this narrative, I'm not contesting that the palmprint came from the rifle or that it was even Oswald's.

I'm contesting the manner in which the palmprint was obtained. I believe the palmprint was placed on the rifle late night 11/24 at the mortuary.

The timeline and evidence surrounding its discovery seems to indicate that the account provided by Lt. Day and accepted by the Warren Commission was not the truth.



CONCLUSION

Lt. Day claimed to have seen and lifted a palmprint from the bottom of the gun barrel under the stock on the evening of November 22nd.

He made no such report about the print.
No one saw him lift the print.

He said he told Chief Curry and Capt. Fritz about it.
Neither ever mentioned it and the Chief acted as if no prints were found on the rifle.
In fact, that's what David Brinkley reported the next day.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/rifle-no-fingerprints.mp4

Lt. Day never told the FBI either verbally or in writing about the print that "still remained on there...there were traces of ridges still on the barrel." ( 4 H 261-262 )

When the FBI received the rifle on the 23rd, it found no trace of the palmprint and no evidence that a lift had been performed.

It sent the rifle back to the Dallas Police.

On the evening that the police got the rifle back, DA Henry Wade revealed for the first time the existence of a palmprint.

The Commission was faced with a problem, conflicting stories from the Dallas Police and the FBI. During his testimony for the HSCA, Wesley Liebeler said that the palmprint problem was a rather heated subject matter for the staff. ( 11 HSCA 219 )

In the end, the Commission decided that both Lt. Day and the FBI were correct and that Day's lift of the print was so perfect, the FBI didn't even know the lift had been performed.

Apparently, the HSCA avoided the "heated subject matter" like the plague.

The Committee, although mentioning that "Critics of the Warren Commission have...... argued that..... his palmprint was planted on the barrel" ( HSCA Final Report, pg. 54 ), never took on the topic in its Final Report.

Instead, its footnotes on its conclusions with regard to the palmprint referred to pages 122-124 of the Warren Report.


A FINAL WORD

The FBI suspected that the palmprint had been planted. In a memo, A. Rosen stated that, "the Dallas Police made no mention of this latent palm print for a number of days after the assassination."

He went on to note that Henry Wade made the first mention of the print on November 24th:

"On Sunday, Novenber 24, District Attorney Henry Wade, when questioned before news media, made the statement that a palm print had been found."

His final point was clear: "the existence of this palm print was not volunteered to the Bureau until a specific request was made to the Dallas Police Department." ( FBI file # 62-109060, Sec. 86, pg. 52 )

That request was the request of November 26th, that all the evidence in the case be turned over to the FBI.

In December 1996, ARRB staff member Joseph R. Masih wrote to Jeremy Gunn:

"there is no contemporaneous evidence of the palm print such as a photograph or written record on the date of discovery by Lt. Day. Furthermore, the FBI found no print on the weapon or any evidence that one had been lifted." ( ARRB files of Joseph R. Masih, Palm3.wpd, pg. 2 )

There's no record of it and the FBI never saw it because the palmprint was never lifted on November 22nd.

On the evening of the day Oswald was murdered, its existence was made public and later that night, the palmprint was placed on the rifle under the guise of "fingerprinting the corpse". It was then "lifted" from the barrel of the rifle and the lift was sent to the FBI on November 26th, with the rest of the evidence.

Excellent presentation by Gil Jesus. The official LHO palm print tale is very dubious, to put it mildly.

Lt. Day's testimony regarded the putative Walker bullet is also very squirrelly. Also, there are no photographs of the putative Walker bullet in DPD records.

I suspect the WC was also dubious about the Walker bullet, but could not do much about it or the LHO palm-print.

To earnestly explore either the palm-print or the Walker bullet might lead to the conclusion that evidence tampering had taken place---obviously, that was a road that could not be taken

It must have taken you a while to research, arrange, analyse and then write all of that Fishy. Congratulations

Hold on..

[Herlock Sholmes]

FORTY-EIGHT HOURS AND THIRTYONE MINUTES Audrey N. Bell,


R.N. November 22, 1063, began as most Fridays. It was pay day and I had scheduled a luncheon appointment with Mr. Smith, the manager of the Adolphus Hotel at 12:15 p.m. to talk about the 1964 AORN Congress in Dallas. Dressed in my street clothes (instead of the usual grey OR dress) I was about to set out for my appointment, a little bit worried about my timing for the trip downtown.

