1:22pm DPD radio message translates as The Jacket Was Planted, Folks--and that ain't all

First faint clue:  DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee transcribes the first line of the transmission thusly:  "Have a description of the suspect on Jefferson."  Actually, the transmission runs, "We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson."  The
omitted "over here" makes it sound like the sender, Officer Roy Walker, is actually on Jefferson. Is there a problem with that?  Oh, yes.
 
Second faint clue:  But, first, continuing the text of the 1:22 transmission:  "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson.  He's a white male, about 30, 5'8", black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt, and dark slacks". (DPD radio logs)  Dale
Myers tinkers with the description:  "Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson." ("With Malice" p114)  Note that he adds "block of", making it sound as if Walker is simply indicating a block.  But Walker specified an address, 300, at Jefferson &
Beckley, a full block west of the site where the jacket was found, at Jefferson & Crawford.  And if it be thought that dictabelt skips account for the missing words, see below for follow-ups on Myers and Walker.  And note that the dispatcher, at 1:26,
has the suspect "going west on Jefferson from the 300 block". (CE 705 p22)

Third faint clue:  At 1:19:05, the dispatcher tells Walker to check out 501 E. 10th at Denver (WMp105).  Then, at 1:19:59, he tells Walker "The suspect's running west on Jefferson from the location" (DPD radio logs/WMp109).  When, at 1:21:37, Walker
radios "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet" (DPD radio logs), the dispatcher again directs him to "501 E. 10th at Denver" (CE 705p20/WM p113).  Finally, at 1:22:36, Walker radios his "over here" description.  From his 1:21:37 transmission, we
know that Walker was, at the time, on Jefferson.  But we don't know, from his radio transmissions, whether he was ever at 10th & Patton.  He doesn't correct or follow-up the dispatcher's "10th at Denver", after either of the latter's advisories.

Fourth (getting somewhere) clue:  And yet Myers insists that Walker met and talked to Warren Reynolds at the murder scene:  "Reynolds returned to 10th & Patton at about [1:20], despite Reynolds' testimony to the contrary" (p112).  True, in 1983,
Walker told Myers that he did meet Reynolds, about 1:22.  However, he adds, "One of the used car lot operators saw the incident... Warren Reynolds" (p114).  The latter never said that he saw the shooting--Walker's memory fails him here.

And Reynolds would hardly have been the one to tell Walker, "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson".  Ruinously for him, Walker told Myers that it was "Reynolds [who] gave me the description of the gunman" (p114).  Walker was apparently unaware that TV film
footage has turned up showing Reynolds telling police at the scene that he last saw a suspicious man going into the back of an old house near the Texaco station (WM p131).  Reynolds, then, could not have been Walker's "300 E. Jefferson" witness, a full
block west of the house.  (Reynolds' suspicious man may not have been the gunman at all, but a vigilante trailing the gunman.)  Myers, then, with one hand, was simply extending Walker's witness-identity deception, despite his own text and frame grabs
which, with the other hand, expose said deception!  Myers giveth and Myers taketh away.

Fifth (gathering steam) clue:  Myers then buttresses the invented Walker/Reynolds confab with yet another out-of-thin-air incident, based on the word of... no one at all:  "Warren Reynolds, who had come with [Sgt. Bud Owens & Assistant DA Bill
Alexander] from 10th & Patton, pointed to an old house near the Texaco station..." (p120)  Alexander did not testify to the Warren Commission, and Owens, in his Commission testimony, did not mention bringing along a witness to the Texaco area.  None of
the principals, then--Reynolds, Walker, Alexander, Owens--can support Myers' vignettes re Reynolds "returning" to and leaving the scene of the crime circa 1:20 and 1:22.  Thin air.

Sixth (Eureka!) clue:  Relocation, relocation, relocation.  Why would Walker and Myers go to so much trouble to falsely identify and relocate a witness?  Well, what other witness or witnesses were "over here on Jefferson"?  Yes--Robert and Mary Brock,
in effect the gatekeepers of the parking-lot suspect.  In fact, the Brocks were the only witnesses who stated that they "last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind" the service station. (WM p551)  In fact, they may have been the
last witnesses to have reported seeing the suspect, but not in the parking lot, and certainly not doffing his jacket.  Because at 1:22, he was reported at "about 300 E. Jefferson", a block further west, still wearing his "white jacket".  Certainly
worth Walker's false identification of his witness, and Myers' subsequent, false relocation of him elsewhere.  Two wrongs and no right.
  
And the first transmissions re the Texaco location were "Suspect just passed 401 E. Jefferson" and "Subject just passed 401 E. Jefferson" (CE 705pp20-21)

Seventh clue:  At 1:26, Sgt. Gerald Hill reported from 12th & Beckley "Have a man in the car with me that can identify the suspect if anybody gets... one." (CE 1974 p63)  About 1:23, at the Tippit scene, according to Hill's testimony, "Another person
came up [and] told us the man had run over into the funeral home parking lot", which was opposite the Texaco station (v7p48).  Sgt. Bud Owens similarly testified that, at the "scene of the shooting... we were informed by a man whom I do not know that
the suspect that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson" (v7p79).  Someone, then, from the Texaco-station area--Hill and Owens both garbled the where of it--had run down to where the police were congregating.  And Hill,
clearly, immediately, took this man near to where the man had last seen the suspect, Beckley & Jefferson, or 300 E. Jefferson, which is two half-blocks north of 12th & Beckley.  In fact, "300" would be on the south side of Jefferson.  If Walker and his
witness were being very very precise, that would mean that the suspect had crossed Jefferson, heading right towards... 12th & Beckley.

Eighth clue:  But there must have been a big problem--retrospectively--with this witness.  In fact, Hill's testimony constitutes an implicit, hapless denial that he even had a witness or that he had even radioed from 12th & Beckley, even though it's on
the record.  On the record, Gerald!  Both the FBI transcription (see above) and Myers (p124) acknowledge that Hill sent the 1:26 message.  Hill testified, falsely, that, about 1:25, he left the Tippit scene and "whipped around the block.  I went down
to the first intersection east of the block where all this incident occurred and made a right turn and traveled one block and came back up on Jefferson", where he met Owens at the Texaco/old-house site (v7p48).  The poor Warren Commission did not have
time to check out every DPD tale. 

Who was Hill's radioactive witness, whom, figuratively, he dare not touch, or acknowledge, let alone name?  Myers apparently knew, hence his totally unsupported relocation of that witness (as well as Officer Walker) from Crawford & Jefferson to 10th &
Patton.  This is known as throwing the hounds off the scent.  But by fallaciously drawing a witness away from the Crawford area, Myers ironically draws attention to that area.  Reynolds was looking east from Crawford area.  But Hill's witness was
looking west, towards Beckley.  Now who could have gotten a pretty good look at the fleeing suspect, good enough to have estimated height, weight, race, and age, and described the man's clothing?  Who could have seen him that closely--seen him as, say,
he passed the Texaco station?  Robert and/or Mary Brock, of course.  Walker doesn't indicate the sex or number of his witnesses ("We have a description"), so it could have been either Mr. or Mrs. Brock, or both. 

And, just as the WFAA-TV footage of Reynolds exposes the Walker lie, so it exposes the Brocks' lies.  As noted above, Mrs. Brock stated that she informed Reynolds that "she last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco
Service Station".  Clearly, she did not so inform him, not without some strong input from Reynolds, who had his own story to tell and was telling it to the cops, that day, and would have told it to her.  But she failed to give herself and her husband a
lifeline out of the Reynolds morass.  A frame-grab is worth a thousand words.  Moral:  Whatever you do, don't hitch your wagon to Warren Reynolds.
    
Despite their apparent proximity to the suspect, neither Brock was invited either to attend a lineup or to testify for the Commission.  It might have been too easy, then, for people to connect the dots: "over here on Jefferson", "300 E. Jefferson", the
Brocks.  As the witnesses both closest to 300 E. Jefferson and to the parking lot, the Brocks had to be downplayed, had to be weaned off Jefferson & Beckley and weaned onto the parking lot.  (Sgt. Hill didn't just downplay them--he vaporized them, or
one of them.)  More publicity would have meant more scrutiny, prickly questions.  (On that same day--Jan. 21, 1964--Reynolds himself was slipping further into the morass:  For his part, he misleadingly told the FBI then that he "last observed the
individual to turn north" by the service station:  "[The Brocks] informed him the individual had gone through the parking lot." [FBI interview report/WMp544]  Naively, he apparently thought that the WFAA footage had been deep-sixed.)

In sum:  The jacket was planted, the Texaco jacket witnesses were manufactured, Oswald was, beyond doubt, being framed for Tippit's murder, and Dale Myers was last seen imploding.

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:32:26 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

1:22pm DPD radio message translates as The Jacket Was Planted, Folks--and that ain't all

First faint clue: DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee transcribes the first line of the transmission thusly: "Have a description of the suspect on Jefferson." Actually, the transmission runs, "We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson." The

omitted "over here" makes it sound like the sender, Officer Roy Walker, is actually on Jefferson. Is there a problem with that? Oh, yes.

Second faint clue: But, first, continuing the text of the 1:22 transmission: "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson. He's a white male, about 30, 5'8", black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt, and dark slacks". (DPD radio logs) Dale

Myers tinkers with the description: "Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson." ("With Malice" p114) Note that he adds "block of", making it sound as if Walker is simply indicating a block. But Walker specified an address, 300, at Jefferson &
Beckley, a full block west of the site where the jacket was found, at Jefferson & Crawford. And if it be thought that dictabelt skips account for the missing words, see below for follow-ups on Myers and Walker. And note that the dispatcher, at 1:26,
has the suspect "going west on Jefferson from the 300 block". (CE 705 p22)

Third faint clue: At 1:19:05, the dispatcher tells Walker to check out 501 E. 10th at Denver (WMp105). Then, at 1:19:59, he tells Walker "The suspect's running west on Jefferson from the location" (DPD radio logs/WMp109). When, at 1:21:37, Walker

radios "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet" (DPD radio logs), the dispatcher again directs him to "501 E. 10th at Denver" (CE 705p20/WM p113). Finally, at 1:22:36, Walker radios his "over here" description. From his 1:21:37 transmission, we know
that Walker was, at the time, on Jefferson. But we don't know, from his radio transmissions, whether he was ever at 10th & Patton. He doesn't correct or follow-up the dispatcher's "10th at Denver", after either of the latter's advisories.

Fourth (getting somewhere) clue: And yet Myers insists that Walker met and talked to Warren Reynolds at the murder scene: "Reynolds returned to 10th & Patton at about [1:20], despite Reynolds' testimony to the contrary" (p112). True, in 1983, Walker

told Myers that he did meet Reynolds, about 1:22. However, he adds, "One of the used car lot operators saw the incident... Warren Reynolds" (p114). The latter never said that he saw the shooting--Walker's memory fails him here.

And Reynolds would hardly have been the one to tell Walker, "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson". Ruinously for him, Walker told Myers that it was "Reynolds [who] gave me the description of the gunman" (p114). Walker was apparently unaware that TV film

footage has turned up showing Reynolds telling police at the scene that he last saw a suspicious man going into the back of an old house near the Texaco station (WM p131). Reynolds, then, could not have been Walker's "300 E. Jefferson" witness, a full
block west of the house. (Reynolds' suspicious man may not have been the gunman at all, but a vigilante trailing the gunman.) Myers, then, with one hand, was simply extending Walker's witness-identity deception, despite his own text and frame grabs
which, with the other hand, expose said deception! Myers giveth and Myers taketh away.

Fifth (gathering steam) clue: Myers then buttresses the invented Walker/Reynolds confab with yet another out-of-thin-air incident, based on the word of... no one at all: "Warren Reynolds, who had come with [Sgt. Bud Owens & Assistant DA Bill

Alexander] from 10th & Patton, pointed to an old house near the Texaco station..." (p120) Alexander did not testify to the Warren Commission, and Owens, in his Commission testimony, did not mention bringing along a witness to the Texaco area. None of
the principals, then--Reynolds, Walker, Alexander, Owens--can support Myers' vignettes re Reynolds "returning" to and leaving the scene of the crime circa 1:20 and 1:22. Thin air.

Sixth (Eureka!) clue: Relocation, relocation, relocation. Why would Walker and Myers go to so much trouble to falsely identify and relocate a witness? Well, what other witness or witnesses were "over here on Jefferson"? Yes--Robert and Mary Brock,

in effect the gatekeepers of the parking-lot suspect. In fact, the Brocks were the only witnesses who stated that they "last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind" the service station. (WM p551) In fact, they may have been the last
witnesses to have reported seeing the suspect, but not in the parking lot, and certainly not doffing his jacket. Because at 1:22, he was reported at "about 300 E. Jefferson", a block further west, still wearing his "white jacket". Certainly worth
Walker's false identification of his witness, and Myers' subsequent, false relocation of him elsewhere. Two wrongs and no right.

And the first transmissions re the Texaco location were "Suspect just passed 401 E. Jefferson" and "Subject just passed 401 E. Jefferson" (CE 705pp20-21)

Seventh clue: At 1:26, Sgt. Gerald Hill reported from 12th & Beckley "Have a man in the car with me that can identify the suspect if anybody gets... one." (CE 1974 p63) About 1:23, at the Tippit scene, according to Hill's testimony, "Another person

came up [and] told us the man had run over into the funeral home parking lot", which was opposite the Texaco station (v7p48). Sgt. Bud Owens similarly testified that, at the "scene of the shooting... we were informed by a man whom I do not know that the
suspect that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson" (v7p79). Someone, then, from the Texaco-station area--Hill and Owens both garbled the where of it--had run down to where the police were congregating. And Hill, clearly,
immediately, took this man near to where the man had last seen the suspect, Beckley & Jefferson, or 300 E. Jefferson, which is two half-blocks north of 12th & Beckley. In fact, "300" would be on the south side of Jefferson. If Walker and his witness
were being very very precise, that would mean that the suspect had crossed Jefferson, heading right towards... 12th & Beckley.

Eighth clue: But there must have been a big problem--retrospectively--with this witness. In fact, Hill's testimony constitutes an implicit, hapless denial that he even had a witness or that he had even radioed from 12th & Beckley, even though it's on

the record. On the record, Gerald! Both the FBI transcription (see above) and Myers (p124) acknowledge that Hill sent the 1:26 message. Hill testified, falsely, that, about 1:25, he left the Tippit scene and "whipped around the block. I went down to
the first intersection east of the block where all this incident occurred and made a right turn and traveled one block and came back up on Jefferson", where he met Owens at the Texaco/old-house site (v7p48). The poor Warren Commission did not have time
to check out every DPD tale.

Who was Hill's radioactive witness, whom, figuratively, he dare not touch, or acknowledge, let alone name? Myers apparently knew, hence his totally unsupported relocation of that witness (as well as Officer Walker) from Crawford & Jefferson to 10th &

Patton. This is known as throwing the hounds off the scent. But by fallaciously drawing a witness away from the Crawford area, Myers ironically draws attention to that area. Reynolds was looking east from Crawford area. But Hill's witness was looking
west, towards Beckley. Now who could have gotten a pretty good look at the fleeing suspect, good enough to have estimated height, weight, race, and age, and described the man's clothing? Who could have seen him that closely--seen him as, say, he passed
the Texaco station? Robert and/or Mary Brock, of course. Walker doesn't indicate the sex or number of his witnesses ("We have a description"), so it could have been either Mr. or Mrs. Brock, or both.

And, just as the WFAA-TV footage of Reynolds exposes the Walker lie, so it exposes the Brocks' lies. As noted above, Mrs. Brock stated that she informed Reynolds that "she last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco

Service Station". Clearly, she did not so inform him, not without some strong input from Reynolds, who had his own story to tell and was telling it to the cops, that day, and would have told it to her. But she failed to give herself and her husband a
lifeline out of the Reynolds morass. A frame-grab is worth a thousand words. Moral: Whatever you do, don't hitch your wagon to Warren Reynolds.

Despite their apparent proximity to the suspect, neither Brock was invited either to attend a lineup or to testify for the Commission. It might have been too easy, then, for people to connect the dots: "over here on Jefferson", "300 E. Jefferson", the

Brocks. As the witnesses both closest to 300 E. Jefferson and to the parking lot, the Brocks had to be downplayed, had to be weaned off Jefferson & Beckley and weaned onto the parking lot. (Sgt. Hill didn't just downplay them--he vaporized them, or one
of them.) More publicity would have meant more scrutiny, prickly questions. (On that same day--Jan. 21, 1964--Reynolds himself was slipping further into the morass: For his part, he misleadingly told the FBI then that he "last observed the individual
to turn north" by the service station: "[The Brocks] informed him the individual had gone through the parking lot." [FBI interview report/WMp544] Naively, he apparently thought that the WFAA footage had been deep-sixed.)

In sum: The jacket was planted, the Texaco jacket witnesses were manufactured, Oswald was, beyond doubt, being framed for Tippit's murder, and Dale Myers was last seen imploding.

dcw

My brain hurts. Maybe it's the Myers. So, something happened and they framed Oswald. I agree.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:20:18 PM UTC-7, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:32:26 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

1:22pm DPD radio message translates as The Jacket Was Planted, Folks--and that ain't all

First faint clue: DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee transcribes the first line of the transmission thusly: "Have a description of the suspect on Jefferson." Actually, the transmission runs, "We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson." The

omitted "over here" makes it sound like the sender, Officer Roy Walker, is actually on Jefferson. Is there a problem with that? Oh, yes.

Second faint clue: But, first, continuing the text of the 1:22 transmission: "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson. He's a white male, about 30, 5'8", black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt, and dark slacks". (DPD radio logs) Dale Myers

tinkers with the description: "Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson." ("With Malice" p114) Note that he adds "block of", making it sound as if Walker is simply indicating a block. But Walker specified an address, 300, at Jefferson & Beckley, a
full block west of the site where the jacket was found, at Jefferson & Crawford. And if it be thought that dictabelt skips account for the missing words, see below for follow-ups on Myers and Walker. And note that the dispatcher, at 1:26, has the suspect
"going west on Jefferson from the 300 block". (CE 705 p22)

Third faint clue: At 1:19:05, the dispatcher tells Walker to check out 501 E. 10th at Denver (WMp105). Then, at 1:19:59, he tells Walker "The suspect's running west on Jefferson from the location" (DPD radio logs/WMp109). When, at 1:21:37, Walker

radios "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet" (DPD radio logs), the dispatcher again directs him to "501 E. 10th at Denver" (CE 705p20/WM p113). Finally, at 1:22:36, Walker radios his "over here" description. From his 1:21:37 transmission, we know
that Walker was, at the time, on Jefferson. But we don't know, from his radio transmissions, whether he was ever at 10th & Patton. He doesn't correct or follow-up the dispatcher's "10th at Denver", after either of the latter's advisories.

Fourth (getting somewhere) clue: And yet Myers insists that Walker met and talked to Warren Reynolds at the murder scene: "Reynolds returned to 10th & Patton at about [1:20], despite Reynolds' testimony to the contrary" (p112). True, in 1983, Walker

told Myers that he did meet Reynolds, about 1:22. However, he adds, "One of the used car lot operators saw the incident... Warren Reynolds" (p114). The latter never said that he saw the shooting--Walker's memory fails him here.

And Reynolds would hardly have been the one to tell Walker, "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson". Ruinously for him, Walker told Myers that it was "Reynolds [who] gave me the description of the gunman" (p114). Walker was apparently unaware that TV film

footage has turned up showing Reynolds telling police at the scene that he last saw a suspicious man going into the back of an old house near the Texaco station (WM p131). Reynolds, then, could not have been Walker's "300 E. Jefferson" witness, a full
block west of the house. (Reynolds' suspicious man may not have been the gunman at all, but a vigilante trailing the gunman.) Myers, then, with one hand, was simply extending Walker's witness-identity deception, despite his own text and frame grabs which,
with the other hand, expose said deception! Myers giveth and Myers taketh away.

Fifth (gathering steam) clue: Myers then buttresses the invented Walker/Reynolds confab with yet another out-of-thin-air incident, based on the word of... no one at all: "Warren Reynolds, who had come with [Sgt. Bud Owens & Assistant DA Bill

Alexander] from 10th & Patton, pointed to an old house near the Texaco station..." (p120) Alexander did not testify to the Warren Commission, and Owens, in his Commission testimony, did not mention bringing along a witness to the Texaco area. None of the
principals, then--Reynolds, Walker, Alexander, Owens--can support Myers' vignettes re Reynolds "returning" to and leaving the scene of the crime circa 1:20 and 1:22. Thin air.

Sixth (Eureka!) clue: Relocation, relocation, relocation. Why would Walker and Myers go to so much trouble to falsely identify and relocate a witness? Well, what other witness or witnesses were "over here on Jefferson"? Yes--Robert and Mary Brock, in

effect the gatekeepers of the parking-lot suspect. In fact, the Brocks were the only witnesses who stated that they "last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind" the service station. (WM p551) In fact, they may have been the last
witnesses to have reported seeing the suspect, but not in the parking lot, and certainly not doffing his jacket. Because at 1:22, he was reported at "about 300 E. Jefferson", a block further west, still wearing his "white jacket". Certainly worth Walker'
s false identification of his witness, and Myers' subsequent, false relocation of him elsewhere. Two wrongs and no right.

And the first transmissions re the Texaco location were "Suspect just passed 401 E. Jefferson" and "Subject just passed 401 E. Jefferson" (CE 705pp20-21)

Seventh clue: At 1:26, Sgt. Gerald Hill reported from 12th & Beckley "Have a man in the car with me that can identify the suspect if anybody gets... one." (CE 1974 p63) About 1:23, at the Tippit scene, according to Hill's testimony, "Another person

came up [and] told us the man had run over into the funeral home parking lot", which was opposite the Texaco station (v7p48). Sgt. Bud Owens similarly testified that, at the "scene of the shooting... we were informed by a man whom I do not know that the
suspect that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson" (v7p79). Someone, then, from the Texaco-station area--Hill and Owens both garbled the where of it--had run down to where the police were congregating. And Hill, clearly,
immediately, took this man near to where the man had last seen the suspect, Beckley & Jefferson, or 300 E. Jefferson, which is two half-blocks north of 12th & Beckley. In fact, "300" would be on the south side of Jefferson. If Walker and his witness were
being very very precise, that would mean that the suspect had crossed Jefferson, heading right towards... 12th & Beckley.

Eighth clue: But there must have been a big problem--retrospectively--with this witness. In fact, Hill's testimony constitutes an implicit, hapless denial that he even had a witness or that he had even radioed from 12th & Beckley, even though it's on

the record. On the record, Gerald! Both the FBI transcription (see above) and Myers (p124) acknowledge that Hill sent the 1:26 message. Hill testified, falsely, that, about 1:25, he left the Tippit scene and "whipped around the block. I went down to the
first intersection east of the block where all this incident occurred and made a right turn and traveled one block and came back up on Jefferson", where he met Owens at the Texaco/old-house site (v7p48). The poor Warren Commission did not have time to
check out every DPD tale.

Who was Hill's radioactive witness, whom, figuratively, he dare not touch, or acknowledge, let alone name? Myers apparently knew, hence his totally unsupported relocation of that witness (as well as Officer Walker) from Crawford & Jefferson to 10th &

Patton. This is known as throwing the hounds off the scent. But by fallaciously drawing a witness away from the Crawford area, Myers ironically draws attention to that area. Reynolds was looking east from Crawford area. But Hill's witness was looking
west, towards Beckley. Now who could have gotten a pretty good look at the fleeing suspect, good enough to have estimated height, weight, race, and age, and described the man's clothing? Who could have seen him that closely--seen him as, say, he passed
the Texaco station? Robert and/or Mary Brock, of course. Walker doesn't indicate the sex or number of his witnesses ("We have a description"), so it could have been either Mr. or Mrs. Brock, or both.

And, just as the WFAA-TV footage of Reynolds exposes the Walker lie, so it exposes the Brocks' lies. As noted above, Mrs. Brock stated that she informed Reynolds that "she last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco

Service Station". Clearly, she did not so inform him, not without some strong input from Reynolds, who had his own story to tell and was telling it to the cops, that day, and would have told it to her. But she failed to give herself and her husband a
lifeline out of the Reynolds morass. A frame-grab is worth a thousand words. Moral: Whatever you do, don't hitch your wagon to Warren Reynolds.

Despite their apparent proximity to the suspect, neither Brock was invited either to attend a lineup or to testify for the Commission. It might have been too easy, then, for people to connect the dots: "over here on Jefferson", "300 E. Jefferson",

the Brocks. As the witnesses both closest to 300 E. Jefferson and to the parking lot, the Brocks had to be downplayed, had to be weaned off Jefferson & Beckley and weaned onto the parking lot. (Sgt. Hill didn't just downplay them--he vaporized them, or
one of them.) More publicity would have meant more scrutiny, prickly questions. (On that same day--Jan. 21, 1964--Reynolds himself was slipping further into the morass: For his part, he misleadingly told the FBI then that he "last observed the individual
to turn north" by the service station: "[The Brocks] informed him the individual had gone through the parking lot." [FBI interview report/WMp544] Naively, he apparently thought that the WFAA footage had been deep-sixed.)

In sum: The jacket was planted, the Texaco jacket witnesses were manufactured, Oswald was, beyond doubt, being framed for Tippit's murder, and Dale Myers was last seen imploding.

dcw

My brain hurts. Maybe it's the Myers. So, something happened and they framed Oswald. I agree.

As you may know, I had pegged several witnesses, over the years, one at a time of course, as Sgt. Hill's mystery witness--Benavides, Scoggins, Martha Mitchell. (wonder if anyone will notice that) But it wasn't until Myers enlisted Reynolds for the role
of *Walker's* mystery witness--as Myers says, despite his testimony!--that I began to realize that the Hill hot potato (as I noted, Hill even denied that he sent the transmission that he sent re *his* witness) might also have something to do with the
Texaco area, not with the actual crime scene. That narrowed the list of candidates considerably. Then I saw that "300 E. Jefferson" meant Jefferson & Beckley. What witness was so crucial to the jacket-ditching that naming him as Hill's 12th & Beckley
witness/Walker's 300 E. Jefferson witness--would destroy the official LN story? Of course, Robert (or Mary) Brock. What on earth, that is, would Brock be doing at 12th & Beckley when what he supposedly witnessed was right in his own back yard?
Reynolds was apparently (to Myers' mind) an expendable jacket witness. The Brocks were not.

In sum: There were NO witnesses to the Texaco parking lot incident. Not even Patterson, who was another victim of the Reynolds old-house morass. (As with Brock, Patterson can't tell the FBI the actual Reynolds story [captured on film] without
negating his own parking-lot story.) Yes, there was a white jacket found in the lot; but there was another white jacket on the suspect Brock saw heading towards Beckley, to which spot the latter traveled with Hill. Hence, Myers' contortionist act with
Walker/Reynolds...

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 4:31:58 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:20:18 PM UTC-7, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:32:26 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

1:22pm DPD radio message translates as The Jacket Was Planted, Folks--and that ain't all

First faint clue: DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee transcribes the first line of the transmission thusly: "Have a description of the suspect on Jefferson." Actually, the transmission runs, "We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson." The

omitted "over here" makes it sound like the sender, Officer Roy Walker, is actually on Jefferson. Is there a problem with that? Oh, yes.

