The following is Part Two of a review of the 2013 Kindle edition of Dale Myers’ book With Malice.
VIII: Proof positive
Myers dedicates this chapter to a discussion of Tippit’s autopsy, and the physical evidence against Oswald such as the revolver allegedly used to kill Tippit, and the bullets and the spent shell casings. He also discusses the fingerprints found on Tippit’s squad car, and the light gray jacket discarded by the killer in the parking lot behind the Texaco Service station. Myers quotes from DPD captain Will Fritz’s interrogation report where he allegedly asked Oswald where he had obtained the revolver, to which Oswald allegedly replied that he bought it in Fort Worth, Texas (With Malice, Chapter 8). Fritz allegedly asked this question during an interrogation on Saturday November 23, 1963. But in order to believe Fritz, including the FBI and USSS agents who were present during Oswald’s interrogations, one must ignore all of the evidence discussed throughout this review that the DPD had framed Oswald for Tippit’s murder, and that the FBI and the USSS also wanted Oswald to be found guilty. As far as the USSS is concerned, consider that several researchers such as Ian Griggs have explained that the USSS was by all likelihood involved in coercing Howard Brennan into claiming that he was at a DPD line-up, during which he allegedly identified Oswald as the man he saw in the so-called sniper’s nest window on the sixth floor of the TSBD (Griggs, No Case To Answer, page 91).
It is Myers’ contention that Oswald ordered the revolver from Seaport Traders Inc., Los Angeles, California, on January 27, 1963, under the name A.J. Hidell, and then had it shipped to his P.O. Box in Dallas which was under his real name (ibid). To begin with, Myers simply has no qualms about Oswald having ordered the revolver using an alias, only to have it delivered to his P.O. Box which was under his real name. Obviously, the purpose of Oswald allegedly using an alias to purchase the gun was to hide the fact that he (Oswald) was purchasing it. So then why would he have it shipped to a P.O. box under his real name? Does that not defeat the purpose of having purchased a revolver using an alias? Myers admits that it is not known whether the application for P.O. Box 2915 (to which the revolver was allegedly shipped) listed A.J. Hidell as someone entitled to receive mail at that box (ibid). Myers then uses the Warren Commission testimony of postal inspector Harry Holmes, during which Holmes stated that the portion of the P.O. Box application which listed others entitled to receive mail at the same P.O. Box was discarded in accordance with postal regulations, after the box was closed in May, 1963 (ibid). Myers also uses Holmes’ testimony to explain that regardless of who is entitled to receive a package at a P.O. Box, a notice is placed inside the P.O. Box, and the person who has rented that particular P.O. Box can then take the notice to a window and is given the package.
Contrary to what Myers wants the reader to believe, Holmes has been caught lying on these issues. As author Jim DiEugenio explains, postal regulation No. 355.111 dictates that; “Mail addressed to a person at a P.O. box who is not authorized to receive mail shall be endorsed ‘addressee unknown’ and returned to the sender where possible” (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, pages 60 and 61). Furthermore, according to postal regulation 846.53h, it was customary for the post office to retain the application forms for the P.O. boxes for two years after the box was closed (ibid, page 61). In assessing Holmes’ credibility, the reader should also bear in mind that Holmes was an FBI informant (John Armstrong Baylor collection, tab entitled: Harry Holmes). On November 26, 1963, a memorandum was sent from Alan Belmont to William Sullivan stating that the FBI’s report on the assassination is to; ” … settle the dust, in so far as Oswald and his activities are concerned, both from the standpoint that he is the man who assassinated the President, and relative to Oswald himself and his activities and background, et cetera.” (Church Committee: Book V, page 33). By helping to cement Oswald’s guilt as Tippit’s murderer, the FBI (much like the DPD) could then use Tippit’s murder as evidence that Oswald was more than capable of assassinating the President in cold blood. As an FBI informant, Holmes would only be too happy to help out in that regard. In fact, as Jim DiEugenio explains, Holmes subservience to the FBI was so extreme that his family actually contacted the JFK Lancer group and told them to try and understand his behaviour in this regard (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, page 61). Predictably, none of this is mentioned by Myers.
Myers also cites the testimony of Heinz Michaelis, the office manager of George Rose and company, as evidence that a balance of $19.95 plus a $1.27 shipping charge was collected from Oswald under the name Hidell, and allegedly shipped to P.O. Box 2915 on March 20, 1963 (ibid). However, as author Jim DiEugenio explains, the Railway Express Agency was required to send a postcard to Oswald’s P.O. Box informing him to pick up the revolver (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, page 104). But there is no proof, or even evidence, that a postcard was ever sent to Oswald’s P.O. Box (ibid). This is a very odd hole in the evidence trail. Another requirement was that a 5024 form be filled out by Oswald for the revolver. But again, there is no proof that this was done (ibid). There is also no proof of a signed receipt by Oswald (as Hidell) for the revolver; or that he ever produced a certificate of good character to pick-up the revolver as required by the law (ibid). Again, these serious lacunae are glossed over by Myers. In a normal criminal case, they would not be.
Finally, although Myers mentions in his endnotes that the rifle Oswald allegedly used to assassinate President Kennedy was also shipped to the same P.O. Box, he nevertheless omits that both the rifle and revolver were shipped to Oswald’s P.O. Box on the same day; even though they were ordered over a month apart and from different suppliers! Namely, one supplier (Klein’s Sporting Goods) was from Chicago and the other (Seaport Traders) was from Los Angeles. As it defies the odds that such a thing occurred, Myers is careful not to point this fact out to his readers. Readers should bear in mind that no ammunition for the revolver was found by the DPD at the rooming house at 1026 North Beckley where Oswald was allegedly living at the time of the assassination. Although a holster (WCE 144) was allegedly found at the rooming house by the DPD, researcher Lee Farley has demonstrated that it was actually Larry Crafard who was living at the rooming house and not Oswald! (See the thread entitled A House of Cards? on Greg Parker’s research forum Reopen Kennedy Case).
Naturally, Myers also uses the Warren Commission testimony of Marina Oswald as evidence that Oswald actually owned the revolver allegedly used to kill Tippit (With Malice, Chapter 8). Unfortunately for him, Marina Oswald has been exposed as an incredibly compromised witness by a multitude of researchers. For one thing, Marina initially denied that Oswald ever used the name Hidell (WCE 1789). However, when she testified before the Warren Commission in February 1964, she now claimed that she first heard of the name Hidell, “When he [Oswald] was interviewed by some anti-Cubans, he used this name and spoke of an organization.” (WC Volume I, page 64). She was referring to Oswald’s debate with Ed Butler of INCA and anti-Castro Cuban Carlos Bringuier on William Stuckey’s radio show on August 21, 1963. The problem is the name Hidell was never mentioned during the debate by anyone (WC Volume XXI, Stuckey Exhibit No. 3).
When Marina testified before the Warren Commission on June 11, 1964, she now claimed that she signed the name “A.J. Hidell” on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee card (WCE 819), which Oswald allegedly had in his possession when he was arrested in New Orleans on August 9, 1963! (WC Volume V, page 401). It should be obvious to any intellectually honest researcher that Marina was being pressured into being less than honest.
In assessing Marina Oswald’s credibility as a witness, the reader should also bear in mind that according to Oswald’s brother Robert, Marina may have been deported back to Russia if she didn’t co-operate with the FBI (WC Volume I, page 410). Marina also admitted during her testimony before the Warren Commission that a representative from the United States immigration service had advised her that it would be better for her to help the FBI, in the sense that she would have more rights in the United States (WC Volume I, page 80). Although she testified that she didn’t consider this a threat, the mere fact that she had been advised she would have more rights in the United States if she co-operated should send the message to researchers that she would even lie to obtain those rights (ibid). Marina Oswald also testified that she initially ” … didn’t want to say too much” to evidently protect her husband (WC Volume I, page 14). However, Marina’s friend Elena Hall told the Warren Commission that she didn’t think that Marina ever actually loved her husband, and would apparently belittle him (WC Volume VIII, page 401). Such a revelation undermines the notion that Marina lied to protect her husband. None of these problems with Marina Oswald’s credibility as a witness is ever discussed by Myers.
But if Myers use of Marina Oswald as a witness isn’t bad enough, then consider that he also cites the book Passport to Assassination, by KGB Colonel Oleg Maximovich Nechiporenko, as evidence that Oswald owned the revolver allegedly used to kill Tippit. According to Nechiporenko, Oswald pulled out a Smith and Wesson revolver inside the Soviet embassy in Mexico City (With Malice, Chapter 8). Sadly for Myers, it has been demonstrated by several competent authors that Oswald was impersonated inside the Soviet embassy in Mexico City; and that he probably never even travelled to Mexico City as postulated by the Warren Commission (see Jim DiEugenio’s long discussion of Oswald’s alleged trip to Mexico City). Finally, as many researchers have explained, the so-called backyard photographs (WCE 133-A and B) of Oswald which show him with the rifle he allegedly used to assassinate the President, and the revolver which he allegedly used to kill Tippit, are very likely ersatz.
Another piece of evidence cited by Myers as proof that Oswald owned the revolver allegedly used to kill Tippit is the holster (WCE 142). This was discovered in the rooming house on 1026 North Beckley Avenue where Oswald was said to be living at the time of the assassination. However, as previously mentioned, researcher Lee Farley has demonstrated the likliehood that Oswald didn’t live there as claimed. In the final paragraph of his discussion of Oswald’s alleged ownership of the revolver, Myers writes; “There can be little doubt that Oswald owned the 0.38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver pulled from his hand in the Texas Theater” (With Malice, Chapter 8). In light of everything discussed previously in this review about the revolver, this is a tremendously fatuous statement to make. Still, the question remains as to why the FBI would want to forge the order coupon for the revolver using the name Hidell instead of Oswald? Although this reviewer cannot provide a definitive answer, perhaps the FBI believed that this is precisely what Oswald would have done to try and conceal from them that he had ordered a rifle and revolver. Bear in mind that the FBI were well aware of Oswald when he returned from the Soviet Union, but were not aware that Oswald (allegedly) used the name Alek James Hidell as an alias prior to his arrest in New Orleans on August 9, 1963. Therefore, the FBI probably thought they could sell the idea that since Oswald knew the FBI was keeping an eye on him, he would use an alias they weren’t aware of at the time to order both the rifle and revolver.
On the night of the assassination, FBI agent Vincent Drain confiscated several pieces of evidence against Oswald, such as the Mannlicher Carcano rifle he allegedly used to murder the President. Included amongst the evidence confiscated were the revolver (WCE143) and the bullet removed from Tippit’s body at Methodist Hospital after he was pronounced dead (WCD 81, page 448). However, what the DPD did not release to the FBI were the four spent shell casings discarded by Tippit’s killer, and the three bullets removed by Dr. Earl Rose at Parkland Memorial Hospital during Tippit’s autopsy. The omission of the shell casings is significant, as the unique markings of the breech face and the firing pin of the revolver could be used to determine whether the shell casings were fired from the revolver in question; which the FBI eventually determined was the case (WC Volume III, page 466).
The implication is that the DPD were concerned that the shell casings were not actually fired from “Oswald’s” revolver. In his endnotes, Myers acknowledges that the DPD did not release the shell casings to the FBI on the night of the assassination, but writes that; “At the time of the submission [of the evidence to the FBI], the Dallas Police had no reason to believe that the bullet and revolver would not be sufficient to connect Oswald’s pistol to Tippit’s death.” But the DPD surely must have known that the markings from the firing pin and breech face of the revolver could be used to determine whether the spent shell casings were fired from the revolver, and therefore, they should have released them to the FBI along with the revolver.
As FBI agent Cortlandt Cunningham told the Warren Commission, the bullet the DPD released to the FBI on the night of the assassination (WCE 602) was too mutilated, and that; “There were not sufficient microscopic marks remaining on the surface of this bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine whether or not it had been fired from this weapon [WCE 143].” (ibid, page 475) Cunningham also testified that unlike WCE 602, the other three bullets removed from Tippit’s body and head (WCE 603, 604, and 605) did bear microscopic marks for comparison purposes (ibid). As any ballistics expert will be able to confirm, the most mutilated bullet will be the hardest in determining whether it had been fired from a particular gun. Whilst the DPD may not have known just by looking at WCE 602 that it was the most mutilated bullet, a photograph of WCE 602 shows that its nose is bent out of shape. Furthermore, the DPD may have thought that by releasing all four of the bullets to the FBI on the night of the assassination, they would have had a better chance of determining that the bullets had been fired from a different gun.
But is there actually an innocent explanation for why the DPD initially only released WCE 602 to the FBI? According to Myers, after Dr. Earl Rose had removed the three bullets from Tippit, he gave them to DPD detective Frank J. Corkery. Corkery then delivered them to Captain Will Fritz. When FBI agent Vincent Drain questioned Fritz as to why the DPD had not released these three bullets to the FBI on the night of the assassination, Fritz told Drain that a detective had placed the bullets in his (Fritz’s) files, and had not made a record of their location. Although Myers considers Fritz to be an honest officer who would not deliberately conceal evidence, let’s consider one example which suggests otherwise.
As every researcher of the assassination is probably aware, DPD officer Marrion Baker and TSBD superintendent Roy Truly allegedly spotted Oswald inside the second floor lunchroom of the TSBD within ninety seconds of the assassination. But contrary to this belief, Baker made no mention of an encounter with Oswald inside the lunchroom in his first day affidavit, writing instead that he had encountered a man walking away from the stairway on either the third or fourth floor of the TSBD (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 1, Item 4). In fact, as researcher Sean Murphy has convincingly demonstrated, Oswald was most likely standing outside the TSBD (on top of the front entrance steps), when the shots were fired at the President! (The Education Forum, thread entitled; Oswald leaving TSBD?).
Although Roy Truly provided an affidavit to the DPD on November 23, 1963, in which he claimed they had encountered Oswald inside the lunchroom, DPD detective Marvin Johnson wrote in his report to Chief Curry that Officer Baker had encountered a man he ” … later identified as Lee Harvey Oswald … ” on about the fourth floor of the TSBD, walking away from the stairway (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 5, Folder 5, Item 26). However, this was a lie by Johnson, as Baker did not claim in his affidavit that Oswald was the man he encountered; even though, as researcher Greg Parker has pointed out, Baker had to pass by Oswald at DPD headquarters when he made out his affidavit. Johnson’s lie was one which was repeated by Captain Fritz in his note to Chief Curry, where he claimed that Baker had stopped Oswald on either the third or fourth floor, whilst he (Oswald) was coming down the stairs (Papers of Capt. Will Fritz: Note from J.W. Fritz to Jesse Curry of 23 December 1963).
When Fritz testified before the Warren Commission, he explained that Truly or someone else had told him while he was still at the TSBD that Truly and Baker had “met” Oswald on the stairway, but then added; ” … our investigation shows that he [Baker and/or Truly] actually saw him in a lunchroom … ” (WC Volume IV, page 213). Fritz then claimed that Oswald had told him when he was being interrogated that he was eating his lunch in the lunchroom (ibid).