President Kennedy’s visit was scheduled, and traffic tieups were inevitable. Thus, I felt somewhat relieved when Mr. Smith rang at about eleven, asking for a postponement of the meeting until Monday, since a portion of the facilities to be checked out were still occupied. So, I went to lunch with Dr. Jenkins instead, at the hospital cafeteria. We were going to discuss the patient safety program he was moderating at the coming Congress. Needless to say, this discussion was suddenly interrupted. About halfway through the meal, we heard the operator page

Dr. Shires “stat,” and then came Dr. Delaney’s “stat” page. I recalled that Dr. Shires was out of town. He and Dr. Delaney had performed a rather complicated operation a day or two before and we assumed the nurses needed assistance for that patient. We were just about to take Dr. Shire’s page when Dr. Ronald Jones came by, headed for the phone next to our table. Saying that he would take the page, he picked up the phone and hung up rather quickly. He returned to our table and leaning heavily, palms down on it, he said, his voice almost unnaturally calm and steady:

“The President’s been shot-he’s on the way to the Emergency Room.” For a long silent moment we stared at him in disbelief, then told him that someone was playing a joke, a bad crude joke. He said quietly, “NO, its not a joke.” There was no doubting his expression. We came to life. Together we moved quickly from the Dining Room and I said, “I better go to the Emergency Room.” “Okay,” he said, “I’ll go get an anesthesia machine and meet you there.” Time stood still for us. It is nearly impossible to recall all that took place and all that was done in such a short period. When I reached the emergency elevator, I found that it was in the basement. Still in my street clothes and high heels, which almost sent me sprawling,


I took the stairs and cut through the X-ray Department. At the door of the Emergency Suite, the administrator grasped my arm and it was a moment or two before she recognized me in the street clothes. “The President?” I breathed. “GO see what you can do, Audrey,” she replied. “In Emergency Room One.” Three Doctors and two nurses surrounded John F. Kennedy. They were working with mechanical precision. One nurse, Mrs. Hutton, was adjusting the IPPB unit. She asked for assistance. I turned on the oxygen at the wall outlet.

The machine started working and was connected to the endotracheal tube. I helped cut the President’s shirt from his right arm, and positioned the tracheotomy tray for Dr. Perry. It was then that I saw the massive head wound. Even though the prospect of surgery Tafter viewing the proportions of the wound and the general condition of the Presidentwas improbable, I rushed off in search of a


So not only did Nurse Audrey Bell confirm the bullet fragments that were pulled from Gov Connally that blow the ''Pristine Bullet'' theory to bits , but we also have her confirming what DR Perry and Clint Hill knew to be the truth about the back of JFKs head .

Thank you Audrey Bell for helping to expose the W.C Conspiracy.

At least the last two sentences were all your own work Fishy. Well done old chap

[Herlock Sholmes]

R.I.P JFK assassination thread.

Hello Fishy’s CutandPostFest.

[Fiver]

Officer JD Tippit was out of his assigned District 78 in the far south of Dallas at the time he was shot with four bullets, one to the head. The time of the shooting is disputed but it appears to be shortly after 1:00pm in Oak Cliff, Dallas outside 410E 10^th Street.

Your source is lying again. JD Tippit was ordered to Oak Cliff.

Dispatcher	78.
	78 (Ptm. J.D. Tippit)	78.
	Dispatcher	You are in the Oak Cliff area, are you not?
	78	Lancaster and Eighth.
	Dispatcher	You will be at large for any emergency that comes in.
	78	10-4.

Tippit was murdered at around 1:15pm.

His murder was attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald, allegedly on the run from shooting Kennedy on Elm Street, Dealey Plaza, Dallas, at 12:30 pm from the 6^th Floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD). But there was no credible explanation as to why Tippit was at 10^th and Patton, nor what he was doing.

Your source is lying again.

12:45

Dispatcher

Attention Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male, all squads. Attention all squads. The suspect in the shooting at approximately thirty, slender build, height five feet ten inches, weight one hundred sixty-five pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought to be a 30 caliber rifle. Attention all squads. The suspect from Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male about thirty, slender build, five feet ten inches tall, one hundred sixty-five pounds, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle. No further description at this time, or information. 12:45.

Oswald fit that description.

There was also no credible explanation as to how Oswald left his lodgings at 1026 N Beckley at 1:03 pm-1:04 pm and then allegedly walked 0.9 miles to shoot Tippit.

Here your source merely shades the truth, by slightly exaggerating the distance and assuming that a vague time given by Osald's landlady over 4 months later is precise.

Temple Bowley chanced on the post-event murder scene at 1:10pm and announced the crime on Tippit’s own car radio. (James DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p. 127)

Bowley's watch said 1:10pm. Police records show Tippit's murder was called in at 1:16pm, not 1:10pm.

An ambulance from two blocks away that had already been called by a neighbor arrived as Bowley was finishing that call.

Your source is lying again.

"The dispatcher asked for the location. I found out the location and told the dispatcher what it was. A few minutes later an ambulance came to the scene." - T.F. Bowley

The ambulance then delivered Tippit’s body to Beckley Methodist Hospital, he was declared dead on arrival by a doctor at 1:15pm.