Second faint clue: But, first, continuing the text of the 1:22 transmission: "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson. He's a white male, about 30, 5'8", black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt, and dark slacks". (DPD radio logs) Dale

Myers tinkers with the description: "Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson." ("With Malice" p114) Note that he adds "block of", making it sound as if Walker is simply indicating a block. But Walker specified an address, 300, at Jefferson & Beckley,
a full block west of the site where the jacket was found, at Jefferson & Crawford. And if it be thought that dictabelt skips account for the missing words, see below for follow-ups on Myers and Walker. And note that the dispatcher, at 1:26, has the
suspect "going west on Jefferson from the 300 block". (CE 705 p22)

Third faint clue: At 1:19:05, the dispatcher tells Walker to check out 501 E. 10th at Denver (WMp105). Then, at 1:19:59, he tells Walker "The suspect's running west on Jefferson from the location" (DPD radio logs/WMp109). When, at 1:21:37, Walker

radios "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet" (DPD radio logs), the dispatcher again directs him to "501 E. 10th at Denver" (CE 705p20/WM p113). Finally, at 1:22:36, Walker radios his "over here" description. From his 1:21:37 transmission, we know
that Walker was, at the time, on Jefferson. But we don't know, from his radio transmissions, whether he was ever at 10th & Patton. He doesn't correct or follow-up the dispatcher's "10th at Denver", after either of the latter's advisories.

Fourth (getting somewhere) clue: And yet Myers insists that Walker met and talked to Warren Reynolds at the murder scene: "Reynolds returned to 10th & Patton at about [1:20], despite Reynolds' testimony to the contrary" (p112). True, in 1983,

Walker told Myers that he did meet Reynolds, about 1:22. However, he adds, "One of the used car lot operators saw the incident... Warren Reynolds" (p114). The latter never said that he saw the shooting--Walker's memory fails him here.

And Reynolds would hardly have been the one to tell Walker, "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson". Ruinously for him, Walker told Myers that it was "Reynolds [who] gave me the description of the gunman" (p114). Walker was apparently unaware that TV

film footage has turned up showing Reynolds telling police at the scene that he last saw a suspicious man going into the back of an old house near the Texaco station (WM p131). Reynolds, then, could not have been Walker's "300 E. Jefferson" witness, a
full block west of the house. (Reynolds' suspicious man may not have been the gunman at all, but a vigilante trailing the gunman.) Myers, then, with one hand, was simply extending Walker's witness-identity deception, despite his own text and frame grabs
which, with the other hand, expose said deception! Myers giveth and Myers taketh away.

Fifth (gathering steam) clue: Myers then buttresses the invented Walker/Reynolds confab with yet another out-of-thin-air incident, based on the word of... no one at all: "Warren Reynolds, who had come with [Sgt. Bud Owens & Assistant DA Bill

Alexander] from 10th & Patton, pointed to an old house near the Texaco station..." (p120) Alexander did not testify to the Warren Commission, and Owens, in his Commission testimony, did not mention bringing along a witness to the Texaco area. None of the
principals, then--Reynolds, Walker, Alexander, Owens--can support Myers' vignettes re Reynolds "returning" to and leaving the scene of the crime circa 1:20 and 1:22. Thin air.

Sixth (Eureka!) clue: Relocation, relocation, relocation. Why would Walker and Myers go to so much trouble to falsely identify and relocate a witness? Well, what other witness or witnesses were "over here on Jefferson"? Yes--Robert and Mary Brock,

in effect the gatekeepers of the parking-lot suspect. In fact, the Brocks were the only witnesses who stated that they "last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind" the service station. (WM p551) In fact, they may have been the last
witnesses to have reported seeing the suspect, but not in the parking lot, and certainly not doffing his jacket. Because at 1:22, he was reported at "about 300 E. Jefferson", a block further west, still wearing his "white jacket". Certainly worth Walker'
s false identification of his witness, and Myers' subsequent, false relocation of him elsewhere. Two wrongs and no right.

And the first transmissions re the Texaco location were "Suspect just passed 401 E. Jefferson" and "Subject just passed 401 E. Jefferson" (CE 705pp20-21)

Seventh clue: At 1:26, Sgt. Gerald Hill reported from 12th & Beckley "Have a man in the car with me that can identify the suspect if anybody gets... one." (CE 1974 p63) About 1:23, at the Tippit scene, according to Hill's testimony, "Another person

came up [and] told us the man had run over into the funeral home parking lot", which was opposite the Texaco station (v7p48). Sgt. Bud Owens similarly testified that, at the "scene of the shooting... we were informed by a man whom I do not know that the
suspect that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson" (v7p79). Someone, then, from the Texaco-station area--Hill and Owens both garbled the where of it--had run down to where the police were congregating. And Hill, clearly,
immediately, took this man near to where the man had last seen the suspect, Beckley & Jefferson, or 300 E. Jefferson, which is two half-blocks north of 12th & Beckley. In fact, "300" would be on the south side of Jefferson. If Walker and his witness were
being very very precise, that would mean that the suspect had crossed Jefferson, heading right towards... 12th & Beckley.

Eighth clue: But there must have been a big problem--retrospectively--with this witness. In fact, Hill's testimony constitutes an implicit, hapless denial that he even had a witness or that he had even radioed from 12th & Beckley, even though it's

on the record. On the record, Gerald! Both the FBI transcription (see above) and Myers (p124) acknowledge that Hill sent the 1:26 message. Hill testified, falsely, that, about 1:25, he left the Tippit scene and "whipped around the block. I went down to
the first intersection east of the block where all this incident occurred and made a right turn and traveled one block and came back up on Jefferson", where he met Owens at the Texaco/old-house site (v7p48). The poor Warren Commission did not have time
to check out every DPD tale.

Who was Hill's radioactive witness, whom, figuratively, he dare not touch, or acknowledge, let alone name? Myers apparently knew, hence his totally unsupported relocation of that witness (as well as Officer Walker) from Crawford & Jefferson to 10th

& Patton. This is known as throwing the hounds off the scent. But by fallaciously drawing a witness away from the Crawford area, Myers ironically draws attention to that area. Reynolds was looking east from Crawford area. But Hill's witness was looking
west, towards Beckley. Now who could have gotten a pretty good look at the fleeing suspect, good enough to have estimated height, weight, race, and age, and described the man's clothing? Who could have seen him that closely--seen him as, say, he passed
the Texaco station? Robert and/or Mary Brock, of course. Walker doesn't indicate the sex or number of his witnesses ("We have a description"), so it could have been either Mr. or Mrs. Brock, or both.

And, just as the WFAA-TV footage of Reynolds exposes the Walker lie, so it exposes the Brocks' lies. As noted above, Mrs. Brock stated that she informed Reynolds that "she last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's

Texaco Service Station". Clearly, she did not so inform him, not without some strong input from Reynolds, who had his own story to tell and was telling it to the cops, that day, and would have told it to her. But she failed to give herself and her
husband a lifeline out of the Reynolds morass. A frame-grab is worth a thousand words. Moral: Whatever you do, don't hitch your wagon to Warren Reynolds.

Despite their apparent proximity to the suspect, neither Brock was invited either to attend a lineup or to testify for the Commission. It might have been too easy, then, for people to connect the dots: "over here on Jefferson", "300 E. Jefferson",

the Brocks. As the witnesses both closest to 300 E. Jefferson and to the parking lot, the Brocks had to be downplayed, had to be weaned off Jefferson & Beckley and weaned onto the parking lot. (Sgt. Hill didn't just downplay them--he vaporized them, or
one of them.) More publicity would have meant more scrutiny, prickly questions. (On that same day--Jan. 21, 1964--Reynolds himself was slipping further into the morass: For his part, he misleadingly told the FBI then that he "last observed the individual
to turn north" by the service station: "[The Brocks] informed him the individual had gone through the parking lot." [FBI interview report/WMp544] Naively, he apparently thought that the WFAA footage had been deep-sixed.)

In sum: The jacket was planted, the Texaco jacket witnesses were manufactured, Oswald was, beyond doubt, being framed for Tippit's murder, and Dale Myers was last seen imploding.

dcw

My brain hurts. Maybe it's the Myers. So, something happened and they framed Oswald. I agree.

As you may know, I had pegged several witnesses, over the years, one at a time of course, as Sgt. Hill's mystery witness--Benavides, Scoggins, Martha Mitchell. (wonder if anyone will notice that) But it wasn't until Myers enlisted Reynolds for the role

of *Walker's* mystery witness--as Myers says, despite his testimony!--that I began to realize that the Hill hot potato (as I noted, Hill even denied that he sent the transmission that he sent re *his* witness) might also have something to do with the
Texaco area, not with the actual crime scene. That narrowed the list of candidates considerably. Then I saw that "300 E. Jefferson" meant Jefferson & Beckley. What witness was so crucial to the jacket-ditching that naming him as Hill's 12th & Beckley
witness/Walker's 300 E. Jefferson witness--would destroy the official LN story? Of course, Robert (or Mary) Brock. What on earth, that is, would Brock be doing at 12th & Beckley when what he supposedly witnessed was right in his own back yard? Reynolds
was apparently (to Myers' mind) an expendable jacket witness. The Brocks were not.

In sum: There were NO witnesses to the Texaco parking lot incident. Not even Patterson, who was another victim of the Reynolds old-house morass. (As with Brock, Patterson can't tell the FBI the actual Reynolds story [captured on film] without negating

his own parking-lot story.) Yes, there was a white jacket found in the lot; but there was another white jacket on the suspect Brock saw heading towards Beckley, to which spot the latter traveled with Hill. Hence, Myers' contortionist act with Walker/
Reynolds...

dcw

So...something happened and they framed Oswald. I agree.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:30:03 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 4:31:58 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:20:18 PM UTC-7, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:32:26 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

1:22pm DPD radio message translates as The Jacket Was Planted, Folks--and that ain't all

First faint clue: DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee transcribes the first line of the transmission thusly: "Have a description of the suspect on Jefferson." Actually, the transmission runs, "We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson." The

omitted "over here" makes it sound like the sender, Officer Roy Walker, is actually on Jefferson. Is there a problem with that? Oh, yes.

Second faint clue: But, first, continuing the text of the 1:22 transmission: "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson. He's a white male, about 30, 5'8", black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt, and dark slacks". (DPD radio logs) Dale

Myers tinkers with the description: "Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson." ("With Malice" p114) Note that he adds "block of", making it sound as if Walker is simply indicating a block. But Walker specified an address, 300, at Jefferson & Beckley,
a full block west of the site where the jacket was found, at Jefferson & Crawford. And if it be thought that dictabelt skips account for the missing words, see below for follow-ups on Myers and Walker. And note that the dispatcher, at 1:26, has the
suspect "going west on Jefferson from the 300 block". (CE 705 p22)

Third faint clue: At 1:19:05, the dispatcher tells Walker to check out 501 E. 10th at Denver (WMp105). Then, at 1:19:59, he tells Walker "The suspect's running west on Jefferson from the location" (DPD radio logs/WMp109). When, at 1:21:37, Walker

radios "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet" (DPD radio logs), the dispatcher again directs him to "501 E. 10th at Denver" (CE 705p20/WM p113). Finally, at 1:22:36, Walker radios his "over here" description. From his 1:21:37 transmission, we know
that Walker was, at the time, on Jefferson. But we don't know, from his radio transmissions, whether he was ever at 10th & Patton. He doesn't correct or follow-up the dispatcher's "10th at Denver", after either of the latter's advisories.

Fourth (getting somewhere) clue: And yet Myers insists that Walker met and talked to Warren Reynolds at the murder scene: "Reynolds returned to 10th & Patton at about [1:20], despite Reynolds' testimony to the contrary" (p112). True, in 1983,

Walker told Myers that he did meet Reynolds, about 1:22. However, he adds, "One of the used car lot operators saw the incident... Warren Reynolds" (p114). The latter never said that he saw the shooting--Walker's memory fails him here.

And Reynolds would hardly have been the one to tell Walker, "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson". Ruinously for him, Walker told Myers that it was "Reynolds [who] gave me the description of the gunman" (p114). Walker was apparently unaware that TV

film footage has turned up showing Reynolds telling police at the scene that he last saw a suspicious man going into the back of an old house near the Texaco station (WM p131). Reynolds, then, could not have been Walker's "300 E. Jefferson" witness, a
full block west of the house. (Reynolds' suspicious man may not have been the gunman at all, but a vigilante trailing the gunman.) Myers, then, with one hand, was simply extending Walker's witness-identity deception, despite his own text and frame grabs
which, with the other hand, expose said deception! Myers giveth and Myers taketh away.

Fifth (gathering steam) clue: Myers then buttresses the invented Walker/Reynolds confab with yet another out-of-thin-air incident, based on the word of... no one at all: "Warren Reynolds, who had come with [Sgt. Bud Owens & Assistant DA Bill

Alexander] from 10th & Patton, pointed to an old house near the Texaco station..." (p120) Alexander did not testify to the Warren Commission, and Owens, in his Commission testimony, did not mention bringing along a witness to the Texaco area. None of the
principals, then--Reynolds, Walker, Alexander, Owens--can support Myers' vignettes re Reynolds "returning" to and leaving the scene of the crime circa 1:20 and 1:22. Thin air.

Sixth (Eureka!) clue: Relocation, relocation, relocation. Why would Walker and Myers go to so much trouble to falsely identify and relocate a witness? Well, what other witness or witnesses were "over here on Jefferson"? Yes--Robert and Mary Brock,

in effect the gatekeepers of the parking-lot suspect. In fact, the Brocks were the only witnesses who stated that they "last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind" the service station. (WM p551) In fact, they may have been the last
witnesses to have reported seeing the suspect, but not in the parking lot, and certainly not doffing his jacket. Because at 1:22, he was reported at "about 300 E. Jefferson", a block further west, still wearing his "white jacket". Certainly worth Walker'
s false identification of his witness, and Myers' subsequent, false relocation of him elsewhere. Two wrongs and no right.

And the first transmissions re the Texaco location were "Suspect just passed 401 E. Jefferson" and "Subject just passed 401 E. Jefferson" (CE 705pp20-21)

Seventh clue: At 1:26, Sgt. Gerald Hill reported from 12th & Beckley "Have a man in the car with me that can identify the suspect if anybody gets... one." (CE 1974 p63) About 1:23, at the Tippit scene, according to Hill's testimony, "Another

person came up [and] told us the man had run over into the funeral home parking lot", which was opposite the Texaco station (v7p48). Sgt. Bud Owens similarly testified that, at the "scene of the shooting... we were informed by a man whom I do not know
that the suspect that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson" (v7p79). Someone, then, from the Texaco-station area--Hill and Owens both garbled the where of it--had run down to where the police were congregating. And Hill,
clearly, immediately, took this man near to where the man had last seen the suspect, Beckley & Jefferson, or 300 E. Jefferson, which is two half-blocks north of 12th & Beckley. In fact, "300" would be on the south side of Jefferson. If Walker and his
witness were being very very precise, that would mean that the suspect had crossed Jefferson, heading right towards... 12th & Beckley.

Eighth clue: But there must have been a big problem--retrospectively--with this witness. In fact, Hill's testimony constitutes an implicit, hapless denial that he even had a witness or that he had even radioed from 12th & Beckley, even though it'

s on the record. On the record, Gerald! Both the FBI transcription (see above) and Myers (p124) acknowledge that Hill sent the 1:26 message. Hill testified, falsely, that, about 1:25, he left the Tippit scene and "whipped around the block. I went down to
the first intersection east of the block where all this incident occurred and made a right turn and traveled one block and came back up on Jefferson", where he met Owens at the Texaco/old-house site (v7p48). The poor Warren Commission did not have time
to check out every DPD tale.

Who was Hill's radioactive witness, whom, figuratively, he dare not touch, or acknowledge, let alone name? Myers apparently knew, hence his totally unsupported relocation of that witness (as well as Officer Walker) from Crawford & Jefferson to

10th & Patton. This is known as throwing the hounds off the scent. But by fallaciously drawing a witness away from the Crawford area, Myers ironically draws attention to that area. Reynolds was looking east from Crawford area. But Hill's witness was
looking west, towards Beckley. Now who could have gotten a pretty good look at the fleeing suspect, good enough to have estimated height, weight, race, and age, and described the man's clothing? Who could have seen him that closely--seen him as, say, he
passed the Texaco station? Robert and/or Mary Brock, of course. Walker doesn't indicate the sex or number of his witnesses ("We have a description"), so it could have been either Mr. or Mrs. Brock, or both.

And, just as the WFAA-TV footage of Reynolds exposes the Walker lie, so it exposes the Brocks' lies. As noted above, Mrs. Brock stated that she informed Reynolds that "she last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's

Texaco Service Station". Clearly, she did not so inform him, not without some strong input from Reynolds, who had his own story to tell and was telling it to the cops, that day, and would have told it to her. But she failed to give herself and her
husband a lifeline out of the Reynolds morass. A frame-grab is worth a thousand words. Moral: Whatever you do, don't hitch your wagon to Warren Reynolds.

Despite their apparent proximity to the suspect, neither Brock was invited either to attend a lineup or to testify for the Commission. It might have been too easy, then, for people to connect the dots: "over here on Jefferson", "300 E. Jefferson",

the Brocks. As the witnesses both closest to 300 E. Jefferson and to the parking lot, the Brocks had to be downplayed, had to be weaned off Jefferson & Beckley and weaned onto the parking lot. (Sgt. Hill didn't just downplay them--he vaporized them, or
one of them.) More publicity would have meant more scrutiny, prickly questions. (On that same day--Jan. 21, 1964--Reynolds himself was slipping further into the morass: For his part, he misleadingly told the FBI then that he "last observed the individual
to turn north" by the service station: "[The Brocks] informed him the individual had gone through the parking lot." [FBI interview report/WMp544] Naively, he apparently thought that the WFAA footage had been deep-sixed.)

In sum: The jacket was planted, the Texaco jacket witnesses were manufactured, Oswald was, beyond doubt, being framed for Tippit's murder, and Dale Myers was last seen imploding.

dcw

My brain hurts. Maybe it's the Myers. So, something happened and they framed Oswald. I agree.

As you may know, I had pegged several witnesses, over the years, one at a time of course, as Sgt. Hill's mystery witness--Benavides, Scoggins, Martha Mitchell. (wonder if anyone will notice that) But it wasn't until Myers enlisted Reynolds for the

role of *Walker's* mystery witness--as Myers says, despite his testimony!--that I began to realize that the Hill hot potato (as I noted, Hill even denied that he sent the transmission that he sent re *his* witness) might also have something to do with
the Texaco area, not with the actual crime scene. That narrowed the list of candidates considerably. Then I saw that "300 E. Jefferson" meant Jefferson & Beckley. What witness was so crucial to the jacket-ditching that naming him as Hill's 12th & Beckley
witness/Walker's 300 E. Jefferson witness--would destroy the official LN story? Of course, Robert (or Mary) Brock. What on earth, that is, would Brock be doing at 12th & Beckley when what he supposedly witnessed was right in his own back yard? Reynolds
was apparently (to Myers' mind) an expendable jacket witness. The Brocks were not.

In sum: There were NO witnesses to the Texaco parking lot incident. Not even Patterson, who was another victim of the Reynolds old-house morass. (As with Brock, Patterson can't tell the FBI the actual Reynolds story [captured on film] without

negating his own parking-lot story.) Yes, there was a white jacket found in the lot; but there was another white jacket on the suspect Brock saw heading towards Beckley, to which spot the latter traveled with Hill. Hence, Myers' contortionist act with
Walker/Reynolds...

dcw

So...something happened and they framed Oswald. I agree.

I disagree. See how easy that was?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:32:26 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

1:22pm DPD radio message translates as The Jacket Was Planted, Folks--and that ain't all

First faint clue: DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee transcribes the first line of the transmission thusly: "Have a description of the suspect on Jefferson." Actually, the transmission runs, "We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson." The

omitted "over here" makes it sound like the sender, Officer Roy Walker, is actually on Jefferson. Is there a problem with that? Oh, yes.

Second faint clue: But, first, continuing the text of the 1:22 transmission: "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson. He's a white male, about 30, 5'8", black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt, and dark slacks". (DPD radio logs) Dale

Myers tinkers with the description: "Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson." ("With Malice" p114) Note that he adds "block of", making it sound as if Walker is simply indicating a block. But Walker specified an address, 300, at Jefferson &
Beckley, a full block west of the site where the jacket was found, at Jefferson & Crawford. And if it be thought that dictabelt skips account for the missing words, see below for follow-ups on Myers and Walker. And note that the dispatcher, at 1:26,
has the suspect "going west on Jefferson from the 300 block". (CE 705 p22)

Third faint clue: At 1:19:05, the dispatcher tells Walker to check out 501 E. 10th at Denver (WMp105). Then, at 1:19:59, he tells Walker "The suspect's running west on Jefferson from the location" (DPD radio logs/WMp109). When, at 1:21:37, Walker

radios "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet" (DPD radio logs), the dispatcher again directs him to "501 E. 10th at Denver" (CE 705p20/WM p113). Finally, at 1:22:36, Walker radios his "over here" description. From his 1:21:37 transmission, we know
that Walker was, at the time, on Jefferson. But we don't know, from his radio transmissions, whether he was ever at 10th & Patton. He doesn't correct or follow-up the dispatcher's "10th at Denver", after either of the latter's advisories.

Fourth (getting somewhere) clue: And yet Myers insists that Walker met and talked to Warren Reynolds at the murder scene: "Reynolds returned to 10th & Patton at about [1:20], despite Reynolds' testimony to the contrary" (p112). True, in 1983, Walker

told Myers that he did meet Reynolds, about 1:22. However, he adds, "One of the used car lot operators saw the incident... Warren Reynolds" (p114). The latter never said that he saw the shooting--Walker's memory fails him here.

And Reynolds would hardly have been the one to tell Walker, "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson". Ruinously for him, Walker told Myers that it was "Reynolds [who] gave me the description of the gunman" (p114). Walker was apparently unaware that TV film

footage has turned up showing Reynolds telling police at the scene that he last saw a suspicious man going into the back of an old house near the Texaco station (WM p131). Reynolds, then, could not have been Walker's "300 E. Jefferson" witness, a full
block west of the house. (Reynolds' suspicious man may not have been the gunman at all, but a vigilante trailing the gunman.) Myers, then, with one hand, was simply extending Walker's witness-identity deception, despite his own text and frame grabs
which, with the other hand, expose said deception! Myers giveth and Myers taketh away.

Fifth (gathering steam) clue: Myers then buttresses the invented Walker/Reynolds confab with yet another out-of-thin-air incident, based on the word of... no one at all: "Warren Reynolds, who had come with [Sgt. Bud Owens & Assistant DA Bill

Alexander] from 10th & Patton, pointed to an old house near the Texaco station..." (p120) Alexander did not testify to the Warren Commission, and Owens, in his Commission testimony, did not mention bringing along a witness to the Texaco area. None of
the principals, then--Reynolds, Walker, Alexander, Owens--can support Myers' vignettes re Reynolds "returning" to and leaving the scene of the crime circa 1:20 and 1:22. Thin air.

Sixth (Eureka!) clue: Relocation, relocation, relocation. Why would Walker and Myers go to so much trouble to falsely identify and relocate a witness? Well, what other witness or witnesses were "over here on Jefferson"? Yes--Robert and Mary Brock,

in effect the gatekeepers of the parking-lot suspect. In fact, the Brocks were the only witnesses who stated that they "last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind" the service station. (WM p551) In fact, they may have been the last
witnesses to have reported seeing the suspect, but not in the parking lot, and certainly not doffing his jacket. Because at 1:22, he was reported at "about 300 E. Jefferson", a block further west, still wearing his "white jacket". Certainly worth
Walker's false identification of his witness, and Myers' subsequent, false relocation of him elsewhere. Two wrongs and no right.

And the first transmissions re the Texaco location were "Suspect just passed 401 E. Jefferson" and "Subject just passed 401 E. Jefferson" (CE 705pp20-21)

Seventh clue: At 1:26, Sgt. Gerald Hill reported from 12th & Beckley "Have a man in the car with me that can identify the suspect if anybody gets... one." (CE 1974 p63) About 1:23, at the Tippit scene, according to Hill's testimony, "Another person

came up [and] told us the man had run over into the funeral home parking lot", which was opposite the Texaco station (v7p48). Sgt. Bud Owens similarly testified that, at the "scene of the shooting... we were informed by a man whom I do not know that the
suspect that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson" (v7p79). Someone, then, from the Texaco-station area--Hill and Owens both garbled the where of it--had run down to where the police were congregating. And Hill, clearly,
immediately, took this man near to where the man had last seen the suspect, Beckley & Jefferson, or 300 E. Jefferson, which is two half-blocks north of 12th & Beckley. In fact, "300" would be on the south side of Jefferson. If Walker and his witness
were being very very precise, that would mean that the suspect had crossed Jefferson, heading right towards... 12th & Beckley.

Eighth clue: But there must have been a big problem--retrospectively--with this witness. In fact, Hill's testimony constitutes an implicit, hapless denial that he even had a witness or that he had even radioed from 12th & Beckley, even though it's on

the record. On the record, Gerald! Both the FBI transcription (see above) and Myers (p124) acknowledge that Hill sent the 1:26 message. Hill testified, falsely, that, about 1:25, he left the Tippit scene and "whipped around the block. I went down to
the first intersection east of the block where all this incident occurred and made a right turn and traveled one block and came back up on Jefferson", where he met Owens at the Texaco/old-house site (v7p48). The poor Warren Commission did not have time
to check out every DPD tale.

Who was Hill's radioactive witness, whom, figuratively, he dare not touch, or acknowledge, let alone name? Myers apparently knew, hence his totally unsupported relocation of that witness (as well as Officer Walker) from Crawford & Jefferson to 10th &

Patton. This is known as throwing the hounds off the scent. But by fallaciously drawing a witness away from the Crawford area, Myers ironically draws attention to that area. Reynolds was looking east from Crawford area. But Hill's witness was looking
west, towards Beckley. Now who could have gotten a pretty good look at the fleeing suspect, good enough to have estimated height, weight, race, and age, and described the man's clothing? Who could have seen him that closely--seen him as, say, he passed
the Texaco station? Robert and/or Mary Brock, of course. Walker doesn't indicate the sex or number of his witnesses ("We have a description"), so it could have been either Mr. or Mrs. Brock, or both.

And, just as the WFAA-TV footage of Reynolds exposes the Walker lie, so it exposes the Brocks' lies. As noted above, Mrs. Brock stated that she informed Reynolds that "she last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco

Service Station". Clearly, she did not so inform him, not without some strong input from Reynolds, who had his own story to tell and was telling it to the cops, that day, and would have told it to her. But she failed to give herself and her husband a
lifeline out of the Reynolds morass. A frame-grab is worth a thousand words. Moral: Whatever you do, don't hitch your wagon to Warren Reynolds.