Despite what one may believe about where Officer Baker had actually accosted Oswald, Fritz’s claim that Baker had encountered Oswald when Oswald was coming down the stairs was a lie. In this reviewer’s opinion, the most viable explanation for this lie was to make it seem like Oswald was coming down from the sixth floor of the TSBD after allegedly assassinating the President. With all this in mind, it seems very likely that Fritz (and others) would conspire to release only one of the bullets removed from Tippit’s body to the FBI on the night of the assassination, to minimize the chances of the FBI determining that Tippit was shot by a gun other than WCE 143. Although this reviewer is not aware of when the bullets were supposedly handed to Captain Fritz by detective Corkery, it was presumably on the night of the assassination after Dr. Rose had concluded the autopsy on Tippit’s body.
As probably every researcher is also aware, three of the bullets removed from Tippit were of the Winchester Western brand, and one bullet was of the Remington Peters brand. However, only two of the spent shell casings discarded by Tippit’s killer were of the Winchester Western brand, and the other two were of the Remington Peters brand. This has led conspiracy advocates to believe that the actual shell casings discarded by Tippit’s killer were substituted to help incriminate Oswald; a point of view which this reviewer shares. Myers explanation for this discrepancy is that there were actually five shots fired at Tippit, with one Remington Peters bullet missing him and going astray, and one Winchester Western shell casing being discarded but not handed over to the DPD (With Malice, Chapter 8). Myers admits that the number of shots heard, and the sequence in which they were fired, varied from one witness to another, but then used Ted Callaway’s belief that he heard a total of five shots to bolster the notion that there were indeed five shots fired at Tippit.
According to Myers, “Over the course of six separate interviews, Callaway has consistently reported hearing five shots coming from the direction of Tenth and Patton [Streets].” (ibid). When Myers interviewed Callaway in 1996, Callaway explained that when he was questioned by the DPD, he informed them that he had heard five shots (ibid). What Myers doesn’t point out to his readers is that when Callaway (allegedly) wrote out his affidavit to the DPD on the day of the assassination, he merely claimed that he heard “some” shots (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 2, Item 1). Whilst some will argue that by “some” shots Callaway could easily have meant that he really heard five shots, why wouldn’t he have just said so in his affidavit? Taking into account all of the aforementioned problems with Callaway as a witness, and the likelihood that he was coaxed into identifying Oswald as Tippit’s killer, it also seems likely that he was coaxed into claiming that he had heard five shots as a way of explaining the aforementioned discrepancy between the bullets and the spent shell casings. The first interview, during which Callaway claimed that he had heard five shots, appears to be his interview with the USSS on December 3, 1963 (WCD 87, page 552). The DPD released the four spent shell casings allegedly discovered at the Tippit murder scene to FBI agent Vincent Drain on November 28, 1963 (WCD205, page 206). Therefore, if the authorities had realised before Callaway’s interview with the USSS that there was a discrepancy between the discarded shell casings and the bullets removed from Tippit’s body, they could have coerced him into claiming that he had heard a total of five shots.
Another problem with using Callaway to explain a missed shot (which Myers evidently wants to ignore), is that Callaway claimed that he heard two shots fired, followed by three more shots in rapid succession (With Malice, Chapter 8). However, Myers also wants his readers to believe that Jack Tatum heard two or three shots fired, followed by a single shot to Tippit’s head after a slight pause (ibid). So if Tatum is correct, then Callaway’s “recollection” must be in error; and as this reviewer has discussed previously, Tatum’s claim that he witnessed Tippit being shot is not to be trusted. Suffice it to say, Myers cannot have it both ways. This reviewer should also point out that Frank Griffin, who allegedly witnessed Tippit being shot, told Myers during an interview in 2004 that he ” … vividly recalled hearing five gunshots … ” However, Griffin also claimed that he heard the five shots fired “equally spaced” (With Malice, Chapter 8). But if Griffin’s “recollection” is correct, then Jack Tatum’s own “recollection” can’t be true. Griffin also claimed that he saw Oswald fleeing the scene of the murder after the shots were fired (see the thread entitled FRANK GRIFFIN – TKS WITNESS CLAIMS BEFORE 2010? on John Simkin’s Education Forum).
In his endnotes, Myers writes that Griffin remained silent about what he witnessed because his father, Johnnie Frank Griffin, was murdered after he testified before a grand Jury concerning what he witnessed when Alabama attorney General- elect Albert Patterson was murdered, and evidently feared that he may share the same fate as his father. But as Myers admits, there are several discrepancies between what he told Myers in 2004 and what appeared in his own book in 2008; though he assures us that most of these discrepancies are “minor and of no consequence.” On the contrary, given the discrepancies between his interview with Myers and what he wrote in his book, including the lack of any credible evidence that five equally spaced shots were fired at Tippit, Griffin’s claim that he heard five equally spaced shots and then observed Oswald should be not be considered credible.
To bolster the notion that one “discarded” shell casing was not recovered, Myers quotes from the interviews of witnesses B.M. (Pat) Patterson, and Harold Russell, both of whom said they witnessed Tippit’s killer come down Patton Street and turn West onto Jefferson Blvd. (With Malice, Chapter 8). Patterson informed the FBI that the killer; “stopped still, ejected the cartridges, reloaded the gun, and then placed the weapon inside his waistband.” (ibid). Russell informed the FBI on February 23, 1964 that; “the man [gunman] unloaded the gun, jammed it in his pants under his belt and disappeared down Jefferson Boulevard.” (ibid). But Myers omits information from his discussion which contradicts what he’s trying to sell to his readers. First of all, in his initial interview with the FBI on January 21, 1964, Russell only stated that the killer was attempting to either reload the gun or place it into his belt. There was no mention of the killer unloading the gun (WC Volume XXI, Russell exhibit A). When Russell was interviewed by the FBI on February 23, 1964, he also claimed that he was put into a DPD squad car by officers to point out the area where he had last seen the killer; even though he made no mention of being put into a squad car in his interview with the FBI one month before (WCD 735, page 270). This is yet another example of how Russell’s story evolved over time.
With regards to Patterson, during his initial interview with the FBI on January 22, 1964, he made no mention of the killer stopping to eject shells from his gun (WC Volume XXI, Patterson exhibit A). In an affidavit to the FBI on August 25, 1964, Patterson now allegedly claimed that the killer had stopped, ejected cartridges, and then reloaded the gun (WC Volume XXI, Patterson (B.M.) exhibit B). Patterson also allegedly told the FBI on August 26, 1964, that he saw the killer cross over to the North side of Jefferson Blvd (thus implying that the killer went down to the south side of Jefferson Blvd.) after he had stopped (ibid). However, Patterson’s latter claim that the killer had stopped to eject empty shells from the gun is not corroborated by Lewis, Russell, Warren Reynolds, Ted Callaway, and Sam Guinyard. In fact, Harold Russell told the FBI during his interview with them on February 23, 1964, that the killer was ejecting the shells as he was “hurrying down” Patton Street. In light of all of the above, there is no good reason to believe that Tippit’s killer had discarded one or more spent shell casings from the revolver as Russell and Patterson allegedly claimed he did during their latter interviews with the FBI. Besides, if Russell and Patterson really did see the killer discard empty shell casings from the revolver, why didn’t they inform the DPD Officers present at the Tippit murder scene of this observation, or why wouldn’t they have picked up the empty shell casings and hand them to the DPD officers?
Myers also quotes from his interviews with Barbara and Virginia Davis in 1996 and 1997, during which they told him that their father-in-law, Louis Davis, had discovered a spent shell casing a short time after Tippit’s murder; which was allegedly similar to the ones which the Davis sister-in-laws discovered and gave to the DPD (With Malice, Chapter 8). Louis Davis allegedly kept it as a souvenir. However, given the aforementioned problems with the Davis sister-in-laws as witnesses, and the likelihood that they were coaxed into identifying Oswald as Tippit’s killer, their story that a fifth shell casing was discovered by their father-in-law should not be trusted. Even Myers admits that; “Whether the shell [allegedly found by Louis Davis] was one ejected by Tippit’s killer is likely to remain a mystery” (ibid).
Suffice it to say, there is no credible evidence that more than four shell casings were discarded by Tippit’s killer, or that more than four shots were fired. There is no evidence that any bullets hit one of the houses in the vicinity of the Tippit murder scene, or anything else such as the road surface. The only other explanation for a missing bullet which this reviewer can think of is that for some bizarre reason, Tippit’s killer had fired a shot in the air. However, the eyewitness statements do not support such an assertion. Despite Myers attempt to explain the discrepancy between the shell casings and the bullets, the fact remains that there is no credible evidence that one Remington Peter’s bullet had missed Tippit, and that one Winchester Western shell casing was unaccounted for. All alternative explanations for this discrepancy are also pure speculation.
There is yet another problem with the spent shell casings which Tippit’s killer allegedly discarded. As most researchers are probably aware, DPD Officer Joe Mack Poe, who was at the Tippit murder scene with his partner Leonard Jez, informed the FBI on July 6, 1964, that he marked the two spent shell casings which were given to him by Domingo Benavides with the initials J.M.P. (WCE 2011). The problem is that Poe’s mark from the two shell casings are curiously missing, and Myers wants his readers to believe that Poe didn’t mark the shells as he claimed. Conspiracy advocates, on the other hand, believe that Poe missing marks are due to the shell casings being substituted for the ones he marked. When Poe testified before the Warren Commission on April 9, 1964, counsel Joseph Ball asked him if he put any markings on the shell casings, to which Poe responded; “I couldn’t swear to it; no, sir.” (Volume VII, page 68). When Ball again asked Poe if he made a mark on the shells after showing them to him, Poe explained; “I can’t swear to it; no, sir.”, but then claimed; “There is a mark. I believe I put on them, but I couldn’t swear to it. I couldn’t make them [the marks] out anymore.” (ibid, page 69). In other words, Poe was implying that he did mark the shells, but was unable to recognise them on the shells he was shown.
According to Myers, the fact that Poe was reluctant to swear that he had marked the shells, raises the question of whether Poe had marked the shells as he claimed (With Malice, Chapter 8). However, consider that if Poe was an honest police officer who really did mark the shells, but now couldn’t make out his marks on any of the shells shown to him whilst testifying under oath, then his reluctance to swear that he had marked the shells is perfectly understandable. One thing which Myers never bothers to mention in his book is Poe’s interview with author Henry Hurt in 1984. According to Hurt, Poe told him that he was “absolutely certain” that he had marked the shells, and explained that he couldn’t be certain of a single other instance during his twenty eight years as a police officer when he failed to properly mark evidence (Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, page 153). Poe also told Hurt that prior to his testimony before the Warren Commission; he was interviewed by the FBI concerning the shell casings (ibid). However, this reviewer has been unable to locate such an interview.
Poe also informed Hurt that he “felt certain” that the shell casings entered into evidence were the ones at the scene and that perhaps the reason he couldn’t find his marks was because somebody else had placed their mark on top of his (ibid). Clearly, Poe was implying to Hurt that the shell casings were not switched. After examining the shell casings at the National Archives, Hurt informed Poe that he wasn’t able to find any evidence that this was the case, to which Poe indignantly responded; “I [have] talked to you all I’m going to talk to you. You already got your mind made up about what you’re gonna say. I know what the truth is.” and then abruptly hung up the phone (ibid, page 154). The fact that Hurt included this indignant response from Poe speaks well for Hurt’s credibility on this issue. Hurt also explains that in each of the spent shell casings he examined; “at least 50 percent of the surface area around the inside rim has no marking at all, leaving ample space for even additional identifying marks.” (ibid).
In an apparent attempt to discredit Poe, Myers quotes from his interview with detective Jim Leavelle in 1996. According to Myers, Leavelle claimed that Poe told him (Leavelle) that he didn’t remember marking the shells, and that Poe only told the FBI that he marked the shells because he was ” … afraid he would get in trouble for failing to mark evidence.” (With Malice, chapter 8). As previously mentioned, Leavelle informed the Warren Commission that ” … the only time I had connections with Oswald was this Sunday morning [November 24, 1963]. I never had [the] occasion to talk with him at any time …”, but then lied to Myers when he claimed he had interrogated Oswald on Friday shortly following his arrest. Evidence discussed below further demonstrates Leavelle’s duplicity. Although Myers doesn’t state that he absolutely believes Leavelle, merely writing that “In retrospect, Leavelle’s explanation has a sense of truth about it”, the fact that Myers uses someone such as Leavelle to discredit Poe, whilst ignoring Poe’s interview with Henry Hurt (even though he quotes from Hurt’s book elsewhere), is yet another example of Myers’ lack of objectivity. Readers should also keep in mind that Leavelle is a dyed in the wool supporter of Oswald’s guilt, who wrote the following blurb for Myers’s book; ” … Dale Myers has finally cut through the veneer of insinuations and innuendos applied by the conspiracy buffs for the past thirty odd years. He has cleared up the points of confusion brought on by the rumors and hearsay that had no basis in facts.” Therefore, it should come as absolutely no surprise to any honest researcher that Leavelle would proffer Poe not marking the spent shells.
Myers also speculates that due to the presence of DPD Sgt “Pete” Barnes at the Tippit murder scene, allegedly “a few minutes” after Benavides had handed Poe the two spent shell casings, Poe may have handed the shell casings to Barnes without marking them (With Malice, Chapter 8). Whilst Myers is free to speculate as much as he wants, the fact remains that Poe insisted he had marked the two shell casings given to him by Benavides. Then again, we cannot know with absolute certainty that Poe did mark the shell casings. In fact, perhaps the best argument against the shell casings being switched (ironically) came from Sgt. Gerald Hill. When Hurt interviewed Hill in 1984, Hill explained that if the spent shell casings discovered at the Tippit murder scene had been switched, then Poe’s marks would have been forged onto the shell casings (Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, page 155).
Myers also briefly discusses the issue of Sgt “Pete” Barnes identification of the shell casings which were given to him at the murder scene by Officer Poe. As Myers explains, Barnes ultimately decided that Poe gave him the spent shell casings designated by the FBI as Q-74 and Q-77; which Myers claims were both of the Remington Peters brand (With Malice, Chapter 8). According to his interview with the FBI on June 15, 1964, Barnes had located his mark (this being the letter B) on the aforementioned shell casings (WCE 2011). However, when he testified before the Warren Commission on April 7, 1964, Barnes claimed that the two shell casings he was given were actually Q -74 and Q-75. Myers actually admits that this was the case in his book (With Malice, Chapter 8). Barnes also told the Warren Commission that he placed the letter B ” … the best that I could, inside the hull of Exhibit 74 -I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75 … “ (WC Volume VII, page 275).
In his demeaning article on researcher Don Thomas’ work on the Tippit murder, Myers explains that Barnes’ mark, “a crude letter B”, can be seen on the inside of the spent shells casings designated Q-74 and Q-77. Myers then went on to explain that this means Barnes did mark the spent shell casings after Poe had given them to him (see the blog post The Tippit Murder: Why Conspiracy Theorists Can’t Tell the Truth about the Rosetta Stone of the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald on Myers’ blog). Curiously, this explanation is absent from Myers’ book. Although Barnes may very well have placed this crude looking B (which actually looks like the letter D) inside the spent shell casings, this reviewer discusses below that Barnes lied about the fingerprints discovered on Tippit’s squad car in order to conceal the possibility that Oswald didn’t shoot Tippit. Therefore, it is entirely conceivable that Barnes deliberately placed his crude looking mark inside the spent shell casings which the DPD had substituted for the ones which were actually discarded by Tippit’s killer after he shot Tippit, in order to make it appear as though there was no substitution for the spent shell casings.
