New Research on the Tippit Case Points *Away* from Oswald as the Shooter

[Michael T. Griffith]

Greg Doudna, one of the most careful and objective JFK assassination scholars around, has produced ground-breaking research into the Tippit shooting that indicates Oswald was not involved in Tippit's death. Just last month, Doudna published a ground-breaking article titled "Outline of an Alternative Solution to the Tippit Case" on his website. Here's an excerpt from Doudna's article:

• Fingerprints practically certainly left on the Tippit patrol car by the killer of Tippit, just below the right front vent window and on the right front fender, were found in 1994 to not be from Oswald.

• The killer was identified by the closest witness to see the killer, only ca. 10-15 feet away, with a good view of the back of his head, that the killer had a block cut rear hairline. Oswald had a taper rear hairline, meaning he was not the killer.

• Early police reports, plus individual witness testimonies, said the killer was wearing a white shirt. But Oswald was wearing a dark rust-brown shirt, CE 150. . . .

• Contrary to the conventional narrative, the killer flagged down Tippit to pull over so he could talk to him, not vice versa. This is known from the talking having occurred through the vent window, with Tippit not rolling down his door window. The killer said something to Tippit which lured Tippit out of his car.

• In the conventional narrative Tippit got out of his car to check out a man as a possible suspect in the JFK assassination, and did so without radioing in to his dispatcher that he was doing so. It is not sensible or reasonable that Tippit would not radio in to his dispatcher, simply as a security or safety precaution. Myers says that was not required and not all officers did so every time but this was different--a possible assassin of a president, presumed armed and dangerous. But Tippit did NOT radio it in that he was making that stop or going to talk to that man. The best interpretation is Tippit was stopping either for a reason he did not believe involved police work, or if it did involve police work he had been flagged down by someone he did not suspect of being a threat, neither of which is consistent with Oswald being that man. . . .

• The cabbie, Scoggins, parked around the corner on Patton, according to his grandson reported in 2023, was asked to be there at that location in advance by someone associated with Jack Ruby, suggesting premeditation and a killing planned in advance. (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/31455-possible-new-information-relevant-to-the-tippit-killing/#comments)

• The CE 162 light-tan off-white jacket abandoned by the killer at the Texaco station was not Oswald's gray jacket, if the brown shirt fibers are set aside. (The argument on this point is detailed and strong.)

• A murder weapon of the caliber used to kill Tippit was found abandoned in a downtown street of Dallas in the early morning hours of Sat Nov 23, 1963, hours after the murder of Tippit, and turned in to the Dallas Police that morning--a .38 Special revolver found with an apple and orange in a paper bag by a street curb, evidently tossed from a moving car.

• Some of Oswald's movements between the rooming house and the theater were seen by a witness who tracked him part of the way--Oswald was on foot--witness Elcan Elliott--and the path Oswald was witnessed on foot has basic timing issue difficulties with Oswald having gotten on foot to the Tenth and Patton crime scene at the time Tippit was killed, even if there had been a known reason for Oswald to have been there, which there isn't. (https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1696; https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Tippit-Prolegomenon-103-pdf.pdf)

I encourage everyone to read the entire article.

Another valuable that Doudna has written on the Tippit shooting is "Were the Tippit Crime Scene Shell Hulls Fired from the Revolver of Lee Harvey Oswald?" (https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1541; https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/T-BALLISTICS-108-1.pdf).

[Bill Brown]

• Fingerprints practically certainly left on the Tippit patrol car by the killer of Tippit, just below the right front vent window and on the right front fender, were found in 1994 to not be from Oswald.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the prints lifted from the passenger door and the passenger front fender MUST belong to the killer.

As a matter of fact, the expert who stated that the prints did not belong to Oswald (Herb Lutz studied the prints at the request of Dale Myers) also stated that both sets of prints (the door and the fender) were most likely from the same person.  No witness has ever said the killer touched the fender.  If the killer never touched the fender and both sets of prints belong to the same person, then the prints on the door are not those of the killer.

[Michael T. Griffith]

• Fingerprints practically certainly left on the Tippit patrol car by the killer of Tippit, just below the right front vent window and on the right front fender, were found in 1994 to not be from Oswald.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the prints lifted from the passenger door and the passenger front fender MUST belong to the killer.

As a matter of fact, the expert who stated that the prints did not belong to Oswald (Herb Lutz studied the prints at the request of Dale Myers) also stated that both sets of prints (the door and the fender) were most likely from the same person.  No witness has ever said the killer touched the fender.  If the killer never touched the fender and both sets of prints belong to the same person, then the prints on the door are not those of the killer.

Wrong. I quote from my review of Myers' book:

Myers admits the fingerprints on the front passenger door and on the right front fender
of Tippit's patrol car were from one person, and that those prints are not Oswald's. One
would think this would be evidence of Oswald's innocence. But Myers theorizes that the
fingerprints were made by a bystander and that the assailant did not touch the car (pp.
274-278). The evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence indicates the assailant did in
fact touch the passenger door. Mrs. Markham apparently said this to the police at the
scene, and even demonstrated this to them, as we see in the WFAA footage. And,
another witness reported the gunman put his hands on the front passenger door.
Furthermore, why would a bystander have touched the front passenger door and the
right front fender? No witness reported touching the front passenger door or the right
front fender, nor did any bystander report seeing another bystander do so.