Tippet was pronounced dead at 1:30pm.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That Nasty Palmprint



Heres an idea , lets do a Mock Trial with this infomation Presented to the jury .





The Dallas Police....developed by powder and lifted a latent palmprint from the underside of the barrel....the latent palmprint was identified as the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald. ( Report, pgs. 565-566 )

This is what the Commission's Report said about the palmprint, probably the most important piece of evidence tying Oswald to the rifle.

But it's not what the Report says, as much as what it learned in testimony and chose not to say.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY how the Dallas were able to "develop" the palmprint using a black powder on the dark surface of the barrel.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that it never corroborated that Lt. J.C.Day lifted the palmprint. It chose not to say that Day never told the FBI that the palmprint was on the rifle.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that Lt. Day failed to photograph the palmprint in situ before lifting it.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that contrary to Day's claim that there was a remnant of print left on the barrel after the lift, the FBI found no residual of any palmprint or that any lift had occurred.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that no mention of the discovery of a palmprint was made known until the evening of November 24th, after Oswald was dead.

This narrative is not to reject the palmprint as being Oswald's, nor is it to reject that it was lifted off the gun barrel, but rather it is to refudiate the manner in which it was obtained.

I do not accept that the palmprint was lifted off of the barrel of the rifle on November 22nd, but rather sometime between November 24th and November 26th, well after Oswald was dead.

And the following evidence supports my theory.

Let's start with Lt. Day's story and look at the evidence that refutes it.



LT. DAY'S STORY

Sometime on the evening of the assassination, Dallas Police Lt. J.C. Day allegedly found a palmprint on the underside of the barrel of the rifle.

The palmprint was reportedly under the wooden stock and could not have been disturbed without disassembling the rifle. Day testified that he lifted it from the underside of the barrel, not the wooden stock.

Mr. BELIN. Let me clarify the record. By that you mean you found it on the metal or you mean you found it on the wood ?

Mr. DAY. On the metal, after removing the wood. ( 4 H 260 )

At 11:45pm, FBI Agent Vincent Drain picked up the CE 139 rifle and flew with it to Washington aboard an Air Force plane to be examined by FBIHQ.

Early the next morning, the rifle was examined by Latona along with the cartridges and the clip. He processed the entire weapon using GRAY POWDER. In order to do this, he completely disassembled the rifle. His examination could find no identifiable prints.

Lt. Day testified that when he released the rifle to the FBI at 11:45pm on Friday, he thought that "the print ......still remained on there...there were traces of ridges still on the barrel." ( 4 H 261-262 )

But when the rifle arrived at FBI Headquarters, there was no trace of the print.

Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip ?

Mr. LATONA. It included the clip, it included the bolt, it included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock. ( 4 H 23 )

On 11/23, there was no palmprint on the rifle.


HOW DO YOU DEVELOP A PRINT ON A DARK SURFACE USING BLACK FINGERPRINT POWDER ?

When dusting for fingerprints, we're always trained to use black powder for lighter surfaces and the lighter grey powder for dark surfaces. This is Criminal Investigation 101. It's common sense that you'd use a powder that brings the print out, not blends the print in with the background.

The point was made to the Commission during testimony by its FBI expert on fingerprints, Sebastian Latona:

These powders come in various colors. We use a black and a gray. The black powder is used on objects which are white or light to give a resulting contrast of a black print on a white background. We use the gray powder on objects which are black or dark in order to give you a resulting contrast of a white print on a dark or black background. ( 4 H 4 )

But Lt. Day testified that everything he dusted, he dusted using black powder. ( 4 H 259 )

The Commission never asked him why he would use a black powder to bring out a print on the dark colored barrel. More importantly, how he was able to dust a print on a dark surface with black powder without damaging it.



THERE IS NO CORROBORATION THAT LT. DAY LIFTED THE PALMPRINT ON 11/22

No witness can corroborate the act of the lifting of the print. Day told the FBI that "he had no assistance when working with the prints on the rifle and that he and he alone did the examination and lifting of the palmprint from the underside of the barrel ( CE 3145, 26 H 832 )."

Not only were there no witnesses to Lt. Day's discovery and lifting of the palmprint, he apparently told two different stories, one to the Commission and one to the FBI.

In his April 1964 testimony, Lt. Day told the Commission that he could not identify the palmprint as being Oswald's:

The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself that it was his palm. ( 4 H 262 )

Mr. BELIN. Did you make a positive identification of any palmprint or fingerprint ?

Mr. DAY. Not off the rifle or slug at that time ( ibid. ).