Mary Brock identified the man in the parking lot as Oswald. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_m.htm
== quote ==
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white
male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Approximately five minutes later two individuals from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, appeared at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, making inquiry as to whether she had noticed the young white man come by the station. She indicated she
had, at which time they informed her that this individual had in all probability shot a Dallas police officer. She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the parking lot
directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
==unquote ==

Her husband wasn’t certain.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_r.htm

== quote ==
ROBERT BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was employed as a mechanic at Roger Ballew Texaco Service Station, 600 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. He advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, November 22, 1963, a young
white man passed him, BROCK and his wife, and proceeded north past the Texaco Service Station into the parking lot, at which time the individual disappeared.

Approximately five minutes later, WARREN REYNOLDS and another individual from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot came to the Texaco Service Station and informed him, BROCK, of the fact that a police officer had been shot approximately two blocks away, and that
the individual responsible for the shooting had been observed turning north off Jefferson Street past the Texaco Service Station.

BROCK advised he, WARREN REYNOLDS and various police officers from the Dallas Police Department had searched the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station in efforts to locate the person responsible for the shooting, with negative
results. BROCK advised, however, a Dallas, Texas, police officer, name unknown, had located a jacket underneath a 1954 Oldsmobile which was parked in parking space # 17. This jacket apparently had belonged to the person who had shortly before shot a
Dallas police officer.

ROBERT BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he could not positively identify same as being identical with the individual who had passed him at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
== unquote ==

Despite their apparent proximity to the suspect, neither Brock was invited either to attend a lineup or to testify for the Commission. It might have been too easy, then, for people to connect the dots: "over here on Jefferson", "300 E. Jefferson", the

Brocks. As the witnesses both closest to 300 E. Jefferson and to the parking lot, the Brocks had to be downplayed, had to be weaned off Jefferson & Beckley and weaned onto the parking lot. (Sgt. Hill didn't just downplay them--he vaporized them, or one
of them.) More publicity would have meant more scrutiny, prickly questions. (On that same day--Jan. 21, 1964--Reynolds himself was slipping further into the morass: For his part, he misleadingly told the FBI then that he "last observed the individual
to turn north" by the service station: "[The Brocks] informed him the individual had gone through the parking lot." [FBI interview report/WMp544] Naively, he apparently thought that the WFAA footage had been deep-sixed.)

You read too much into every line of every witness’s testimony.

In sum: The jacket was planted,

Why? What happened to the jacket that Oswald was seen zipping up by Earlene Roberts as he left the rooming house?

the Texaco jacket witnesses were manufactured,

Why bother?

Killing Tippit and framing Oswald for that murder doesn’t improve or change the evidence indicating Oswald killed JFK one iota. Tippit’s murder is totally unnecessary for any frame-up of Oswald for the assassination, which is where most critics
concentrate their allegations of a frame-up.

Oswald was, beyond doubt, being framed for Tippit's murder, and Dale Myers was last seen imploding.

Your conclusion ignores all the eyewitness testimony putting Oswald as the killer of Tippit, as well as all the forensic evidence indicating the revolver taken off Oswald in the theatre was the one used to kill Tippit. You allege those inconvenient
witnesses were all lying and the forensic evidence was swapped or planted, but never come close to establishing any of that.

Instead, we see you reading too much meaning into every utterance by witnesses you accept.

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:31:22 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:32:26 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

1:22pm DPD radio message translates as The Jacket Was Planted, Folks--and that ain't all

First faint clue: DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee transcribes the first line of the transmission thusly: "Have a description of the suspect on Jefferson." Actually, the transmission runs, "We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson." The

omitted "over here" makes it sound like the sender, Officer Roy Walker, is actually on Jefferson. Is there a problem with that? Oh, yes.

Second faint clue: But, first, continuing the text of the 1:22 transmission: "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson. He's a white male, about 30, 5'8", black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt, and dark slacks". (DPD radio logs) Dale Myers

tinkers with the description: "Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson." ("With Malice" p114) Note that he adds "block of", making it sound as if Walker is simply indicating a block. But Walker specified an address, 300, at Jefferson & Beckley, a
full block west of the site where the jacket was found, at Jefferson & Crawford. And if it be thought that dictabelt skips account for the missing words, see below for follow-ups on Myers and Walker. And note that the dispatcher, at 1:26, has the suspect
"going west on Jefferson from the 300 block". (CE 705 p22)

Third faint clue: At 1:19:05, the dispatcher tells Walker to check out 501 E. 10th at Denver (WMp105). Then, at 1:19:59, he tells Walker "The suspect's running west on Jefferson from the location" (DPD radio logs/WMp109). When, at 1:21:37, Walker

radios "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet" (DPD radio logs), the dispatcher again directs him to "501 E. 10th at Denver" (CE 705p20/WM p113). Finally, at 1:22:36, Walker radios his "over here" description. From his 1:21:37 transmission, we know
that Walker was, at the time, on Jefferson. But we don't know, from his radio transmissions, whether he was ever at 10th & Patton. He doesn't correct or follow-up the dispatcher's "10th at Denver", after either of the latter's advisories.

Fourth (getting somewhere) clue: And yet Myers insists that Walker met and talked to Warren Reynolds at the murder scene: "Reynolds returned to 10th & Patton at about [1:20], despite Reynolds' testimony to the contrary" (p112). True, in 1983, Walker

told Myers that he did meet Reynolds, about 1:22. However, he adds, "One of the used car lot operators saw the incident... Warren Reynolds" (p114). The latter never said that he saw the shooting--Walker's memory fails him here.

And Reynolds would hardly have been the one to tell Walker, "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson". Ruinously for him, Walker told Myers that it was "Reynolds [who] gave me the description of the gunman" (p114). Walker was apparently unaware that TV film

footage has turned up showing Reynolds telling police at the scene that he last saw a suspicious man going into the back of an old house near the Texaco station (WM p131). Reynolds, then, could not have been Walker's "300 E. Jefferson" witness, a full
block west of the house. (Reynolds' suspicious man may not have been the gunman at all, but a vigilante trailing the gunman.) Myers, then, with one hand, was simply extending Walker's witness-identity deception, despite his own text and frame grabs which,
with the other hand, expose said deception! Myers giveth and Myers taketh away.

Fifth (gathering steam) clue: Myers then buttresses the invented Walker/Reynolds confab with yet another out-of-thin-air incident, based on the word of... no one at all: "Warren Reynolds, who had come with [Sgt. Bud Owens & Assistant DA Bill

Alexander] from 10th & Patton, pointed to an old house near the Texaco station..." (p120) Alexander did not testify to the Warren Commission, and Owens, in his Commission testimony, did not mention bringing along a witness to the Texaco area. None of the
principals, then--Reynolds, Walker, Alexander, Owens--can support Myers' vignettes re Reynolds "returning" to and leaving the scene of the crime circa 1:20 and 1:22. Thin air.

Sixth (Eureka!) clue: Relocation, relocation, relocation. Why would Walker and Myers go to so much trouble to falsely identify and relocate a witness? Well, what other witness or witnesses were "over here on Jefferson"? Yes--Robert and Mary Brock, in

effect the gatekeepers of the parking-lot suspect. In fact, the Brocks were the only witnesses who stated that they "last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind" the service station. (WM p551) In fact, they may have been the last
witnesses to have reported seeing the suspect, but not in the parking lot, and certainly not doffing his jacket. Because at 1:22, he was reported at "about 300 E. Jefferson", a block further west, still wearing his "white jacket". Certainly worth Walker'
s false identification of his witness, and Myers' subsequent, false relocation of him elsewhere. Two wrongs and no right.

And the first transmissions re the Texaco location were "Suspect just passed 401 E. Jefferson" and "Subject just passed 401 E. Jefferson" (CE 705pp20-21)

Seventh clue: At 1:26, Sgt. Gerald Hill reported from 12th & Beckley "Have a man in the car with me that can identify the suspect if anybody gets... one." (CE 1974 p63) About 1:23, at the Tippit scene, according to Hill's testimony, "Another person

came up [and] told us the man had run over into the funeral home parking lot", which was opposite the Texaco station (v7p48). Sgt. Bud Owens similarly testified that, at the "scene of the shooting... we were informed by a man whom I do not know that the
suspect that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson" (v7p79). Someone, then, from the Texaco-station area--Hill and Owens both garbled the where of it--had run down to where the police were congregating. And Hill, clearly,
immediately, took this man near to where the man had last seen the suspect, Beckley & Jefferson, or 300 E. Jefferson, which is two half-blocks north of 12th & Beckley. In fact, "300" would be on the south side of Jefferson. If Walker and his witness were
being very very precise, that would mean that the suspect had crossed Jefferson, heading right towards... 12th & Beckley.

Eighth clue: But there must have been a big problem--retrospectively--with this witness. In fact, Hill's testimony constitutes an implicit, hapless denial that he even had a witness or that he had even radioed from 12th & Beckley, even though it's on

the record. On the record, Gerald! Both the FBI transcription (see above) and Myers (p124) acknowledge that Hill sent the 1:26 message. Hill testified, falsely, that, about 1:25, he left the Tippit scene and "whipped around the block. I went down to the
first intersection east of the block where all this incident occurred and made a right turn and traveled one block and came back up on Jefferson", where he met Owens at the Texaco/old-house site (v7p48). The poor Warren Commission did not have time to
check out every DPD tale.

Who was Hill's radioactive witness, whom, figuratively, he dare not touch, or acknowledge, let alone name? Myers apparently knew, hence his totally unsupported relocation of that witness (as well as Officer Walker) from Crawford & Jefferson to 10th &

Patton. This is known as throwing the hounds off the scent. But by fallaciously drawing a witness away from the Crawford area, Myers ironically draws attention to that area. Reynolds was looking east from Crawford area. But Hill's witness was looking
west, towards Beckley. Now who could have gotten a pretty good look at the fleeing suspect, good enough to have estimated height, weight, race, and age, and described the man's clothing? Who could have seen him that closely--seen him as, say, he passed
the Texaco station? Robert and/or Mary Brock, of course. Walker doesn't indicate the sex or number of his witnesses ("We have a description"), so it could have been either Mr. or Mrs. Brock, or both.

And, just as the WFAA-TV footage of Reynolds exposes the Walker lie, so it exposes the Brocks' lies. As noted above, Mrs. Brock stated that she informed Reynolds that "she last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco

Service Station". Clearly, she did not so inform him, not without some strong input from Reynolds, who had his own story to tell and was telling it to the cops, that day, and would have told it to her. But she failed to give herself and her husband a
lifeline out of the Reynolds morass. A frame-grab is worth a thousand words. Moral: Whatever you do, don't hitch your wagon to Warren Reynolds.

Mary Brock identified the man in the parking lot as Oswald. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_m.htm
== quote ==
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white

male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Approximately five minutes later two individuals from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, appeared at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, making inquiry as to whether she had noticed the young white man come by the station. She indicated

she had, at which time they informed her that this individual had in all probability shot a Dallas police officer. She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the parking lot
directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Mrs. Brock couldn't know that the WFAA-TV footage would eventually turn up and show Reynolds telling police officers, on 11/22, that he saw the suspect entering an old house near the Texaco, not heading for the lot. (photo With Malice p131) He didn't
have to be informed by Mrs. B. So it's not just her word vs. his--we have film evidence that she was lying re Reynolds.

Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Whoever it was, she (and/or Mr. Brock) last saw the man heading towards 300 E. Jefferson, still wearing a white jacket (as per Walker's 1:22 radio transmission).

==unquote ==

Her husband wasn’t certain.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_r.htm

== quote ==
ROBERT BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was employed as a mechanic at Roger Ballew Texaco Service Station, 600 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. He advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, November 22, 1963, a young

white man passed him, BROCK and his wife, and proceeded north past the Texaco Service Station

Again, we have the film footage of Reynolds by the old house, into which he saw the man enter, not the parking lot.

into the parking lot, at which time the individual disappeared.

Approximately five minutes later, WARREN REYNOLDS and another individual from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot came to the Texaco Service Station and informed him, BROCK, of the fact that a police officer had been shot approximately two blocks away, and

that the individual responsible for the shooting had been observed turning north off Jefferson Street past the Texaco Service Station.

BROCK advised he, WARREN REYNOLDS and various police officers from the Dallas Police Department had searched the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station in efforts to locate the person responsible for the shooting, with negative

results. BROCK advised, however, a Dallas, Texas, police officer, name unknown, had located a jacket underneath a 1954 Oldsmobile which was parked in parking space # 17. This jacket apparently had belonged to the person who had shortly before shot a
Dallas police officer.

ROBERT BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he could not positively identify same as being identical with the individual who had passed him at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
== unquote ==

Despite their apparent proximity to the suspect, neither Brock was invited either to attend a lineup or to testify for the Commission. It might have been too easy, then, for people to connect the dots: "over here on Jefferson", "300 E. Jefferson",

the Brocks. As the witnesses both closest to 300 E. Jefferson and to the parking lot, the Brocks had to be downplayed, had to be weaned off Jefferson & Beckley and weaned onto the parking lot. (Sgt. Hill didn't just downplay them--he vaporized them, or
one of them.) More publicity would have meant more scrutiny, prickly questions. (On that same day--Jan. 21, 1964--Reynolds himself was slipping further into the morass: For his part, he misleadingly told the FBI then that he "last observed the individual
to turn north" by the service station: "[The Brocks] informed him the individual had gone through the parking lot." [FBI interview report/WMp544] Naively, he apparently thought that the WFAA footage had been deep-sixed.)

You read too much into every line of every witness’s testimony.

You accept too blithely almost every statement of almost every witness, and ignore contradictory evidence.

In sum: The jacket was planted,

Why? What happened to the jacket that Oswald was seen zipping up by Earlene Roberts as he left the rooming house?

Even Dale Myers admitted that she was a fabricator.

the Texaco jacket witnesses were manufactured,

Why bother?

Killing Tippit and framing Oswald for that murder doesn’t improve or change the evidence indicating Oswald killed JFK one iota.

Never said it did.

Tippit’s murder is totally unnecessary for any frame-up of Oswald for the assassination

Captain Fritz: "I instructed [my officers] to get those witnesses over for identification just as soon as they could, and for us to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing, so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated
the President's killing, WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES".--With Malice p207. Fritz understates the paucity of witnesses in Dealey. There were none, Check the DPD lineup tally (WM p458) for the 7:55pm lineup, which Brennan supposedly attended.
No mention of him or his sponsor, Sorrells.

For that matter, as I noted, neither of the Brocks attended a lineup, although they seemed to have gotten as a good a look at the suspect as Callaway or Guinyard, who also saw the man fleeing.

, which is where most critics concentrate their allegations of a frame-up.

Oswald was, beyond doubt, being framed for Tippit's murder, and Dale Myers was last seen imploding.

Your conclusion ignores all the eyewitness testimony putting Oswald as the killer of Tippit

I have, previously, shown that Mrs. Markham and the Davises did not even see the killer, only a vigilante chasing him. Unless you believe that Callaway or Scoggins was the killer...

, as well as all the forensic evidence indicating the revolver taken off Oswald in the theatre was the one used to kill Tippit.
You allege those inconvenient witnesses were all lying (see above)

Benavides tailed the gunman as far as the Abundant Life Temple, yet he did not attend a lineup either. The absence of the Brocks & Benavides from lineups says a lot...

and the forensic evidence was swapped or planted, but never come close to establishing any of that.

The finding of the hulls in Oak Cliff was compromised by the fact that it took some 4 months for Benavides to come around and say that he found them on the Davis lawn, when they were apparently found a block away. If the location was wrong, perhaps the
hulls themselves were the wrong ones.

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 7:31:22 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
< more nonsense copied and pasted from his favotrite jfkassassination.net >

Mary Brock wasn't interviewed until January 22, 1964, long after Oswald was recognized the world over.
Because Oswald had been dead for a couple of months, she could not have viewed a police lineup which included him.
She COULD have viewed a photographic lineup, where the FBI displayed several photographs and asked her to pick out the man she saw.
But this apparently wasn't done either.

Instead, she was shown a single photograph, Oswald's mugshot when he was arrested in New Orleans, and identified Oswald from that.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/mary-brock.gif

That's what they ( and you ) consider a positive identifcation.
It's ridiculous.

Why, of all the photographs they had of Oswald in January 1964, did they show her his mugshot from New Orleans ?

We don't have the answer to that, because Mary Brock and her husband Robert, were never called to give testimony.

Her husband wasn’t certain.

That's a lie. The FBI report on Robert Brock makes no mention that he was uncertain.
It says that he "could not positively identify" Oswald as the man he saw.
The "uncertainty" is your interpretation, not what the report said.

And if there was an uncertainty, the FBI would have noted it in its report, as they did in the interview of witness L.J. Lewis.
Lewis was shown the same New Orleans mugshot photograph on the same date as Mary Brock, but the FBI reported Lewis "would hesitate
to state whether the individual was identical with Oswald."

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/lewis-1-22.png

The key word describing uncertainty here would be "hesitate".
From experience, I can tell you that police describe similar things in their reports in the same fashion.
And the report on Lewis was written by the same agents who interviewed Robert Brock.

There's nothing in the FBI report to suggest Robert Brock was uncertain, only that he "could not positively identify" a photograph of Oswald as the man he saw.
We don't even know for sure what photograph he was shown, although he was interviewed on the same date and by the same agents as his wife and L.J. Lewis,
so it would be safe to assume he was shown the same single New Orleans mugshot.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/robert-brock.png

To state as fact that Robert Brock "wasn't certain" is simply your interpretation of what the report says.
And it's deceptive because that's not what the report actually says.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 16:31:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

The finding of the hulls in Oak Cliff was compromised by the fact that it took some 4 months for Benavides to come around and say that he found them on the Davis lawn, when they were apparently found a block away. If the location was wrong, perhaps the

hulls themselves were the wrong ones.

dcw

Those shells ( hulls ) had NOTHING to do with the Tippit murder.
Were they fired from the handgun ?
Absolutely.
But there's no evidence that they were fired at 10th and Patton.

1. There's no chain of custody form for the shells.

2. The witnesses who found the shells could not identify the shells in evidence as the shells they found. ( CE 2011 / 24 H 415-416 )

3. At least two of the shells in evidence have markings on them that were not consistent with anyone known to be in the chain of custody. ( DPD Box 7, pg. 478 )

4. Off. J.M.Poe, who told the FBI he marked the two shells he got from Domingo Benavides, before giving them to Sgt. Barnes, ( CE 2011 / 24 H 415-416 ) could not find his mark on any of the shells when asked to do so. During his testimony, he chose the
wrong shells ( both Westerns, Q-75 & Q-77 ) as the ones he marked. ( 7 H 69 ) One of those Western shells ( Q-75 ), was identified as having been found by Virginia Davis. ( CE 2011 / 24 H 415 )
Shell Q-75 could not have been found by BOTH Virginia Davis AND Benavides.

5. The shells in evidence do not match the bullets recovered from Tippit's body. ( 3 H 465 )

6. The shells were not turned over to the FBI until November 28, 1963. ( DPD Box 7, pg. 478 )

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:23:51 AM UTC-8, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

The finding of the hulls in Oak Cliff was compromised by the fact that it took some 4 months for Benavides to come around and say that he found them on the Davis lawn, when they were apparently found a block away. If the location was wrong, perhaps

the hulls themselves were the wrong ones.

dcw

Those shells ( hulls ) had NOTHING to do with the Tippit murder.
Were they fired from the handgun ?
Absolutely.
But there's no evidence that they were fired at 10th and Patton.

1. There's no chain of custody form for the shells.

2. The witnesses who found the shells could not identify the shells in evidence as the shells they found. ( CE 2011 / 24 H 415-416 )

3. At least two of the shells in evidence have markings on them that were not consistent with anyone known to be in the chain of custody. ( DPD Box 7, pg. 478 )

4. Off. J.M.Poe, who told the FBI he marked the two shells he got from Domingo Benavides, before giving them to Sgt. Barnes, ( CE 2011 / 24 H 415-416 ) could not find his mark on any of the shells when asked to do so. During his testimony, he chose the

wrong shells ( both Westerns, Q-75 & Q-77 ) as the ones he marked. ( 7 H 69 )

One of those Western shells ( Q-75 ), was identified as having been found by Virginia Davis. ( CE 2011 / 24 H 415 )
Shell Q-75 could not have been found by BOTH Virginia Davis AND Benavides.

5. The shells in evidence do not match the bullets recovered from Tippit's body. ( 3 H 465 )

6. The shells were not turned over to the FBI until November 28, 1963. ( DPD Box 7, pg. 478 )

Good summation. Additionally, two early FBI reports state that both Davises found hulls in the "front yard" (With Malice pp490, 492). Their story was changed to say the hulls were found in the yard on Patton. The Benavides hulls changed yards. too,
from the Temple yard to the Davis yard.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 11:40:10 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:31:22 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:32:26 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

1:22pm DPD radio message translates as The Jacket Was Planted, Folks--and that ain't all

First faint clue: DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee transcribes the first line of the transmission thusly: "Have a description of the suspect on Jefferson." Actually, the transmission runs, "We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson." The

omitted "over here" makes it sound like the sender, Officer Roy Walker, is actually on Jefferson. Is there a problem with that? Oh, yes.

Second faint clue: But, first, continuing the text of the 1:22 transmission: "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson. He's a white male, about 30, 5'8", black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt, and dark slacks". (DPD radio logs) Dale

Myers tinkers with the description: "Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson." ("With Malice" p114) Note that he adds "block of", making it sound as if Walker is simply indicating a block. But Walker specified an address, 300, at Jefferson & Beckley,
a full block west of the site where the jacket was found, at Jefferson & Crawford. And if it be thought that dictabelt skips account for the missing words, see below for follow-ups on Myers and Walker. And note that the dispatcher, at 1:26, has the
suspect "going west on Jefferson from the 300 block". (CE 705 p22)

Third faint clue: At 1:19:05, the dispatcher tells Walker to check out 501 E. 10th at Denver (WMp105). Then, at 1:19:59, he tells Walker "The suspect's running west on Jefferson from the location" (DPD radio logs/WMp109). When, at 1:21:37, Walker

radios "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet" (DPD radio logs), the dispatcher again directs him to "501 E. 10th at Denver" (CE 705p20/WM p113). Finally, at 1:22:36, Walker radios his "over here" description. From his 1:21:37 transmission, we know
that Walker was, at the time, on Jefferson. But we don't know, from his radio transmissions, whether he was ever at 10th & Patton. He doesn't correct or follow-up the dispatcher's "10th at Denver", after either of the latter's advisories.

Fourth (getting somewhere) clue: And yet Myers insists that Walker met and talked to Warren Reynolds at the murder scene: "Reynolds returned to 10th & Patton at about [1:20], despite Reynolds' testimony to the contrary" (p112). True, in 1983,

Walker told Myers that he did meet Reynolds, about 1:22. However, he adds, "One of the used car lot operators saw the incident... Warren Reynolds" (p114). The latter never said that he saw the shooting--Walker's memory fails him here.

And Reynolds would hardly have been the one to tell Walker, "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson". Ruinously for him, Walker told Myers that it was "Reynolds [who] gave me the description of the gunman" (p114). Walker was apparently unaware that TV

film footage has turned up showing Reynolds telling police at the scene that he last saw a suspicious man going into the back of an old house near the Texaco station (WM p131). Reynolds, then, could not have been Walker's "300 E. Jefferson" witness, a
full block west of the house. (Reynolds' suspicious man may not have been the gunman at all, but a vigilante trailing the gunman.) Myers, then, with one hand, was simply extending Walker's witness-identity deception, despite his own text and frame grabs
which, with the other hand, expose said deception! Myers giveth and Myers taketh away.

Fifth (gathering steam) clue: Myers then buttresses the invented Walker/Reynolds confab with yet another out-of-thin-air incident, based on the word of... no one at all: "Warren Reynolds, who had come with [Sgt. Bud Owens & Assistant DA Bill

Alexander] from 10th & Patton, pointed to an old house near the Texaco station..." (p120) Alexander did not testify to the Warren Commission, and Owens, in his Commission testimony, did not mention bringing along a witness to the Texaco area. None of the
principals, then--Reynolds, Walker, Alexander, Owens--can support Myers' vignettes re Reynolds "returning" to and leaving the scene of the crime circa 1:20 and 1:22. Thin air.

Sixth (Eureka!) clue: Relocation, relocation, relocation. Why would Walker and Myers go to so much trouble to falsely identify and relocate a witness? Well, what other witness or witnesses were "over here on Jefferson"? Yes--Robert and Mary Brock,

in effect the gatekeepers of the parking-lot suspect. In fact, the Brocks were the only witnesses who stated that they "last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind" the service station. (WM p551) In fact, they may have been the last
witnesses to have reported seeing the suspect, but not in the parking lot, and certainly not doffing his jacket. Because at 1:22, he was reported at "about 300 E. Jefferson", a block further west, still wearing his "white jacket". Certainly worth Walker'
s false identification of his witness, and Myers' subsequent, false relocation of him elsewhere. Two wrongs and no right.

And the first transmissions re the Texaco location were "Suspect just passed 401 E. Jefferson" and "Subject just passed 401 E. Jefferson" (CE 705pp20-21)

Seventh clue: At 1:26, Sgt. Gerald Hill reported from 12th & Beckley "Have a man in the car with me that can identify the suspect if anybody gets... one." (CE 1974 p63) About 1:23, at the Tippit scene, according to Hill's testimony, "Another person

came up [and] told us the man had run over into the funeral home parking lot", which was opposite the Texaco station (v7p48). Sgt. Bud Owens similarly testified that, at the "scene of the shooting... we were informed by a man whom I do not know that the
suspect that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson" (v7p79). Someone, then, from the Texaco-station area--Hill and Owens both garbled the where of it--had run down to where the police were congregating. And Hill, clearly,
immediately, took this man near to where the man had last seen the suspect, Beckley & Jefferson, or 300 E. Jefferson, which is two half-blocks north of 12th & Beckley. In fact, "300" would be on the south side of Jefferson. If Walker and his witness were
being very very precise, that would mean that the suspect had crossed Jefferson, heading right towards... 12th & Beckley.

Eighth clue: But there must have been a big problem--retrospectively--with this witness. In fact, Hill's testimony constitutes an implicit, hapless denial that he even had a witness or that he had even radioed from 12th & Beckley, even though it's

on the record. On the record, Gerald! Both the FBI transcription (see above) and Myers (p124) acknowledge that Hill sent the 1:26 message. Hill testified, falsely, that, about 1:25, he left the Tippit scene and "whipped around the block. I went down to
the first intersection east of the block where all this incident occurred and made a right turn and traveled one block and came back up on Jefferson", where he met Owens at the Texaco/old-house site (v7p48). The poor Warren Commission did not have time
to check out every DPD tale.

Who was Hill's radioactive witness, whom, figuratively, he dare not touch, or acknowledge, let alone name? Myers apparently knew, hence his totally unsupported relocation of that witness (as well as Officer Walker) from Crawford & Jefferson to 10th

& Patton. This is known as throwing the hounds off the scent. But by fallaciously drawing a witness away from the Crawford area, Myers ironically draws attention to that area. Reynolds was looking east from Crawford area. But Hill's witness was looking
west, towards Beckley. Now who could have gotten a pretty good look at the fleeing suspect, good enough to have estimated height, weight, race, and age, and described the man's clothing? Who could have seen him that closely--seen him as, say, he passed
the Texaco station? Robert and/or Mary Brock, of course. Walker doesn't indicate the sex or number of his witnesses ("We have a description"), so it could have been either Mr. or Mrs. Brock, or both.