Myers writes that; “Two of the four shells recovered at the [Tippit murder] scene have a clear, unbroken chain of custody and were proven to have been fired in Oswald’s revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons” (With Malice, Chapter 8). Myers is referring to the two spent shell casings allegedly discovered by the Davis sister-in-laws shortly following Tippit’s murder, which they then gave to the DPD. Of course, Myers’ explanation ignores all of the aforementioned evidence (including evidence discussed further on) that the spent shell casings recovered from the vicinity of the Tippit murder scene were switched. Myers also discusses the allegations that Tippit’s killer was actually armed with an automatic handgun. The first report that Tippit’s killer was armed with an automatic handgun was from DPD Officer Howell W. Summers, whom reported over the DPD radio that an “eyeball” witness claimed the killer was armed with an automatic (WCE 705/1974). Although Myers believes this witness was Ted Callaway; as discussed previously, there is very good reason to believe that Callaway didn’t actually observe Tippit’s killer; and that the witness could have been the elusive B.D. Searcy.
In any event, this reviewer should point out that Ted Callaway told Myers during an interview in 1996 that the reason he allegedly thought the killer was armed with an automatic was because; “he [the gunman] had his pistol in a raised position and his left hand going to the pistol. My sidearm was a forty-five. When I was in the Marine corps, and I’d used that same motion before in pushing a loaded magazine up to the handle of a forty-five, you know? And so, when they [the DPD] asked me what kind of gun that he had I told them it was an automatic; on account of that motion.” (With Malice, Chapter 8). No matter whom one might believe was the witness who provided Officer Summers with the information that the killer was armed with an automatic, the witness may have been mistaken if he didn’t get a really good view of the weapon, and if he thought the shots were fired in rapid succession. Keep in mind that the recollections of how many shots, and the sequence in which they were fired at Tippit, were recalled differently by the witnesses who heard the shots. Therefore, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the gun used to kill Tippit was an automatic if a particular witness recalled hearing the shots fired rapidly.
The second claim that the spent shell casings found in the vicinity of the Tippit murder scene were fired from an automatic was by Sgt. Gerald Hill. Hill broadcast the following message over the DPD radio at approximately 1:40 pm; “The shell at the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol.” (WCE 705/1974). As this reviewer will explain in the upcoming essay on Hill, Hill had by all likelihood framed Oswald for the murder of Officer Tippit, and that Hill only claimed that the spent shell casings were fired from an automatic handgun to divert suspicion away from himself. Unlike many other conspiracy advocates, this reviewer believes that the revolver Oswald allegedly had in his possession was the gun used to kill Tippit. Shortly following Oswald’s arrest at the Texas Theater, Gerald Hill was filmed showing reporters the revolver and the live rounds removed from the revolver. As Myers explains in his book, the bullets removed from Officer Tippit were of the 0.38 special caliber and had five lands and five grooves with a right twist; which are the class characteristics of the barrel of WCE 143 (With Malice, Chapter 8). The bullets removed from Tippit’s body also had microscopic scratches similar to those found on the test bullets fired from the revolver (ibid). Finally, the bullets removed from Tippit’s body showed signs of gas erosion, which results from the bullets being fired through the barrel of a gun where the diameter of the barrel is slightly larger than the diameter of the bullets; as was the case with the “Oswald” revolver (ibid).
In his endnotes, Myers discusses the DPD’s alleged discovery of five Winchester Western cartridges inside Oswald’s front left pants pocket following his arrest. The cartridges were allegedly discovered by detective Elmer Boyd, as Boyd and his partner, detective Richard Sims, allegedly searched Oswald just prior to the first line-up (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 3, Folder 4, Item 5). Sims confirmed that the cartridges were removed from Oswald’s left front pants pocket when he testified before the Warren Commission (WC Volume VII, page 173). However; there are several problems with this alleged discovery. First of all, when Gerald Hill was interviewed by Eddie Barker in 1967, he claimed that Oswald was frisked inside the theater, but made no mention of any live rounds of ammunition being found in Oswald’s pants pocket (read Hill’s interview with Barker). Although Hill denied during his testimony before the Warren Commission that Oswald was searched by the arresting officers after he was handcuffed, his denial may have been to conceal the fact that after Oswald was searched, they had failed to discover the five cartridges in his pants pocket (WC Volume VII, page 66). If this was the case, then Hill had probably forgotten that he was meant to deny during his interview with Barker that Oswald was searched shortly following his arrest at the theater.
Secondly, as researcher Gil Jesus explains on his website, the five rounds of ammunition allegedly removed from Oswald’s pants pocket show corrosion which is consistent with the cartridges having spent a considerable amount of time in either a gun belt or a bullet slide; neither of which were found amongst Oswald’s possessions. Jesus claims that police departments were known to use gun belts and bullet slides; and concludes, based on this assertion, that the five cartridges had originated from the DPD (Read more.) The reader should also keep in mind that the DPD didn’t release the five cartridges to the FBI until November 28, 1963; thus there was more than enough time to fabricate the discovery of the cartridges inside Oswald’s pants pocket (WCD 205, page 206). Finally, consider that, at the time detective Boyd allegedly discovered the five cartridges inside Oswald’s pants pocket, detective Sims had allegedly discovered a bus transfer inside Oswald’s shirt pocket. However, when DPD Chief Jesse Curry was asked by a reporter on the day following the assassination how Oswald had travelled to “the other side of town”, Curry replied that; “We have heard that he [Oswald] was picked up by a negro in a car”, but made no mention of a bus transfer being found in Oswald’s pocket (WCE 2146). Furthermore, researcher Lee Farley has demonstrated that Oswald’s alleged bus ride following the assassination was a likely fabrication (see the thread entitled Oswald and Bus 1213 on John Simkin’s education forum). Therefore, this is more evidence that the DPD would falsify evidence against Oswald.
In the endnotes to his book, Myers acknowledges that several officers who participated in Oswald’s arrest had observed what appeared to be a nick from the firing pin on one of the live rounds inside the revolver allegedly removed from Oswald inside the theater. This included officers Nick McDonald, Bob Carroll, Gerald Hill, and Ray Hawkins. As Myers also acknowledges, when FBI agent Courtlandt Cunningham testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that there was no evidence that the firing pin of the revolver had hit the bullet (WC Volume III, page 460). In fact, the nick was offset from the centre of the bullet’s primer (ibid). Myers is at a loss to explain what had actually caused the nick. One explanation is that it was put there by the DPD, after perhaps learning from Officers Charles Walker and Thomas Hutson that they heard what they allegedly thought sounded like the snap of the revolver’s hammer (Dallas Municipal archives Box 2, Folder 7, Items 25 and 47). This reviewer will be further discussing the nick on the live round in the upcoming essay on Gerald Hill.
This reviewer should point out that Officer Ray Hawkins told the Warren Commission that “I didn’t know whether it was a snap of the gun or whether it was in the seats someone making the noise” (WC Volume VII, page 94). When Johnny Brewer testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed ” … we heard a seat pop up, but couldn’t see anybody” (ibid, page 5). Therefore, the snapping sound may have been from one of the seats during the scuffle with Oswald, just as Hawkins evidently thought that it might have been. Based on all of the evidence discussed previously, it is this reviewer’s belief that the DPD switched the four spent shell casings found in the vicinity of the Tippit murder scene with spent shell casings they had removed from “Oswald’s” revolver after they fired four live rounds from it. For those who doubt that the DPD could have done this, keep in mind that the revolver was returned to them by the FBI on November 24, 1963, and as stated previously, the DPD released the four spent shell casings to the FBI on November 28, 1963 (WCD 5, page 161), (WCD 205, page 206).
Following his discussion of the ballistics evidence, Myers moves onto a discussion of the fingerprints found on Tippit’s squad car, which were photographed by DPD Sgt. W.E. “Pete” Barnes. As Myers explains, Barnes testified before the Warren Commission that he was told that Tippit’s killer had come up to the right side of Tippit’s squad car, and had possibly placed his hands there (With Malice, Chapter 8). Although Myers admits that Barnes testified that none of the fingerprints found on the car were of value, he nevertheless omits that Barnes also claimed that; “No legible prints were found” after Counsel David Belin asked him; “Were you able to find any identifiable prints?” (WC Volume VII, page 274). (See the photographs of the fingerprints found on Tippit’s squad car.) Looking at the photographs, it is apparent that Barnes was lying when he said that no legible prints were found, as the ridge patterns of some of the fingerprints are distinguishable.
Furthermore, Myers explains that Herbert Lutz, a senior crime scene technician for Wayne County, Michigan, U.S.A, with twenty six years of experience as a latent fingerprint examiner, had examined the fingerprints found on Tippit’s squad car, and that Lutz; ” … was of the opinion that one person was probably responsible for all of them” (With Malice, Chapter 8). Myers then explains that Lutz believed the ridges and furrows of the fingerprints obtained from the top of the right side passenger door of Tippit’s squad car were consistent with the fingerprints obtained from the right front fender of the car (ibid). Significantly, Myers explains that Lutz compared a fingerprint from Tippit’s squad car, which Lutz identified as being created by the “right-middle index finger”, with the print from Oswald’s right-middle index finger on one of his fingerprint cards (ibid). Based on his examination, Lutz concluded that the fingerprints taken from Tippit’s squad car were not Oswald’s (ibid). But if none of the fingerprints from Tippit’s squad car were legible, as Sgt. “Pete” Barnes testified, then how was an experienced latent fingerprint examiner like Lutz able to determine that the aforementioned print was not caused by Oswald’s right middle index finger?
Furthermore, if the fingerprints from Tippit’s squad car were not “legible”, then Lutz would surely have said so. Although Barnes never stated how many years of experience he had photographing and dusting for fingerprints during his testimony before the Warren Commission, he nevertheless stated that he had been doing photography work for the crime scene search section of the DPD since the year 1956, and that he had also been personally making Paraffin tests since that same year (WC Volume VII, pages 272 and 279). Therefore, it is apparent that Barnes also had seven years of experience photographing and dusting for fingerprints by the time Tippit was killed. With that in mind, it is inconceivable that Barnes could possibly believe that the prints from Tippit’s squad car were not legible. As stated previously, Barnes testified before the Warren Commission that he was told that Tippit’s killer had come up to the right side of Tippit’s car, and had possibly placed his hands on there. Therefore, it is apparent that Barnes and the DPD wanted to conceal evidence that showed Oswald might be innocent of killing Tippit. Myers must surely be aware of this fact, but by omitting the fact that Barnes testified there were no legible prints found on Tippit’s squad car, he can pretend that this was not the case.
Of course, the question remains as to whether or not Tippit’s killer did in fact place his hands on the right side of Tippit’s squad car. As Myers explains, witness Jimmy Burt claimed that Tippit’s killer had placed his hands on the right side of the car, as he leaned down and talked to Tippit through the window (With Malice, Chapter 8). In his endnotes, Myers references this claim to Burt’s interview with Al Chapman in 1968. However, Myers also explains that Jack Tatum “specifically recalls” that as he drove past Tippit’s squad car, the killer had both of his hands inside his zipper jacket as he spoke to Tippit (ibid). As this reviewer has discussed previously, it is quite unlikely that Tatum actually witnessed Tippit being shot as he proclaimed; and was coerced into claiming that he had. Thus, his claim that Tippit’s killer had both of his hands in his pockets may have been to dispel the notion that the fingerprints found on the right door of Tippit’s squad car belonged to Tippit’s real killer. By the same token, Jimmy Burt’s claim that he observed Tippit’s killer place his hands on the right side of Tippit’s squad car should also be taken with a grain of salt; as Burt made no mention of having seen the killer talking to Tippit through the window during his interview with the FBI on December 15, 1963, (WCD 194, page 29).
One other witness who claimed she saw Tippit’s killer lean over and place his hands on the right door of Tippit’s squad car was Helen Markham. Although Myers mentions that Markham demonstrated to the DPD officers at the Tippit murder scene how the killer had leaned on the passenger (right side) door of Tippit’s squad car as he spoke through the “cracked vent window” in chapter five, he curiously omits this from his discussion of the fingerprints in chapter eight. When Markham testified before the Warren Commission, she stated that the killer had placed his arms; “On the ledge of the window” (WC Volume III, page 307). In fact, during a television interview, Markham demonstrated that the killer had placed both of his hands on the top of the window ledge as he leaned over to talk with Tippit (See the footage.) Yet, all of the fingerprints in question were (allegedly) removed from the outside of the right front door.
If Tippit’s killer had placed his hands on the outside of the right front door of Tippit’s squad car; then the killer (by Hubert Lutz’s examination of the fingerprints) was not Oswald. Although Markham was consistent with her claim that she observed Tippit’s killer place his hands on the right front door of Tippit’s squad car, this reviewer should point out that given the angle from which she observed Tippit’s killer as she was standing on the northwest corner of the tenth and Patton street intersection, and given her overall lack of credibility as a witness, Markham’s claim that Tippit’s killer had placed his hands on top of the window ledge should not be taken too seriously. In conclusion, given that there is no credible eyewitness account that Tippit’s killer was responsible for the fingerprints found on the right side of Tippit’s squad car, the lack of Oswald’s prints on the squad car shouldn’t be used as proof that Oswald didn’t shoot Tippit.
The final piece of evidence which Myers uses to convict Oswald for Tippit’s murder is the light gray zipper jacket (WCE 162) which the killer discarded in the parking lot behind the Texaco Service station located on Jefferson Blvd. The DPD allegedly discovered the jacket under the rear of a car in the parking lot (With Malice, Chapter 8). It is alleged that Tippit’s killer discarded the jacket to alter his appearance. This reviewer has no qualms with that assertion. Myers uses Marina Oswald’s testimony before the Warren Commission as evidence that the light gray jacket was owned by Oswald, but once again neglects to inform his readers of the problems with Marina’s credibility. Although Myers acknowledges that the jacket had the size M (Medium) printed in its collar, he never mentions that Oswald wore size small shirts and sweaters (WCD 205, pages 162 and 163). In light of this fact, it makes little sense that Oswald would be wearing a size medium jacket.
The DPD discovered that the light gray jacket had a dry cleaner tag inside it with the number B 9738. This was broadcasted over the DPD radio at about 1:44 pm (CE 705/1974). The jacket also contained the laundry mark “30” in its collar (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 9, Folder 4, Item 5). Myers admits that the FBI had canvassed hundreds of dry cleaners in Dallas and New Orleans; and that they were unable to determine if any of them had served Oswald, or had even used a laundry tag identical to the one found inside the jacket (With Malice, Chapter 8). In fact, the FBI also claimed that none of Oswald’s other clothing contained a dry cleaners or laundry mark that could be associated with the laundry tag of the light gray jacket (ibid). Although Myers states that none of Oswald’s belongings contained any dry cleaning tags, a pair of Khaki-colored trousers and a Khaki long-sleeved shirt which belonged to Oswald, contained laundry tags bearing the number “03230”. However, this is not identical to the laundry mark or dry cleaning tag found on the light gray jacket. Finally, even Myers admits that Marina Oswald told the FBI that she could not recall if Oswald ever sent the light gray jacket to a dry cleaner; but that she recalled hand washing them herself (ibid).