But in September 1964, Day told the FBI that he made a tentative identification of the palmprint as Oswald's on the evening of 11/22 and only told two people about it, Chief Curry and Capt. Fritz. Day said that "he could not remember the exact time he made the identification nor the exact time that he told them", but it was "prior to the time he released the rifle to SA Agent Vincent Drain" at 11:45 pm. ( CE 3145, 26 H 832 )

During the period that oswald was in custody, both Curry and Fritz were reeling off an abundance of information to the press, yet neither one mentioned the incriminating palmprint. ( CE 2141-2173 )

If Day had lifted a palmprint and hadn't been able to identify it on the evening of the 22nd, why didn't he send the lifted print off to the FBI with the rest of the evidence for identification ?

If he had told Chief Curry about lifting the palmprint and tentatively identifying it as Oswald's, why did the Chief express disappointment the next day that Oswald's prints had not been found on the rifle ?



11/23: CHIEF CURRY EXPRESSES DISAPPOINTMENT THAT OSWALD'S PRINTS HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND ON THE RIFLE

The next day, when asked by a reporter about fingerprints on the rifle, Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry never mentioned that police had lifted a palmprint from the rifle the night before.

In fact, he implied the opposite, lamenting, "if we can put his prints on the rifle" meaning that as of Saturday the 23rd, police still had not found Oswald's prints on the weapon.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/curry-if-we-can-put-his-prints-on-the-rifle.mp4

This exchange was ( according to Lt. Day ) AFTER Day had notified him that he had lifted a palmprint from the underside of the barrel and identified it as Oswald's.

So why is the Chief expressing disappointment at not having Oswald's prints on the rifle when he knows a palmprint has been found and identified as Oswald's ?

Because he hadn't been told. The palmprint didn't exist on 11/23.

The Chief wasn't the only one who Lt. Day never told about the palmprint.



LT. DAY NEVER TOLD THE FBI ABOUT THE PALMPRINT

Not only did Lt. Day not tell the Chief or Capt. Fritz about the palmprint, he never told the FBI about it.

But FBI agent Sebastian Latona, who examined the rifle in Washington on 11/23, testified that, "we had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle." ( 4 H 24 )

If the palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22, why was there no verbal or written communication to the FBI from Lt. Day addressing it ?

Day never communicated it to the FBI because the palmprint didn't exist on 11/22.

Of course, as has been seen many times in this case, whether or not there was a remnant of palmprint left on the barrel and whether the FBI had been told about it could have been resolved by Agent Drain, who picked up the rifle from the Dallas Police both times, on 11/22 and on 11/26.

But Agent Drain was never called to testify.

Not only did the FBI have no knowledge of the palmprint's existence on 11/23, when they examined the rifle, they found no evidence that a palmprint had existed.

Sebastian Latona testified that, "There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other ( than the trigger guard ) prints." ( ibid. )



LT. DAY TOOK NO PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PALMPRINT

Lt Day testified that this omission was because he was ordered by Chief Curry to "go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete..." ( 4 H 260-261 )

But the normal procedure in lifting fingerprints is to photograph the dusted print first, then lift it, as described by Latona:

"Our recommendation in the FBI is simply in every procedure to photograph and then lift." ( 4 H 41 )

Lt. Day knew this, because he attended, "an advanced latent-print school conducted in Dallas by the Federal Bureau of Investigation" ( 4 H 250 ).

He admitted that "it was customary to photograph fingerprints in most instances prior to lifting them." ( CE 3145, 26 H 832 )

If the Chief really had interrupted him in the middle of his processing the palmprint, he should have ended up with the photograph and not the lift.

So why did he choose to lift the print before photographing it ? The Commission never asked. It simply accepted his excuse that his work was interrupted by the Chief.

Either Lt. Day neglected every possible procedure that would have provided proof that he found and lifted a palmprint on the rifle, or the palmprint did not exist until 11/24, after Oswald was dead.

The first revelation of the palmprint came on the evening of Sunday, 11/24.


WADE MENTIONS THE PALMPRINT FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 11/24

The first mention of a palmprint was during DA Henry Wade's Sunday night press conference, after Oswald was dead. This except is taken from a video at @Vince Palamara's Youtube Channel:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/palmprint-wade.mp4

Wade did not mention the palmprint in any of his interviews on Friday night or Saturday ( CEs 2142, 2169-2173 ), even when asked specifically by reporters if fingerprints had been found on the rifle.

Wade's announcement of a palmprint caused the FBI to take notice. They had examined the rifle the day before and had found no palmprint or any evidence that a lift had been done.

So if the palmprint did not exist before 11/24 but it did exist when the Dallas Police sent it to the FBI on 11/26, how did the police come into possession of it ?

The answer could lie in a visit to the Miller Funeral Home on the night of 11/24.