And, just as the WFAA-TV footage of Reynolds exposes the Walker lie, so it exposes the Brocks' lies. As noted above, Mrs. Brock stated that she informed Reynolds that "she last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's

Texaco Service Station". Clearly, she did not so inform him, not without some strong input from Reynolds, who had his own story to tell and was telling it to the cops, that day, and would have told it to her. But she failed to give herself and her
husband a lifeline out of the Reynolds morass. A frame-grab is worth a thousand words. Moral: Whatever you do, don't hitch your wagon to Warren Reynolds.

Mary Brock identified the man in the parking lot as Oswald. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_m.htm
== quote ==
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white

male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Approximately five minutes later two individuals from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, appeared at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, making inquiry as to whether she had noticed the young white man come by the station. She indicated

she had, at which time they informed her that this individual had in all probability shot a Dallas police officer. She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the parking lot
directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Mrs. Brock couldn't know that the WFAA-TV footage would eventually turn up and show Reynolds telling police officers, on 11/22, that he saw the suspect entering an old house near the Texaco, not heading for the lot. (photo With Malice p131) He didn't

have to be informed by Mrs. B. So it's not just her word vs. his--we have film evidence that she was lying re Reynolds.

Where can I see - and hear - this supposed film footage? Provide a link.

Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Whoever it was, she (and/or Mr. Brock) last saw the man heading towards 300 E. Jefferson, still wearing a white jacket (as per Walker's 1:22 radio transmission).

She identified the person as Oswald.

==unquote ==

Her husband wasn’t certain.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_r.htm

== quote ==
ROBERT BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was employed as a mechanic at Roger Ballew Texaco Service Station, 600 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. He advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, November 22, 1963, a young

white man passed him, BROCK and his wife, and proceeded north past the Texaco Service Station

Again, we have the film footage of Reynolds by the old house, into which he saw the man enter, not the parking lot.

into the parking lot, at which time the individual disappeared.

Approximately five minutes later, WARREN REYNOLDS and another individual from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot came to the Texaco Service Station and informed him, BROCK, of the fact that a police officer had been shot approximately two blocks away, and

that the individual responsible for the shooting had been observed turning north off Jefferson Street past the Texaco Service Station.

BROCK advised he, WARREN REYNOLDS and various police officers from the Dallas Police Department had searched the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station in efforts to locate the person responsible for the shooting, with negative

results. BROCK advised, however, a Dallas, Texas, police officer, name unknown, had located a jacket underneath a 1954 Oldsmobile which was parked in parking space # 17. This jacket apparently had belonged to the person who had shortly before shot a
Dallas police officer.

ROBERT BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he could not positively identify same as being identical with the individual who had passed him at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
== unquote ==

Despite their apparent proximity to the suspect, neither Brock was invited either to attend a lineup or to testify for the Commission. It might have been too easy, then, for people to connect the dots: "over here on Jefferson", "300 E. Jefferson",

the Brocks. As the witnesses both closest to 300 E. Jefferson and to the parking lot, the Brocks had to be downplayed, had to be weaned off Jefferson & Beckley and weaned onto the parking lot. (Sgt. Hill didn't just downplay them--he vaporized them, or
one of them.) More publicity would have meant more scrutiny, prickly questions. (On that same day--Jan. 21, 1964--Reynolds himself was slipping further into the morass: For his part, he misleadingly told the FBI then that he "last observed the individual
to turn north" by the service station: "[The Brocks] informed him the individual had gone through the parking lot." [FBI interview report/WMp544] Naively, he apparently thought that the WFAA footage had been deep-sixed.)

You read too much into every line of every witness’s testimony.

You accept too blithely almost every statement of almost every witness, and ignore contradictory evidence.

No, that’s untrue. I only accept eyewitness accounts that are corroborated - by the hard evidence, primarily, but by other witnesses as well.

In sum: The jacket was planted,

Why? What happened to the jacket that Oswald was seen zipping up by Earlene Roberts as he left the rooming house?

Even Dale Myers admitted that she was a fabricator.

Oswald admitted in custody he went back to the rooming house, changed some of his clothes, and took his gun. He couldn’t very well deny the gun, as some CTs do, because he knew it was taken off him in the theatre.

the Texaco jacket witnesses were manufactured,

Why bother?

Killing Tippit and framing Oswald for that murder doesn’t improve or change the evidence indicating Oswald killed JFK one iota.

Never said it did.

You deny it here, but argue for it immediately below.

Tippit’s murder is totally unnecessary for any frame-up of Oswald for the assassination

Captain Fritz: "I instructed [my officers] to get those witnesses over for identification just as soon as they could, and for us to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing, so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we

investigated the President's killing, WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES".--With Malice p207. Fritz understates the paucity of witnesses in Dealey. There were none, Check the DPD lineup tally (WM p458) for the 7:55pm lineup, which Brennan supposedly
attended. No mention of him or his sponsor, Sorrells.

Here you’re arguing what you just denied, that the evidence against Oswald in the Tippit case was manufactured because the evidence against Oswald in theJFK case wasn’t strong. You pretend Fritz instruction to build a strong Tippit case was an
instruction to his men to frame Oswald.

You need to prove that, not simply allege it.

See the info imparted to Gil here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wem9wqlTuHA/m/jRMN3OJ8CQAJ

For that matter, as I noted, neither of the Brocks attended a lineup, although they seemed to have gotten as a good a look at the suspect as Callaway or Guinyard, who also saw the man fleeing.

They didn’t witness a crime. What would they testify to? This is akin to the asking for the names of the patrons in the Texas Theatre. They didn’t witness the murder of Tippit. OnlyOswald resisting arrest. Which Oswald admitted to in custody. That
obviates the need to produce witnesses to Oswald resisting arrest. Doesn’t it?

, which is where most critics concentrate their allegations of a frame-up.

Oswald was, beyond doubt, being framed for Tippit's murder, and Dale Myers was last seen imploding.

Your conclusion ignores all the eyewitness testimony putting Oswald as the killer of Tippit

I have, previously, shown that Mrs. Markham and the Davises did not even see the killer, only a vigilante chasing him. Unless you believe that Callaway or Scoggins was the killer...

You haven’t shown anything of the sort. You may have argued for that, but the Davises testified to seeing the man empty his revolver and discard the shells. Since those shells in evidence match Oswald’s revolver, you’re arguing they saw Oswald
empty his revolver, or you are simply ignoring evidence you don’t like.

, as well as all the forensic evidence indicating the revolver taken off Oswald in the theatre was the one used to kill Tippit.
You allege those inconvenient witnesses were all lying (see above)

Benavides tailed the gunman as far as the Abundant Life Temple, yet he did not attend a lineup either. The absence of the Brocks & Benavides from lineups says a lot...

Only to you, but you are hearing things. How many witnesses did they need to identify Oswald a sthe shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene? You discount all those that picked Oswald out, why would you not discount the Brock’s and Benavides as
well?

and the forensic evidence was swapped or planted, but never come close to establishing any of that.

The finding of the hulls in Oak Cliff was compromised by the fact that it took some 4 months for Benavides to come around and say that he found them on the Davis lawn, when they were apparently found a block away. If the location was wrong, perhaps the

hulls themselves were the wrong ones.

You need to establish that, not just suggest it.

See this quote on the fifth page here: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

_The Presumption of Regularity:_
“ … in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper with the sack or the can or their contents. Where no evidence indicating otherwise is produced, the presumption of
regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and courts presume they have properly discharged their official duties.”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:06:06 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:31:22 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:32:26 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

1:22pm DPD radio message translates as The Jacket Was Planted, Folks--and that ain't all

First faint clue: DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee transcribes the first line of the transmission thusly: "Have a description of the suspect on Jefferson." Actually, the transmission runs, "We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson." The

omitted "over here" makes it sound like the sender, Officer Roy Walker, is actually on Jefferson. Is there a problem with that? Oh, yes.

Second faint clue: But, first, continuing the text of the 1:22 transmission: "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson. He's a white male, about 30, 5'8", black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt, and dark slacks". (DPD radio logs) Dale

Myers tinkers with the description: "Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson." ("With Malice" p114) Note that he adds "block of", making it sound as if Walker is simply indicating a block. But Walker specified an address, 300, at Jefferson & Beckley,
a full block west of the site where the jacket was found, at Jefferson & Crawford. And if it be thought that dictabelt skips account for the missing words, see below for follow-ups on Myers and Walker. And note that the dispatcher, at 1:26, has the
suspect "going west on Jefferson from the 300 block". (CE 705 p22)

Third faint clue: At 1:19:05, the dispatcher tells Walker to check out 501 E. 10th at Denver (WMp105). Then, at 1:19:59, he tells Walker "The suspect's running west on Jefferson from the location" (DPD radio logs/WMp109). When, at 1:21:37, Walker

radios "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet" (DPD radio logs), the dispatcher again directs him to "501 E. 10th at Denver" (CE 705p20/WM p113). Finally, at 1:22:36, Walker radios his "over here" description. From his 1:21:37 transmission, we know
that Walker was, at the time, on Jefferson. But we don't know, from his radio transmissions, whether he was ever at 10th & Patton. He doesn't correct or follow-up the dispatcher's "10th at Denver", after either of the latter's advisories.

Fourth (getting somewhere) clue: And yet Myers insists that Walker met and talked to Warren Reynolds at the murder scene: "Reynolds returned to 10th & Patton at about [1:20], despite Reynolds' testimony to the contrary" (p112). True, in 1983,

Walker told Myers that he did meet Reynolds, about 1:22. However, he adds, "One of the used car lot operators saw the incident... Warren Reynolds" (p114). The latter never said that he saw the shooting--Walker's memory fails him here.

And Reynolds would hardly have been the one to tell Walker, "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson". Ruinously for him, Walker told Myers that it was "Reynolds [who] gave me the description of the gunman" (p114). Walker was apparently unaware that TV

film footage has turned up showing Reynolds telling police at the scene that he last saw a suspicious man going into the back of an old house near the Texaco station (WM p131). Reynolds, then, could not have been Walker's "300 E. Jefferson" witness, a
full block west of the house. (Reynolds' suspicious man may not have been the gunman at all, but a vigilante trailing the gunman.) Myers, then, with one hand, was simply extending Walker's witness-identity deception, despite his own text and frame grabs
which, with the other hand, expose said deception! Myers giveth and Myers taketh away.

Fifth (gathering steam) clue: Myers then buttresses the invented Walker/Reynolds confab with yet another out-of-thin-air incident, based on the word of... no one at all: "Warren Reynolds, who had come with [Sgt. Bud Owens & Assistant DA Bill

Alexander] from 10th & Patton, pointed to an old house near the Texaco station..." (p120) Alexander did not testify to the Warren Commission, and Owens, in his Commission testimony, did not mention bringing along a witness to the Texaco area. None of the
principals, then--Reynolds, Walker, Alexander, Owens--can support Myers' vignettes re Reynolds "returning" to and leaving the scene of the crime circa 1:20 and 1:22. Thin air.

Sixth (Eureka!) clue: Relocation, relocation, relocation. Why would Walker and Myers go to so much trouble to falsely identify and relocate a witness? Well, what other witness or witnesses were "over here on Jefferson"? Yes--Robert and Mary Brock,

in effect the gatekeepers of the parking-lot suspect. In fact, the Brocks were the only witnesses who stated that they "last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind" the service station. (WM p551) In fact, they may have been the last
witnesses to have reported seeing the suspect, but not in the parking lot, and certainly not doffing his jacket. Because at 1:22, he was reported at "about 300 E. Jefferson", a block further west, still wearing his "white jacket". Certainly worth Walker'
s false identification of his witness, and Myers' subsequent, false relocation of him elsewhere. Two wrongs and no right.

And the first transmissions re the Texaco location were "Suspect just passed 401 E. Jefferson" and "Subject just passed 401 E. Jefferson" (CE 705pp20-21)

Seventh clue: At 1:26, Sgt. Gerald Hill reported from 12th & Beckley "Have a man in the car with me that can identify the suspect if anybody gets... one." (CE 1974 p63) About 1:23, at the Tippit scene, according to Hill's testimony, "Another

person came up [and] told us the man had run over into the funeral home parking lot", which was opposite the Texaco station (v7p48). Sgt. Bud Owens similarly testified that, at the "scene of the shooting... we were informed by a man whom I do not know
that the suspect that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson" (v7p79). Someone, then, from the Texaco-station area--Hill and Owens both garbled the where of it--had run down to where the police were congregating. And Hill,
clearly, immediately, took this man near to where the man had last seen the suspect, Beckley & Jefferson, or 300 E. Jefferson, which is two half-blocks north of 12th & Beckley. In fact, "300" would be on the south side of Jefferson. If Walker and his
witness were being very very precise, that would mean that the suspect had crossed Jefferson, heading right towards... 12th & Beckley.

Eighth clue: But there must have been a big problem--retrospectively--with this witness. In fact, Hill's testimony constitutes an implicit, hapless denial that he even had a witness or that he had even radioed from 12th & Beckley, even though it'

s on the record. On the record, Gerald! Both the FBI transcription (see above) and Myers (p124) acknowledge that Hill sent the 1:26 message. Hill testified, falsely, that, about 1:25, he left the Tippit scene and "whipped around the block. I went down to
the first intersection east of the block where all this incident occurred and made a right turn and traveled one block and came back up on Jefferson", where he met Owens at the Texaco/old-house site (v7p48). The poor Warren Commission did not have time
to check out every DPD tale.

Who was Hill's radioactive witness, whom, figuratively, he dare not touch, or acknowledge, let alone name? Myers apparently knew, hence his totally unsupported relocation of that witness (as well as Officer Walker) from Crawford & Jefferson to

10th & Patton. This is known as throwing the hounds off the scent. But by fallaciously drawing a witness away from the Crawford area, Myers ironically draws attention to that area. Reynolds was looking east from Crawford area. But Hill's witness was
looking west, towards Beckley. Now who could have gotten a pretty good look at the fleeing suspect, good enough to have estimated height, weight, race, and age, and described the man's clothing? Who could have seen him that closely--seen him as, say, he
passed the Texaco station? Robert and/or Mary Brock, of course. Walker doesn't indicate the sex or number of his witnesses ("We have a description"), so it could have been either Mr. or Mrs. Brock, or both.

And, just as the WFAA-TV footage of Reynolds exposes the Walker lie, so it exposes the Brocks' lies. As noted above, Mrs. Brock stated that she informed Reynolds that "she last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's

Texaco Service Station". Clearly, she did not so inform him, not without some strong input from Reynolds, who had his own story to tell and was telling it to the cops, that day, and would have told it to her. But she failed to give herself and her
husband a lifeline out of the Reynolds morass. A frame-grab is worth a thousand words. Moral: Whatever you do, don't hitch your wagon to Warren Reynolds.

Mary Brock identified the man in the parking lot as Oswald. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_m.htm
== quote ==
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a

white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Approximately five minutes later two individuals from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, appeared at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, making inquiry as to whether she had noticed the young white man come by the station. She

indicated she had, at which time they informed her that this individual had in all probability shot a Dallas police officer. She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the
parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Mrs. Brock couldn't know that the WFAA-TV footage would eventually turn up and show Reynolds telling police officers, on 11/22, that he saw the suspect entering an old house near the Texaco, not heading for the lot. (photo With Malice p131) He didn't

have to be informed by Mrs. B. So it's not just her word vs. his--we have film evidence that she was lying re Reynolds.

Where can I see - and hear - this supposed film footage? Provide a link.

Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Whoever it was, she (and/or Mr. Brock) last saw the man heading towards 300 E. Jefferson, still wearing a white jacket (as per Walker's 1:22 radio transmission).

She identified the person as Oswald.

==unquote ==

Her husband wasn’t certain.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_r.htm

== quote ==
ROBERT BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was employed as a mechanic at Roger Ballew Texaco Service Station, 600 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. He advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, November 22, 1963, a

young white man passed him, BROCK and his wife, and proceeded north past the Texaco Service Station

Again, we have the film footage of Reynolds by the old house, into which he saw the man enter, not the parking lot.

into the parking lot, at which time the individual disappeared.

Approximately five minutes later, WARREN REYNOLDS and another individual from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot came to the Texaco Service Station and informed him, BROCK, of the fact that a police officer had been shot approximately two blocks away,

and that the individual responsible for the shooting had been observed turning north off Jefferson Street past the Texaco Service Station.

BROCK advised he, WARREN REYNOLDS and various police officers from the Dallas Police Department had searched the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station in efforts to locate the person responsible for the shooting, with negative

results. BROCK advised, however, a Dallas, Texas, police officer, name unknown, had located a jacket underneath a 1954 Oldsmobile which was parked in parking space # 17. This jacket apparently had belonged to the person who had shortly before shot a
Dallas police officer.

ROBERT BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he could not positively identify same as being identical with the individual who had passed him at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
== unquote ==

Despite their apparent proximity to the suspect, neither Brock was invited either to attend a lineup or to testify for the Commission. It might have been too easy, then, for people to connect the dots: "over here on Jefferson", "300 E. Jefferson",

the Brocks. As the witnesses both closest to 300 E. Jefferson and to the parking lot, the Brocks had to be downplayed, had to be weaned off Jefferson & Beckley and weaned onto the parking lot. (Sgt. Hill didn't just downplay them--he vaporized them, or
one of them.) More publicity would have meant more scrutiny, prickly questions. (On that same day--Jan. 21, 1964--Reynolds himself was slipping further into the morass: For his part, he misleadingly told the FBI then that he "last observed the individual
to turn north" by the service station: "[The Brocks] informed him the individual had gone through the parking lot." [FBI interview report/WMp544] Naively, he apparently thought that the WFAA footage had been deep-sixed.)

You read too much into every line of every witness’s testimony.

You accept too blithely almost every statement of almost every witness, and ignore contradictory evidence.

No, that’s untrue. I only accept eyewitness accounts that are corroborated - by the hard evidence, primarily, but by other witnesses as well.

In sum: The jacket was planted,

Why? What happened to the jacket that Oswald was seen zipping up by Earlene Roberts as he left the rooming house?

Even Dale Myers admitted that she was a fabricator.

Oswald admitted in custody he went back to the rooming house, changed some of his clothes, and took his gun. He couldn’t very well deny the gun, as some CTs do, because he knew it was taken off him in the theatre.

the Texaco jacket witnesses were manufactured,

Why bother?

Killing Tippit and framing Oswald for that murder doesn’t improve or change the evidence indicating Oswald killed JFK one iota.

Never said it did.

You deny it here, but argue for it immediately below.

Tippit’s murder is totally unnecessary for any frame-up of Oswald for the assassination

Captain Fritz: "I instructed [my officers] to get those witnesses over for identification just as soon as they could, and for us to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing, so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we

investigated the President's killing, WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES".--With Malice p207. Fritz understates the paucity of witnesses in Dealey. There were none, Check the DPD lineup tally (WM p458) for the 7:55pm lineup, which Brennan supposedly
attended. No mention of him or his sponsor, Sorrells.

Here you’re arguing what you just denied, that the evidence against Oswald in the Tippit case was manufactured because the evidence against Oswald in theJFK case wasn’t strong. You pretend Fritz instruction to build a strong Tippit case was an

instruction to his men to frame Oswald.

You need to prove that, not simply allege it.

See the info imparted to Gil here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wem9wqlTuHA/m/jRMN3OJ8CQAJ

For that matter, as I noted, neither of the Brocks attended a lineup, although they seemed to have gotten as a good a look at the suspect as Callaway or Guinyard, who also saw the man fleeing.

They didn’t witness a crime. What would they testify to? This is akin to the asking for the names of the patrons in the Texas Theatre. They didn’t witness the murder of Tippit. OnlyOswald resisting arrest. Which Oswald admitted to in custody. That

obviates the need to produce witnesses to Oswald resisting arrest. Doesn’t it?

, which is where most critics concentrate their allegations of a frame-up.

Oswald was, beyond doubt, being framed for Tippit's murder, and Dale Myers was last seen imploding.

Your conclusion ignores all the eyewitness testimony putting Oswald as the killer of Tippit

I have, previously, shown that Mrs. Markham and the Davises did not even see the killer, only a vigilante chasing him. Unless you believe that Callaway or Scoggins was the killer...

You haven’t shown anything of the sort. You may have argued for that, but the Davises testified to seeing the man empty his revolver and discard the shells. Since those shells in evidence match Oswald’s revolver, you’re arguing they saw Oswald

empty his revolver, or you are simply ignoring evidence you don’t like.

, as well as all the forensic evidence indicating the revolver taken off Oswald in the theatre was the one used to kill Tippit.
You allege those inconvenient witnesses were all lying (see above)

Benavides tailed the gunman as far as the Abundant Life Temple, yet he did not attend a lineup either. The absence of the Brocks & Benavides from lineups says a lot...

Only to you, but you are hearing things. How many witnesses did they need to identify Oswald a sthe shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene? You discount all those that picked Oswald out, why would you not discount the Brock’s and Benavides as

well?

and the forensic evidence was swapped or planted, but never come close to establishing any of that.

The finding of the hulls in Oak Cliff was compromised by the fact that it took some 4 months for Benavides to come around and say that he found them on the Davis lawn, when they were apparently found a block away. If the location was wrong, perhaps

the hulls themselves were the wrong ones.

You need to establish that, not just suggest it.

See this quote on the fifth page here: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

_The Presumption of Regularity:_
“ … in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper with the sack or the can or their contents. Where no evidence indicating otherwise is produced, the presumption of

regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and courts presume they have properly discharged their official duties.”

Must be contagious. Don Willis has ducked out of the discussion thread once more. He raises an issue, rejects the answers, and then avoids having a discussion about the issue he raised.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 9:15:31 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:06:06 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:31:22 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:32:26 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

1:22pm DPD radio message translates as The Jacket Was Planted, Folks--and that ain't all

First faint clue: DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee transcribes the first line of the transmission thusly: "Have a description of the suspect on Jefferson." Actually, the transmission runs, "We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson."

The omitted "over here" makes it sound like the sender, Officer Roy Walker, is actually on Jefferson. Is there a problem with that? Oh, yes.

Second faint clue: But, first, continuing the text of the 1:22 transmission: "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson. He's a white male, about 30, 5'8", black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt, and dark slacks". (DPD radio logs) Dale

Myers tinkers with the description: "Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson." ("With Malice" p114) Note that he adds "block of", making it sound as if Walker is simply indicating a block. But Walker specified an address, 300, at Jefferson & Beckley,
a full block west of the site where the jacket was found, at Jefferson & Crawford. And if it be thought that dictabelt skips account for the missing words, see below for follow-ups on Myers and Walker. And note that the dispatcher, at 1:26, has the
suspect "going west on Jefferson from the 300 block". (CE 705 p22)

Third faint clue: At 1:19:05, the dispatcher tells Walker to check out 501 E. 10th at Denver (WMp105). Then, at 1:19:59, he tells Walker "The suspect's running west on Jefferson from the location" (DPD radio logs/WMp109). When, at 1:21:37,

Walker radios "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet" (DPD radio logs), the dispatcher again directs him to "501 E. 10th at Denver" (CE 705p20/WM p113). Finally, at 1:22:36, Walker radios his "over here" description. From his 1:21:37 transmission, we
know that Walker was, at the time, on Jefferson. But we don't know, from his radio transmissions, whether he was ever at 10th & Patton. He doesn't correct or follow-up the dispatcher's "10th at Denver", after either of the latter's advisories.

Fourth (getting somewhere) clue: And yet Myers insists that Walker met and talked to Warren Reynolds at the murder scene: "Reynolds returned to 10th & Patton at about [1:20], despite Reynolds' testimony to the contrary" (p112). True, in 1983,

Walker told Myers that he did meet Reynolds, about 1:22. However, he adds, "One of the used car lot operators saw the incident... Warren Reynolds" (p114). The latter never said that he saw the shooting--Walker's memory fails him here.

And Reynolds would hardly have been the one to tell Walker, "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson". Ruinously for him, Walker told Myers that it was "Reynolds [who] gave me the description of the gunman" (p114). Walker was apparently unaware that

TV film footage has turned up showing Reynolds telling police at the scene that he last saw a suspicious man going into the back of an old house near the Texaco station (WM p131). Reynolds, then, could not have been Walker's "300 E. Jefferson" witness, a
full block west of the house. (Reynolds' suspicious man may not have been the gunman at all, but a vigilante trailing the gunman.) Myers, then, with one hand, was simply extending Walker's witness-identity deception, despite his own text and frame grabs
which, with the other hand, expose said deception! Myers giveth and Myers taketh away.

Fifth (gathering steam) clue: Myers then buttresses the invented Walker/Reynolds confab with yet another out-of-thin-air incident, based on the word of... no one at all: "Warren Reynolds, who had come with [Sgt. Bud Owens & Assistant DA Bill

Alexander] from 10th & Patton, pointed to an old house near the Texaco station..." (p120) Alexander did not testify to the Warren Commission, and Owens, in his Commission testimony, did not mention bringing along a witness to the Texaco area. None of the
principals, then--Reynolds, Walker, Alexander, Owens--can support Myers' vignettes re Reynolds "returning" to and leaving the scene of the crime circa 1:20 and 1:22. Thin air.

Sixth (Eureka!) clue: Relocation, relocation, relocation. Why would Walker and Myers go to so much trouble to falsely identify and relocate a witness? Well, what other witness or witnesses were "over here on Jefferson"? Yes--Robert and Mary

Brock, in effect the gatekeepers of the parking-lot suspect. In fact, the Brocks were the only witnesses who stated that they "last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind" the service station. (WM p551) In fact, they may have been the
last witnesses to have reported seeing the suspect, but not in the parking lot, and certainly not doffing his jacket. Because at 1:22, he was reported at "about 300 E. Jefferson", a block further west, still wearing his "white jacket". Certainly worth
Walker's false identification of his witness, and Myers' subsequent, false relocation of him elsewhere. Two wrongs and no right.

And the first transmissions re the Texaco location were "Suspect just passed 401 E. Jefferson" and "Subject just passed 401 E. Jefferson" (CE 705pp20-21)

Seventh clue: At 1:26, Sgt. Gerald Hill reported from 12th & Beckley "Have a man in the car with me that can identify the suspect if anybody gets... one." (CE 1974 p63) About 1:23, at the Tippit scene, according to Hill's testimony, "Another

person came up [and] told us the man had run over into the funeral home parking lot", which was opposite the Texaco station (v7p48). Sgt. Bud Owens similarly testified that, at the "scene of the shooting... we were informed by a man whom I do not know
that the suspect that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson" (v7p79). Someone, then, from the Texaco-station area--Hill and Owens both garbled the where of it--had run down to where the police were congregating. And Hill,
clearly, immediately, took this man near to where the man had last seen the suspect, Beckley & Jefferson, or 300 E. Jefferson, which is two half-blocks north of 12th & Beckley. In fact, "300" would be on the south side of Jefferson. If Walker and his
witness were being very very precise, that would mean that the suspect had crossed Jefferson, heading right towards... 12th & Beckley.