Myers admits that the eyewitness recollections of what color the jacket that Tippit’s killer was wearing varied from one witness to another, and that Earlene Roberts, the housekeeper at the rooming house on 1026 North Beckley where Oswald was allegedly living at the time of the assassination, gave differing accounts of what color the jacket the man (whom she thought was Oswald) was wearing as he left the rooming house (With Malice, Chapter 8). Oswald had allegedly returned to the rooming house following the President’s assassination, and left after allegedly retrieving the jacket and the revolver used to kill Tippit. When Roberts testified before the Warren Commission, she explained that as “Oswald” was leaving the rooming house, he was zipping up a jacket (WC Volume VI, page 439). When Counsel Joseph Ball showed Roberts the light gray jacket, she claimed that the jacket which “Oswald” was wearing when he left was a darker colored jacket (ibid). However, Myers explains that when Roberts was interviewed on radio during the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she “accurately described” the jacket “Oswald” was wearing when he left as a “short gray coat” (With Malice, Chapter 8).
Whilst Roberts may certainly have been describing the light gray jacket found in the parking lot behind the Texaco Service station, this reviewer has previously pointed out that researcher Lee Farley has explained that it was actually Larry Crafard (and not Oswald) who was living at the 1026 North Beckley rooming house at the time of the assassination. Therefore, it may well have been Crafard whom Roberts observed entering and then leaving the rooming house with the jacket. In fact, as Greg Parker has explained to this reviewer, researcher Mark Groubert believes the jacket Crafard was wearing when he was photographed by the FBI on November 28, 1963, was from the same manufacturer of WCE 162; namely Maurice Holman of Los Angeles, California (See the thread entitled The Stevenson Incident and the Assassination on Greg Parker’s research forum).
There are also problems with the discovery of the jacket. To give one example, the Warren report states that the jacket was discovered by DPD captain W.R. Westbrook (WCR, page 175). However, this was a lie! When Westbrook testified before the Warren Commission, he stated that as the jacket was still lying on the ground, it was pointed out to him by “someone”; whom he thought might have been a DPD Officer (WC Volume VII, page 115). In fact, Westbrook testified that the jacket was pointed out to him after the false alarm at the Jefferson Branch Library (ibid). But according to the transcripts of the DPD radio recordings, an unidentified Officer (whom Myers believes was motorcycle officer J.T. Griffin) broadcasted the discovery of the jacket at approximately 1:25 pm (WCE 705/1974). According to the same transcripts, Officer Charles Walker broadcasted on the radio that he had seen whom he thought was Tippit’s killer entering the Jefferson Branch Library at approximately 1:35 pm! So unless the Officer(s) who discovered the jacket decided to leave it lying on the ground for over ten minutes following its discovery, Westbrook lied when he said it was lying on the ground when it was pointed out to him. Myers mentions none of this to his readers.
Myers asks the reader; “If Oswald didn’t kill Tippit, what happened to his [Oswald’s] jacket?” He then cites an a FBI lab report, dated December 3, 1963, in which it is stated that dark-blue, gray-black, and orange-yellow cottons fibers were found in the debris removed from the inside areas of the sleeves of the jacket, and that the fibers “match” in their microscopic characteristics to the fibers from the shirt (WCE 150) which Oswald was wearing when he was arrested inside the Texas theater. However, this finding is nowhere to be found in the Warren Report, and it was not mentioned by Paul Morgan Stombaugh, the FBI’s hair and fiber examiner, when he testified before the Warren Commission. In his endnotes, Myers explains that in a letter he wrote in the year 1998 to former Warren Commission counsel, David Belin, he asked him why this alleged finding was not used by the Commission. According to Myers, Belin’s response was that there was “overwhelming” evidence to tie Oswald to the Tippit shooting, such as the “positive” identification of Oswald as the killer by witnesses, and the ballistics evidence. Belin went on to explain that the “experts” retained by the commission determined that individual fibers are not unique, and that apparently he didn’t believe that the quality of the fiber evidence was as good as the ballistics identification of the spent shell casings allegedly recovered from the Tippit murder scene as having been fired from “Oswald’s” revolver. In spite of Belin’s explanation to Myers, it seems incredibly odd to this reviewer that the Warren Commission would never mention this alleged finding.
Myers naturally believes that the fibres allegedly found inside the sleeves of the light gray jacket are authentic, and that they weren’t placed there by either the DPD or the FBI. However, this ignores all of the previously discussed evidence that the spent shell casings discovered at the Tippit murder scene were switched to ensure that the shell casings would be ballistically matched to the revolver which Oswald allegedly had in his possession when he was arrested. It also ignores all of the previously discussed evidence that the eyewitnesses were coaxed by the DPD into identifying Oswald as Tippit’s killer; and the aforementioned memorandum from Alan Belmont to William Sullivan on November 26, 1963. On his website, researcher Pat Speer explains that the DPD had likely planted fibers from the shirt Oswald was wearing when he was arrested onto the butt end of the rifle discovered on the sixth floor of the TSBD (Read more.) Such a notion reinforces the belief that it was the DPD who planted fibers from that shirt into the sleeves of the light gray jacket.
Should the reader remain unconvinced that the DPD wanted Oswald to be found guilty of Tippit’s murder, then consider the following from Ted Callaway’s testimony before the Warren Commission. Callaway explained to Counsel Joseph Ball that when he and Sam Guinyard were waiting to view the line-up of Oswald, detective Jim Leavelle told them; “When I show you these guys [in the line-up], be sure, take your time, see if you can make a positive identification … .. We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him [Oswald] up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him” (WC Volume III, page 355). Sam Guinyard, who allegedly viewed the line-up with Callaway, denied during his testimony that any DPD Officer had said anything to them before they viewed the line-up (WC Volume VII, page 400). Cecil McWatters; the bus driver who also allegedly viewed the line-up of Oswald with Callaway, also failed to confirm that any DPD Officer had said anything to them before they viewed the line-up.
Despite the lack of corroboration by Guinyard and McWatters, during an interview with author Joseph McBride, Leavelle claimed that captain Fritz told him to ” … .go ahead and make a tight case on him [for Tippit’s murder] in case we have trouble making this one on the presidential shooting.” (McBride, Into the Nightmare, pages 235 and 236) Not only do these statements imply that the DPD were determined that they wanted Oswald to be convicted for both Tippit’s murder and the President’s assassination, but that they would also fabricate evidence to ensure that such was the case. One could rightly ask why Callaway would want the Warren Commission to know that the DPD wanted Oswald to be found guilty of Tippit’s murder if he was coerced by them into identifying Oswald as the killer. This reviewer can think of two alternative reasons. Perhaps Callaway was under a fair amount of pressure (and nervous) when testifying, and therefore, he didn’t realize the implication of what he told the Commission. On the other hand, perhaps Callaway, feeling guilty for helping to implicate Oswald, wanted to give the Commission a clue that he was coerced into identifying Oswald by the DPD. One could also ask why Callaway, and indeed all the other witnesses who had been coerced into identifying Oswald, wouldn’t eventually confess that they had been coerced into identifying Oswald as Tippit’s killer. In this reviewer’s opinion, it was probably because they didn’t want to expose themselves as liars who helped convict an innocent man for murder.
Myers concludes this chapter with the following remarks: “The physical case against Oswald is impressive. When combined with his actions, there seems little doubt he killed J.D. Tippit.” But as this reviewer has demonstrated throughout this review, this is hyperbole of the first order. Myers then writes; “But before drawing any conclusions, it’s important to consider some of the claims that challenge the notion of Oswald as perpetrator.”
IX: Hints and allegations
Throughout this chapter, Myers discusses many of the allegations made by conspiracy advocates concerning Tippit’s murder. For the purpose of this review, I will only be discussing two of the allegations which Myers writes about in his book. According to Myers; ” … many claims have been proven to be groundless, but some hold just enough intrigue to make us wonder if there really isn’t more to the whole story” (With Malice, Chapter 9). The first allegation which Myers discusses is the discovery of a wallet in the vicinity of the Tippit murder scene containing identification for Oswald and his alleged alias, Alek James Hidell. The wallet can be seen in film footage by WFAA-TV cameraman Ron Reiland, as it is shown to DPD captain George M. Doughty by Sgt. Calvin “Bud” Owens (ibid). A third person, believed to be Captain Westbrook, reaches for the wallet with his left hand, just as Reiland’s footage of the wallet concludes (ibid).
The allegation surfaced when former FBI agent James Hosty wrote in his book Assignment Oswald that captain Westbrook had shown FBI agent Robert M. Barrett a wallet allegedly found at the Tippit murder scene which contained identification for Oswald and Hidell; and had asked Barrett if the FBI knew anything about Oswald and Hidell (ibid). However, Myers writes that when he interviewed Barrett in 1996, Barrett told him that he wasn’t shown any of the identification inside the wallet, but that Westbrook merely asked him if he knew who Lee Harvey Oswald or Alek James Hidell were, as he held the wallet in his hand (ibid). In fact, Myers explains that Barrett was adamant that he was asked about the names at the Tippit murder scene (ibid). But contrary to Barrett’s claim, identification for Hidell was allegedly found inside Oswald’s wallet after he was arrested inside the Texas Theater. After Oswald had been placed into an unmarked DPD car to be taken to DPD headquarters, detective Paul Bentley removed a wallet from Oswald’s pants pocket (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 4).
If both accounts are true, then the implication is that Tippit’s killer left the wallet containing identification for Oswald and Hidell after he killed Tippit to incriminate Oswald. The only other explanation is that for some bizarre reason, Oswald was carrying two wallets with him when he shot Tippit, and then he (unbelievably) left one of them behind which had identification for Hidell in it. However, it makes little sense that Oswald would be carrying two wallets on his person; let alone that he would have identification for Hidell in his wallet on the day he allegedly used a rifle he ordered under that name to assassinate the President. According to Myers, Barrett also told him that a witness claimed that Tippit’s killer had handed Tippit a wallet through the right front passenger window of his squad car (With Malice, Chapter 9). However, the identity of this so-called witness is unknown. As this reviewer has discussed previously, Barrett wrote in his report on the day of the assassination that he heard Oswald yell in a loud voice; “Kill all the sons of bitches!” inside the Texas Theater as he was scuffling with DPD Officers (WCD 5, page 84). But as stated previously, Barrett was almost certainly lying about this, as no other witness or DPD Officer involved in Oswald’s arrest ever claimed that Oswald yelled out “Kill all the sons of bitches!” This then raises the possibility that Barrett was lying when he said that Captain Westbrook had asked him at the Tippit murder scene if he knew who Oswald and Hidell were; in order to reinforce the notion that Oswald was Tippit’s killer.
Myers’ contention is that Barrett had simply misremembered where he was when Westbrook asked him if he knew who Hidell and Oswald were, and that the wallet which Paul Bentley removed from Oswald’s pocket en route to DPD headquarters contained identification for both Oswald and Hidell (With Malice, Chapter 9). Myers explains that Barrett failed to mention the wallet in his report which he wrote on the day of the assassination, and that he had failed to mention the wallet again when he testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities in 1975 (ibid). This also raises the possibility that Barrett lied when he claimed that Westbrook asked him if he knew who Oswald and Hidell were to counter all the claims that Oswald wasn’t Tippit’s murderer. On the other hand, perhaps Barrett didn’t mention the wallet in his report on the day of the assassination because he had assumed that the DPD would have mentioned it to the media, and that the officers present at the Tippit murder scene would have mentioned it in their own reports. Hence, Barrett may have thought that there would be no point of him mentioning it in his own report. Alternatively, Barrett may have neglected to mention it if he had observed/heard one of the DPD Officers broadcast the discovery of the wallet with identification for Oswald and Hidell over the police radio at the Tippit murder scene. Although no such transmission exists in the transcripts of the DPD radio recordings, this transmission may have been removed from the recordings to hide the fact that Oswald had been framed for Tippit’s murder.
Rather than simply speculating whether Barrett lied, or even misremembered where he was when Captain Westbrook asked him if he knew who Oswald and Hidell were, let’s consider all of the evidence which supports Barrett’s claim; evidence which Myers either omits, distorts, or buries in his endnotes.
But first, it’s important to keep in mind that several disinformation shills such as Vincent Bugliosi and David Von Pein have argued that the wallet filmed by Ron Reiland belonged to Tippit. However, Myers explains that in the year 2012, he was shown photographs of Tippit’s wallet which; ” … clearly show that Tippit’s black billfold was different in style than the one depicted in the WFAA-TV film footage [by Ron Reiland]” (ibid). The bottom line is that Tippit’s wallet was definitely not the wallet which Reiland filmed. Myers also explains that in the year 2009, he interviewed reserve Sgt. Kenneth Croy, the first officer to arrive at the Tippit murder scene. Croy told Myers that after he arrived at the murder scene, he recovered Tippit’s revolver and a billfold (wallet) which he thought had seven different ID’s in it; but that none was for Oswald. In fact, Myers writes that Croy was “particularly adamant” that there was no identification for Oswald in the wallet (ibid). However, researcher Jones Harris told George Bailey that when he (Jones) interviewed Croy in 1990, Croy claimed that he didn’t examine the contents of the wallet (See George Bailey’s review of With Malice on his blog).
Croy told Myers that a witness claimed that Tippit’s killer threw the wallet away as he fled. However, Myers explains that no witness has come forward saying that the killer discarded a wallet as he fled (With Malice, Chapter 9). But if Croy’s recollection was correct, then it would seem that Oswald wasn’t Tippit’s killer, as there was no identification for Oswald inside the wallet. Croy also told Myers that Tippit’s killer picked up Tippit’s revolver then threw it away; and that it was allegedly found with the wallet a short distance from the murder scene (ibid). But contrary to Croy’s recollection, when he testified before the Warren Commission, he said that; “There was a report that a cab driver [William Scoggins] had picked up Tippit’s gun and had left, presumably”, but made no mention of a witness who allegedly saw the killer toss Tippit’s revolver (WC Volume XII, page 202). In fact, it was allegedly Ted Callaway who had picked-up Tippit’s revolver from the ground, and then placed it on the hood of Tippit’s squad car (WC Volume III, page 354). Furthermore, T.F. Bowley claimed that he had taken Tippit’s gun from the hood of Tippit’s car, and placed it inside the car (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 3, Item 14). Suffice it to say, Kenneth Croy’s forty six year old recollections are not particularly credible.