THE POST MORTEM FINGERPRINTING OF OSWALD

Late in the evening of November 24th, authorities descended on the Miller Funeral Home, where Oswald's corpse was beng prepared for burial. Mortician Paul Groody alleged that during their time there, Oswald's body was fingerprinted.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/groody.mp4

The purpose for this post-mortem fingerprinting has never been offically explained. Authorities had Oswald's fingerprints on record from the Marine Corps ( 17 H 289 ), his arrest in New Orleans ( 2 HSCA 379 ) and his arrest in Dallas ( 17 H 282 ).

Why would they need a fourth set of his prints ?

They wouldn't. The only purpose for such a visit would be to finally place Oswald's palmprint on the rifle in order to connect him to the weapon.

IMO, the post-mortem fingerprinting of Oswald's corpse was a ruse to give authorities access to the body and to hide the fact that Oswald's palmprint was being placed on the rifle.


THE LIFTED PALMPRINT IS FINALLY SENT TO THE FBI

Two days after the post mortem fingerprinting, on November 26th, the "lifted palmprint" was finally sent to the FBI with all the other evidence. It is listed as the 14th item on the evidence list. The evidence was turned over once again to Agent Drain.



Although the fingerprint card with the lifted palmprint is dated 11-22-63, that date could have been added to the card anytime between 11-22 and 11-26.




The card is initialled by Capt. George Doughty, who may have cleared up the time and day of the lift, but he was never called to testify.

The FBI received the "lifted palmprint" on November 29th. ( 4 H 24 )



THERE'S ALWAYS AN INDICATION THAT A LIFT HAS BEEN PERFORMED

The Commission concluded that Day's lift was so perfect, that it was the reason that Latona found no trace of the print on the rifle when he examined it, nor "any indication that a lift had been performed." ( Report, pg. 123 )

While it's possible to lift a print without leaving a remnant of that print behind, it is not possible to lift a print without disturbing the power surrounding it.

This video shows how to dust a print on a dark surface and what happens to the surrounding powder when that print is lifted:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/lifting-a-fingerprint.mp4

As you can see, the tape pulls all of the powder off in the area under where the tape contacted the surface. This leaves the surface to appear shiny.

The point is that when you lift a fingerprint, there is always evidence that a lift has been done because there is an area surrounding the print where no powder exists.

Even if the lift of the palmprint was so perfect as to completely lift the print off the gun barrel, it would have also taken with it the surrounding loose powder and the absence of that powder would have made it obvious that a lift had been performed.

The fact that the FBI did not find "any indication that a lift had been performed" means that no lift could have been done prior to their examination of 11/23.

As I said in the beginning of this narrative, I'm not contesting that the palmprint came from the rifle or that it was even Oswald's.

I'm contesting the manner in which the palmprint was obtained. I believe the palmprint was placed on the rifle late night 11/24 at the mortuary.

The timeline and evidence surrounding its discovery seems to indicate that the account provided by Lt. Day and accepted by the Warren Commission was not the truth.



CONCLUSION

Lt. Day claimed to have seen and lifted a palmprint from the bottom of the gun barrel under the stock on the evening of November 22nd.

He made no such report about the print.
No one saw him lift the print.

He said he told Chief Curry and Capt. Fritz about it.
Neither ever mentioned it and the Chief acted as if no prints were found on the rifle.
In fact, that's what David Brinkley reported the next day.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/rifle-no-fingerprints.mp4

Lt. Day never told the FBI either verbally or in writing about the print that "still remained on there...there were traces of ridges still on the barrel." ( 4 H 261-262 )

When the FBI received the rifle on the 23rd, it found no trace of the palmprint and no evidence that a lift had been performed.

It sent the rifle back to the Dallas Police.

On the evening that the police got the rifle back, DA Henry Wade revealed for the first time the existence of a palmprint.

The Commission was faced with a problem, conflicting stories from the Dallas Police and the FBI. During his testimony for the HSCA, Wesley Liebeler said that the palmprint problem was a rather heated subject matter for the staff. ( 11 HSCA 219 )

In the end, the Commission decided that both Lt. Day and the FBI were correct and that Day's lift of the print was so perfect, the FBI didn't even know the lift had been performed.

Apparently, the HSCA avoided the "heated subject matter" like the plague.

The Committee, although mentioning that "Critics of the Warren Commission have...... argued that..... his palmprint was planted on the barrel" ( HSCA Final Report, pg. 54 ), never took on the topic in its Final Report.

Instead, its footnotes on its conclusions with regard to the palmprint referred to pages 122-124 of the Warren Report.


A FINAL WORD

The FBI suspected that the palmprint had been planted. In a memo, A. Rosen stated that, "the Dallas Police made no mention of this latent palm print for a number of days after the assassination."

He went on to note that Henry Wade made the first mention of the print on November 24th:

"On Sunday, Novenber 24, District Attorney Henry Wade, when questioned before news media, made the statement that a palm print had been found."