Eighth clue: But there must have been a big problem--retrospectively--with this witness. In fact, Hill's testimony constitutes an implicit, hapless denial that he even had a witness or that he had even radioed from 12th & Beckley, even though

it's on the record. On the record, Gerald! Both the FBI transcription (see above) and Myers (p124) acknowledge that Hill sent the 1:26 message. Hill testified, falsely, that, about 1:25, he left the Tippit scene and "whipped around the block. I went down
to the first intersection east of the block where all this incident occurred and made a right turn and traveled one block and came back up on Jefferson", where he met Owens at the Texaco/old-house site (v7p48). The poor Warren Commission did not have
time to check out every DPD tale.

Who was Hill's radioactive witness, whom, figuratively, he dare not touch, or acknowledge, let alone name? Myers apparently knew, hence his totally unsupported relocation of that witness (as well as Officer Walker) from Crawford & Jefferson to

10th & Patton. This is known as throwing the hounds off the scent. But by fallaciously drawing a witness away from the Crawford area, Myers ironically draws attention to that area. Reynolds was looking east from Crawford area. But Hill's witness was
looking west, towards Beckley. Now who could have gotten a pretty good look at the fleeing suspect, good enough to have estimated height, weight, race, and age, and described the man's clothing? Who could have seen him that closely--seen him as, say, he
passed the Texaco station? Robert and/or Mary Brock, of course. Walker doesn't indicate the sex or number of his witnesses ("We have a description"), so it could have been either Mr. or Mrs. Brock, or both.

And, just as the WFAA-TV footage of Reynolds exposes the Walker lie, so it exposes the Brocks' lies. As noted above, Mrs. Brock stated that she informed Reynolds that "she last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's

Texaco Service Station". Clearly, she did not so inform him, not without some strong input from Reynolds, who had his own story to tell and was telling it to the cops, that day, and would have told it to her. But she failed to give herself and her
husband a lifeline out of the Reynolds morass. A frame-grab is worth a thousand words. Moral: Whatever you do, don't hitch your wagon to Warren Reynolds.

Mary Brock identified the man in the parking lot as Oswald. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_m.htm
== quote ==
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a

white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Approximately five minutes later two individuals from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, appeared at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, making inquiry as to whether she had noticed the young white man come by the station. She

indicated she had, at which time they informed her that this individual had in all probability shot a Dallas police officer. She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the
parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Mrs. Brock couldn't know that the WFAA-TV footage would eventually turn up and show Reynolds telling police officers, on 11/22, that he saw the suspect entering an old house near the Texaco, not heading for the lot. (photo With Malice p131) He didn'

t have to be informed by Mrs. B. So it's not just her word vs. his--we have film evidence that she was lying re Reynolds.

Where can I see - and hear - this supposed film footage? Provide a link.

Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Whoever it was, she (and/or Mr. Brock) last saw the man heading towards 300 E. Jefferson, still wearing a white jacket (as per Walker's 1:22 radio transmission).

She identified the person as Oswald.

==unquote ==

Her husband wasn’t certain.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_r.htm

== quote ==
ROBERT BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was employed as a mechanic at Roger Ballew Texaco Service Station, 600 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. He advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, November 22, 1963, a

young white man passed him, BROCK and his wife, and proceeded north past the Texaco Service Station

Again, we have the film footage of Reynolds by the old house, into which he saw the man enter, not the parking lot.

into the parking lot, at which time the individual disappeared.

Approximately five minutes later, WARREN REYNOLDS and another individual from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot came to the Texaco Service Station and informed him, BROCK, of the fact that a police officer had been shot approximately two blocks away,

and that the individual responsible for the shooting had been observed turning north off Jefferson Street past the Texaco Service Station.

BROCK advised he, WARREN REYNOLDS and various police officers from the Dallas Police Department had searched the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station in efforts to locate the person responsible for the shooting, with

negative results. BROCK advised, however, a Dallas, Texas, police officer, name unknown, had located a jacket underneath a 1954 Oldsmobile which was parked in parking space # 17. This jacket apparently had belonged to the person who had shortly before
shot a Dallas police officer.

ROBERT BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he could not positively identify same as being identical with the individual who had passed him at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
== unquote ==

Despite their apparent proximity to the suspect, neither Brock was invited either to attend a lineup or to testify for the Commission. It might have been too easy, then, for people to connect the dots: "over here on Jefferson", "300 E.

Jefferson", the Brocks. As the witnesses both closest to 300 E. Jefferson and to the parking lot, the Brocks had to be downplayed, had to be weaned off Jefferson & Beckley and weaned onto the parking lot. (Sgt. Hill didn't just downplay them--he
vaporized them, or one of them.) More publicity would have meant more scrutiny, prickly questions. (On that same day--Jan. 21, 1964--Reynolds himself was slipping further into the morass: For his part, he misleadingly told the FBI then that he "last
observed the individual to turn north" by the service station: "[The Brocks] informed him the individual had gone through the parking lot." [FBI interview report/WMp544] Naively, he apparently thought that the WFAA footage had been deep-sixed.)

You read too much into every line of every witness’s testimony.

You accept too blithely almost every statement of almost every witness, and ignore contradictory evidence.

No, that’s untrue. I only accept eyewitness accounts that are corroborated - by the hard evidence, primarily, but by other witnesses as well.

In sum: The jacket was planted,

Why? What happened to the jacket that Oswald was seen zipping up by Earlene Roberts as he left the rooming house?

Even Dale Myers admitted that she was a fabricator.

Oswald admitted in custody he went back to the rooming house, changed some of his clothes, and took his gun. He couldn’t very well deny the gun, as some CTs do, because he knew it was taken off him in the theatre.

the Texaco jacket witnesses were manufactured,

Why bother?

Killing Tippit and framing Oswald for that murder doesn’t improve or change the evidence indicating Oswald killed JFK one iota.

Never said it did.

You deny it here, but argue for it immediately below.

Tippit’s murder is totally unnecessary for any frame-up of Oswald for the assassination

Captain Fritz: "I instructed [my officers] to get those witnesses over for identification just as soon as they could, and for us to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing, so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we

investigated the President's killing, WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES".--With Malice p207. Fritz understates the paucity of witnesses in Dealey. There were none, Check the DPD lineup tally (WM p458) for the 7:55pm lineup, which Brennan supposedly
attended. No mention of him or his sponsor, Sorrells.

Here you’re arguing what you just denied, that the evidence against Oswald in the Tippit case was manufactured because the evidence against Oswald in theJFK case wasn’t strong. You pretend Fritz instruction to build a strong Tippit case was an

instruction to his men to frame Oswald.

You need to prove that, not simply allege it.

See the info imparted to Gil here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wem9wqlTuHA/m/jRMN3OJ8CQAJ

For that matter, as I noted, neither of the Brocks attended a lineup, although they seemed to have gotten as a good a look at the suspect as Callaway or Guinyard, who also saw the man fleeing.

They didn’t witness a crime. What would they testify to? This is akin to the asking for the names of the patrons in the Texas Theatre. They didn’t witness the murder of Tippit. OnlyOswald resisting arrest. Which Oswald admitted to in custody.

That obviates the need to produce witnesses to Oswald resisting arrest. Doesn’t it?

, which is where most critics concentrate their allegations of a frame-up.

Oswald was, beyond doubt, being framed for Tippit's murder, and Dale Myers was last seen imploding.

Your conclusion ignores all the eyewitness testimony putting Oswald as the killer of Tippit

I have, previously, shown that Mrs. Markham and the Davises did not even see the killer, only a vigilante chasing him. Unless you believe that Callaway or Scoggins was the killer...

You haven’t shown anything of the sort. You may have argued for that, but the Davises testified to seeing the man empty his revolver and discard the shells. Since those shells in evidence match Oswald’s revolver, you’re arguing they saw Oswald

empty his revolver, or you are simply ignoring evidence you don’t like.

, as well as all the forensic evidence indicating the revolver taken off Oswald in the theatre was the one used to kill Tippit.
You allege those inconvenient witnesses were all lying (see above)

Benavides tailed the gunman as far as the Abundant Life Temple, yet he did not attend a lineup either. The absence of the Brocks & Benavides from lineups says a lot...

Only to you, but you are hearing things. How many witnesses did they need to identify Oswald a sthe shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene? You discount all those that picked Oswald out, why would you not discount the Brock’s and Benavides

as well?

and the forensic evidence was swapped or planted, but never come close to establishing any of that.

The finding of the hulls in Oak Cliff was compromised by the fact that it took some 4 months for Benavides to come around and say that he found them on the Davis lawn, when they were apparently found a block away. If the location was wrong, perhaps

the hulls themselves were the wrong ones.

You need to establish that, not just suggest it.

See this quote on the fifth page here: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

_The Presumption of Regularity:_
“ … in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper with the sack or the can or their contents. Where no evidence indicating otherwise is produced, the presumption of

regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and courts presume they have properly discharged their official duties.”

Must be contagious. Don Willis has ducked out of the discussion thread once more. He raises an issue, rejects the answers, and then avoids having a discussion about the issue he raised.

He left a message on the Education Forum saying that Google Security or something wouldn't let him on here. He mentioned your name.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 12:51:19 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 9:15:31 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:06:06 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:31:22 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:32:26 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

1:22pm DPD radio message translates as The Jacket Was Planted, Folks--and that ain't all

First faint clue: DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee transcribes the first line of the transmission thusly: "Have a description of the suspect on Jefferson." Actually, the transmission runs, "We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson."

The omitted "over here" makes it sound like the sender, Officer Roy Walker, is actually on Jefferson. Is there a problem with that? Oh, yes.

Second faint clue: But, first, continuing the text of the 1:22 transmission: "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson. He's a white male, about 30, 5'8", black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt, and dark slacks". (DPD radio logs)

Dale Myers tinkers with the description: "Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson." ("With Malice" p114) Note that he adds "block of", making it sound as if Walker is simply indicating a block. But Walker specified an address, 300, at Jefferson &
Beckley, a full block west of the site where the jacket was found, at Jefferson & Crawford. And if it be thought that dictabelt skips account for the missing words, see below for follow-ups on Myers and Walker. And note that the dispatcher, at 1:26, has
the suspect "going west on Jefferson from the 300 block". (CE 705 p22)

Third faint clue: At 1:19:05, the dispatcher tells Walker to check out 501 E. 10th at Denver (WMp105). Then, at 1:19:59, he tells Walker "The suspect's running west on Jefferson from the location" (DPD radio logs/WMp109). When, at 1:21:37,

Walker radios "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet" (DPD radio logs), the dispatcher again directs him to "501 E. 10th at Denver" (CE 705p20/WM p113). Finally, at 1:22:36, Walker radios his "over here" description. From his 1:21:37 transmission, we
know that Walker was, at the time, on Jefferson. But we don't know, from his radio transmissions, whether he was ever at 10th & Patton. He doesn't correct or follow-up the dispatcher's "10th at Denver", after either of the latter's advisories.

Fourth (getting somewhere) clue: And yet Myers insists that Walker met and talked to Warren Reynolds at the murder scene: "Reynolds returned to 10th & Patton at about [1:20], despite Reynolds' testimony to the contrary" (p112). True, in 1983,

Walker told Myers that he did meet Reynolds, about 1:22. However, he adds, "One of the used car lot operators saw the incident... Warren Reynolds" (p114). The latter never said that he saw the shooting--Walker's memory fails him here.

And Reynolds would hardly have been the one to tell Walker, "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson". Ruinously for him, Walker told Myers that it was "Reynolds [who] gave me the description of the gunman" (p114). Walker was apparently unaware that

TV film footage has turned up showing Reynolds telling police at the scene that he last saw a suspicious man going into the back of an old house near the Texaco station (WM p131). Reynolds, then, could not have been Walker's "300 E. Jefferson" witness, a
full block west of the house. (Reynolds' suspicious man may not have been the gunman at all, but a vigilante trailing the gunman.) Myers, then, with one hand, was simply extending Walker's witness-identity deception, despite his own text and frame grabs
which, with the other hand, expose said deception! Myers giveth and Myers taketh away.

Fifth (gathering steam) clue: Myers then buttresses the invented Walker/Reynolds confab with yet another out-of-thin-air incident, based on the word of... no one at all: "Warren Reynolds, who had come with [Sgt. Bud Owens & Assistant DA Bill

Alexander] from 10th & Patton, pointed to an old house near the Texaco station..." (p120) Alexander did not testify to the Warren Commission, and Owens, in his Commission testimony, did not mention bringing along a witness to the Texaco area. None of the
principals, then--Reynolds, Walker, Alexander, Owens--can support Myers' vignettes re Reynolds "returning" to and leaving the scene of the crime circa 1:20 and 1:22. Thin air.

Sixth (Eureka!) clue: Relocation, relocation, relocation. Why would Walker and Myers go to so much trouble to falsely identify and relocate a witness? Well, what other witness or witnesses were "over here on Jefferson"? Yes--Robert and Mary

Brock, in effect the gatekeepers of the parking-lot suspect. In fact, the Brocks were the only witnesses who stated that they "last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind" the service station. (WM p551) In fact, they may have been the
last witnesses to have reported seeing the suspect, but not in the parking lot, and certainly not doffing his jacket. Because at 1:22, he was reported at "about 300 E. Jefferson", a block further west, still wearing his "white jacket". Certainly worth
Walker's false identification of his witness, and Myers' subsequent, false relocation of him elsewhere. Two wrongs and no right.

And the first transmissions re the Texaco location were "Suspect just passed 401 E. Jefferson" and "Subject just passed 401 E. Jefferson" (CE 705pp20-21)

Seventh clue: At 1:26, Sgt. Gerald Hill reported from 12th & Beckley "Have a man in the car with me that can identify the suspect if anybody gets... one." (CE 1974 p63) About 1:23, at the Tippit scene, according to Hill's testimony, "Another

person came up [and] told us the man had run over into the funeral home parking lot", which was opposite the Texaco station (v7p48). Sgt. Bud Owens similarly testified that, at the "scene of the shooting... we were informed by a man whom I do not know
that the suspect that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson" (v7p79). Someone, then, from the Texaco-station area--Hill and Owens both garbled the where of it--had run down to where the police were congregating. And Hill,
clearly, immediately, took this man near to where the man had last seen the suspect, Beckley & Jefferson, or 300 E. Jefferson, which is two half-blocks north of 12th & Beckley. In fact, "300" would be on the south side of Jefferson. If Walker and his
witness were being very very precise, that would mean that the suspect had crossed Jefferson, heading right towards... 12th & Beckley.

Eighth clue: But there must have been a big problem--retrospectively--with this witness. In fact, Hill's testimony constitutes an implicit, hapless denial that he even had a witness or that he had even radioed from 12th & Beckley, even though

it's on the record. On the record, Gerald! Both the FBI transcription (see above) and Myers (p124) acknowledge that Hill sent the 1:26 message. Hill testified, falsely, that, about 1:25, he left the Tippit scene and "whipped around the block. I went down
to the first intersection east of the block where all this incident occurred and made a right turn and traveled one block and came back up on Jefferson", where he met Owens at the Texaco/old-house site (v7p48). The poor Warren Commission did not have
time to check out every DPD tale.

Who was Hill's radioactive witness, whom, figuratively, he dare not touch, or acknowledge, let alone name? Myers apparently knew, hence his totally unsupported relocation of that witness (as well as Officer Walker) from Crawford & Jefferson

to 10th & Patton. This is known as throwing the hounds off the scent. But by fallaciously drawing a witness away from the Crawford area, Myers ironically draws attention to that area. Reynolds was looking east from Crawford area. But Hill's witness was
looking west, towards Beckley. Now who could have gotten a pretty good look at the fleeing suspect, good enough to have estimated height, weight, race, and age, and described the man's clothing? Who could have seen him that closely--seen him as, say, he
passed the Texaco station? Robert and/or Mary Brock, of course. Walker doesn't indicate the sex or number of his witnesses ("We have a description"), so it could have been either Mr. or Mrs. Brock, or both.

And, just as the WFAA-TV footage of Reynolds exposes the Walker lie, so it exposes the Brocks' lies. As noted above, Mrs. Brock stated that she informed Reynolds that "she last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind Ballew'

s Texaco Service Station". Clearly, she did not so inform him, not without some strong input from Reynolds, who had his own story to tell and was telling it to the cops, that day, and would have told it to her. But she failed to give herself and her
husband a lifeline out of the Reynolds morass. A frame-grab is worth a thousand words. Moral: Whatever you do, don't hitch your wagon to Warren Reynolds.

Mary Brock identified the man in the parking lot as Oswald. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_m.htm
== quote ==
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a

white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Approximately five minutes later two individuals from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, appeared at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, making inquiry as to whether she had noticed the young white man come by the station. She

indicated she had, at which time they informed her that this individual had in all probability shot a Dallas police officer. She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the
parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Mrs. Brock couldn't know that the WFAA-TV footage would eventually turn up and show Reynolds telling police officers, on 11/22, that he saw the suspect entering an old house near the Texaco, not heading for the lot. (photo With Malice p131) He

didn't have to be informed by Mrs. B. So it's not just her word vs. his--we have film evidence that she was lying re Reynolds.

Where can I see - and hear - this supposed film footage? Provide a link.

Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Whoever it was, she (and/or Mr. Brock) last saw the man heading towards 300 E. Jefferson, still wearing a white jacket (as per Walker's 1:22 radio transmission).

She identified the person as Oswald.

==unquote ==

Her husband wasn’t certain.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_r.htm

== quote ==
ROBERT BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was employed as a mechanic at Roger Ballew Texaco Service Station, 600 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. He advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, November 22, 1963, a

young white man passed him, BROCK and his wife, and proceeded north past the Texaco Service Station

Again, we have the film footage of Reynolds by the old house, into which he saw the man enter, not the parking lot.

into the parking lot, at which time the individual disappeared.

Approximately five minutes later, WARREN REYNOLDS and another individual from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot came to the Texaco Service Station and informed him, BROCK, of the fact that a police officer had been shot approximately two blocks away,

and that the individual responsible for the shooting had been observed turning north off Jefferson Street past the Texaco Service Station.

BROCK advised he, WARREN REYNOLDS and various police officers from the Dallas Police Department had searched the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station in efforts to locate the person responsible for the shooting, with

negative results. BROCK advised, however, a Dallas, Texas, police officer, name unknown, had located a jacket underneath a 1954 Oldsmobile which was parked in parking space # 17. This jacket apparently had belonged to the person who had shortly before
shot a Dallas police officer.

ROBERT BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he could not positively identify same as being identical with the individual who had passed him at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
== unquote ==

Despite their apparent proximity to the suspect, neither Brock was invited either to attend a lineup or to testify for the Commission. It might have been too easy, then, for people to connect the dots: "over here on Jefferson", "300 E.

Jefferson", the Brocks. As the witnesses both closest to 300 E. Jefferson and to the parking lot, the Brocks had to be downplayed, had to be weaned off Jefferson & Beckley and weaned onto the parking lot. (Sgt. Hill didn't just downplay them--he
vaporized them, or one of them.) More publicity would have meant more scrutiny, prickly questions. (On that same day--Jan. 21, 1964--Reynolds himself was slipping further into the morass: For his part, he misleadingly told the FBI then that he "last
observed the individual to turn north" by the service station: "[The Brocks] informed him the individual had gone through the parking lot." [FBI interview report/WMp544] Naively, he apparently thought that the WFAA footage had been deep-sixed.)

You read too much into every line of every witness’s testimony.

You accept too blithely almost every statement of almost every witness, and ignore contradictory evidence.

No, that’s untrue. I only accept eyewitness accounts that are corroborated - by the hard evidence, primarily, but by other witnesses as well.

In sum: The jacket was planted,

Why? What happened to the jacket that Oswald was seen zipping up by Earlene Roberts as he left the rooming house?

Even Dale Myers admitted that she was a fabricator.

Oswald admitted in custody he went back to the rooming house, changed some of his clothes, and took his gun. He couldn’t very well deny the gun, as some CTs do, because he knew it was taken off him in the theatre.

the Texaco jacket witnesses were manufactured,

Why bother?

Killing Tippit and framing Oswald for that murder doesn’t improve or change the evidence indicating Oswald killed JFK one iota.

Never said it did.

You deny it here, but argue for it immediately below.

Tippit’s murder is totally unnecessary for any frame-up of Oswald for the assassination

Captain Fritz: "I instructed [my officers] to get those witnesses over for identification just as soon as they could, and for us to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing, so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we

investigated the President's killing, WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES".--With Malice p207. Fritz understates the paucity of witnesses in Dealey. There were none, Check the DPD lineup tally (WM p458) for the 7:55pm lineup, which Brennan supposedly
attended. No mention of him or his sponsor, Sorrells.

Here you’re arguing what you just denied, that the evidence against Oswald in the Tippit case was manufactured because the evidence against Oswald in theJFK case wasn’t strong. You pretend Fritz instruction to build a strong Tippit case was an

instruction to his men to frame Oswald.

You need to prove that, not simply allege it.

See the info imparted to Gil here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wem9wqlTuHA/m/jRMN3OJ8CQAJ

For that matter, as I noted, neither of the Brocks attended a lineup, although they seemed to have gotten as a good a look at the suspect as Callaway or Guinyard, who also saw the man fleeing.

They didn’t witness a crime. What would they testify to? This is akin to the asking for the names of the patrons in the Texas Theatre. They didn’t witness the murder of Tippit. OnlyOswald resisting arrest. Which Oswald admitted to in custody.

That obviates the need to produce witnesses to Oswald resisting arrest. Doesn’t it?

, which is where most critics concentrate their allegations of a frame-up.

Oswald was, beyond doubt, being framed for Tippit's murder, and Dale Myers was last seen imploding.

Your conclusion ignores all the eyewitness testimony putting Oswald as the killer of Tippit

I have, previously, shown that Mrs. Markham and the Davises did not even see the killer, only a vigilante chasing him. Unless you believe that Callaway or Scoggins was the killer...

You haven’t shown anything of the sort. You may have argued for that, but the Davises testified to seeing the man empty his revolver and discard the shells. Since those shells in evidence match Oswald’s revolver, you’re arguing they saw

Oswald empty his revolver, or you are simply ignoring evidence you don’t like.

, as well as all the forensic evidence indicating the revolver taken off Oswald in the theatre was the one used to kill Tippit.
You allege those inconvenient witnesses were all lying (see above)

Benavides tailed the gunman as far as the Abundant Life Temple, yet he did not attend a lineup either. The absence of the Brocks & Benavides from lineups says a lot...

Only to you, but you are hearing things. How many witnesses did they need to identify Oswald a sthe shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene? You discount all those that picked Oswald out, why would you not discount the Brock’s and Benavides

as well?

and the forensic evidence was swapped or planted, but never come close to establishing any of that.

The finding of the hulls in Oak Cliff was compromised by the fact that it took some 4 months for Benavides to come around and say that he found them on the Davis lawn, when they were apparently found a block away. If the location was wrong,

perhaps the hulls themselves were the wrong ones.

You need to establish that, not just suggest it.

See this quote on the fifth page here: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

_The Presumption of Regularity:_
“ … in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper with the sack or the can or their contents. Where no evidence indicating otherwise is produced, the presumption of

regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and courts presume they have properly discharged their official duties.”

Must be contagious. Don Willis has ducked out of the discussion thread once more. He raises an issue, rejects the answers, and then avoids having a discussion about the issue he raised.

"Google's security apparatus won't let me answer Hank Sienzant's answer to my own post on alt.conspiracy.jfk. But it's mainly things he has said before and I've already answered so I guess it doesn't matter much. Still, I hate to leave poor Hank

hanging..." Donald Willis Friday at 12:18 PM

Don't worry about letting Hank hang. I've been waiting for months now for Hank to go down to his basement and get me a source.

That's part of Hank Logic, to say something he can't support, ignore it for months, and then eventually he will say that he never said such and such and then challenge you to prove that he did, forcing you to either spend an hour to find his quote. He
really is a shameless sack of shit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 9:15:31 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:06:06 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:31:22 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:32:26 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

1:22pm DPD radio message translates as The Jacket Was Planted, Folks--and that ain't all

First faint clue: DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee transcribes the first line of the transmission thusly: "Have a description of the suspect on Jefferson." Actually, the transmission runs, "We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson."

The omitted "over here" makes it sound like the sender, Officer Roy Walker, is actually on Jefferson. Is there a problem with that? Oh, yes.

Second faint clue: But, first, continuing the text of the 1:22 transmission: "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson. He's a white male, about 30, 5'8", black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt, and dark slacks". (DPD radio logs) Dale

Myers tinkers with the description: "Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson." ("With Malice" p114) Note that he adds "block of", making it sound as if Walker is simply indicating a block. But Walker specified an address, 300, at Jefferson & Beckley,
a full block west of the site where the jacket was found, at Jefferson & Crawford. And if it be thought that dictabelt skips account for the missing words, see below for follow-ups on Myers and Walker. And note that the dispatcher, at 1:26, has the
suspect "going west on Jefferson from the 300 block". (CE 705 p22)

Third faint clue: At 1:19:05, the dispatcher tells Walker to check out 501 E. 10th at Denver (WMp105). Then, at 1:19:59, he tells Walker "The suspect's running west on Jefferson from the location" (DPD radio logs/WMp109). When, at 1:21:37,

Walker radios "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet" (DPD radio logs), the dispatcher again directs him to "501 E. 10th at Denver" (CE 705p20/WM p113). Finally, at 1:22:36, Walker radios his "over here" description. From his 1:21:37 transmission, we
know that Walker was, at the time, on Jefferson. But we don't know, from his radio transmissions, whether he was ever at 10th & Patton. He doesn't correct or follow-up the dispatcher's "10th at Denver", after either of the latter's advisories.

Fourth (getting somewhere) clue: And yet Myers insists that Walker met and talked to Warren Reynolds at the murder scene: "Reynolds returned to 10th & Patton at about [1:20], despite Reynolds' testimony to the contrary" (p112). True, in 1983,

Walker told Myers that he did meet Reynolds, about 1:22. However, he adds, "One of the used car lot operators saw the incident... Warren Reynolds" (p114). The latter never said that he saw the shooting--Walker's memory fails him here.

And Reynolds would hardly have been the one to tell Walker, "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson". Ruinously for him, Walker told Myers that it was "Reynolds [who] gave me the description of the gunman" (p114). Walker was apparently unaware that

TV film footage has turned up showing Reynolds telling police at the scene that he last saw a suspicious man going into the back of an old house near the Texaco station (WM p131). Reynolds, then, could not have been Walker's "300 E. Jefferson" witness, a
full block west of the house. (Reynolds' suspicious man may not have been the gunman at all, but a vigilante trailing the gunman.) Myers, then, with one hand, was simply extending Walker's witness-identity deception, despite his own text and frame grabs
which, with the other hand, expose said deception! Myers giveth and Myers taketh away.

Fifth (gathering steam) clue: Myers then buttresses the invented Walker/Reynolds confab with yet another out-of-thin-air incident, based on the word of... no one at all: "Warren Reynolds, who had come with [Sgt. Bud Owens & Assistant DA Bill

Alexander] from 10th & Patton, pointed to an old house near the Texaco station..." (p120) Alexander did not testify to the Warren Commission, and Owens, in his Commission testimony, did not mention bringing along a witness to the Texaco area. None of the
principals, then--Reynolds, Walker, Alexander, Owens--can support Myers' vignettes re Reynolds "returning" to and leaving the scene of the crime circa 1:20 and 1:22. Thin air.