In his endnotes, Myers explains that assassination researcher John Armstrong wrote in his book Harvey and Lee that when researcher Jones Harris interviewed Kenneth Croy in the year 2002, Croy told him that an unidentified civilian had handed him a wallet “later found to contain identification for Lee Harvey Oswald and Alex Hidell.” Myers then reminds his readers that Croy told him during his interview in the year 2009 that the wallet didn’t contain identification for Oswald. According to researcher George Bailey, Harris told him that when he interviewed FBI agent Robert Barrett, he asked Barrett why didn’t mention the wallet in his report. Harris claimed that Barrett replied; “What was the point Mr. Harris, after all, the man is dead” (See George Bailey’s review of With Malice on his blog). Although it is not clear from reading Bailey’s review whether Barrett was referring to Oswald or Tippit when he allegedly told Harris ” … after all, the man is dead”, if he was referring to Oswald, either Barrett was mistaken or lying (or perhaps Harris was lying), as Oswald was very much alive when Barrett wrote out his report on the day of the assassination (WCD 5, page 84). Suffice it to say, it would be foolish to consider what Harris told Bailey (including what Croy allegedly told Harris for that matter) as being unquestionably reliable.
During a filmed interview, former FBI analyst Farris Rookstool claimed that Kenneth Croy informed him that he had recovered Oswald’s wallet at the murder scene. (See the interview of Rookstool.) Robert Barrett was also interviewed, and again insisted that he was asked about Oswald and Hidell at the Tippit murder scene. Croy’s claim to Rookstool that he recovered Oswald’s wallet contradicts what Croy allegedly told Myers in 2009. Given all of the contradictions between the statements which Croy allegedly made to the aforementioned researchers, this reviewer takes everything Croy allegedly had to say about the wallet with a grain of salt. Also, readers are encouraged to read through Lee Farley’s discussion of Croy’s credibility in the thread entitled Kenneth Hudson Croy at Greg Parker’s research forum.
Myers explains to his readers that a number of people who were at the scene “in the first moments”, such as Jack Tatum, Ted Callaway, and ambulance attendant Eddie Kinsley and Clayton Butler, insisted that no wallet was found near Tippit’s body (With Malice, Chapter 9). However, as this reviewer has discussed previously, Tatum and Callaway should not be regarded as credible witnesses, as they were most likely coerced into identifying Oswald as the killer. With this mind, if a wallet containing identification for Oswald was really found at the Tippit murder scene (which would imply that Oswald was framed for the murder), then perhaps Callaway and Tatum were also coerced into saying that no wallet was found. As for Kinsley and Butler, Myers explains that the only thing they reported seeing lying near Tippit’s body was his revolver (ibid). Of course, this doesn’t discount the possibility that the wallet with identification for Oswald and Hidell may have been found on the right side of Tippit’s squad car.
When Myers interviewed former DPD Officer Joe Mack Poe in 1996, Poe told him that to his knowledge, no wallet was found at the scene (ibid). However, given the controversy created by his missing marks from two of the spent shell casings recovered at the murder scene, Poe may only have said that to Myers to avoid stirring up another controversy. Myers also interviewed Poe’s partner, Leonard Jez, and he also claimed that he knew nothing about a wallet being found at the murder scene (ibid). However, in his endnotes, Myers explains that when Jez had attended a conference for JFK assassination researchers on November 20, 1999, he allegedly told researcher Martha Moyer that Oswald’s wallet had been found at the Tippit murder scene! According to Myers, Moyer told him in an email exchange in December, 2012, that she was listening to Jez as he was talking about his experiences at the Tippit murder scene during the conference banquet, when she asked him whose wallet was found there. Moyer also explained to Myers that she thought Jez said he heard the names Oswald and Hidell mentioned as the wallet was being examined at the scene. When Moyer asked Jez if he was certain that a wallet containing identification for Oswald was found at the murder scene, Jez told her (without smiling); “Missy, you can take it to the bank!”
Myers attempts to discredit what Jez allegedly told Moyer by noting that during the morning of the conference when Jez was interviewed on camera, he claimed that he didn’t remember seeing a wallet. Myers then smugly writes that “more importantly”; Moyer’s account is at odds with what Jez told him (Myers) during his interview with him in 1996. Namely that he didn’t know anything about a wallet being found. However, Jez may have only said this to Myers, because at the time, Jez may not have known that James Hosty had published Barrett’s allegation that the wallet discovered in the vicinity of the murder scene contained identification for Oswald and Hidell in his book Assignment Oswald, and didn’t want to start a controversy over it. Furthermore, as researcher John Armstrong explains in his book, a confidential source who knows Jez claimed that Jez doesn’t want to be formally interviewed on the issue of the wallet, but he told her (the confidential source); “You can bet your life that was Oswald’s wallet.” (Armstrong, Harvey and Lee: How the CIA framed Oswald, pages 856 and 857). Revealingly, Myers doesn’t mention this information; even though he did mention the allegation that Croy was given a wallet containing identification for Oswald and Hidell which was on the same page of Armstrong’s book!
If Jez didn’t want to be formally interviewed on the issue of the wallet, as the confidential source claims, then this could explain why Jez didn’t tell the audience at the JFK assassination conference that a wallet containing identification for Oswald and Hidell was examined at the Tippit murder scene. As for why he would later tell Martha Moyer about the wallet; perhaps after learning (sometime prior to the conference) that Barrett claimed a wallet containing identification for Oswald and Hidell was found in the vicinity of the murder scene, Jez felt comfortable enough to tell someone about it to get it off his chest. The reader should keep in mind that in the endnotes to his book, Myers wrote that after the first edition of his book was published in 1998, he gave Jez a copy of the book. Therefore, it would seem that Jez learned about Barrett’s allegation from reading Myers book. The end result is that two independent sources claimed that Jez told them it was Oswald’s wallet which was found at the murder scene, and although Jez referred to the wallet as belonging to Oswald, he naturally would have assumed this to be the case if he heard Oswald’s name mentioned as the contents of the wallet were being examined.
In addition to Robert Barrett, Kenneth Croy, and Leonard Jez, evidence that the DPD were examining a wallet containing identification for Oswald and Hidell at the murder scene comes from Julia Postal, the Texas theater cashier. In her interview with the FBI on February 27, 1964, Postal claimed that the Officers who were arresting Oswald identified him to her by calling out his name (WCD 735, page 265). However, the official story is that Oswald’s wallet was removed from Oswald’s left hip pocket after he was taken out of the theater, and that the DPD didn’t broadcast over the radio that Oswald was missing from the TSBD after the superintendent, Roy Truly, had informed Captain Fritz of this fact. But if the DPD had discovered identification for Oswald in the wallet being examined at the Tippit murder scene with his photograph on it, then this would explain how they knew his name was Oswald.
Myers acknowledges in his endnotes that Postal told the FBI that Oswald’s name was called out by the arresting officers. But Myers explains that in her interview with the USSS on December 3, 1963, she made no mention of the “onsite identification” (WCD 87, page 819). Myers also explains that in her affidavit to the DPD on December 4, 1963, Postal claimed that “Later on I found out that the man’s name, who the officers arrested at the Texas Theater, was Lee Harvey Oswald.” (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 3, Item 21). Finally, Myers writes that when Postal testified before the Warren Commission, she explained that; ” … the officers were trying to hold on to Oswald – when I say ‘Oswald’, that man, because as I said, I didn’t know who he was at that time … ” (WC Volume VII, pages 12 and 13). Whilst all of this true, the fact that Postal didn’t inform the USSS that she heard Oswald’s name being called doesn’t actually contradict what she told the FBI.
As for what Postal said in her affidavit to the DPD, Postal may have only claimed that she found out later on that Oswald was the man who was arrested, if the DPD had coerced her into saying so. Think about it. If the DPD wanted to hide evidence that a wallet containing identification for Oswald was found in the vicinity of the Tippit murder, they would coerce Postal into not mentioning that Oswald’s name was called out before his wallet was removed from his pocket. But then why would Postal inform the FBI that Oswald’s name was called out? In this reviewer’s opinion, it is entirely conceivable that Postal forgot that she was not to mention it when she was interviewed by the FBI. If the DPD had learned that she did tell the FBI, then they would have reminded her not to mention it when she testified before the Warren Commission. This could explain why she stated during her testimony that she didn’t know who he was at the time.
Myers explains that after Oswald was arrested, Sgt. Gerald Hill was ” … the first person on record talking about Oswald’s wallet” (With Malice, Chapter 9). During a television interview recorded by NBC-TV, a reporter asked Hill; “What was his [Oswald’s] name on the billfold?” (WCE 2160). The reporter surely meant to ask Hill what the name inside the billfold was. Hill responded that it was Lee H. Oswald (ibid). Myers acknowledges this in his book, but omits that Hill never told the reporters that the name Hidell was also found inside the wallet. When Hill testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that after detective Paul Bentley removed Oswald’s wallet from his pants pocket, he called out Oswald’s name from the wallet (WC Volume VII, page 58). He went on to say that Bentley called out another name which he couldn’t remember, but that it was the same name (Hidell) that Oswald “bought the gun under”, and that Hidell sounded like the name her heard Bentley call out (ibid). But despite allegedly knowing at the time he was questioned by reporters that the name Hidell was inside Oswald’s wallet when Oswald was arrested, Hill only mentioned the name Oswald.
Myers writes that when detective Paul Bentley was interviewed on the day following the assassination by WFAA-TV, he stated that he obtained Oswald’s identification from his wallet (With Malice, Chapter 9). However, what Myers omits is that Bentley was specifically asked during that interview what kind of identification Oswald had in his wallet. Bentley responded that he obtained Oswald’s name from a Dallas public Library card, and that he thought Oswald had a driver’s license, credit cards, and “things like that”, but made absolutely no mention of any identification for Hidell being discovered! (See the interview.) In fact, Bentley also made no mention of identification for Hidell being found in Oswald’s wallet in his arrest report to Chief Curry; the same report in which he wrote that he had obtained Oswald’s name from his wallet en route to police headquarters (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 4). When the FBI interviewed Bentley on June 11, 1964, he allegedly admitted that he removed a Selective Service System, Notice of Classification Card; and a United States Marine Corps Certificate of Service Card, both bearing the name Alek James Hidell from Oswald’s wallet (WCE 2011). Despite whether or not Paul Bentley actually informed the FBI that he did remove these cards from Oswald’s wallet, it is utterly inconceivable that Bentley would not remember one day following the assassination that he had found identification for Hidell inside of Oswald’s wallet.
Myers informs his readers that detective Bob Carroll also testified before the Warren Commission that he recalled two names being mentioned inside the unmarked DPD car which took Oswald to Police headquarters (With Malice, Chapter 9). However, Myers does not inform his readers that Carroll made no mention of this in his arrest report to Chief Curry. In fact, none of the five Officers who were with Oswald inside the car; Bob Carroll, Kenneth Lyon, Gerald Hill, Paul Bentley, and Charles Walker mentioned anything about identification for a second name being found inside of Oswald’s wallet (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Items 4, 12, 23, 28, and 47). Though granted, the fact that none of the five officers mentioned in their reports that identification for a second name was found inside Oswald’s wallet, doesn’t necessarily mean that no identification for a second name was found.
It is also noteworthy that Dallas DA Henry Wade didn’t mention that identification bearing the name Hidell was found inside of Oswald’s wallet during his press conferences on November 22 and 23, 1963. In fact, Wade first mentioned the Hidell name on Sunday, November 24, when he told reporters that Oswald had ordered the rifle allegedly used to assassinate President Kenney under that name (WCE 2168). According to Mark Lane’s testimony before the Warren Commission, Henry Wade’s office had released the name “A. Hidell” on November 23, 1963, after the FBI had “indicated” that Oswald had ordered the rifle under that name (WC Volume II, page 46). However, it would seem that Lane was in error, as Wade apparently didn’t tell reporters about the name Hidell until Sunday November 24, 1963. Myers does not point this out to his readers.
On the day following the assassination, DPD chief Jesse Curry informed reporters that the FBI had the money order which Oswald allegedly used to order the rifle under the name “A. Hidell” (WCE 2145). However, Curry did not inform the reporters that identification for Hidell was found in Oswald’s wallet after he was arrested. In fact, Curry claimed that he didn’t know if Oswald had ever used the name Hidell as an alias before (ibid). Myers does not mention this to his readers. In that same press conference, Curry explained that this evidence would be shown to Oswald by Captain Will Fritz, but gave no indication that Fritz was already aware of the fact that the rifle was ordered using the name A. Hidell (ibid). When Fritz testified before the Warren Commission, Counsel Joseph Ball asked him if he had questioned Oswald on the day of the assassination about ” … this card which he [Oswald] had in his pocket with the name Alek Hidell?”, to which Fritz responded that he did (WC Volume IV, pages 221 and 222). When Chief Curry testified before the Warren Commission, he indicated that he had spoken to Captain Fritz on the day of the assassination following Oswald’s first interrogation (WC Volume IV, page 157).
If identification for Hidell was found in Oswald’s wallet, then presumably, Fritz would have informed Curry of that fact. And if he did, it is inconceivable that Curry would not have informed the reporters that identification for the same name which Oswald allegedly used to order the rifle was not found in his wallet following his arrest. However, it’s possible that since a connection between the name Hidell and the money order for the rifle had not yet been established on the day of the assassination, Fritz may not have informed Curry that identification for Hidell was found in Oswald’s wallet. Therefore, it should not be assumed that just because Curry didn’t inform the reporters that identification for Hidell was found in Oswald’s wallet, Oswald actually didn’t have such identification in his wallet.
The reader should keep in mind that in his report to Chief Jesse Curry, detective Paul Bentley claimed that he turned Oswald’s identification over to Lt. T.L Baker of the homicide and Robbery bureau (Dallas Municipal archives Box 2, Folder 7, Item 4). According to Myers, when he interviewed Lt. Baker in the year 1999, Baker told him that; “The Officers [who brought Oswald from the Texas Theater] handed [the wallet] to me and I left it on Captain Fritz’ office desk for just a couple of minutes. I asked that two officers stay with him in the interrogation room because all our Officers were out at the time. So then, I went back in Captain Fritz’ office and I started going through his billfold [wallet] and I came across two sets of identification -Hidell and Oswald” (With Malice, Chapter 9). Baker then went to explain that Oswald told him his real name was Oswald; and that he then turned the wallet over to Captain Fritz (ibid).
What Myers doesn’t tell his readers is that, contrary to what Baker told him in 1999, Baker never once mentioned in his lengthy report to Chief Curry that there was identification for Hidell inside Oswald’s wallet (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 5, Folder 5, Item 4). Also, despite telling Myers that; “all our [homicide and Robbery bureau] Officers were out”, Baker wrote in his report that Oswald was being held inside the interrogation room by detectives Guy “Gus” Rose and Richard Stovall, both of whom were homicide detectives (ibid). As stated previously, detectives Rose and Stovall confirmed in their own report to Chief Curry that they were with Oswald; and confirmed this when they testified before the Warren Commission (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 3, Folder 1, Item 3), (WC Volume VII, pages 187 and 228).