His final point was clear: "the existence of this palm print was not volunteered to the Bureau until a specific request was made to the Dallas Police Department." ( FBI file # 62-109060, Sec. 86, pg. 52 )

That request was the request of November 26th, that all the evidence in the case be turned over to the FBI.

In December 1996, ARRB staff member Joseph R. Masih wrote to Jeremy Gunn:

"there is no contemporaneous evidence of the palm print such as a photograph or written record on the date of discovery by Lt. Day. Furthermore, the FBI found no print on the weapon or any evidence that one had been lifted." ( ARRB files of Joseph R. Masih, Palm3.wpd, pg. 2 )

There's no record of it and the FBI never saw it because the palmprint was never lifted on November 22nd.

On the evening of the day Oswald was murdered, its existence was made public and later that night, the palmprint was placed on the rifle under the guise of "fingerprinting the corpse". It was then "lifted" from the barrel of the rifle and the lift was sent to the FBI on November 26th, with the rest of the evidence.

Excellent presentation by Gil Jesus. The official LHO palm print tale is very dubious, to put it mildly.

Lt. Day's testimony regarded the putative Walker bullet is also very squirrelly. Also, there are no photographs of the putative Walker bullet in DPD records.

I suspect the WC was also dubious about the Walker bullet, but could not do much about it or the LHO palm-print.

To earnestly explore either the palm-print or the Walker bullet might lead to the conclusion that evidence tampering had taken place---obviously, that was a road that could not be taken

I thought that this was worth posting for content. It’s hilarious and embarrassing. This is the author of the above (posted by Fishy) Gil Jesus talking on DVP’s site about about an autopsy on Kennedy’s but he was confusing it with the autopsy on Oswald. And….just like certain people on here….did he hold his hands up and admit his howler (as I did when I made and error)? Nope, it’s the most embarrassing thing ever….he tries to pass it off as an April Fool’s joke. This is the standard of researcher that Fishy chooses to employ. This is the problem with simply reading something that you like and posting it as evidence…




GIL JESUS SAID:

Dr. Malcolm Perry testified that he performed "open heart massage" on Kennedy:

"...I took a knife and opened the left chest in the fourth interspace and reached in to massage his heart..." (3 H 386)

This procedure would have required an opening in the chest wall.

His testimony is supported by Dr. Shires:

"...efforts were made at resuscitation by open heart massage and all that went with it..." (Dr. George T. Shires, 6 H 113)

The autopsy photos show no evidence of any opening of the left chest of President Kennedy.

Can any of you nutcases tell us why not?


"MUCHER1" SAID:

They were describing efforts to resuscitate Oswald, not Kennedy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mucher1 is right. And it makes this thread absolutely hilarious, since Gil Jesus thinks he scored another "aha!" moment here. But Dr. Perry's testimony at
3 H 385-386 couldn't be any clearer--that testimony is referring to OSWALD, not KENNEDY.

And the doubly hilarious thing here is that Gil not only thinks PERRY was talking about KENNEDY, but Gil thinks SHIRES was talking about KENNEDY too! But as we can easily see at 6 H 112-113, Dr. Shires, too, was referring to open-heart massage being performed on OSWALD, not KENNEDY.

In addition, let me add this very important point:

Dr. Shires wasn't even at Parkland Hospital during the time when President Kennedy was being treated in Trauma Room 1. Shires was out of town at the time when JFK was brought to Parkland, as we can easily verify via Shires' Warren Commission testimony at 6 H 105:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Did you have occasion to render any medical treatment for President Kennedy back on November 22, 1963?"

