Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Alan Ford]

And then there's this, from Mr. Scoggins' affidavit for the SS:

"As the man went by me it appeared that he was trotting. He proceeded a short distance south on Patterson towards Jefferson"

A little later:

"I saw a man using the radio in the police cruiser and a few seconds later he appeared in the street with a gun in his hand and said to me "let's go hunt him". We got in my cab and left. We proceeded north on Patton and possibly turned west on 10th. We cruised an area north of 10th street looking for the man I had seen, but we did not see him. When we left the intersection of 10th and Patton we did not go to Patton and Jefferson, but went in a northerly direction which would be opposite from the intersection of Patton and Jefferson streets."

Huh? A truly bizarre way to look for a man you have seen going south on Patterson towards Jefferson.

Fast forward to Mr. Scoggins' WC testimony:

Mr. BELIN. What route did you take as you drove over the neighborhood?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I couldn't tell you.
Mr. BELIN. You can't tell us the route you took over the neighborhood?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I was doing the driving and he was doing the directing.
Mr. BELIN. He directed you where to go?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Actually, I couldn't say where he was going.
Mr. BELIN. All right.

"All right." 

[Alan Ford]

Not wholly unrelated!:

Mr. BENAVIDES - And so Ted then got in the taxicab and the taxicab came to a halt and he asked me which way he went. I told him he went down Patton Street toward the office, and come to find out later Ted had already seen him go by there.
Mr. BELIN - Did Ted tell you later he had seen him go by?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes; then we had a colored porter that said he-had seen him go by.

Why did Mr. Callaway need to ask Mr. Benavides which way the shooter had gone?

What or who had Mr. Callaway really seen on Patton?

[John Iacoletti]

Why did Mr. Callaway need to ask Mr. Benavides which way the shooter had gone?

Right? Just like Brewer asking Postal if she sold that man a ticket. You can’t get a straight story out of anyone.

[Zeon Mason]

I’d like to believe the reason for some of these people seemingly embellishing their story was that they were so distraught about the event that they rationalized that Oswald MIGHT be the man or were convinced he was PROBABLY the man and they wanted immediate  retribution and a resolution.

It’s a kind of reaction that is understandable, the people feeling helpless and  horrified by the alternative, which is a conspiracy, which is MUCH MORE disconcerting and difficult to deal with.

[Walt Cakebread]

I’d like to believe the reason for some of these people seemingly embellishing their story was that they were so distraught about the event that they rationalized that Oswald MIGHT be the man or were convinced he was PROBABLY the man and they wanted immediate  retribution and a resolution.

It’s a kind of reaction that is understandable, the people feeling helpless and  horrified by the alternative, which is a conspiracy, which is MUCH MORE disconcerting and difficult to deal with.

BINGO!!.... Give that man a cigar!      You're Hammering the nail squarely on the head Mr. Mason.

[Zeon Mason]

Thanks Walt. All we are trying to do here is figure out what the truth is because what has been presented as evidence is definitively flawed and a lot of it really would not be allowed as evidence because of chain of custody problems.

So we are still trying to answer Mr Myttons question how did the MC rifle get to the 6th floor?

That’s a question we just do not have enough evidence to answer definitively. 

All we have basically is that Oswald most likely could NOT have planted that rifle AFTER the shooting as even if he could just toss the rifle into the gap between the 2 rows of boxes, it takes too long and he can never get to the second floor landing by 75 sec post shots or even 85 secs post shots.

But there IS the fact that there was NO evidence presented by the WC that definitely PROVES that that MC was actually fired THAT day of Nov 22/63.

Expended Shells found and picked up by Fritz and tossed back down again , do not prove much at all and introduce immediate reasonable doubt from the very start.

If they had documented having noticed the odor of gunpowder and found gunpowder residue in the rifle groove, breech and magazine well , THEN MAYBE there could be made a conclusion that the rifle had been recently fired.

I’m STILL uncertain  if any layer of fine oxidation was found in the barrel grooves because they focused on the use of the word “corrosion” and then directed attention to the pitting found in the barrel which is of course one TYPE of corrosion which would not be removed by recently fired projectiles.

I’m not sure if here’s any actual statement declaring they did NOT find a layer of fine oxidation in the barrel grooves, however, which if such fine layer was there, would definitely prove the 3 shells at the SN widow could not have been fired thru that rifle, since fine layers of oxidation ARE removed when just ONE bullet is fired thru the barrel.

[Richard Smith]

I’d like to believe the reason for some of these people seemingly embellishing their story was that they were so distraught about the event that they rationalized that Oswald MIGHT be the man or were convinced he was PROBABLY the man and they wanted immediate  retribution and a resolution.

It’s a kind of reaction that is understandable, the people feeling helpless and  horrified by the alternative, which is a conspiracy, which is MUCH MORE disconcerting and difficult to deal with.

Or the man they saw was Oswald.  Don't you think these people would be concerned with identifying the wrong person and sending him to prison or the electric chair?  That seems like the bigger concern than just wanting to convict anyone for the crime because they were distraught and wanted resolution.