Myers writes; “Two officers remembered Oswald’s wallet and identification being in close proximity to the suspect shortly after his arrival at Police headquarters.” He then names Charles Walker and Jim Leavelle as the two officers, but never tells his readers that the two officers to whom Baker was referring to in his aforementioned interview were almost certainly Gus Rose and Richard Stovall; and that Baker was mistaken when he told Myers thirty six years later that all of the homicide and Robbery Bureau officers were “out” (With Malice, Chapter 9). The reader should keep in mind that although Rose and Stovall both testified that they found identification for Hidell inside of Oswald’s wallet when they spoke to him, they made no mention of any such identification being found in their report to Chief Curry (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 3, Folder 1, Item 3). When Rose testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that after Oswald was asked what his name was, he told him that it was Hidell (WC Volume VII, page 228).
But when Richard Stovall (who was in the interrogation room with Oswald and Rose) testified before the Warren Commission, he stated that Oswald said his name was Lee Oswald ” … as well as I remember.” (ibid, page 187). Both men cannot be correct, and it is inconceivable that they could have confused one name for the other, as the two names sound nothing alike. It also makes no sense that Oswald would admit that he was Hidell if he had allegedly ordered the rifle used to assassinate the President under that name; let alone that he would be carrying identification for Hidell in his wallet on the day he allegedly used that rifle to murder the President. The reader should also keep in mind that both Rose and Stovall testified that they found a card inside Oswald’s wallet which said “A. Hidell” (WC Volume VII, pages 187 and 228). However, the Selective Service System, Notice of Classification Card; and the United States Marine Corps Certificate of Service Card which Oswald allegedly had inside of his wallet when arrested bore the name “Alek James Hidell”, and not “A. Hidell”
When Officer Charles Walker testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that after he had escorted Oswald from the Texas theater; “I sat down there [in the interrogation room], and I had his pistol, and he had a card in there with a picture and the name A.J. Hidell on it.” (WC Volume VII, page 41). It is apparent that by “Pistol”, Walker actually meant wallet. Therefore, he either misspoke, or the transcription of his testimony was in error. Walker also stated that after he allegedly asked Oswald if Hidell was his real name, Oswald told him that it wasn’t (ibid). If both Walker and Richard Stovall were telling the truth, then it’s fairly obvious that Gus Rose was lying when he told the Warren Commission that Oswald said his name was Hidell. Myers acknowledges that Walker told the Warren Commission he had Oswald’s wallet, but also cites Walker’s interview with the HSCA, during which Walker stated that he remembered taking Oswald’s wallet out of his pants pocket, and that he had found a card inside it with the name Hidell on it (With Malice, Chapter 9).
There can be little doubt that Walker was lying when he said that he had Oswald’s wallet, and that he found a card inside it with the name Hidell on it. First of all, as stated previously, detective Paul Bentley was interviewed on the day following the assassination by WFAA-TV, and stated that he obtained Oswald’s wallet en route to police headquarters; and verified this in his report to DPD Chief Jesse Curry. Secondly, Gerald Hill testified before the Warren Commission that it was Bentley who had removed Oswald’s wallet from his hip pocket (WC Volume VII, page 58). Thirdly, as even Myers indirectly acknowledges in his book, Walker made no mention of obtaining Oswald’s wallet in his own report to Chief Curry (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 47).
The reader should also bear in mind that detective Gus Rose told the Warren Commission that two uniformed Officers had brought Oswald into the interrogation. However, it is an established fact that Charles Walker was the only uniformed Officer who brought Oswald into the interrogation room (WC Volume VII, page 228). Rose also stated that he didn’t know if the officer (Charles Walker) who brought Oswald into the interrogation room had Oswald’s wallet or not (ibid). However, during a television documentary, Rose claimed that it was he who had removed Oswald’s wallet from his pants pocket; despite making no such claim when he testified before the Warren Commission! (Dealey Plaza Echo, Volume 13, Issue 2, page 3). It should be readily apparent to any intellectually honest researcher that both Walker and Rose were lying; and that there is no good reason to believe either one of them when they claimed that Oswald had identification for Hidell in his wallet when he was arrested. Myers avoids Rose, but he simply cannot bring himself to admit that Walker was lying. In fact, how desperate must Myers be to cite both Walker’s claim that he had Oswald’s wallet; and the evidence which actually contradicts it in order to assure his readers that Oswald had identification for Hidell in his wallet? In this reviewer’s opinion, Myers desperation is almost humorous.
When Myers interviewed Jim Leavelle in the year 1996, Leavelle claimed that Oswald’s wallet was still in the interrogation room when he allegedly arrived to question Oswald following his arrest (With Malice, Chapter 9). Leavelle claimed that he remembered seeing an identification card with Oswald’s name, but apparently, he couldn’t remember if there was any identification for Hidell (ibid). Once again, Myers neglects to inform his readers that Leavelle testified before the Warren Commission that he had not spoken to Oswald prior to the morning of Sunday November 24, 1963; and was therefore likely lying to Myers when he said that he had questioned Oswald (WC Volume VII, page 268). During his testimony, Leavelle claimed that when Oswald was interrogated on the morning of Sunday November 24, 1963, inspector Thomas Kelly of the USSS asked Oswald; “Well, isn’t it a fact when you were arrested you had an identification card with his [Hidell’s] name on it in your possession?” (ibid, page 267). According to Leavelle, Oswald admitted that he did, and that when inspector Kelly asked Oswald; “How do you explain that”, Oswald responded with words to the effect; “I don’t explain it.” (ibid, page 268). However, in his report on Oswald’s interrogation, inspector Kelly made no mention of asking Oswald about any identification card bearing the name Hidell (Warren report, Appendix XI: Reports relating to the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald at the Dallas Police department).
In fact, U.S. Postal inspector Harry Holmes, who was also present at the Sunday morning interrogation, wrote in his own report on the interrogation that it was Captain Fritz who had asked Oswald about the Selective service card bearing the name Hidell (ibid). According to Holmes, Oswald indignantly told Fritz; “I’ve told all I’m going to about that card … . You have the card … . you know about it as much as I do” (ibid). When Holmes testified before the Warren Commission, he stated that when Captain Fritz asked Oswald about the card with the name Hidell on it, Oswald allegedly responded; “Now, I have told you all I am going to tell you about that card in my billfold … . You have the card yourself, and you know as much about it as I do.” (WC Volume VII, page 299). What’s noteworthy is that unlike in his interrogation report, Holmes claimed that Oswald admitted to having the card in his wallet.
But if this were true, then surely Holmes would have mentioned it in his report. Furthermore, Oswald’s claim that Fritz knew as much about the card as he did implies (in so many words) that Oswald actually didn’t know anything about the card. With this mind, it is apparent to this reviewer that Holmes was lying when he told the Warren Commission that Oswald admitted to having the card in his wallet. But if the rest of what Holmes claimed concerning the Selective Service card bearing the name Hidell is true, then it is apparent that Jim Leavelle was lying when he testified that it was USSS inspector Thomas Kelly who had asked Oswald about the card, and was also lying when claimed that Oswald admitted to Kelly that he had it in his wallet. Not that it matters to Myers.
But to gain a broader understanding of how the authorities lied about Oswald having the selective service card with the name Alek James Hidell in his wallet following his arrest, the reader should consider the following. According to the report by Lt. T.L. Baker to DPD Chief Curry, Oswald was interrogated twice on the day following the assassination. The first interrogation began at approximately 10:30 am, and the second at approximately 6:30 pm (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 5, Folder 5, Item 4). FBI agent James Bookhout and Inspector Thomas Kelly of the USSS were present during both interrogations (ibid). According to Bookhout’s report on the morning interrogation, Oswald admitted to Captain Fritz that he had carried this card in his wallet, but that he declined to stated that he wrote the signature of Hidell on the card (Warren report, Appendix XI: Reports relating to the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald at the Dallas Police department). Bookhout repeated this when he testified before the Warren Commission (WC Volume VII, page 310).
In his own report concerning that interrogation, Thomas Kelly made no mention of Oswald admitting that he carried the card, stating instead that Oswald refused to discuss it after both Bookhout and Captain Fritz allegedly asked Oswald for an explanation of it (Warren report, Appendix XI: Reports relating to the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald at the Dallas Police department). If Oswald really did admit to carrying the card in his wallet, then surely Kelly would have no reason not to mention this in his report. On the other hand, if Fritz didn’t actually ask Oswald if he carried the card in his wallet, then both Bookhout and Kelly were lying in their reports. Either way, both men could not have been telling the truth.
It is also noteworthy that in that same report, Clements omits that a United States Marine Corps Certificate of Service Card with the name Alek James Hidell was found inside Oswald’s wallet. This reviewer should also point out that although DPD detectives Walter E. Potts and B.L. Senkel mentioned in their own reports to chief Curry that upon arrival at the rooming house on 1026 North Beckley, they checked the registration book for a person named Hidell, what’s significant is that none of the officers who claimed to have handled Oswald’s wallet (Bentley, Walker, Rose, Stovall, and Baker) mentioned in their own reports that any identification bearing the name Hidell was found inside his wallet (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 9, Item 32), (ibid, Box 3, Folder 12, Item 1).
Myers explains that ultimately, three wallets were catalogued by the FBI as being part of Oswald’s property (With Malice, Chapter 9). Myers lists them as a brown billfold, found in the residence of Ruth Paine (with whom Oswald’s wife Marina was living with at the time of the assassination) by the DPD, a red billfold also found by the DPD in the residence of Ruth Paine, and the wallet Oswald had in his left hip pocket when he was arrested at the Texas theater (ibid). In his endnotes, Myers states that a fourth wallet described as; “black plastic with an advertisement that reads: ‘Waggoner National Bank, Vernon, Texas.’”, which was given to Oswald by his mother Marguerite, was allegedly found on Marina Oswald’s bedroom dresser following the assassination. This wallet was catalogued by the USSS. Myers states that neither the brown or red billfolds discovered in the residence of Ruth Paine resembled the wallet being handled by DPD Officers at the Tippit murder scene (With Malice, Chapter 9). However, Myers also states that the wallet removed from Oswald’s left hip pocket following his arrest does resemble the wallet being examined at the Tippit murder scene (ibid).
After obtaining permission from the national archives, Myers took photographs of the wallet Oswald had when he was arrested, and compared them with the film footage of the wallet being examined at the Tippit murder scene. According to Myers, both wallets were “apparently” made of leather, both had a photo picture sleeve area covered with a leather flap, both had a snap and a metal band mounted on the photo flap, and both had a zipper for the area holding paper money (ibid). Myers concludes that the wallet examined by the DPD is not the wallet which was removed from Oswald’s hip pocket following his arrest at the Texas Theater. According to Myers, the wallet which was examined at the Tippit murder scene is ” … thinner and considerably more worn than Oswald’s arrest wallet”, and the metal band on the wallet which was examined at the Tippit murder scene covers the leather flap “edge to edge”, whereas Oswald’ wallet has a metal band which is “shorter and centered” (ibid). Myers adds that the corners of the leather flap of the wallet which was examined at the Tippit murder scene are square, whereas the corners of the leather flap of Oswald’s are “rounded”; and that surface imperfections which are “visible” on the wallet examined at the Tippit murder scene are not seen on Oswald’s wallet (ibid).
This reviewer is unable to tell by comparing film footage of the wallet examined at the Tippit murder scene to photographs of the wallet removed from Oswald’s left hip pocket, whether the former wallet is considerably more worn and has surface imperfections not seen on the latter wallet. However, it appears that Myers is correct in stating that the wallet examined at the Tippit murder scene is thinner, and has a different metal band and leather flap than Oswald’s wallet. Therefore, it is also this reviewer’s opinion that they are two different wallets. Myers states that Captain Fritz kept the wallet removed from Oswald’s left hip pocket until November 27, 1963, when he released it to FBI agent James Hosty (ibid). Indeed, there is a receipt for a billfold and for 16 cards and pictures taken from Oswald following his arrest (Dallas Municipal archives Box 15, Folder 2, Item 61). Myers writes that Hosty photographed Oswald’s wallet and other items prior to them being shipped to Washington for analysis (With Malice, Chapter 9). In his endnotes, Myers references this claim to pages 79 and 80 of Hosty’s book, Assignment Oswald. Myers explains that on the day following the assassination, Captain Fritz sent Oswald’s wallet and its contents to the DPD crime lab for photographs to be made (ibid). This is based on the crime scene search section form, which lists 16 miscellaneous pictures, Identification cards, and the wallet to be photographed (Dallas Municipal archives Box 7, Folder 2, Item 23).
Although Myers writes that the wallet itself was not photographed, in his endnotes, he explains that a 1966 Police report describing evidence pertaining to the assassination states that the wallet was photographed. According to the report, the aforementioned items were brought to the DPD crime lab by homicide detective Richard Sims. However, Myers states that no photograph of the wallet was found ” … among any of the official records.” The fact that the DPD apparently took no photographs of the wallet, and the fact that Captain Fritz released the wallet to FBI agent James Hosty five days following the assassination, has led to speculation that perhaps the wallet which was given to Hosty was the one found in the vicinity of the Tippit murder scene. Although this reviewer doesn’t dismiss that possibility, it seems unlikely that Fritz would actually give that wallet to the FBI if he wanted to conceal its existence.
In this reviewer’s opinion, the weight of the evidence strongly suggests that the wallet which was examined by DPD Officers at the Tippit murder scene contained identification for Oswald and his alleged alias, Alek James Hidell. It is also this reviewer’s opinion that the wallet did not belong to Oswald, but was a mock-up wallet left behind by Tippit’s real killer in order to frame Oswald for the murder. When FBI agent Manning Clements testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that the Selective Service System, Notice of Classification Card with the name Alek James Hidell allegedly found in Oswald’s wallet following his arrest was “obviously fictitious”, as it had a photograph on it (WC Volume VII, page 321). Therefore, if Oswald had ordered the rifle he allegedly used to assassinate the President under the name Hidell, why would he be carrying in his wallet a fake card with a photograph of him (and with the name Hidell on it) on the day of the assassination, when the only purpose it served was to incriminate him?
Myers speculates that perhaps it was either Ted Callaway’s or Williams Scoggins’ wallet the police were examining, as both men went after the killer with Tippit’s revolver, and then returned to the murder scene. But Myers admits that neither one of them claimed that their wallet was examined by the DPD (With Malice, Chapter 9). Myers states that if a wallet containing identification for Oswald and Hidell was really found; “It certainly would have been trumpeted by the world press that very afternoon, held up for the world to see by the Police that weekend, and served as prima facie evidence in the Warren Commission’s case against Lee Harvey Oswald.” (ibid). Myers then snidely remarks; “Even conspiracy theorists who fancy the wallet filmed by WFAA-TV as a plant, left behind by Tippit’s ‘real’ killer, would have to admit that police would have no reason to hold back the discovery of a discarded wallet with Oswald’s name in it the night of the assassination; and even less reason for the press to ignore such an important detail.” (ibid).