DR. SHIRES -- "No; I was not in town at the time the shooting occurred. I was in Galveston, Tex., at the meeting of the Western Surgical Association."

~~~~~~~

What a fabulous researcher Gil is, huh?

Should I now feel sorry for the kook named Gil who didn't even bother to verify WHO THE PATIENT WAS that both Perry and Shires were talking about in the Warren Commission pages Gil cited?

Or should I utilize this thread as another in a series of (undoubtedly) dozens of similar examples which lead to the following ultimate conclusion about a conspiracy-happy person like Gil J. Jesus?:

People like Gil WANT a conspiracy to exist in the JFK murder case, and they will never ever stop in their quest to uncover the conspiracy that exists only in their own imaginations.


J. LEYDEN SAID:

In view of Mucher's and DVP's comments, Gil, I think a public apology is in order. Nutcases have feelings, too.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Hey, Mucher was very polite. He didn't even include an obligatory "LOL" in his post, which must have been very difficult to do considering the double error made by Gil in this thread.

And I could really increase that to a triple error on Gil's part in his thread-starter, with #3 being when he placed the words "open heart massage" in quotation marks when Gil was referring to Dr. Perry -- with the obvious impression being that those exact words were spoken in that exact manner by Dr. Malcolm O. Perry during Perry's Warren Commission testimony. But Perry never said those exact words "open heart massage" at ANY point during his WC testimony.

What Gil Jesus did before racing to his computer to start another of his meaningless threads that he thinks proves conspiracy was very likely this:

Gil almost certainly utilized his computer's "Word Find" tool and then searched the testimony of the various doctors to see if he could find something about open heart massage being performed on JFK. (Although why on Earth Gil would search Dr. Shires' WC testimony to aid in this specific "open heart massage" purpose is anybody's guess, since, as I pointed out in my last post, Shires never even saw President Kennedy at Parkland on Nov. 22.)

And when Gil came across something in the Warren Commission record about "massage" or "heart massage" or "open heart massage" (which were words uttered by Dr. Shires at least once, but not Dr. Perry), Gil copied that part of the testimony, and just stopped there, not bothering to verify the name of the person to whom the heart massage was being applied.

I just wonder how many OTHER times an error like this Kennedy/Oswald error has cropped up in some of Gil Jesus' Internet posts--and gone unnoticed by anybody (possibly because most people simply don't care very much what an Anybody-But-Oswald kook like Gilbert has to say)?

If I were to perform a detailed online search for Gil's Goofs, my guess is I'd come across a pretty good-sized number of things that are akin to his silly errors that we find in this thread.


JOHN CORBETT SAID:

OMG, I missed this when it was first posted, but I about wet my pants I was laughing so hard.

Could it be that even Giltardo was so embarassed by this FUBAR that he won't post here for a while. That would be too bad because he provides much needed comic relief on this [alt.conspiracy.jfk] forum.


GIL JESUS SAID:

I would have said, "April Fools", but you people are fools the other 11 months as well.

Kudos to Mucher1. He got the answer without going to a porn site.

That puts him one level above the rest of you idiots.


TIM BRENNAN SAID:

Oh dear. Looks like [Gil] is trying to pass off his ~snicker~ *research* blunder as an April Fools joke.

Pity you posted it on 31 March, [Gil].

Everyone already knows you're an idiot, Gil. There is no need to attempt to cover up your abject stupidity.


J. LEYDEN SAID:

Let's see, Gil, you pull an April Fools joke on March 31. When do you celebrate The Fourth of July? Sometime in June?

What an idiot.


GIL JESUS SAID:

Awwwww, are you too embarrassed to accept the fact that you were spoofed?

March 31st = the day before April Fool's Day.

Why do I have to post it on April 1st? You're a fool EVERY day.

The posting proved what a bunch of dunderheads you are and how you will take seriously ANYTHING someone tells you.

How embarrassing for you and your flock of birdbrains.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, brother. Gil is actually trying to dodge his triple mistake by pretending he was posting an April Fool's joke. Incredible. And totally disingenuous.

There is no doubt that Gil thought he had scored another "conspiracy" point with this "open heart massage" thread, and now he's too much of a *** to simply say "Sorry, I goofed". Instead, he's invented the perfect excuse--an April Fool's joke.

But since he posted the "joke" at 11:48 AM EDT on March 31st, which is a time when I don't think it was April 1 anywhere on the planet yet, his excuse rings totally hollow. Who the heck posts "April Fool's Day Eve" jokes?

And even if he had posted this thread on April 1, his "April Fool's" excuse would still ring hollow.

Gil, once again, proves his "pathetic" status

[Fiver]

Malcolm Wallace was the shooter from the 6th floor TSBD. We now have evidence of that via phone conversations previously posted.

Roscoe White killed Tippet . Clemmonds clears LHO OF tippets murder.


Shooter of the fatal head shot was from the front, most probably the grassy knoll.

The Malcolm Wallace version has three shots fired. You insist there were four.

The Malcolm Wallace version has all shots fired from the TSBD. You insist the fatal headshot came from the Grassy Knoll.

The Malcolm Wallace version has Oswald as one of the shooters. You insist that Oswald was a patsy.

Are you sure you support the Malcolm Wallace version?

[Fiver]