Sixth (Eureka!) clue: Relocation, relocation, relocation. Why would Walker and Myers go to so much trouble to falsely identify and relocate a witness? Well, what other witness or witnesses were "over here on Jefferson"? Yes--Robert and Mary

Brock, in effect the gatekeepers of the parking-lot suspect. In fact, the Brocks were the only witnesses who stated that they "last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind" the service station. (WM p551) In fact, they may have been the
last witnesses to have reported seeing the suspect, but not in the parking lot, and certainly not doffing his jacket. Because at 1:22, he was reported at "about 300 E. Jefferson", a block further west, still wearing his "white jacket". Certainly worth
Walker's false identification of his witness, and Myers' subsequent, false relocation of him elsewhere. Two wrongs and no right.

And the first transmissions re the Texaco location were "Suspect just passed 401 E. Jefferson" and "Subject just passed 401 E. Jefferson" (CE 705pp20-21)

Seventh clue: At 1:26, Sgt. Gerald Hill reported from 12th & Beckley "Have a man in the car with me that can identify the suspect if anybody gets... one." (CE 1974 p63) About 1:23, at the Tippit scene, according to Hill's testimony, "Another

person came up [and] told us the man had run over into the funeral home parking lot", which was opposite the Texaco station (v7p48). Sgt. Bud Owens similarly testified that, at the "scene of the shooting... we were informed by a man whom I do not know
that the suspect that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson" (v7p79). Someone, then, from the Texaco-station area--Hill and Owens both garbled the where of it--had run down to where the police were congregating. And Hill,
clearly, immediately, took this man near to where the man had last seen the suspect, Beckley & Jefferson, or 300 E. Jefferson, which is two half-blocks north of 12th & Beckley. In fact, "300" would be on the south side of Jefferson. If Walker and his
witness were being very very precise, that would mean that the suspect had crossed Jefferson, heading right towards... 12th & Beckley.

Eighth clue: But there must have been a big problem--retrospectively--with this witness. In fact, Hill's testimony constitutes an implicit, hapless denial that he even had a witness or that he had even radioed from 12th & Beckley, even though

it's on the record. On the record, Gerald! Both the FBI transcription (see above) and Myers (p124) acknowledge that Hill sent the 1:26 message. Hill testified, falsely, that, about 1:25, he left the Tippit scene and "whipped around the block. I went down
to the first intersection east of the block where all this incident occurred and made a right turn and traveled one block and came back up on Jefferson", where he met Owens at the Texaco/old-house site (v7p48). The poor Warren Commission did not have
time to check out every DPD tale.

Who was Hill's radioactive witness, whom, figuratively, he dare not touch, or acknowledge, let alone name? Myers apparently knew, hence his totally unsupported relocation of that witness (as well as Officer Walker) from Crawford & Jefferson to

10th & Patton. This is known as throwing the hounds off the scent. But by fallaciously drawing a witness away from the Crawford area, Myers ironically draws attention to that area. Reynolds was looking east from Crawford area. But Hill's witness was
looking west, towards Beckley. Now who could have gotten a pretty good look at the fleeing suspect, good enough to have estimated height, weight, race, and age, and described the man's clothing? Who could have seen him that closely--seen him as, say, he
passed the Texaco station? Robert and/or Mary Brock, of course. Walker doesn't indicate the sex or number of his witnesses ("We have a description"), so it could have been either Mr. or Mrs. Brock, or both.

And, just as the WFAA-TV footage of Reynolds exposes the Walker lie, so it exposes the Brocks' lies. As noted above, Mrs. Brock stated that she informed Reynolds that "she last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's

Texaco Service Station". Clearly, she did not so inform him, not without some strong input from Reynolds, who had his own story to tell and was telling it to the cops, that day, and would have told it to her. But she failed to give herself and her
husband a lifeline out of the Reynolds morass. A frame-grab is worth a thousand words. Moral: Whatever you do, don't hitch your wagon to Warren Reynolds.

Mary Brock identified the man in the parking lot as Oswald. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_m.htm
== quote ==
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a

white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Approximately five minutes later two individuals from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, appeared at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, making inquiry as to whether she had noticed the young white man come by the station. She

indicated she had, at which time they informed her that this individual had in all probability shot a Dallas police officer. She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the
parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Mrs. Brock couldn't know that the WFAA-TV footage would eventually turn up and show Reynolds telling police officers, on 11/22, that he saw the suspect entering an old house near the Texaco, not heading for the lot. (photo With Malice p131) He didn'

t have to be informed by Mrs. B. So it's not just her word vs. his--we have film evidence that she was lying re Reynolds.

Where can I see - and hear - this supposed film footage? Provide a link.

Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Whoever it was, she (and/or Mr. Brock) last saw the man heading towards 300 E. Jefferson, still wearing a white jacket (as per Walker's 1:22 radio transmission).

She identified the person as Oswald.

==unquote ==

Her husband wasn’t certain.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_r.htm

== quote ==
ROBERT BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was employed as a mechanic at Roger Ballew Texaco Service Station, 600 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. He advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, November 22, 1963, a

young white man passed him, BROCK and his wife, and proceeded north past the Texaco Service Station

Again, we have the film footage of Reynolds by the old house, into which he saw the man enter, not the parking lot.

into the parking lot, at which time the individual disappeared.

Approximately five minutes later, WARREN REYNOLDS and another individual from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot came to the Texaco Service Station and informed him, BROCK, of the fact that a police officer had been shot approximately two blocks away,

and that the individual responsible for the shooting had been observed turning north off Jefferson Street past the Texaco Service Station.

BROCK advised he, WARREN REYNOLDS and various police officers from the Dallas Police Department had searched the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station in efforts to locate the person responsible for the shooting, with

negative results. BROCK advised, however, a Dallas, Texas, police officer, name unknown, had located a jacket underneath a 1954 Oldsmobile which was parked in parking space # 17. This jacket apparently had belonged to the person who had shortly before
shot a Dallas police officer.

ROBERT BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he could not positively identify same as being identical with the individual who had passed him at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
== unquote ==

Despite their apparent proximity to the suspect, neither Brock was invited either to attend a lineup or to testify for the Commission. It might have been too easy, then, for people to connect the dots: "over here on Jefferson", "300 E.

Jefferson", the Brocks. As the witnesses both closest to 300 E. Jefferson and to the parking lot, the Brocks had to be downplayed, had to be weaned off Jefferson & Beckley and weaned onto the parking lot. (Sgt. Hill didn't just downplay them--he
vaporized them, or one of them.) More publicity would have meant more scrutiny, prickly questions. (On that same day--Jan. 21, 1964--Reynolds himself was slipping further into the morass: For his part, he misleadingly told the FBI then that he "last
observed the individual to turn north" by the service station: "[The Brocks] informed him the individual had gone through the parking lot." [FBI interview report/WMp544] Naively, he apparently thought that the WFAA footage had been deep-sixed.)

You read too much into every line of every witness’s testimony.

You accept too blithely almost every statement of almost every witness, and ignore contradictory evidence.

No, that’s untrue. I only accept eyewitness accounts that are corroborated - by the hard evidence, primarily, but by other witnesses as well.

In sum: The jacket was planted,

Why? What happened to the jacket that Oswald was seen zipping up by Earlene Roberts as he left the rooming house?

Even Dale Myers admitted that she was a fabricator.

Oswald admitted in custody he went back to the rooming house, changed some of his clothes, and took his gun. He couldn’t very well deny the gun, as some CTs do, because he knew it was taken off him in the theatre.

the Texaco jacket witnesses were manufactured,

Why bother?

Killing Tippit and framing Oswald for that murder doesn’t improve or change the evidence indicating Oswald killed JFK one iota.

Never said it did.

You deny it here, but argue for it immediately below.

Tippit’s murder is totally unnecessary for any frame-up of Oswald for the assassination

Captain Fritz: "I instructed [my officers] to get those witnesses over for identification just as soon as they could, and for us to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing, so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we

investigated the President's killing, WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES".--With Malice p207. Fritz understates the paucity of witnesses in Dealey. There were none, Check the DPD lineup tally (WM p458) for the 7:55pm lineup, which Brennan supposedly
attended. No mention of him or his sponsor, Sorrells.

Here you’re arguing what you just denied, that the evidence against Oswald in the Tippit case was manufactured because the evidence against Oswald in theJFK case wasn’t strong. You pretend Fritz instruction to build a strong Tippit case was an

instruction to his men to frame Oswald.

You need to prove that, not simply allege it.

See the info imparted to Gil here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wem9wqlTuHA/m/jRMN3OJ8CQAJ

For that matter, as I noted, neither of the Brocks attended a lineup, although they seemed to have gotten as a good a look at the suspect as Callaway or Guinyard, who also saw the man fleeing.

They didn’t witness a crime. What would they testify to? This is akin to the asking for the names of the patrons in the Texas Theatre. They didn’t witness the murder of Tippit. OnlyOswald resisting arrest. Which Oswald admitted to in custody.

That obviates the need to produce witnesses to Oswald resisting arrest. Doesn’t it?

, which is where most critics concentrate their allegations of a frame-up.

Oswald was, beyond doubt, being framed for Tippit's murder, and Dale Myers was last seen imploding.

Your conclusion ignores all the eyewitness testimony putting Oswald as the killer of Tippit

I have, previously, shown that Mrs. Markham and the Davises did not even see the killer, only a vigilante chasing him. Unless you believe that Callaway or Scoggins was the killer...

You haven’t shown anything of the sort. You may have argued for that, but the Davises testified to seeing the man empty his revolver and discard the shells. Since those shells in evidence match Oswald’s revolver, you’re arguing they saw Oswald

empty his revolver, or you are simply ignoring evidence you don’t like.

, as well as all the forensic evidence indicating the revolver taken off Oswald in the theatre was the one used to kill Tippit.
You allege those inconvenient witnesses were all lying (see above)

Benavides tailed the gunman as far as the Abundant Life Temple, yet he did not attend a lineup either. The absence of the Brocks & Benavides from lineups says a lot...

Only to you, but you are hearing things. How many witnesses did they need to identify Oswald a sthe shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene? You discount all those that picked Oswald out, why would you not discount the Brock’s and Benavides

as well?

and the forensic evidence was swapped or planted, but never come close to establishing any of that.

The finding of the hulls in Oak Cliff was compromised by the fact that it took some 4 months for Benavides to come around and say that he found them on the Davis lawn, when they were apparently found a block away. If the location was wrong, perhaps

the hulls themselves were the wrong ones.

You need to establish that, not just suggest it.

See this quote on the fifth page here: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

_The Presumption of Regularity:_
“ … in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper with the sack or the can or their contents. Where no evidence indicating otherwise is produced, the presumption of

regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and courts presume they have properly discharged their official duties.”

Must be contagious. Don Willis has ducked out of the discussion thread once more. He raises an issue, rejects the answers, and then avoids having a discussion about the issue he raised.

"Google's security apparatus won't let me answer Hank Sienzant's answer to my own post on alt.conspiracy.jfk. But it's mainly things he has said before and I've already answered so I guess it doesn't matter much. Still, I hate to leave poor Hank
hanging..." Donald Willis Friday at 12:18 PM

Don't worry about letting Hank hang. I've been waiting for months now for Hank to go down to his basement and get me a source.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:06:06 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

See this quote on the fifth page here: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

_The Presumption of Regularity:_
“ … in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper with the sack or the can or their contents. Where no evidence indicating otherwise is produced, the presumption of

regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and courts presume they have properly discharged their official duties.”

You keep posting this opinion from 1983 as if it applied to a case 20 years earlier.

But for the sake of argument, it says, "the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper" with the evidence "where no evidence indicating otherwise is produced...."
There's plenty of evidence indicating the officials tampered with the shells.

And it's all here:
www.gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-shells

So your argument is moot.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 18:15:29 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 05:42:36 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:06:06?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

See this quote on the fifth page here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

_The Presumption of Regularity:_
� � in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper with the sack or the can or their contents. Where no evidence indicating otherwise is produced, the presumption of regularity

supports the official acts of public officers, and courts presume they have properly discharged their official duties.�

You keep posting this opinion from 1983 as if it applied to a case 20 years earlier.

But for the sake of argument, it says, "the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper" with the evidence "where no evidence indicating otherwise is produced...."
There's plenty of evidence indicating the officials tampered with the shells.

And it's all here:
www.gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-shells

So your argument is moot.

Huckster Sienzant just got spanked...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:42:38 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:06:06 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

See this quote on the fifth page here: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

_The Presumption of Regularity:_
"… in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper with the sack or the can or their contents. Where no evidence indicating otherwise is produced, the presumption of

regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and courts presume they have properly discharged their official duties."

You keep posting this opinion from 1983 as if it applied to a case 20 years earlier.

A. Did you not read the first paragraph of the cited document? Apparently not. It says that Federal Rule 901 merely codifies the rules already in effect. They didn't invent them or change them in 1983. You are pretending the Federal Rules of Evidence
changed the law. Pretense is insufficient. You have to establish that.

B. The Warren Court, starting after the Kennedy assassination, expanded the rights of the defendant, notably with the Miranda decision, but there were many others. You are pretending that the rules for admissibility were stricter in 1963 than in 1983.
Pretense is insufficient. You have to establish that.

C. You have a double standard. You reject the Codified 1983 FRE on the specious basis that it's not 1963 rules. Yet you have claimed you have law enforcement experience, and upon that basis, you make certain claims about what is admissible and what is
not. And what forms are required. But your law enforcement experience, if legit, is certainly more recent that 1983. Shouldn't we then reject your supposed law enforcement experience as less applicable to 1963 than even the 1983 Federal Rules of Evidence?

D. (And maybe this should be point A), you are shifting the burden of proof. You have made pronouncements that you haven't established, and asked us to disprove them. You have it backwards. You need to establish your claims, not ask us to disprove them.
For two examples, you have claimed evidential forms are required, and claim much of the evidence is inadmissible because the proper evidence trail is lacking. You haven't established either. You've provided no historical forms from the DPD of 1963 (or
any other police dept) to establish such forms in were use by the DPD (or any other police dept) in 1963, and you have cited no law reviews, publications, or law books supporting your assertion that any evidence would be inadmissible.

But for the sake of argument, it says, "the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper" with the evidence "where no evidence indicating otherwise is produced...."
There's plenty of evidence indicating the officials tampered with the shells.

In your opinion. You have produced no evidence. You need *evidence*, not inferences or presumptions or opinions about what should have happened. You have cited no evidence. Mostly you have inferences from understandable human error, like a cop failing to
mark the shells that he should have. According to the FRE, those shells would still be admissible. And I quoted that to you multiple times. Your pretense that these rules didn't apply in 1963 is merely your pretense.

And it's all here:
www.gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-shells

I don't rebut links. My motto is if you don't care to post your arguments here and discuss it, I don't care to rebut them.

So your argument is moot.

Your arguments are uncited and unproven. They appear from here to be based on misunderstandings of the law and the Federal Rules of Evidence.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:56:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 05:42:36 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:06:06?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

See this quote on the fifth page here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

_The Presumption of Regularity:_
“ … in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper with the sack or the can or their contents. Where no evidence indicating otherwise is produced, the presumption of

regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and courts presume they have properly discharged their official duties.”

You keep posting this opinion from 1983 as if it applied to a case 20 years earlier.

But for the sake of argument, it says, "the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper" with the evidence "where no evidence indicating otherwise is produced...."
There's plenty of evidence indicating the officials tampered with the shells.

And it's all here:
www.gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-shells

So your argument is moot.

Huckster Sienzant just got spanked...

On what basis do you make that assertion?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:59:14 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:


Your arguments are uncited and unproven. Indeed, you REFUSE to support
'em:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 2:18:59 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:59:14 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Your arguments are uncited and unproven. Indeed, you REFUSE to support
'em:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

Donald Willis has more to say:

Donald Willis
Posted 7 hours ago

Update: Meanwhile, back at alt.conspiracy.jfk, Hank S is putting words in my mouth, which he can easily get away with since Google won't let me post there now. He says I "won't post [there] anymore". As NTFH noted, at acj, I can't post there any more.
(I was told by Google to find a "code" in my email in-box, but the same page that told me that also froze me on that page, without access to my in-box or new tabs!)

I noticed that, too. Hank has been at least implying that Willis does not want to post here, when Willis has been clearly saying that he is not being allowed to post here despite his desire. Of course, Hank used such wording as to allow for his escape
from this charge, being the slithering snake he is. This illustrates the underhanded way in which Hank insults people.

As for Willis' Google problem, I have no idea what he's talking about. Google has never done this to me. Perhaps Willis is their test case for a new censorship technique. We live in exciting times!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 1:05:14 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 2:18:59 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:59:14 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Your arguments are uncited and unproven. Indeed, you REFUSE to support 'em:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

Donald Willis has more to say:

Donald Willis
Posted 7 hours ago

Update: Meanwhile, back at alt.conspiracy.jfk,

Talk about running to your safe space.

Hank S is putting words in my mouth, which he can easily get away with since Google won't let me post there now. He says I "won't post [there] anymore". As NTFH noted, at acj, I can't post there any more. (I was told by Google to find a "code" in my

email in-box, but the same page that told me that also froze me on that page, without access to my in-box or new tabs!)

I noticed that, too. Hank has been at least implying that Willis does not want to post here, when Willis has been clearly saying that he is not being allowed to post here despite his desire. Of course, Hank used such wording as to allow for his escape

from this charge, being the slithering snake he is. This illustrates the underhanded way in which Hank insults people.

As for Willis' Google problem, I have no idea what he's talking about. Google has never done this to me. Perhaps Willis is their test case for a new censorship technique. We live in exciting times!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 2:18:59 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:59:14 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Your arguments are uncited and unproven. Indeed, you REFUSE to support
'em:

Regardless of how much he supports them. This is what happens when a dishonest person appoints himself arbiter of ideas.

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 1:05:14 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

As for Willis' Google problem, I have no idea what he's talking about. Google has never done this to me. Perhaps Willis is their test case for a new censorship technique. We live in exciting times!

I've noticed that every time I post now, I have to prove I'm not a robot. Something's going on with Google.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Donald Willis has more to say:

Donald Willis
Posted 7 hours ago

Update: Meanwhile, back at alt.conspiracy.jfk, Hank S is putting words in my mouth, which he can easily get away with since Google won't let me post there now. He says I "won't post [there] anymore". As NTFH noted, at acj, I can't post there any more. (

I was told by Google to find a "code" in my email in-box, but the same page that told me that also froze me on that page, without access to my in-box or new tabs!)

I noticed that, too. Hank has been at least implying that Willis does not want to post here, when Willis has been clearly saying that he is not being allowed to post here despite his desire.

Did you verify Don’s claims independently? Me neither.

I will not debate Willis with you acting as an intermediary.

Of course, Hank used such wording as to allow for his escape from this charge, being the slithering snake he is. This illustrates the underhanded way in which Hank insults people.

Hilarious! As opposed to the overhanded way you come right out and call me a slithering snake, right?

All I know is I'm still here, and he is not. I said exactly that. I am not going to chase Willis around from forum to forum. He can post and call me a liar wherever he wishes. You and Ben can do that, too.

Oh, wait, you already do!

As for Willis' Google problem, I have no idea what he's talking about. Google has never done this to me.

Whenever I asked Don for a link to establish his claim, he would always beg off, saying he couldn't figure out how to copy and paste links. If true, then Don does not appear to be the most computer-literate person around. So would it be possible his
inability to post using Google is of his own doing?

Perhaps Willis is their test case for a new censorship technique. We live in exciting times!

That's the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. Another option is maybe you're just a little too paranoid. Given you're a conspiracy theorist, which option do you think is more likely?
A. Google conspiring against Don, or
B. Don screwing something up?

Can you tell us why you failed to consider or even list the more reasonable viewpoint?

John McAdams' website listed multiple different ways to read alt.assassination.JFK. Those ways would also apply to alt.conspiracy.JFK.

Perhaps Don should explore alternate means of accessing the forum beyond Google.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 06:38:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 7:06:06 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:31:22 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:32:26 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

1:22pm DPD radio message translates as The Jacket Was Planted, Folks--and that ain't all

First faint clue: DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee transcribes the first line of the transmission thusly: "Have a description of the suspect on Jefferson." Actually, the transmission runs, "We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson." The

omitted "over here" makes it sound like the sender, Officer Roy Walker, is actually on Jefferson. Is there a problem with that? Oh, yes.

Second faint clue: But, first, continuing the text of the 1:22 transmission: "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson. He's a white male, about 30, 5'8", black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt, and dark slacks". (DPD radio logs) Dale

Myers tinkers with the description: "Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson." ("With Malice" p114) Note that he adds "block of", making it sound as if Walker is simply indicating a block. But Walker specified an address, 300, at Jefferson & Beckley,
a full block west of the site where the jacket was found, at Jefferson & Crawford. And if it be thought that dictabelt skips account for the missing words, see below for follow-ups on Myers and Walker. And note that the dispatcher, at 1:26, has the
suspect "going west on Jefferson from the 300 block". (CE 705 p22)

Third faint clue: At 1:19:05, the dispatcher tells Walker to check out 501 E. 10th at Denver (WMp105). Then, at 1:19:59, he tells Walker "The suspect's running west on Jefferson from the location" (DPD radio logs/WMp109). When, at 1:21:37, Walker

radios "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet" (DPD radio logs), the dispatcher again directs him to "501 E. 10th at Denver" (CE 705p20/WM p113). Finally, at 1:22:36, Walker radios his "over here" description. From his 1:21:37 transmission, we know
that Walker was, at the time, on Jefferson. But we don't know, from his radio transmissions, whether he was ever at 10th & Patton. He doesn't correct or follow-up the dispatcher's "10th at Denver", after either of the latter's advisories.

Fourth (getting somewhere) clue: And yet Myers insists that Walker met and talked to Warren Reynolds at the murder scene: "Reynolds returned to 10th & Patton at about [1:20], despite Reynolds' testimony to the contrary" (p112). True, in 1983,

Walker told Myers that he did meet Reynolds, about 1:22. However, he adds, "One of the used car lot operators saw the incident... Warren Reynolds" (p114). The latter never said that he saw the shooting--Walker's memory fails him here.

And Reynolds would hardly have been the one to tell Walker, "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson". Ruinously for him, Walker told Myers that it was "Reynolds [who] gave me the description of the gunman" (p114). Walker was apparently unaware that TV

film footage has turned up showing Reynolds telling police at the scene that he last saw a suspicious man going into the back of an old house near the Texaco station (WM p131). Reynolds, then, could not have been Walker's "300 E. Jefferson" witness, a
full block west of the house. (Reynolds' suspicious man may not have been the gunman at all, but a vigilante trailing the gunman.) Myers, then, with one hand, was simply extending Walker's witness-identity deception, despite his own text and frame grabs
which, with the other hand, expose said deception! Myers giveth and Myers taketh away.

Fifth (gathering steam) clue: Myers then buttresses the invented Walker/Reynolds confab with yet another out-of-thin-air incident, based on the word of... no one at all: "Warren Reynolds, who had come with [Sgt. Bud Owens & Assistant DA Bill

Alexander] from 10th & Patton, pointed to an old house near the Texaco station..." (p120) Alexander did not testify to the Warren Commission, and Owens, in his Commission testimony, did not mention bringing along a witness to the Texaco area. None of the
principals, then--Reynolds, Walker, Alexander, Owens--can support Myers' vignettes re Reynolds "returning" to and leaving the scene of the crime circa 1:20 and 1:22. Thin air.

Sixth (Eureka!) clue: Relocation, relocation, relocation. Why would Walker and Myers go to so much trouble to falsely identify and relocate a witness? Well, what other witness or witnesses were "over here on Jefferson"? Yes--Robert and Mary Brock,

in effect the gatekeepers of the parking-lot suspect. In fact, the Brocks were the only witnesses who stated that they "last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind" the service station. (WM p551) In fact, they may have been the last
witnesses to have reported seeing the suspect, but not in the parking lot, and certainly not doffing his jacket. Because at 1:22, he was reported at "about 300 E. Jefferson", a block further west, still wearing his "white jacket". Certainly worth Walker'
s false identification of his witness, and Myers' subsequent, false relocation of him elsewhere. Two wrongs and no right.

And the first transmissions re the Texaco location were "Suspect just passed 401 E. Jefferson" and "Subject just passed 401 E. Jefferson" (CE 705pp20-21)

Seventh clue: At 1:26, Sgt. Gerald Hill reported from 12th & Beckley "Have a man in the car with me that can identify the suspect if anybody gets... one." (CE 1974 p63) About 1:23, at the Tippit scene, according to Hill's testimony, "Another

person came up [and] told us the man had run over into the funeral home parking lot", which was opposite the Texaco station (v7p48). Sgt. Bud Owens similarly testified that, at the "scene of the shooting... we were informed by a man whom I do not know
that the suspect that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson" (v7p79). Someone, then, from the Texaco-station area--Hill and Owens both garbled the where of it--had run down to where the police were congregating. And Hill,
clearly, immediately, took this man near to where the man had last seen the suspect, Beckley & Jefferson, or 300 E. Jefferson, which is two half-blocks north of 12th & Beckley. In fact, "300" would be on the south side of Jefferson. If Walker and his
witness were being very very precise, that would mean that the suspect had crossed Jefferson, heading right towards... 12th & Beckley.

Eighth clue: But there must have been a big problem--retrospectively--with this witness. In fact, Hill's testimony constitutes an implicit, hapless denial that he even had a witness or that he had even radioed from 12th & Beckley, even though it'

s on the record. On the record, Gerald! Both the FBI transcription (see above) and Myers (p124) acknowledge that Hill sent the 1:26 message. Hill testified, falsely, that, about 1:25, he left the Tippit scene and "whipped around the block. I went down to
the first intersection east of the block where all this incident occurred and made a right turn and traveled one block and came back up on Jefferson", where he met Owens at the Texaco/old-house site (v7p48). The poor Warren Commission did not have time
to check out every DPD tale.

Who was Hill's radioactive witness, whom, figuratively, he dare not touch, or acknowledge, let alone name? Myers apparently knew, hence his totally unsupported relocation of that witness (as well as Officer Walker) from Crawford & Jefferson to

10th & Patton. This is known as throwing the hounds off the scent. But by fallaciously drawing a witness away from the Crawford area, Myers ironically draws attention to that area. Reynolds was looking east from Crawford area. But Hill's witness was
looking west, towards Beckley. Now who could have gotten a pretty good look at the fleeing suspect, good enough to have estimated height, weight, race, and age, and described the man's clothing? Who could have seen him that closely--seen him as, say, he
passed the Texaco station? Robert and/or Mary Brock, of course. Walker doesn't indicate the sex or number of his witnesses ("We have a description"), so it could have been either Mr. or Mrs. Brock, or both.

And, just as the WFAA-TV footage of Reynolds exposes the Walker lie, so it exposes the Brocks' lies. As noted above, Mrs. Brock stated that she informed Reynolds that "she last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's

Texaco Service Station". Clearly, she did not so inform him, not without some strong input from Reynolds, who had his own story to tell and was telling it to the cops, that day, and would have told it to her. But she failed to give herself and her
husband a lifeline out of the Reynolds morass. A frame-grab is worth a thousand words. Moral: Whatever you do, don't hitch your wagon to Warren Reynolds.