In his blog post chastising Farris Rookstool (and others), Myers also snidely remarked that; “Anyone with a brain knows that if Oswald’s wallet had been found at the Tippit murder scene it would have been printed in every newspaper and broadcast on every radio and television station in America before the end of the day, Friday, November 22, 1963” (see the blog post entitled JFK Assassination Redux: The best and the worst of 50th Anniversary Coverage on Myer’s blog). By the same token, anyone with a brain, aside from perhaps Myers, must understand that after the President of the United States of America was arrogantly gunned down in full public view in broad daylight, Captain Fritz and the DPD would have been under a tremendous amount of pressure to find those responsible for the crime. If Fritz and the DPD were unable to find those responsible, they would undoubtedly have faced severe embarrassment. Therefore, they had to place the blame on someone! That someone was Lee Harvey Oswald. When Captain Fritz testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that after TSBD superintendent, Roy Truly, allegedly informed him that Oswald was missing from the building, he “immediately” left the TSBD as he ” … felt it important to hold that man [Oswald]” (WC Volume IV, page 206). Fritz also explained that he wanted to check to see if Oswald had a criminal record, and that after learning that Oswald was arrested for Tippit’s murder, he wanted to ” … prepare a real good case on the officer’s [Tippit’s] killing so we would have a case to hold him [Oswald] without bond while we investigated the President’s killing where we didn’t have so many witnesses” (ibid, page 207).
Evidently, from the time he left the TSBD to the time he arrived at police headquarters, Captain Fritz had determined that Oswald was President Kennedy’s assassin. By implicating Oswald for Tippit’s murder, Fritz and the DPD could portray Oswald as a homicidal maniac who was not only capable of assassinating the President, but that he shot Tippit because he thought the DPD suspected he killed the President, and wanted to avoid being arrested. However, after learning that Oswald’s wallet was removed from his hip pocket following his arrest, and that a wallet bearing identification for Oswald was also discarded in the vicinity of the Tippit murder scene, an experienced detective like Fritz would surely have realised that Oswald was framed for Tippit’s murder, and quite possibly for the President’s assassination as well. But Captain Fritz and the DPD needed Oswald to be found guilty for both crimes, so that they could then inform the public (and the entire world for that matter) that President Kennedy’s assassin was caught.
Therefore, the decision was made that the wallet left behind to implicate Oswald for Tippit’s murder would be concealed. By the account of FBI agent Robert Barrett, the last known person who handled the discarded wallet was Captain W.R. Westbrook. It is with little doubt that as soon as Captain Westbrook arrived at Police headquarters, he would have turned over the discarded wallet to Captain Fritz, or to one of Fritz’s men to give it to him. Although Westbrook wrote in his report to DPD Chief Jesse Curry, and also informed the Warren Commission that he asked Oswald what his name was inside the Texas Theater following his arrest, he may have only stated this to cover up the fact that he already knew what his name might be from the contents of the discarded wallet (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 50), (WC Volume VII, page 113).
But is there other evidence which supports the contention that the DPD were determined early on that Oswald was both President Kennedy’s assassin, and Tippit’s murderer? As it turns out, there is. When Johnny Brewer testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that one (or more) of the officers yelled out to Oswald; “Kill the President, will you.” (WC Volume VII, page 6). When Julia Postal testified before the Warren Commission, she claimed that she overheard an officer using the telephone inside the box office of the theater say “I think we have got our man on both accounts” (ibid, page 12). Although Postal only wrote in her affidavit to the DPD that some officer said; “I’m sure we’ve got the man that shot officer Tippit”, she may have been coerced into not making any statements that the DPD were determined from the time Oswald was arrested that he was also President Kennedy’s assassin; as they may have thought that people would suspect they would falsify evidence against Oswald to implicate him for the President’s assassination as they didn’t have evidence at the time that the Mannlicher Carcano rifle allegedly used to murder the President belonged to Oswald (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 3, Item 21).
Myers also spends several pages discussing the attempted murder of Tippit murder witness, Warren Reynolds. On the night of January 23, 1964; two days following his initial interview with the FBI, Reynolds was shot in the head by a .22 caliber rifle inside the basement of Johnny Reynolds Motor Company (WCD 897, page 417). As Myers explains, the man suspected of shooting Reynolds was Darrell Wayne Garner. (With Malice, Chapter 9). Garner had been at Johnny Reynolds Motor Company on Monday January 20, 1964, and had gotten “extremely upset” with Warren Reynolds when Reynolds refused to buy a 1957 Oldsmobile which Garner was trying to sell (WCD 897, page 418). Garner had boasted to his sister-in-law that he had shot Reynolds, but then claimed that he only said this because he wanted her to think that he was a “big shot” (ibid).
Nancy Jane Mooney, who allegedly worked at Jack Ruby’s carousel club as a stripper, provided Garner an alibi for the time of the shooting; and apparently committed suicide by hanging herself with her toreador slacks in her jail cell on February 13, 1964, after she was arrested by the DPD for disturbing the peace (ibid). Although many researchers believe that Mooney was killed because she provided Garner an alibi for the time Reynolds was shot, an acquaintance of Mooney’s named William Grady Goode claimed that she had attempted suicide on two occasions (WCD 897, page 420). Readers should also keep in mind that the DPD had allegedly determined that a .22 caliber rifle removed from the home of Garner’s mother was not the rifle used to shoot Reynolds (ibid, page 419).
Prior to being shot, Reynolds informed the FBI that although he believed Oswald was Tippit’s killer ” … he would hesitate to definitely identify Oswald as the individual [he observed].” (With Malice, Chapter 9). Reynolds suspected that he was shot because he had observed Tippit’s killer; a belief which is shared by many researchers (ibid). When Reynolds testified before the Warren Commission, he now claimed that in his own mind, Oswald was Tippit’s killer (ibid). However, given his belief that he was shot because he had observed Tippit’s killer, Reynolds’ latter claim to the Warren Commission should not be considered reliable; as he may have thought that he would be shot at again (and killed) if he didn’t identify Oswald as the killer.
Many researchers, such as Robert Groden, have suggested that witness Domingo Benavides was also targeted by the conspirators because he failed to identify Oswald as Tippit’s killer. As Myers explains, in February, 1965, Edward (Eddie) Benavides, who was Domingo Benavides’ brother, was allegedly shot and killed in a Dallas tavern by accident; after he was caught in the middle of an argument inside the tavern (ibid). Many researchers have alleged that Edward Benavides was shot because he was mistaken for Domingo, and that he was shot in February, 1964. This then allegedly caused Domingo to tell the Warren Commission when he testified on April 2, 1964, that Tippit’s killer resembled Oswald.
But in spite of the allegation that Eddie Benavides was shot in February, 1964, Dallas county death records show that Edward Benavides was shot and killed in February, 1965! (John McAdams’ website: The Not-So-Mysterious Death of Eddie Benavides). According to a Dallas Morning News article dated February 17, 1965, witnesses to Edward Benavides’ death claimed that he was not involved in the fight inside the bar, but was seeking cover when he was shot (ibid). Furthermore, if Domingo Benavides was truly fearful that he would be shot if he didn’t identify Oswald as Tippit’s killer, then why didn’t Benavides positively identify Oswald as the killer, instead of merely informing the Warren Commission that Oswald looked like the killer? (WC Volume VI, page 452).
In his discussion of whether Edward Benavides was shot because he was mistaken for his brother, Myers reminds his readers that Benavides allegedly told his boss, Ted Callaway, that he didn’t actually see Tippit’s killer (With Malice, Chapter 9). But as this reviewer has explained previously, Myers conceals evidence from his readers which indicates that Callaway’s claim is not to be trusted. But despite his misrepresentation, Myers then has the smugness to write that: ” … this book shows that much of Benavides’ story, including his identification of the gunman, was embellished after the fact.” (ibid).
The reader should keep in mind that John Berendt from Esquire magazine wrote that after Benavides had changed jobs, the man who replaced him in his job, and who allegedly resembled him, was also shot (Esquire, August, 1966). Berendt also wrote that, amongst other things; “Threats had become a daily occurrence”, and that Benavides’ father-in-law had also been shot at (ibid). However, it is not known whether any of this is related to the fact that Benavides had initially failed to positively identify Oswald as Tippit’s killer. But Myers mentions none of this.
X: Profile of a killer
We now come to what is probably the most asinine chapter of Myers’ book. Myers begins by explaining to his readers that the Tippit murder scene ” … clearly fits the profile of a disorganized murder” (With Malice, Chapter 10). He explains that a disorganized crime scene ” … is one in which the crime was committed suddenly and with no plan for deterring detection.” He then writes that; “In a disorganized crime scene, the victim is usually left in the position in which he was killed. No attempt is made to conceal the body. Fingerprints, footprints and physical evidence are usually left behind at the crime scene providing police with plenty of evidence” (ibid). He references these findings to an FBI law enforcement bulletin entitled; Crime Scene and Profile Characteristics of Organized and Disorganized Murders, and to a book by a forensic psychiatrist named John Marshall McDonald entitled; The Murderer and His Victim (published in 1986). Continuing on, Myers writes that; “Tippit was caught off guard by his murderer and was left in the street where he fell … The killer then fled, unloading his gun and dropping incriminating evidence [the spent shell casings] at the scene” (ibid). As discussed previously, if Oswald was framed for Tippit’s murder, then it only makes perfect sense that the real killer would leave behind the spent shell casings hoping that the authorities would be able to determine that they had been discarded from the revolver which Oswald allegedly had in his possession when he was arrested at the Texas Theater.
Quoting Herbert Lutz, whose police work included extensive work in the field of criminal personality profiling, Myers writes; “Another clue to the murderer’s desperation is seen in the quickness with which the gunman reloads. This indicates that he feels he will need his weapon again almost immediately. In other words, he doesn’t feel the threat [to him] has been totally eliminated by the death of Officer Tippit.” (ibid). Of course, Lutz’s explanation to Myers ignores all of the evidence that Oswald was framed for Tippit’s murder. Once again referring to John Marshall McDonald’s book The Murderer and His Victim, Myers writes that; “The murderer of a disorganized crime scene was likely below average intelligence and a high school dropout. If he served in the armed forces he may have been discharged within a few months. He has a menial job and a poor work record. He does not own a car and may be unable to drive, so he rides a bicycle or relies on public transportation. He is a sloppy dresser and a loner of solitary interests such as watching television or reading books. He lives alone or with his parents. He may have a physical handicap or a speech impediment and has a poor self- image” (ibid).
In yet another attempt to link Oswald to Tippit’s murder, Myers writes that like the above character profile, Oswald was a high school dropout, with an employment history of menial jobs ” … none of which lasted long”, who didn’t own a car and instead used public transportation “religiously”, had a small number of friends and was living alone at the time of the assassination (ibid). He also writes that Oswald took a hardship discharge from the U.S. Marines, had a “voracious appetite for reading”, but allegedly suffered from Dyslexia; which Myers believes was the cause of his reading, writing, and spelling problems (ibid). However, much of the above can be accounted for by Asperger’s syndrome; an autism spectrum disorder which was apparently first recognized in the United States as a separate disorder in 1994 (Cognitive -Behavioral Therapy for Adult Asperger Syndrome, by Valerie L. Gaus).
Readers are encouraged to read through the research of Greg Parker on the likelihood that Oswald had Asperger’s Syndrome, and to spend some time researching Asperger’s syndrome themselves (Readers are also encouraged to read through researcher Allen Lowe’s comments concerning this discussion on Greg Parker’s research forum.) Although expert opinions on whether a person with Asperger’s syndrome is likely to commit a crime such as murder vary, in the book The Complete Guide to Asperger’s Syndrome, author Tony Attwood explains that; “Experience has indicated that people with Asperger’s Syndrome who have committed an offence have often been quick to confess and justify their actions” (this information can be found through a Google search of Attwood’s book). Although it will probably never be known with certainty whether Oswald had Asperger’s Syndrome, researchers should not solely rely on Myers’ narrow minded evaluation of Oswald’s habits and personality traits. But on the issue of Oswald’s so-called hardship discharge from the U.S. Marines, many researchers such as Jim DiEugenio have shown that it was nothing but an utter sham, so that it is truly laughable that Myers would use it to try and portray Oswald as a “disorganized” murderer.
Like every supporter of the lone assassin theory before him, Myers believes that after Oswald left the TSBD building, he first attempted to return to the rooming house on 1026 North Beckley avenue (where he was allegedly living) by first boarding the bus driven by Cecil McWatters, but then riding in the cab driven by Cab driver William Whaley after McWatters’ bus allegedly became jammed in traffic (With Malice, Chapter 10). However, as researcher Lee Farley has thoroughly demonstrated, both the bus ride and cab ride stories were fabricated by the DPD (see threads entitled; Oswald and cab 36 and Oswald and bus 1213 on John Simkin’s education forum). Myers portrays Oswald as a man desperate to escape the TSBD following the assassination, but he nevertheless believes that Oswald stayed inside the rooming house for over two minutes after he allegedly returned there and retrieved “his” revolver (With Malice, Timetable of events). But if Oswald was a man desperate to avoid capture by the DPD, it seems likely that he would have left the rooming house in less than a minute.
In a pathetic attempt to again portray Oswald as a guilty man to his readers, Myers writes; “Unlike an innocent man, Oswald did not cooperate with [the] police upon capture” (With Malice, Chapter 10). In this reviewer’s opinion, this statement is laughable. Does Myers honestly believe that after being assaulted by DPD Officers inside the Texas Theater, and after having his face forcibly covered by officer Charles Walkers’ hat outside the Theater (as shown in a photograph taken by Stuart Reed), and after the humiliation he faced with bystanders shouting out words such as “Kill the dirty ‘Sob’” (as detective Bob Carroll wrote in his report to Chief Jesse Curry), that Oswald (guilty or not) would be acting friendly towards the police? Myers then explains that when detective Jim Leavelle allegedly questioned Oswald shortly following his arrest, Leavelle asked him about shooting Tippit, to which Oswald allegedly remarked; “I didn’t shoot anybody” (ibid). According to Leavelle, Oswald’s remark that he didn’t shoot “anybody”, as opposed to saying that he didn’t shoot “the cop” or “that officer”, was an indication to him that Oswald knew that the DPD were also going to accuse him of assassinating the President (ibid). However, Myers once again fails to inform his readers that when Leavelle testified before the Warren Commission, he denied questioning Oswald prior to the morning of Sunday November 24, 1963; and that Leavelle was likely dissimulating when he claimed later on that he had questioned Oswald.
Myers also spends several pages discussing the question of whether or not Oswald could have reached the Tippit murder scene from the rooming house at 1026 North Beckley in time to shoot Tippit. Although Myers places the time of Tippit’s murder at approximately 1:14.30 pm, as this reviewer has explained previously, Tippit was most likely shot at about 1:06 pm. Although Earlene Roberts told the Warren Commission that “Oswald” arrived at the rooming house circa 1:00 pm, and then left after spending “about 3 or 4 minutes” inside his room, when she was interviewed by KLIF radio on the afternoon of the assassination, she claimed that “Oswald” had “rushed in -and got a short gray coat and went on back out in a hurry” (WC Volume VI, page 438). Roberts’ claim suggests that “Oswald” did not spend about three to four minutes inside the rooming house, but had left much sooner. If the person whom Roberts thought was Oswald (entering the rooming house) was in fact Tippit’s actual murderer, it seems highly unlikely that he would spend over a minute inside the house before leaving to murder Tippit. Bear in mind that witnesses such as William Lawrence Smith and Jimmy Brewer claimed that Tippit’s killer was walking west along Tenth Street when he confronted Tippit, and that as this reviewer has explained previously, there is no credible evidence that Tippit’s killer was walking east.