In the book Five Days in November by Clint Hill and Lisa McCubbin Hill, the agent recalls the grisly scene: 'The president, without a doubt, has suffered a fatal wound. 'My God! They have shot his head off!' Mrs. Kennedy shrieks. 'Get us to a hospital!' I scream at the driver. 'Get us to a hospital!' As the car accelerates, I wedge myself on top of the rear seat, trying to get my body above and behind Mrs. Kennedy and the president, to shield them from whatever shots might still be coming...In the car, Mrs. Kennedy is in shock. Staring at her husband, his head bleeding into her lap, she moans, 'Jack, oh, Jack. What have they done?' And then, 'I have his brains in my hands.' Quietly, she adds, 'I love you, Jack.' Nothing else is said as we speed down Stemmons Freeway at about eighty miles an hour. I turn my head and my sunglasses blow off...Time has stopped. It feels like an eternity before we arrive at the hospital. In reality, it has been just four minutes since the shots rang out in Dealey Plaza.'

More ''Actual Evidence'' that contradicts the W.C

The listed quote supports the WC.

"As the car accelerates, I wedge myself on top of the rear seat, trying to get my body above and behind Mrs. Kennedy and the president, to shield them from whatever shots might still be coming..."

Why would Clint Hill position himself "above and behind" if he thought the shots were coming from the front?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Malcolm Wallace version has three shots fired. You insist there were four.

The Malcolm Wallace version has all shots fired from the TSBD. You insist the fatal headshot came from the Grassy Knoll.

The Malcolm Wallace version has Oswald as one of the shooters. You insist that Oswald was a patsy.

Are you sure you support the Malcolm Wallace version?

I was going to post on Wallace Fiver but you beat me to it. So that’s White and Wallace conclusively dismissed. So what’s next? Maybe a Garrison sidestep to the next theory?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The listed quote supports the WC.

"As the car accelerates, I wedge myself on top of the rear seat, trying to get my body above and behind Mrs. Kennedy and the president, to shield them from whatever shots might still be coming..."

Why would Clint Hill position himself "above and behind" if he thought the shots were coming from the front?

Not the most difficult question that you’ve ever posed Fiver.

[GBinOz]

Originally posted by Fiver
"As the car accelerates, I wedge myself on top of the rear seat, trying to get my body above and behind Mrs. Kennedy and the president, to shield them from whatever shots might still be coming..."

Why would Clint Hill position himself "above and behind" if he thought the shots were coming from the front?


Not the most difficult question that you’ve ever posed Fiver.

Of course, with the car accelerating away, he could have tippy toed across the trunk and "sautéd" into the back seat rather than clinging on in the best position achievable.

[FISHY1118]

Of course, with the car accelerating away, he could have tippy toed across the trunk and "sautéd" into the back seat rather than clinging on in the best position achievable.

Maybe you can ask him where in that quote did clint hill think the shots came from the front ?

Why does he continualy fiddle and change to wording to divert to a whole different debate that moves away from the original discussion?

Beats the hell outta me.

[Fiver]

Of course, with the car accelerating away, he could have tippy toed across the trunk and "sautéd" into the back seat rather than clinging on in the best position achievable.

"As the car accelerates, I wedge myself on top of the rear seat, trying to get my body above and behind Mrs. Kennedy and the president, to shield them from whatever shots might still be coming..."

Why would Clint Hill position himself "above and behind" "to shield them" if he thought the shots were coming from the front?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe you can ask him where in that quote did clint hill think the shots came from the front ?

Why does he continualy fiddle and change to wording to divert to a whole different debate that moves away from the original discussion?

Beats the hell outta me.

Where has anyone even suggested that Clint Hill thought that the shots came from the front?

[FISHY1118]

Your source claimed that the APB for the JFK included a clothing description. Your source was lying.

Your source claimed that all of the Tippit murder witnesses gave an identical a clothing description. Your source was lying.

Your source claimed that Oswald was just walking down the street before he ducked into the Texas Theater. Your source was lying.

Your source claimed that Johnny Brewer was lying about hearing of Tippit's murder on the radio. Your source was lying.

Your source said that all the descriptions of Tippit's murderer contradicted each other. Your source was lying.

Your source tried to pretend that Aquilla Clemons was at least three witnesses. Your source was lying.

Your source said Domingo Benavides changed his testimony after his brother was murdered, Your source was lying.

Your source said the murderer of Eddy Benavides was never caught, Your source was lying.

Your source lied about the distance between the location of Tippit's murder and the Texas Theater.

Your source lied about the time between Tippit's murder and the time Oswald was seen entering the Texas Theater.

Your source lied about Jack Ruby having a house in Oak Cliff.

Your source lied about JD Tippit's reason for being in Oak Cliff.

Your source lied about JD Tippit having a mistress in Oak Cliff.

Your source lied about JD Tippet working for Jack Ruby.

Your source lied about Billy Lovelady looking almost the same as Oswald.

Your source lied about Lovelady being a smuggler and gunrunner.

Your source lied about Jack Ruby being a successful gunrunner.

Your source lied by claiming Ruth Paine got Lovelady a job at the TSBD.

Your source lied about the occupation of Ruth Paine's father.

Your source lied about Ruth Paine knowing Allen Dulles.

Your source lied about Oswald's level of security clearance.

That's not a complete list of your source's lies.

It your opinion that they lied !!!! , and of course your wrong , YOUR JUST GOING ROUND AND ROUND WITHOUT ANY PROOF . That the whole point of the discussion , CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTANCIES OF THE W.C . YOUR MOCK TRIAL IS LOOKING SILLYIER BY THE DAY .