Mary Brock identified the man in the parking lot as Oswald. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_m.htm
== quote ==
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a

white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Approximately five minutes later two individuals from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, appeared at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, making inquiry as to whether she had noticed the young white man come by the station. She

indicated she had, at which time they informed her that this individual had in all probability shot a Dallas police officer. She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the
parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Mrs. Brock couldn't know that the WFAA-TV footage would eventually turn up and show Reynolds telling police officers, on 11/22, that he saw the suspect entering an old house near the Texaco, not heading for the lot. (photo With Malice p131) He didn't

have to be informed by Mrs. B. So it's not just her word vs. his--we have film evidence that she was lying re Reynolds.

Where can I see - and hear - this supposed film footage?

"Supposed"? Do you doubt Dale Myers? He comments on it and has frame grabs in "With Malice". Don't know of a source to see or hear it directly. Maybe David von Pein has it.

Provide a link.

Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Whoever it was, she (and/or Mr. Brock) last saw the man heading towards 300 E. Jefferson, still wearing a white jacket (as per Walker's 1:22 radio transmission).

She identified the person as Oswald.

==unquote ==

Her husband wasn’t certain.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_r.htm

== quote ==
ROBERT BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was employed as a mechanic at Roger Ballew Texaco Service Station, 600 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. He advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, November 22, 1963, a

young white man passed him, BROCK and his wife, and proceeded north past the Texaco Service Station

Again, we have the film footage of Reynolds by the old house, into which he saw the man enter, not the parking lot.

into the parking lot, at which time the individual disappeared.

Approximately five minutes later, WARREN REYNOLDS and another individual from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot came to the Texaco Service Station and informed him, BROCK, of the fact that a police officer had been shot approximately two blocks away,

and that the individual responsible for the shooting had been observed turning north off Jefferson Street past the Texaco Service Station.

BROCK advised he, WARREN REYNOLDS and various police officers from the Dallas Police Department had searched the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station in efforts to locate the person responsible for the shooting, with negative

results. BROCK advised, however, a Dallas, Texas, police officer, name unknown, had located a jacket underneath a 1954 Oldsmobile which was parked in parking space # 17. This jacket apparently had belonged to the person who had shortly before shot a
Dallas police officer.

ROBERT BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he could not positively identify same as being identical with the individual who had passed him at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
== unquote ==

Despite their apparent proximity to the suspect, neither Brock was invited either to attend a lineup or to testify for the Commission. It might have been too easy, then, for people to connect the dots: "over here on Jefferson", "300 E. Jefferson",

the Brocks. As the witnesses both closest to 300 E. Jefferson and to the parking lot, the Brocks had to be downplayed, had to be weaned off Jefferson & Beckley and weaned onto the parking lot. (Sgt. Hill didn't just downplay them--he vaporized them, or
one of them.) More publicity would have meant more scrutiny, prickly questions. (On that same day--Jan. 21, 1964--Reynolds himself was slipping further into the morass: For his part, he misleadingly told the FBI then that he "last observed the individual
to turn north" by the service station: "[The Brocks] informed him the individual had gone through the parking lot." [FBI interview report/WMp544] Naively, he apparently thought that the WFAA footage had been deep-sixed.)

You read too much into every line of every witness’s testimony.

You accept too blithely almost every statement of almost every witness, and ignore contradictory evidence.

No, that’s untrue. I only accept eyewitness accounts that are corroborated - by the hard evidence, primarily, but by other witnesses as well.

Several witnesses corroborated that the depository shooter was at a wide-open window. There's no "hard evidence" for the shooter being on either the fifth or sixth floor--just highly transportable shell/hull evidence.

In sum: The jacket was planted,

Why? What happened to the jacket that Oswald was seen zipping up by Earlene Roberts as he left the rooming house?

Even Dale Myers admitted that she was a fabricator.

Oswald admitted in custody he went back to the rooming house, changed some of his clothes, and took his gun. He couldn’t very well deny the gun, as some CTs do, because he knew it was taken off him in the theatre.

But the fabricator didn't necessarily see Oswald's return so we don't know what time he returned.

the Texaco jacket witnesses were manufactured,

Why bother?

Killing Tippit and framing Oswald for that murder doesn’t improve or change the evidence indicating Oswald killed JFK one iota.

Never said it did.

You deny it here, but argue for it immediately below.

Tippit’s murder is totally unnecessary for any frame-up of Oswald for the assassination

Captain Fritz: "I instructed [my officers] to get those witnesses over for identification just as soon as they could, and for us to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing, so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we

investigated the President's killing, WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES".--With Malice p207. Fritz understates the paucity of witnesses in Dealey. There were none, Check the DPD lineup tally (WM p458) for the 7:55pm lineup, which Brennan supposedly
attended. No mention of him or his sponsor, Sorrells.

Here you’re arguing what you just denied, that the evidence against Oswald in the Tippit case was manufactured because the evidence against Oswald in theJFK case wasn’t strong. You pretend Fritz instruction to build a strong Tippit case was an

instruction to his men to frame Oswald.

You assume a lot here. Why in hell would Fritz want to be quoted, on record, as instructing his men to frame Oswald? And why, additionally, would Myers want to quote such instructions? Unless you're assuming that he's stupid and is accidentally making
a case for Oswald's innocence in Oak Cliff...

You need to prove that, not simply allege it.

I was not even "alleging" it.

See the info imparted to Gil here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wem9wqlTuHA/m/jRMN3OJ8CQAJ

For that matter, as I noted, neither of the Brocks attended a lineup, although they seemed to have gotten as a good a look at the suspect as Callaway or Guinyard, who also saw the man fleeing.

They didn’t witness a crime.

Neither did Callaway or Guinyard. Nor McWatters. Nor Whaley.

What would they testify to? This is akin to the asking for the names of the patrons in the Texas Theatre. They didn’t witness the murder of Tippit. OnlyOswald resisting arrest. Which Oswald admitted to in custody. That obviates the need to produce
witnesses to Oswald resisting arrest. Doesn’t it?

, which is where most critics concentrate their allegations of a frame-up.

Oswald was, beyond doubt, being framed for Tippit's murder, and Dale Myers was last seen imploding.

Your conclusion ignores all the eyewitness testimony putting Oswald as the killer of Tippit

I have, previously, shown that Mrs. Markham and the Davises did not even see the killer, only a vigilante chasing him. Unless you believe that Callaway or Scoggins was the killer...

You haven’t shown anything of the sort. You may have argued for that, but the Davises testified to seeing the man empty his revolver and discard the shells. Since those shells in evidence match Oswald’s revolver, you’re arguing they saw Oswald

empty his revolver, or you are simply ignoring evidence you don’t like.

, as well as all the forensic evidence indicating the revolver taken off Oswald in the theatre was the one used to kill Tippit.
You allege those inconvenient witnesses were all lying (see above)

Benavides tailed the gunman as far as the Abundant Life Temple, yet he did not attend a lineup either. The absence of the Brocks & Benavides from lineups says a lot...

Only to you, but you are hearing things. How many witnesses did they need to identify Oswald a sthe shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene?

They needed someone to identify the man who left the jacket, a critical piece of evidence.

You discount all those that picked Oswald out, why would you not discount the Brock’s and Benavides as well?

I would, yes, and I do.

and the forensic evidence was swapped or planted, but never come close to establishing any of that.

The finding of the hulls in Oak Cliff was compromised by the fact that it took some 4 months for Benavides to come around and say that he found them on the Davis lawn, when they were apparently found a block away. If the location was wrong, perhaps

the hulls themselves were the wrong ones.

You need to establish that, not just suggest it.

The fact that Benavides did not come forward for 4 months more than suggests that the story he finally told to the Commission (and to no one else before that) was highly questionable.

dcw

See this quote on the fifth page here: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

_The Presumption of Regularity:_
“ … in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper with the sack or the can or their contents. Where no evidence indicating otherwise is produced, the presumption of

regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and courts presume they have properly discharged their official duties.”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 6:38:58 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Donald Willis has more to say:

Donald Willis
Posted 7 hours ago

Update: Meanwhile, back at alt.conspiracy.jfk, Hank S is putting words in my mouth, which he can easily get away with since Google won't let me post there now. He says I "won't post [there] anymore". As NTFH noted, at acj, I can't post there any more.

(I was told by Google to find a "code" in my email in-box, but the same page that told me that also froze me on that page, without access to my in-box or new tabs!)

I noticed that, too. Hank has been at least implying that Willis does not want to post here, when Willis has been clearly saying that he is not being allowed to post here despite his desire.

Did you verify Don’s claims independently? Me neither.

I will not debate Willis with you acting as an intermediary.

Of course, Hank used such wording as to allow for his escape from this charge, being the slithering snake he is. This illustrates the underhanded way in which Hank insults people.

Hilarious! As opposed to the overhanded way you come right out and call me a slithering snake, right?

All I know is I'm still here, and he is not. I said exactly that. I am not going to chase Willis around from forum to forum. He can post and call me a liar wherever he wishes. You and Ben can do that, too.

Oh, wait, you already do!

As for Willis' Google problem, I have no idea what he's talking about. Google has never done this to me.

Whenever I asked Don for a link to establish his claim, he would always beg off, saying he couldn't figure out how to copy and paste links. If true, then Don does not appear to be the most computer-literate person around. So would it be possible his

inability to post using Google is of his own doing?

Snark, snark, snark! Notice that Corbett and BT George had the same problem, Joe.

Perhaps Willis is their test case for a new censorship technique. We live in exciting times!

That's the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. Another option is maybe you're just a little too paranoid. Given you're a conspiracy theorist, which option do you think is more likely?
A. Google conspiring against Don, or
B. Don screwing something up?

Can you tell us why you failed to consider or even list the more reasonable viewpoint?

John McAdams' website listed multiple different ways to read alt.assassination.JFK. Those ways would also apply to alt.conspiracy.JFK.

Perhaps Don should explore alternate means of accessing the forum beyond Google.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 6:07:28 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 7:06:06 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:31:22 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:32:26 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

1:22pm DPD radio message translates as The Jacket Was Planted, Folks--and that ain't all

First faint clue: DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee transcribes the first line of the transmission thusly: "Have a description of the suspect on Jefferson." Actually, the transmission runs, "We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson."

The omitted "over here" makes it sound like the sender, Officer Roy Walker, is actually on Jefferson. Is there a problem with that? Oh, yes.

Second faint clue: But, first, continuing the text of the 1:22 transmission: "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson. He's a white male, about 30, 5'8", black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt, and dark slacks". (DPD radio logs) Dale

Myers tinkers with the description: "Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson." ("With Malice" p114) Note that he adds "block of", making it sound as if Walker is simply indicating a block. But Walker specified an address, 300, at Jefferson & Beckley,
a full block west of the site where the jacket was found, at Jefferson & Crawford. And if it be thought that dictabelt skips account for the missing words, see below for follow-ups on Myers and Walker. And note that the dispatcher, at 1:26, has the
suspect "going west on Jefferson from the 300 block". (CE 705 p22)

Third faint clue: At 1:19:05, the dispatcher tells Walker to check out 501 E. 10th at Denver (WMp105). Then, at 1:19:59, he tells Walker "The suspect's running west on Jefferson from the location" (DPD radio logs/WMp109). When, at 1:21:37,

Walker radios "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet" (DPD radio logs), the dispatcher again directs him to "501 E. 10th at Denver" (CE 705p20/WM p113). Finally, at 1:22:36, Walker radios his "over here" description. From his 1:21:37 transmission, we
know that Walker was, at the time, on Jefferson. But we don't know, from his radio transmissions, whether he was ever at 10th & Patton. He doesn't correct or follow-up the dispatcher's "10th at Denver", after either of the latter's advisories.

Fourth (getting somewhere) clue: And yet Myers insists that Walker met and talked to Warren Reynolds at the murder scene: "Reynolds returned to 10th & Patton at about [1:20], despite Reynolds' testimony to the contrary" (p112). True, in 1983,

Walker told Myers that he did meet Reynolds, about 1:22. However, he adds, "One of the used car lot operators saw the incident... Warren Reynolds" (p114). The latter never said that he saw the shooting--Walker's memory fails him here.

And Reynolds would hardly have been the one to tell Walker, "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson". Ruinously for him, Walker told Myers that it was "Reynolds [who] gave me the description of the gunman" (p114). Walker was apparently unaware that

TV film footage has turned up showing Reynolds telling police at the scene that he last saw a suspicious man going into the back of an old house near the Texaco station (WM p131). Reynolds, then, could not have been Walker's "300 E. Jefferson" witness, a
full block west of the house. (Reynolds' suspicious man may not have been the gunman at all, but a vigilante trailing the gunman.) Myers, then, with one hand, was simply extending Walker's witness-identity deception, despite his own text and frame grabs
which, with the other hand, expose said deception! Myers giveth and Myers taketh away.

Fifth (gathering steam) clue: Myers then buttresses the invented Walker/Reynolds confab with yet another out-of-thin-air incident, based on the word of... no one at all: "Warren Reynolds, who had come with [Sgt. Bud Owens & Assistant DA Bill

Alexander] from 10th & Patton, pointed to an old house near the Texaco station..." (p120) Alexander did not testify to the Warren Commission, and Owens, in his Commission testimony, did not mention bringing along a witness to the Texaco area. None of the
principals, then--Reynolds, Walker, Alexander, Owens--can support Myers' vignettes re Reynolds "returning" to and leaving the scene of the crime circa 1:20 and 1:22. Thin air.

Sixth (Eureka!) clue: Relocation, relocation, relocation. Why would Walker and Myers go to so much trouble to falsely identify and relocate a witness? Well, what other witness or witnesses were "over here on Jefferson"? Yes--Robert and Mary

Brock, in effect the gatekeepers of the parking-lot suspect. In fact, the Brocks were the only witnesses who stated that they "last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind" the service station. (WM p551) In fact, they may have been the
last witnesses to have reported seeing the suspect, but not in the parking lot, and certainly not doffing his jacket. Because at 1:22, he was reported at "about 300 E. Jefferson", a block further west, still wearing his "white jacket". Certainly worth
Walker's false identification of his witness, and Myers' subsequent, false relocation of him elsewhere. Two wrongs and no right.

And the first transmissions re the Texaco location were "Suspect just passed 401 E. Jefferson" and "Subject just passed 401 E. Jefferson" (CE 705pp20-21)

Seventh clue: At 1:26, Sgt. Gerald Hill reported from 12th & Beckley "Have a man in the car with me that can identify the suspect if anybody gets... one." (CE 1974 p63) About 1:23, at the Tippit scene, according to Hill's testimony, "Another

person came up [and] told us the man had run over into the funeral home parking lot", which was opposite the Texaco station (v7p48). Sgt. Bud Owens similarly testified that, at the "scene of the shooting... we were informed by a man whom I do not know
that the suspect that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson" (v7p79). Someone, then, from the Texaco-station area--Hill and Owens both garbled the where of it--had run down to where the police were congregating. And Hill,
clearly, immediately, took this man near to where the man had last seen the suspect, Beckley & Jefferson, or 300 E. Jefferson, which is two half-blocks north of 12th & Beckley. In fact, "300" would be on the south side of Jefferson. If Walker and his
witness were being very very precise, that would mean that the suspect had crossed Jefferson, heading right towards... 12th & Beckley.

Eighth clue: But there must have been a big problem--retrospectively--with this witness. In fact, Hill's testimony constitutes an implicit, hapless denial that he even had a witness or that he had even radioed from 12th & Beckley, even though

it's on the record. On the record, Gerald! Both the FBI transcription (see above) and Myers (p124) acknowledge that Hill sent the 1:26 message. Hill testified, falsely, that, about 1:25, he left the Tippit scene and "whipped around the block. I went down
to the first intersection east of the block where all this incident occurred and made a right turn and traveled one block and came back up on Jefferson", where he met Owens at the Texaco/old-house site (v7p48). The poor Warren Commission did not have
time to check out every DPD tale.

Who was Hill's radioactive witness, whom, figuratively, he dare not touch, or acknowledge, let alone name? Myers apparently knew, hence his totally unsupported relocation of that witness (as well as Officer Walker) from Crawford & Jefferson to

10th & Patton. This is known as throwing the hounds off the scent. But by fallaciously drawing a witness away from the Crawford area, Myers ironically draws attention to that area. Reynolds was looking east from Crawford area. But Hill's witness was
looking west, towards Beckley. Now who could have gotten a pretty good look at the fleeing suspect, good enough to have estimated height, weight, race, and age, and described the man's clothing? Who could have seen him that closely--seen him as, say, he
passed the Texaco station? Robert and/or Mary Brock, of course. Walker doesn't indicate the sex or number of his witnesses ("We have a description"), so it could have been either Mr. or Mrs. Brock, or both.

And, just as the WFAA-TV footage of Reynolds exposes the Walker lie, so it exposes the Brocks' lies. As noted above, Mrs. Brock stated that she informed Reynolds that "she last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's

Texaco Service Station". Clearly, she did not so inform him, not without some strong input from Reynolds, who had his own story to tell and was telling it to the cops, that day, and would have told it to her. But she failed to give herself and her
husband a lifeline out of the Reynolds morass. A frame-grab is worth a thousand words. Moral: Whatever you do, don't hitch your wagon to Warren Reynolds.

Mary Brock identified the man in the parking lot as Oswald. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_m.htm
== quote ==
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a

white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Approximately five minutes later two individuals from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, appeared at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, making inquiry as to whether she had noticed the young white man come by the station. She

indicated she had, at which time they informed her that this individual had in all probability shot a Dallas police officer. She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the
parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Mrs. Brock couldn't know that the WFAA-TV footage would eventually turn up and show Reynolds telling police officers, on 11/22, that he saw the suspect entering an old house near the Texaco, not heading for the lot. (photo With Malice p131) He didn'

t have to be informed by Mrs. B. So it's not just her word vs. his--we have film evidence that she was lying re Reynolds.

Where can I see - and hear - this supposed film footage?

"Supposed"? Do you doubt Dale Myers?

I doubt your summary of Myers conclusions. You have been known to take liberties with what witnesses have said, denying their plain language — like in the case of the multitude of witnesses who placed the shooter or the rifle one floor above the three
workers on the fifth floor. I want to see and hear this “WFAA-TV footage” you reference that “would eventually turn up and show Reynolds telling police officers, on 11/22, that he saw the suspect entering an old house…”

Now it sounds like you haven’t seen or heard it.

He comments on it and has frame grabs in "With Malice". Don't know of a source to see or hear it directly. Maybe David von Pein has it.

Provide a link.

Still waiting. Quote exactly what Myers said.

Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Whoever it was, she (and/or Mr. Brock) last saw the man heading towards 300 E. Jefferson, still wearing a white jacket (as per Walker's 1:22 radio transmission).

She identified the person as Oswald.

==unquote ==

Her husband wasn’t certain.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_r.htm

== quote ==
ROBERT BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was employed as a mechanic at Roger Ballew Texaco Service Station, 600 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. He advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, November 22, 1963, a

young white man passed him, BROCK and his wife, and proceeded north past the Texaco Service Station

Again, we have the film footage of Reynolds by the old house, into which he saw the man enter, not the parking lot.

into the parking lot, at which time the individual disappeared.

Approximately five minutes later, WARREN REYNOLDS and another individual from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot came to the Texaco Service Station and informed him, BROCK, of the fact that a police officer had been shot approximately two blocks away,

and that the individual responsible for the shooting had been observed turning north off Jefferson Street past the Texaco Service Station.

BROCK advised he, WARREN REYNOLDS and various police officers from the Dallas Police Department had searched the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station in efforts to locate the person responsible for the shooting, with

negative results. BROCK advised, however, a Dallas, Texas, police officer, name unknown, had located a jacket underneath a 1954 Oldsmobile which was parked in parking space # 17. This jacket apparently had belonged to the person who had shortly before
shot a Dallas police officer.

ROBERT BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he could not positively identify same as being identical with the individual who had passed him at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
== unquote ==

Despite their apparent proximity to the suspect, neither Brock was invited either to attend a lineup or to testify for the Commission. It might have been too easy, then, for people to connect the dots: "over here on Jefferson", "300 E.

Jefferson", the Brocks. As the witnesses both closest to 300 E. Jefferson and to the parking lot, the Brocks had to be downplayed, had to be weaned off Jefferson & Beckley and weaned onto the parking lot. (Sgt. Hill didn't just downplay them--he
vaporized them, or one of them.) More publicity would have meant more scrutiny, prickly questions. (On that same day--Jan. 21, 1964--Reynolds himself was slipping further into the morass: For his part, he misleadingly told the FBI then that he "last
observed the individual to turn north" by the service station: "[The Brocks] informed him the individual had gone through the parking lot." [FBI interview report/WMp544] Naively, he apparently thought that the WFAA footage had been deep-sixed.)

You read too much into every line of every witness’s testimony.

You accept too blithely almost every statement of almost every witness, and ignore contradictory evidence.

No, that’s untrue. I only accept eyewitness accounts that are corroborated - by the hard evidence, primarily, but by other witnesses as well.

Several witnesses corroborated that the depository shooter was at a wide-open window. There's no "hard evidence" for the shooter being on either the fifth or sixth floor

Untrue. The trajectory analysis for the single bullet that struck both JFK and Connally was, well, see it yourself:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0031b.htm

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/traj.htm

“Given the position of the two men at the time of Zapruder frame 190, the trajectory intercepted the plane of the Texas School Book Depository 2 feet west of the southeast corner and 9 feet above the sixth floor windowsill. Because this trajectory
falls within the trajectory range established when President Kennedy's back-neck wounds are used as the reference points for the trajectory line, the Panel concludes that the relative alignment of President Kennedy and Governor Connally within the
limousine is consistent with the single bullet theory. Further, since each of these trajectories intersects the plane of the Texas School Book Depository in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the sixth and seventh floors, it is highly probable that
the bullets were fired from a location within this section of the building….

This means that the bullet was traveling at an angle of 25° below true horizontal as it passed forward from Kennedy's neck to Connally's back.** Using the position of the men at the time of Zapruder
190, if this line is extended toward the rear, it intercepts the depository building about 9 feet above the sixth floor windowsill.*

In figure II-25, a circle of 7 feet radius, representing the estimated minimum reasonable margin of error, has been drawn around the intercept point. It is smaller than those of the other two trajectories simply because the distance between the two
wounds (60 centimeters) is more than four times as great as that for the back/neck case (14 centimeters) and five times that for the fatal bullet (11 centimeters). This longer baseline distance admits greater error in wound location and body position,
while yielding superior accuracy. The eastern border of the error circle is somewhat better fixed than the western because the right-most position of Connally was better defined than the left-most.

That shot came from the sixth or seventh floor, not the fifth. Scientific evidence.

--just highly transportable shell/hull evidence.

And we’re back to the window. Despite the rifle and shells being found on the sixth floor, and despite numerous witnesses saying the shooter or rifle was one floor above three black guys (and their testimony and photos putting them on the fifth floor),
and despite the HSCA trajectory analysis that eliminates the fifth floor as the source of the shot that struck both JFK and Connally, you continue to argue Oswald was shooting from the fifth floor.

In sum: The jacket was planted,

Why? What happened to the jacket that Oswald was seen zipping up by Earlene Roberts as he left the rooming house?

Even Dale Myers admitted that she was a fabricator.

Oswald admitted in custody he went back to the rooming house, changed some of his clothes, and took his gun. He couldn’t very well deny the gun, as some CTs do, because he knew it was taken off him in the theatre.

But the fabricator didn't necessarily see Oswald's return so we don't know what time he returned.

the Texaco jacket witnesses were manufactured,

Why bother?

Killing Tippit and framing Oswald for that murder doesn’t improve or change the evidence indicating Oswald killed JFK one iota.

Never said it did.

You deny it here, but argue for it immediately below.

Tippit’s murder is totally unnecessary for any frame-up of Oswald for the assassination

Captain Fritz: "I instructed [my officers] to get those witnesses over for identification just as soon as they could, and for us to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing, so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we

investigated the President's killing, WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES".--With Malice p207. Fritz understates the paucity of witnesses in Dealey. There were none, Check the DPD lineup tally (WM p458) for the 7:55pm lineup, which Brennan supposedly
attended. No mention of him or his sponsor, Sorrells.

Here you’re arguing what you just denied, that the evidence against Oswald in the Tippit case was manufactured because the evidence against Oswald in theJFK case wasn’t strong. You pretend Fritz instruction to build a strong Tippit case was an

instruction to his men to frame Oswald.

You assume a lot here. Why in hell would Fritz want to be quoted, on record, as instructing his men to frame Oswald? And why, additionally, would Myers want to quote such instructions? Unless you're assuming that he's stupid and is accidentally making

a case for Oswald's innocence in Oak Cliff...

You need to prove that, not simply allege it.

I was not even "alleging" it.

See the info imparted to Gil here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wem9wqlTuHA/m/jRMN3OJ8CQAJ

For that matter, as I noted, neither of the Brocks attended a lineup, although they seemed to have gotten as a good a look at the suspect as Callaway or Guinyard, who also saw the man fleeing.

They didn’t witness a crime.

Neither did Callaway or Guinyard. Nor McWatters. Nor Whaley.
What would they testify to? This is akin to the asking for the names of the patrons in the Texas Theatre. They didn’t witness the murder of Tippit. OnlyOswald resisting arrest. Which Oswald admitted to in custody. That obviates the need to produce

witnesses to Oswald resisting arrest. Doesn’t it?

, which is where most critics concentrate their allegations of a frame-up.

Oswald was, beyond doubt, being framed for Tippit's murder, and Dale Myers was last seen imploding.

Your conclusion ignores all the eyewitness testimony putting Oswald as the killer of Tippit

I have, previously, shown that Mrs. Markham and the Davises did not even see the killer, only a vigilante chasing him. Unless you believe that Callaway or Scoggins was the killer...

You haven’t shown anything of the sort. You may have argued for that, but the Davises testified to seeing the man empty his revolver and discard the shells. Since those shells in evidence match Oswald’s revolver, you’re arguing they saw Oswald

empty his revolver, or you are simply ignoring evidence you don’t like.

, as well as all the forensic evidence indicating the revolver taken off Oswald in the theatre was the one used to kill Tippit.
You allege those inconvenient witnesses were all lying (see above)

Benavides tailed the gunman as far as the Abundant Life Temple, yet he did not attend a lineup either. The absence of the Brocks & Benavides from lineups says a lot...

Only to you, but you are hearing things. How many witnesses did they need to identify Oswald a sthe shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene?

They needed someone to identify the man who left the jacket, a critical piece of evidence.

You discount all those that picked Oswald out, why would you not discount the Brock’s and Benavides as well?

I would, yes, and I do.

and the forensic evidence was swapped or planted, but never come close to establishing any of that.

The finding of the hulls in Oak Cliff was compromised by the fact that it took some 4 months for Benavides to come around and say that he found them on the Davis lawn, when they were apparently found a block away. If the location was wrong, perhaps

the hulls themselves were the wrong ones.

You need to establish that, not just suggest it.

The fact that Benavides did not come forward for 4 months more than suggests that the story he finally told to the Commission (and to no one else before that) was highly questionable.

He came forward the first day when he turned the shells he picked up over to Poe.