When the FBI timed how long it would have taken Oswald to have walked the assumed 0.8 mile (approximately 1.29 km) distance from the rooming house to the Tippit murder scene, they determined that it would have required twelve minutes to cover that distance (WCE 1987). However, as Myers more or less explains, the FBI had assumed that Tippit’s killer was initially walking east and not west along Tenth Street when he confronted Tippit (With Malice, Chapter 10). This reviewer will be discussing the issue of whether or not Oswald could have made it to the Tippit murder scene at about 1:06 pm to shoot Tippit in the upcoming essay on Gerald Hill. It is also worth pointing out that Myers admits, in so many words, that no witnesses have ever come forward claiming that they had seen Oswald going towards the Tippit murder scene on foot (ibid).
According to former assistant Dallas district attorney William F. Alexander, the DPD were unable to determine whether Oswald had travelled towards the Tippit murder scene by a bus or a cab from the rooming house (ibid). Myers then writes that; “If Oswald did hitch a ride, it apparently had to come from the private sector”, and that if an “innocent citizen” had given Oswald a lift, he or she would not have come forward and admitted this “for obvious reasons” (ibid). Indeed, if one or more persons had given Oswald a lift form the rooming house towards the Tippit murder scene; they almost certainly would have been embarrassed to publicly admit that they had given the alleged murderer of a police officer a lift. Besides, they may have feared that the DPD might charge them as accessories to Tippit’s murder. Myers also snidely remarks that; ” … it’s difficult to imagine any believable scenario that has conspirators picking up Oswald at his room, only to discharge him a short distance later” (ibid). First of all, this belief assumes that Oswald actually was living at the rooming house on 1026 North Beckley Avenue at the time of the assassination. Secondly, it dismisses the likelihood that DPD squad car 207 was outside the rooming house at the time “Oswald” was inside, just as Earlene Roberts told the FBI when they interviewed her on November 29, 1963, that it was (WCE 2781). As this reviewer will explain in the upcoming essay on Gerald Hill, Hill had (by all likelihood) commandeered DPD squad car 207, and that he and another DPD Officer picked up Tippit’s murderer from the rooming house, and then dropped him off somewhere to the east of where Tippit was shot.
But despite the question of whether or not Oswald could have made it on time to shoot Tippit, Myers writes that; ” … one thing is certain; eyewitness testimony and physical evidence proves Oswald’s presence on Tenth Street” (With Malice, Chapter 10). He then reminds his readers that Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Ted Callaway, Sam Guinyard, and the Davis sister-in-laws all identified Oswald as the killer from the DPD line-ups. But as this reviewer has previously explained, none of these identifications should be considered credible. Myers then adds that Warren Reynolds, Harold Russell, and B.M. “Pat” Patterson all subsequently identified Oswald as the man they observed from photographs. Although (as discussed previously) Reynolds informed the FBI when they interviewed him on January 21, 1964, that he thought Oswald was the man he observed coming down Patton street, but would hesitate to definitely identify Oswald as the man, his later “certainty” that it was Oswald should not be considered credible, as he informed the FBI that he thought he was shot on January 23, 1964, due to the fact that he had observed the gunman (WCE 2587). Therefore, he may have only claimed that Oswald was the man he observed out of fear of being shot again.
Although Harold Russell “positively” identified Oswald as the man he observed when he was interviewed by the FBI on January 21, 1964, Russell’s “positive” identification may have been influenced by the fact he had seen Oswald’s face on television and in the Newspapers following his arrest for Tippit’s murder and the President’ assassination (WC Volume XXI, Russell exhibit A). There can be little doubt, as explained in this review, that Tippit’s actual killer would have resembled Oswald somewhat, and after seeing Oswald’s face on television and in the newspapers in connection with Tippit’s murder, Russell may have convinced himself that Oswald was indeed the man he observed. Whilst some researchers may believe that the two FBI agents who interviewed Russell fabricated Russell’s “positive” identification of Oswald as the man he observed, readers should keep in mind that those same two FBI agents also interviewed witness L.J. Lewis on the same day they interviewed Russell, and claimed that Lewis told them that he ” … would hesitate to state whether the individual [he observed] was identical with Oswald” (WC Volume XX, Lewis (L.J.) exhibit A).
As for B.M. (Pat) Patterson, Myers omits that in his interview with the FBI dated August 25, 1964, Patterson claimed that he couldn’t recall being shown a photograph of Oswald when he was interviewed by the FBI on January 22, 1964 (WC Volume XXI, Patterson (B.M.) exhibit B). However, when Patterson was interviewed by the FBI on August 26, 1964, he was allegedly shown two photographs of Oswald, and claimed that Oswald was “positively and unquestionably” the same person he had observed coming down Patton Street (ibid). But as discussed previously, in that same interview, Patterson allegedly claimed that Oswald had stopped still and removed spent shell casings from the revolver; even though this is not what he claimed in his initial interview with the FBI (WC Volume XXI, Patterson (B.M.) exhibit A). Readers should also keep in mind that Warren Reynolds, Harold Russell, L.J. Lewis, Ted Callaway, and Sam Guinyard never claimed that they had seen Tippit’s killer stop still and then remove spent shell casings from the revolver. Therefore, Patterson’s interview with the FBI should not be considered credible. Even if we are to believe that Patterson had simply forgotten that he had been shown a photograph of Oswald (and identified him as the man he had observed) in his initial interview with the FBI, he may have been influenced in a similar way to Harold Russell into believing Oswald was the man he had observed.
Mary Brock, who observed Tippit’s killer going north towards the parking lot behind the Texaco service station located on Jefferson Blvd., was interviewed by the FBI on January 21, 1964, and told them that the man who went past her was Oswald (WC Volume XIX, Brock (Mary) exhibit A). However, she may also have been influenced in a similar way to Harold Russell into believing Oswald was the man she observed. Readers should keep in mind that her husband, Robert Brock, who was with her and also observed Tippit’s killer head north towards the parking lot, failed to identify him as Oswald when he was interviewed by the FBI on the same date (WC Volume XIX, Brock (Robert) exhibit A). Another witness who later on claimed that Oswald was Tippit’s killer was William Arthur Smith. When the FBI interviewed Smith on December 12, 1963, he informed them that he was ” … too far away from the individual [who shot Tippit] to positively identify him” (WCD 205, page 243). When Smith testified before the Warren Commission, he now claimed that Oswald was Tippit’s killer. However, he also stated that he only saw the side and back of “Oswald” as he was running away (WC Volume VII, page 84). Furthermore, although Smith “identified” WCE 162 as the jacket the killer was wearing during his testimony, he told the FBI that the killer was wearing a “light brown” jacket (WCD 205, page 243). It seems apparent to this reviewer that Smith was coerced into identifying Oswald as the killer when he testified before the Warren Commission, and therefore, his claim that Oswald was Tippit’s killer should be taken with a grain of salt.
Despite Murray Jackson’s ridiculous explanation for why he allegedly ordered Tippit to move into the central Oak Cliff area, the discovery of the wallet bearing identification for Oswald and Hidell in the vicinity of the Tippit murder scene is strong evidence that Oswald was framed for Tippit’s murder, and that Tippit was lured to Tenth Street to be shot. Although several researchers are of the opinion that Tippit attempted to contact the DPD dispatchers at approximately 1:08 pm (per WCE 705) because he had just encountered a suspect, it seems highly unlikely that he did try to contact the dispatchers, as the last thing the conspirators would have wanted was for Tippit to become suspicious. As for how Tippit was lured to Tenth Street, this reviewer can only speculate that perhaps one of the DPD conspirators, such as Gerald Hill, told Tippit (for example) that he was to meet up with a confidential informant along Tenth Street who would be wearing a light gray jacket so that Tippit would be able to recognise him, and that the “informant” would have confidential information to give him “related” to a DPD investigation. Keep in mind that Helen Markham told the Warren Commission that Tippit was driving “real slow” along Tenth Street (WC Volume III, page 307). Similarly, William Scoggins told the Warren Commission that Tippit was driving “Not more that 10 or 12 miles [an] hour, I would say” (ibid, page 324). It is almost as if Tippit was looking to meet up with someone.
After Tippit spotted his would be killer wearing the light gray jacket, he probably called him over through the cracked vent window of his squad car, and asked him if he was the man he was to meet up with. If the statements by Helen Markham and Jimmy Burt are to be believed, the killer then leaned down to talk to Tippit through the front right window with his hands on the door. In this reviewer’s opinion, the killer probably told Tippit to step outside of his car so that they could talk, and as Tippit got to the hood of the car, the killer shot him. Several witnesses such as T.F. Bowley and Ted Callaway claimed that Tippit’s gun was out of his holster when he was lying down on the ground (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 3, Item 14), (WC Volume III, page 354). According to Murray Jackson, Tippit usually walked with his hand on the butt of his gun, “western style” (With Malice, Chapter 4). Therefore, if Tippit had seen his killer pull out the revolver used to kill him, he probably had enough time to pull out his own revolver before he was shot.
In yet another apparent attempt to reinforce the notion that Oswald shot Tippit, Myers explains that Oswald’s brother Robert wrote in his book; Lee: A Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald By his Brother, that Oswald had once made the remark “That dumb cop!” about a police officer who had given Robert a ticket for running a red light (With Malice, Chapter 10). Myers then explains that William Scoggins recalled hearing Tippit’s killer mutter the words “poor dumb cop” or “poor damn cop” as he went by his cab (ibid). Another explanation for why Tippit’s killer would have snidely muttered the words “poor dumb cop” is because he thought Tippit was “dumb” for unwittingly allowing himself to be lured to Tenth Street and then be shot.
One mystery about Tippit’s murder which remains to be answered is why Tenth Street was chosen by the conspirators as the location to murder Tippit? First of all, we should keep in mind that several witnesses have indicated through their statements that Tippit was a frequent visitor to neighbourhood in which he was killed. When Jimmy Burt was interviewed by the FBI, he claimed that he recognised Tippit as an officer who frequented the neighbourhood, and that the residents of that area knew him by the name “friendly” (WCD 194, page 29). When Mark Lane interviewed Aquilla Clemmons, he asked her if she knew Tippit. Clemmons remarked; “Yes, I saw him … many times” (See Lane’s interview with Clemmons.) When William Scoggins testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that he wasn’t paying too much attention to Tippit as he went by his parked cab because he ” … just used to see him [Tippit] every day … ” (WC Volume III, page 325).
Most interesting of all, Virginia Davis stated during her testimony that Tippit’s car was parked ” … between the hedge that marks the apartment house where he [Tippit] lives in and the house next door” (WC Volume VI, page 468). Although Tippit certainly didn’t live in that house, Davis’s statement clearly implies that Tippit (for some reason) was a frequent visitor to that particular house. Myers explains that when he interviewed Virginia Davis in 1997, she “recalled how nervous she was” when she testified before the Warren Commission, and that what she probably meant to say was that Tippit’s car was parked between the hedge that marked the apartment house where “we” were living in at the time of Tippit’s murder, and the house next door (With Malice, Chapter 9). She also allegedly told Myers that she had never known or seen Tippit prior to time he was shot (ibid).
The reader should keep in mind that when Myers interviewed former DPD Officer Tommy Tilson in 1983, Tilson claimed that Tippit was having an affair with a waitress who lived in the house directly in front of where he was killed (ibid). However, Tilson is also well known for his ludicrous allegation that he had seen a man come down the grassy slope from the railroad tracks on the West side of the triple underpass, then throw something into the back seat of a black car, and then took off, with Tilson chasing after him (The Dallas Morning News, Ex-officer suspects he chased ‘2nd gun’, by Earl Golz). Although Tilson’s daughter, Judy Ladner, “verified” her father’s allegation, there is absolutely no independent corroboration for Tilson’s tale (ibid). Furthermore, there doesn’t appear to be any independent corroboration for Tilson’s claim that Tippit was having an affair with a waitress who allegedly lived in the house directly in front of where he was killed; and therefore, Tilson should not be considered a reliable witness.
As for Virginia Davis, although this reviewer believes that she is a compromisedwitness, it is entirely possible that she did misspeak when she testified before the Warren Commission. Finally, whilst we may never know why Tippit was specifically lured to Tenth Street to be shot, it was nevertheless in close proximity to the rooming house in which Oswald was allegedly living in at the time of the assassination. Thus, the conspirators probably thought that with a wallet left behind bearing identification for Oswald and his alleged alias Hidell, the DPD would be convinced that Oswald could easily have traversed the distance from the rooming house to Tenth Street.
Perhaps the most important question pertaining to Tippit’s murder is if Oswald didn’t shoot Tippit, then who did? Although shills such as David Von Pein believe that researchers who doubt that Oswald murdered Tippit are under an obligation to provide an answer to that question, the reality is that they are under no obligation whatsoever. Just consider that when a defendant appears in court in the U.S. for a crime, the presiding judge doesn’t tell the defence attorney(s) that he/she must find out who actually committed the crime, otherwise their client will be found guilty for the crime for which they have been charged. With that said (and as stated previously), in an upcoming essay, this reviewer will make the case that Tippit’s killer could have been Larry Crafard.
Throughout this review, this reviewer has explained how Myers omits, distorts, or buries evidence in his endnotes which contradicts or undermines his contention that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed DPD Officer, J.D. Tippit. Although this reviewer doesn’t pretend to have explained/demonstrated beyond any doubt that Oswald didn’t shoot Tippit, this reviewer can state beyond any doubt that With Malice is not the definitive book on Tippit’s murder! Not by a long shot. It is a thoroughly deceptive book with a strong bias against any notion that someone other than Oswald killed Tippit. The truth is that many who praise the book e.g. Vince Bugliosi, David Von Pein, care not one iota about the truth behind Tippit’s murder or President Kennedy’s assassination. Their only interest is in upholding the myth that Oswald murdered both Tippit and the President. According to Von Pein; ” … Myers leaves no room here for even the slimmest sliver of doubt with regard to the question at hand: ‘Who Killed Officer Tippit?’” Recall, Von Pein is fond of calling hard working and honest researchers such as Jim DiEugenio “kooks”. He cannot bring himself to admit that Myers cherry picks evidence which bolsters the notion that Oswald shot Tippit. According to David Reitzes, Myers has; ” … done, in essence, what all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t: closed the Tippit case.” But as this reviewer has explained throughout this review, nothing could be further from the truth.
September 27, this year, will mark the 50th anniversary of the day the Warren Report was released for the public to read. After all these years, it is time for people interested in learning the truth behind the tragic events of November 22, 1963, to stop paying attention to these disinformation shills.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank researchers Jim DiEugenio, Greg Parker, Lee Farley, Steven Duffy, Martin Hay, and Robert Charles-Dunne for all the help and advice they have given me. With all of the disinformation out there concerning Tippit’s murder and President Kennedy’s assassination, even after 50 years, we need honest and hardworking researchers such as them more than ever.