You need to exclude his first day actions because that evidence indicts Oswald.

dcw

See this quote on the fifth page here: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

_The Presumption of Regularity:_
“ … in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper with the sack or the can or their contents. Where no evidence indicating otherwise is produced, the presumption of

regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and courts presume they have properly discharged their official duties.”

You have not shown any evidence that anyone tampered with the evidence in the record.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 11:10:23 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 6:38:58 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Donald Willis has more to say:

Donald Willis
Posted 7 hours ago

Update: Meanwhile, back at alt.conspiracy.jfk, Hank S is putting words in my mouth, which he can easily get away with since Google won't let me post there now. He says I "won't post [there] anymore". As NTFH noted, at acj, I can't post there any

more. (I was told by Google to find a "code" in my email in-box, but the same page that told me that also froze me on that page, without access to my in-box or new tabs!)

I noticed that, too. Hank has been at least implying that Willis does not want to post here, when Willis has been clearly saying that he is not being allowed to post here despite his desire.

Did you verify Don’s claims independently? Me neither.

I will not debate Willis with you acting as an intermediary.

Of course, Hank used such wording as to allow for his escape from this charge, being the slithering snake he is. This illustrates the underhanded way in which Hank insults people.

Hilarious! As opposed to the overhanded way you come right out and call me a slithering snake, right?

All I know is I'm still here, and he is not. I said exactly that. I am not going to chase Willis around from forum to forum. He can post and call me a liar wherever he wishes. You and Ben can do that, too.

Oh, wait, you already do!

As for Willis' Google problem, I have no idea what he's talking about. Google has never done this to me.

Whenever I asked Don for a link to establish his claim, he would always beg off, saying he couldn't figure out how to copy and paste links. If true, then Don does not appear to be the most computer-literate person around. So would it be possible his

inability to post using Google is of his own doing?

Snark, snark, snark! Notice that Corbett and BT George had the same problem, Joe.

Listen, Ralph, I haven’t had any problem, and I see you figured out your problem. My comment is not disproven. I don’t know what caused your problem, but I doubt it was Google picking on you, as suggested by one CT below:

Perhaps Willis is their test case for a new censorship technique. We live in exciting times!

That's the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. Another option is maybe you're just a little too paranoid. Given you're a conspiracy theorist, which option do you think is more likely?
A. Google conspiring against Don, or
B. Don screwing something up?

Can you tell us why you failed to consider or even list the more reasonable viewpoint?

John McAdams' website listed multiple different ways to read alt.assassination.JFK. Those ways would also apply to alt.conspiracy.JFK.

Perhaps Don should explore alternate means of accessing the forum beyond Google.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 2:18:35 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 11:10:23 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 6:38:58 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Donald Willis has more to say:

Donald Willis
Posted 7 hours ago

Update: Meanwhile, back at alt.conspiracy.jfk, Hank S is putting words in my mouth, which he can easily get away with since Google won't let me post there now. He says I "won't post [there] anymore". As NTFH noted, at acj, I can't post there any

more. (I was told by Google to find a "code" in my email in-box, but the same page that told me that also froze me on that page, without access to my in-box or new tabs!)

I noticed that, too. Hank has been at least implying that Willis does not want to post here, when Willis has been clearly saying that he is not being allowed to post here despite his desire.

Did you verify Don’s claims independently? Me neither.

I will not debate Willis with you acting as an intermediary.

Of course, Hank used such wording as to allow for his escape from this charge, being the slithering snake he is. This illustrates the underhanded way in which Hank insults people.

Hilarious! As opposed to the overhanded way you come right out and call me a slithering snake, right?

All I know is I'm still here, and he is not. I said exactly that. I am not going to chase Willis around from forum to forum. He can post and call me a liar wherever he wishes. You and Ben can do that, too.

Oh, wait, you already do!

As for Willis' Google problem, I have no idea what he's talking about. Google has never done this to me.

Whenever I asked Don for a link to establish his claim, he would always beg off, saying he couldn't figure out how to copy and paste links. If true, then Don does not appear to be the most computer-literate person around. So would it be possible

his inability to post using Google is of his own doing?

Snark, snark, snark! Notice that Corbett and BT George had the same problem, Joe.

Listen, Ralph, I haven’t had any problem, and I see you figured out your problem. My comment is not disproven. I don’t know what caused your problem, but I doubt it was Google picking on you, as suggested by one CT below:

Perhaps Willis is their test case for a new censorship technique. We live in exciting times!

That's the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. Another option is maybe you're just a little too paranoid. Given you're a conspiracy theorist, which option do you think is more likely?
A. Google conspiring against Don, or
B. Don screwing something up?

Can you tell us why you failed to consider or even list the more reasonable viewpoint?

John McAdams' website listed multiple different ways to read alt.assassination.JFK. Those ways would also apply to alt.conspiracy.JFK.

Perhaps Don should explore alternate means of accessing the forum beyond Google.

Having lost his argument with Willis, Sienzant moves the goalposts. That's Hank Logic!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 2:27:05 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 2:18:35 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 11:10:23 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 6:38:58 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Donald Willis has more to say:

Donald Willis
Posted 7 hours ago

Update: Meanwhile, back at alt.conspiracy.jfk, Hank S is putting words in my mouth, which he can easily get away with since Google won't let me post there now. He says I "won't post [there] anymore". As NTFH noted, at acj, I can't post there

any more. (I was told by Google to find a "code" in my email in-box, but the same page that told me that also froze me on that page, without access to my in-box or new tabs!)

I noticed that, too. Hank has been at least implying that Willis does not want to post here, when Willis has been clearly saying that he is not being allowed to post here despite his desire.

Did you verify Don’s claims independently? Me neither.

I will not debate Willis with you acting as an intermediary.

Of course, Hank used such wording as to allow for his escape from this charge, being the slithering snake he is. This illustrates the underhanded way in which Hank insults people.

Hilarious! As opposed to the overhanded way you come right out and call me a slithering snake, right?

All I know is I'm still here, and he is not. I said exactly that. I am not going to chase Willis around from forum to forum. He can post and call me a liar wherever he wishes. You and Ben can do that, too.

Oh, wait, you already do!

As for Willis' Google problem, I have no idea what he's talking about. Google has never done this to me.

Whenever I asked Don for a link to establish his claim, he would always beg off, saying he couldn't figure out how to copy and paste links. If true, then Don does not appear to be the most computer-literate person around. So would it be possible

his inability to post using Google is of his own doing?

Snark, snark, snark! Notice that Corbett and BT George had the same problem, Joe.

Listen, Ralph, I haven’t had any problem, and I see you figured out your problem. My comment is not disproven. I don’t know what caused your problem, but I doubt it was Google picking on you, as suggested by one CT below:

Perhaps Willis is their test case for a new censorship technique. We live in exciting times!

That's the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. Another option is maybe you're just a little too paranoid. Given you're a conspiracy theorist, which option do you think is more likely?
A. Google conspiring against Don, or
B. Don screwing something up?

Can you tell us why you failed to consider or even list the more reasonable viewpoint?

John McAdams' website listed multiple different ways to read alt.assassination.JFK. Those ways would also apply to alt.conspiracy.JFK.

Perhaps Don should explore alternate means of accessing the forum beyond Google.

Having lost his argument with Willis, Sienzant moves the goalposts. That's Hank Logic!

You yourself admitted above, “As for Willis' Google problem, I have no idea what he's talking about. Google has never done this to me.”

I am merely pointing out we don’t know what Willis’ problem was, and I ain’t the one employing logical fallacies. That was you. Remember your false dichotomy above?
— quote —

Perhaps Willis is their test case for a new censorship technique. We live in exciting times!

That's the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. Another option is maybe you're just a little too paranoid. Given you're a conspiracy theorist, which option do you think is more likely?
A. Google conspiring against Don, or
B. Don screwing something up?

Can you tell us why you failed to consider or even list the more reasonable viewpoint?
— unquote —

As almost always, you simply ignored my point.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 11:12:29 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 6:07:28 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 7:06:06 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:35:02 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:31:22 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:32:26 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

1:22pm DPD radio message translates as The Jacket Was Planted, Folks--and that ain't all

First faint clue: DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee transcribes the first line of the transmission thusly: "Have a description of the suspect on Jefferson." Actually, the transmission runs, "We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson."

The omitted "over here" makes it sound like the sender, Officer Roy Walker, is actually on Jefferson. Is there a problem with that? Oh, yes.

Second faint clue: But, first, continuing the text of the 1:22 transmission: "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson. He's a white male, about 30, 5'8", black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt, and dark slacks". (DPD radio logs)

Dale Myers tinkers with the description: "Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson." ("With Malice" p114) Note that he adds "block of", making it sound as if Walker is simply indicating a block. But Walker specified an address, 300, at Jefferson &
Beckley, a full block west of the site where the jacket was found, at Jefferson & Crawford. And if it be thought that dictabelt skips account for the missing words, see below for follow-ups on Myers and Walker. And note that the dispatcher, at 1:26, has
the suspect "going west on Jefferson from the 300 block". (CE 705 p22)

Third faint clue: At 1:19:05, the dispatcher tells Walker to check out 501 E. 10th at Denver (WMp105). Then, at 1:19:59, he tells Walker "The suspect's running west on Jefferson from the location" (DPD radio logs/WMp109). When, at 1:21:37,

Walker radios "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet" (DPD radio logs), the dispatcher again directs him to "501 E. 10th at Denver" (CE 705p20/WM p113). Finally, at 1:22:36, Walker radios his "over here" description. From his 1:21:37 transmission, we
know that Walker was, at the time, on Jefferson. But we don't know, from his radio transmissions, whether he was ever at 10th & Patton. He doesn't correct or follow-up the dispatcher's "10th at Denver", after either of the latter's advisories.

Fourth (getting somewhere) clue: And yet Myers insists that Walker met and talked to Warren Reynolds at the murder scene: "Reynolds returned to 10th & Patton at about [1:20], despite Reynolds' testimony to the contrary" (p112). True, in 1983,

Walker told Myers that he did meet Reynolds, about 1:22. However, he adds, "One of the used car lot operators saw the incident... Warren Reynolds" (p114). The latter never said that he saw the shooting--Walker's memory fails him here.

And Reynolds would hardly have been the one to tell Walker, "Last seen about 300 E. Jefferson". Ruinously for him, Walker told Myers that it was "Reynolds [who] gave me the description of the gunman" (p114). Walker was apparently unaware that

TV film footage has turned up showing Reynolds telling police at the scene that he last saw a suspicious man going into the back of an old house near the Texaco station (WM p131). Reynolds, then, could not have been Walker's "300 E. Jefferson" witness, a
full block west of the house. (Reynolds' suspicious man may not have been the gunman at all, but a vigilante trailing the gunman.) Myers, then, with one hand, was simply extending Walker's witness-identity deception, despite his own text and frame grabs
which, with the other hand, expose said deception! Myers giveth and Myers taketh away.

Fifth (gathering steam) clue: Myers then buttresses the invented Walker/Reynolds confab with yet another out-of-thin-air incident, based on the word of... no one at all: "Warren Reynolds, who had come with [Sgt. Bud Owens & Assistant DA Bill

Alexander] from 10th & Patton, pointed to an old house near the Texaco station..." (p120) Alexander did not testify to the Warren Commission, and Owens, in his Commission testimony, did not mention bringing along a witness to the Texaco area. None of the
principals, then--Reynolds, Walker, Alexander, Owens--can support Myers' vignettes re Reynolds "returning" to and leaving the scene of the crime circa 1:20 and 1:22. Thin air.

Sixth (Eureka!) clue: Relocation, relocation, relocation. Why would Walker and Myers go to so much trouble to falsely identify and relocate a witness? Well, what other witness or witnesses were "over here on Jefferson"? Yes--Robert and Mary

Brock, in effect the gatekeepers of the parking-lot suspect. In fact, the Brocks were the only witnesses who stated that they "last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind" the service station. (WM p551) In fact, they may have been the
last witnesses to have reported seeing the suspect, but not in the parking lot, and certainly not doffing his jacket. Because at 1:22, he was reported at "about 300 E. Jefferson", a block further west, still wearing his "white jacket". Certainly worth
Walker's false identification of his witness, and Myers' subsequent, false relocation of him elsewhere. Two wrongs and no right.

And the first transmissions re the Texaco location were "Suspect just passed 401 E. Jefferson" and "Subject just passed 401 E. Jefferson" (CE 705pp20-21)

Seventh clue: At 1:26, Sgt. Gerald Hill reported from 12th & Beckley "Have a man in the car with me that can identify the suspect if anybody gets... one." (CE 1974 p63) About 1:23, at the Tippit scene, according to Hill's testimony, "Another

person came up [and] told us the man had run over into the funeral home parking lot", which was opposite the Texaco station (v7p48). Sgt. Bud Owens similarly testified that, at the "scene of the shooting... we were informed by a man whom I do not know
that the suspect that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson" (v7p79). Someone, then, from the Texaco-station area--Hill and Owens both garbled the where of it--had run down to where the police were congregating. And Hill,
clearly, immediately, took this man near to where the man had last seen the suspect, Beckley & Jefferson, or 300 E. Jefferson, which is two half-blocks north of 12th & Beckley. In fact, "300" would be on the south side of Jefferson. If Walker and his
witness were being very very precise, that would mean that the suspect had crossed Jefferson, heading right towards... 12th & Beckley.

Eighth clue: But there must have been a big problem--retrospectively--with this witness. In fact, Hill's testimony constitutes an implicit, hapless denial that he even had a witness or that he had even radioed from 12th & Beckley, even though

it's on the record. On the record, Gerald! Both the FBI transcription (see above) and Myers (p124) acknowledge that Hill sent the 1:26 message. Hill testified, falsely, that, about 1:25, he left the Tippit scene and "whipped around the block. I went down
to the first intersection east of the block where all this incident occurred and made a right turn and traveled one block and came back up on Jefferson", where he met Owens at the Texaco/old-house site (v7p48). The poor Warren Commission did not have
time to check out every DPD tale.

Who was Hill's radioactive witness, whom, figuratively, he dare not touch, or acknowledge, let alone name? Myers apparently knew, hence his totally unsupported relocation of that witness (as well as Officer Walker) from Crawford & Jefferson

to 10th & Patton. This is known as throwing the hounds off the scent. But by fallaciously drawing a witness away from the Crawford area, Myers ironically draws attention to that area. Reynolds was looking east from Crawford area. But Hill's witness was
looking west, towards Beckley. Now who could have gotten a pretty good look at the fleeing suspect, good enough to have estimated height, weight, race, and age, and described the man's clothing? Who could have seen him that closely--seen him as, say, he
passed the Texaco station? Robert and/or Mary Brock, of course. Walker doesn't indicate the sex or number of his witnesses ("We have a description"), so it could have been either Mr. or Mrs. Brock, or both.

And, just as the WFAA-TV footage of Reynolds exposes the Walker lie, so it exposes the Brocks' lies. As noted above, Mrs. Brock stated that she informed Reynolds that "she last observed [the suspect] in the parking lot directly behind Ballew'

s Texaco Service Station". Clearly, she did not so inform him, not without some strong input from Reynolds, who had his own story to tell and was telling it to the cops, that day, and would have told it to her. But she failed to give herself and her
husband a lifeline out of the Reynolds morass. A frame-grab is worth a thousand words. Moral: Whatever you do, don't hitch your wagon to Warren Reynolds.

Mary Brock identified the man in the parking lot as Oswald. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_m.htm
== quote ==
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a

white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Approximately five minutes later two individuals from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, appeared at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, making inquiry as to whether she had noticed the young white man come by the station. She

indicated she had, at which time they informed her that this individual had in all probability shot a Dallas police officer. She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the
parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Mrs. Brock couldn't know that the WFAA-TV footage would eventually turn up and show Reynolds telling police officers, on 11/22, that he saw the suspect entering an old house near the Texaco, not heading for the lot. (photo With Malice p131) He

didn't have to be informed by Mrs. B. So it's not just her word vs. his--we have film evidence that she was lying re Reynolds.

Where can I see - and hear - this supposed film footage?

"Supposed"? Do you doubt Dale Myers?

I doubt your summary of Myers conclusions. You have been known to take liberties with what witnesses have said, denying their plain language — like in the case of the multitude of witnesses who placed the shooter or the rifle one floor above the

three workers on the fifth floor.

"Multitude"? Maybe 4 or 5.

I want to see and hear this “WFAA-TV footage” you reference that “would eventually turn up and show Reynolds telling police officers, on 11/22, that he saw the suspect entering an old house…”

Now it sounds like you haven’t seen or heard it.

He comments on it and has frame grabs in "With Malice". Don't know of a source to see or hear it directly. Maybe David von Pein has it.

Provide a link.

Still waiting. Quote exactly what Myers said.

Yes, sir! "Warren Reynolds pointed to an old house near the Texaco station and told Owens that he believed the gunman had gone into the back of it." (WM p120/WFAA-TV footage)
"WFAA reporter Victor F. Robertson Jr. listens as Warren Reynolds tells a Dallas police officer that the gunman went into the rear of the used furniture store seen in the background." (caption, p131 WM)

Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.

Whoever it was, she (and/or Mr. Brock) last saw the man heading towards 300 E. Jefferson, still wearing a white jacket (as per Walker's 1:22 radio transmission).

She identified the person as Oswald.

==unquote ==

Her husband wasn’t certain.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_r.htm

== quote ==
ROBERT BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was employed as a mechanic at Roger Ballew Texaco Service Station, 600 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. He advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, November 22, 1963, a

young white man passed him, BROCK and his wife, and proceeded north past the Texaco Service Station

Again, we have the film footage of Reynolds by the old house, into which he saw the man enter, not the parking lot.

into the parking lot, at which time the individual disappeared.

Approximately five minutes later, WARREN REYNOLDS and another individual from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot came to the Texaco Service Station and informed him, BROCK, of the fact that a police officer had been shot approximately two blocks away,

and that the individual responsible for the shooting had been observed turning north off Jefferson Street past the Texaco Service Station.

BROCK advised he, WARREN REYNOLDS and various police officers from the Dallas Police Department had searched the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station in efforts to locate the person responsible for the shooting, with

negative results. BROCK advised, however, a Dallas, Texas, police officer, name unknown, had located a jacket underneath a 1954 Oldsmobile which was parked in parking space # 17. This jacket apparently had belonged to the person who had shortly before
shot a Dallas police officer.

ROBERT BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he could not positively identify same as being identical with the individual who had passed him at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
== unquote ==

Despite their apparent proximity to the suspect, neither Brock was invited either to attend a lineup or to testify for the Commission. It might have been too easy, then, for people to connect the dots: "over here on Jefferson", "300 E.

Jefferson", the Brocks. As the witnesses both closest to 300 E. Jefferson and to the parking lot, the Brocks had to be downplayed, had to be weaned off Jefferson & Beckley and weaned onto the parking lot. (Sgt. Hill didn't just downplay them--he
vaporized them, or one of them.) More publicity would have meant more scrutiny, prickly questions. (On that same day--Jan. 21, 1964--Reynolds himself was slipping further into the morass: For his part, he misleadingly told the FBI then that he "last
observed the individual to turn north" by the service station: "[The Brocks] informed him the individual had gone through the parking lot." [FBI interview report/WMp544] Naively, he apparently thought that the WFAA footage had been deep-sixed.)

You read too much into every line of every witness’s testimony.

You accept too blithely almost every statement of almost every witness, and ignore contradictory evidence.

No, that’s untrue. I only accept eyewitness accounts that are corroborated - by the hard evidence, primarily, but by other witnesses as well.

Several witnesses corroborated that the depository shooter was at a wide-open window. There's no "hard evidence" for the shooter being on either the fifth or sixth floor

Untrue. The trajectory analysis for the single bullet that struck both JFK and Connally was, well, see it yourself:

Claviger did not trust those findings, and I don't think I do either.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0031b.htm

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/traj.htm

“Given the position of the two men at the time of Zapruder frame 190, the trajectory intercepted the plane of the Texas School Book Depository 2 feet west of the southeast corner and 9 feet above the sixth floor windowsill. Because this trajectory

falls within the trajectory range established when President Kennedy's back-neck wounds are used as the reference points for the trajectory line, the Panel concludes that the relative alignment of President Kennedy and Governor Connally within the
limousine is consistent with the single bullet theory. Further, since each of these trajectories intersects the plane of the Texas School Book Depository in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the sixth and seventh floors, it is highly probable that
the bullets were fired from a location within this section of the building….

This means that the bullet was traveling at an angle of 25° below true horizontal as it passed forward from Kennedy's neck to Connally's back.** Using the position of the men at the time of Zapruder
190, if this line is extended toward the rear, it intercepts the depository building about 9 feet above the sixth floor windowsill.*

In figure II-25, a circle of 7 feet radius, representing the estimated minimum reasonable margin of error, has been drawn around the intercept point. It is smaller than those of the other two trajectories simply because the distance between the two

wounds (60 centimeters) is more than four times as great as that for the back/neck case (14 centimeters) and five times that for the fatal bullet (11 centimeters). This longer baseline distance admits greater error in wound location and body position,
while yielding superior accuracy. The eastern border of the error circle is somewhat better fixed than the western because the right-most position of Connally was better defined than the left-most.

That shot came from the sixth or seventh floor, not the fifth. Scientific evidence.

Yes, I've seen Dale Myers fiddle with trajectories. You get the trajectory you want, whether you're the WR, the HSCA, Myers or Claviger. In the end, I can't quite even trust the latter.

--just highly transportable shell/hull evidence.

And we’re back to the window. Despite the rifle and shells being found on the sixth floor

Fritz transported the shells there; the rifle never saw the 6th floor, as per the ATF officer who was there.

, and despite numerous witnesses saying the shooter or rifle was one floor above three black guys (and their testimony and photos putting them on the fifth floor), and despite the HSCA trajectory analysis that eliminates the fifth floor as the source of
the shot that struck both JFK and Connally, you continue to argue Oswald was shooting from the fifth floor.

In sum: The jacket was planted,

Why? What happened to the jacket that Oswald was seen zipping up by Earlene Roberts as he left the rooming house?

Even Dale Myers admitted that she was a fabricator.

Oswald admitted in custody he went back to the rooming house, changed some of his clothes, and took his gun. He couldn’t very well deny the gun, as some CTs do, because he knew it was taken off him in the theatre.

But the fabricator didn't necessarily see Oswald's return so we don't know what time he returned.

the Texaco jacket witnesses were manufactured,

Why bother?

Killing Tippit and framing Oswald for that murder doesn’t improve or change the evidence indicating Oswald killed JFK one iota.

Never said it did.

You deny it here, but argue for it immediately below.

Tippit’s murder is totally unnecessary for any frame-up of Oswald for the assassination

Captain Fritz: "I instructed [my officers] to get those witnesses over for identification just as soon as they could, and for us to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing, so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we

investigated the President's killing, WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES".--With Malice p207. Fritz understates the paucity of witnesses in Dealey. There were none, Check the DPD lineup tally (WM p458) for the 7:55pm lineup, which Brennan supposedly
attended. No mention of him or his sponsor, Sorrells.

Here you’re arguing what you just denied, that the evidence against Oswald in the Tippit case was manufactured because the evidence against Oswald in theJFK case wasn’t strong. You pretend Fritz instruction to build a strong Tippit case was an

instruction to his men to frame Oswald.

You assume a lot here. Why in hell would Fritz want to be quoted, on record, as instructing his men to frame Oswald? And why, additionally, would Myers want to quote such instructions? Unless you're assuming that he's stupid and is accidentally

making a case for Oswald's innocence in Oak Cliff...

No answer? I guess you see my reasoning, and your precipitate conclusion. But, like John Robot, you can't admit when you might be in error, apparently. Birds of a feather...

You need to prove that, not simply allege it.

I was not even "alleging" it.

See the info imparted to Gil here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wem9wqlTuHA/m/jRMN3OJ8CQAJ

For that matter, as I noted, neither of the Brocks attended a lineup, although they seemed to have gotten as a good a look at the suspect as Callaway or Guinyard, who also saw the man fleeing.

They didn’t witness a crime.

Neither did Callaway or Guinyard. Nor McWatters. Nor Whaley.
What would they testify to? This is akin to the asking for the names of the patrons in the Texas Theatre. They didn’t witness the murder of Tippit. OnlyOswald resisting arrest. Which Oswald admitted to in custody. That obviates the need to produce

witnesses to Oswald resisting arrest. Doesn’t it?

, which is where most critics concentrate their allegations of a frame-up.

Oswald was, beyond doubt, being framed for Tippit's murder, and Dale Myers was last seen imploding.

Your conclusion ignores all the eyewitness testimony putting Oswald as the killer of Tippit

I have, previously, shown that Mrs. Markham and the Davises did not even see the killer, only a vigilante chasing him. Unless you believe that Callaway or Scoggins was the killer...

You haven’t shown anything of the sort. You may have argued for that, but the Davises testified to seeing the man empty his revolver and discard the shells. Since those shells in evidence match Oswald’s revolver, you’re arguing they saw

Oswald empty his revolver, or you are simply ignoring evidence you don’t like.

, as well as all the forensic evidence indicating the revolver taken off Oswald in the theatre was the one used to kill Tippit.
You allege those inconvenient witnesses were all lying (see above)

Benavides tailed the gunman as far as the Abundant Life Temple, yet he did not attend a lineup either. The absence of the Brocks & Benavides from lineups says a lot...

Only to you, but you are hearing things. How many witnesses did they need to identify Oswald a sthe shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene?

They needed someone to identify the man who left the jacket, a critical piece of evidence.

You discount all those that picked Oswald out, why would you not discount the Brock’s and Benavides as well?

I would, yes, and I do.

and the forensic evidence was swapped or planted, but never come close to establishing any of that.

The finding of the hulls in Oak Cliff was compromised by the fact that it took some 4 months for Benavides to come around and say that he found them on the Davis lawn, when they were apparently found a block away. If the location was wrong,

perhaps the hulls themselves were the wrong ones.

You need to establish that, not just suggest it.

The fact that Benavides did not come forward for 4 months more than suggests that the story he finally told to the Commission (and to no one else before that) was highly questionable.

He came forward the first day when he turned the shells he picked up over to Poe.

Poe didn't even know the name of the witness. And we have only Poe's report, nothing from Benavides directly. And since you're trusting that report, why not quote what Benavides apparently told Poe: "the suspect reloaded the gun as he ran across the
CHURCH LAWN" (WM p487) Thank you for bringing this up.

You need to exclude his first day actions because that evidence indicts Oswald.

Speaking of "first day actions", Dets. Leavelle & Dhority made an 11/22 report too and stated that Benavides made an affidavit that day (11/22/63). What happened to it? And how would evidence which Benavides told Poe (apparently) re shells from the
church lawn "indict" anyone, including Oswald?

dcw

dcw

See this quote on the fifth page here: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

_The Presumption of Regularity:_
“ … in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the trial judge is entitled to assume that this official would not tamper with the sack or the can or their contents. Where no evidence indicating otherwise is produced, the presumption of

regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and courts presume they have properly discharged their official duties.”

You have not shown any evidence that anyone tampered with the evidence in the record.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 23:12:26 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 23:18:33 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 10:58:30 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

As almost always, you simply ignored my point.

As ALWAYS, you simply run from my point:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)