Additionally, the location of the passenger-door prints is significant: They were located
just beneath the door's small vent window, and it was through this same window that the
killer apparently spoke with Tippit, as Myers himself points out (p. 67). The vent window,
moreover, was found open when police arrived to the scene. So the most logical
conclusion is that the killer made the fingerprints that were found beneath the vent
window as he spoke with Tippit through that window. But Myers cannot accept this
because the fingerprints are not Oswald’s.
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_j_022lJYli3B5Xyw8wLs-0nl6mDLo2t/view)

Only one witness mentioned that Tippit and the killer spoke through the window, so just because no one mentioned seeing the killer touch the fender does not prove anything. The prints below the vent window are consistent with the killer having spoken with Tippit through the window, as the witness reported.

[Tom Graves]

Wrong. I quote from my review of Myers' book:

Myers admits the fingerprints on the front passenger door and on the right front fender
of Tippit's patrol car were from one person, and that those prints are not Oswald's. One
would think this would be evidence of Oswald's innocence. But Myers theorizes that the
fingerprints were made by a bystander and that the assailant did not touch the car (pp.
274-278). The evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence indicates the assailant did in
fact touch the passenger door. Mrs. Markham apparently said this to the police at the
scene, and even demonstrated this to them, as we see in the WFAA footage. And,
another witness reported the gunman put his hands on the front passenger door.
Furthermore, why would a bystander have touched the front passenger door and the
right front fender? No witness reported touching the front passenger door or the right
front fender, nor did any bystander report seeing another bystander do so.

Additionally, the location of the passenger-door prints is significant: They were located
just beneath the door's small vent window, and it was through this same window that the
killer apparently spoke with Tippit, as Myers himself points out (p. 67). The vent window,
moreover, was found open when police arrived to the scene. So the most logical
conclusion is that the killer made the fingerprints that were found beneath the vent
window as he spoke with Tippit through that window. But Myers cannot accept this
because the fingerprints are not Oswald’s.
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_j_022lJYli3B5Xyw8wLs-0nl6mDLo2t/view)

Only one witness mentioned that Tippit and the killer spoke through the window, so just because no one mentioned seeing the killer touch the fender does not prove anything. The prints below the vent window are consistent with the killer having spoken with Tippit through the window, as the witness reported.

Dear Mike,

Self-described Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald was a pretty streetwise guy.

Realizing that he'd probably have to kill Tippit, why in the world would he incriminate himself by putting his prints on the car?

-- Tom

[Tim Nickerson]

Wrong. I quote from my review of Myers' book:

Myers admits the fingerprints on the front passenger door and on the right front fender
of Tippit's patrol car were from one person, and that those prints are not Oswald's. One
would think this would be evidence of Oswald's innocence. But Myers theorizes that the
fingerprints were made by a bystander and that the assailant did not touch the car (pp.
274-278). The evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence indicates the assailant did in
fact touch the passenger door. Mrs. Markham apparently said this to the police at the
scene, and even demonstrated this to them, as we see in the WFAA footage. And,
another witness reported the gunman put his hands on the front passenger door.
Furthermore, why would a bystander have touched the front passenger door and the
right front fender? No witness reported touching the front passenger door or the right
front fender, nor did any bystander report seeing another bystander do so.

Additionally, the location of the passenger-door prints is significant: They were located
just beneath the door's small vent window, and it was through this same window that the
killer apparently spoke with Tippit, as Myers himself points out (p. 67). The vent window,
moreover, was found open when police arrived to the scene. So the most logical
conclusion is that the killer made the fingerprints that were found beneath the vent
window as he spoke with Tippit through that window. But Myers cannot accept this
because the fingerprints are not Oswald’s.
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_j_022lJYli3B5Xyw8wLs-0nl6mDLo2t/view)

Only one witness mentioned that Tippit and the killer spoke through the window, so just because no one mentioned seeing the killer touch the fender does not prove anything. The prints below the vent window are consistent with the killer having spoken with Tippit through the window, as the witness reported.

The person who spoke through the car window was Oswald. It's possible that he did touch the car. If he did, he didn't leave enough characteristics of his fingerprints or palmprints for them to be positively identified.

"Contrary to portrayals in the movies and on television, fingerprints are not always easy to find on certain items of evidence. In the author's experience identifiable fingerprints are found on guns, knives, clubs, and the like in less than 10 percent of the cases. This is due to a number of factors including the surface characteristics of the weapon and the way in which the weapon was handled. On the other hand it is not uncommon to find some evidence of the handling of weapons in the form of partial fingerprint impressions, even though these partial impressions usually fall short of being identifiable to a specific individual.

Some types of evidence simply do not tend to retain any evidence of fingerprints, even when touched. Textured surfaces such as vehicle steering wheels, plastic milk jugs, and suitcase handles seldom show any sign of even having been touched. Other problems can include intense heat, humidity, and/or precipitation, which effectively destroy the fingerprints. Thus the probability of finding identifiable fingerprints on fired cartridge cases left at the crime scene, for example, is remote; the combination of the curved surfaces and the heat produced upon discharge tends to vaporize the fingerprints."

https://www.bevfitchett.us/forensic-science/firearms-and-fingerprints-in-the-crime-lab.html

[Richard Smith]

It is difficult to believe that someone could shoot a police officer in broad daylight in the presence of numerous witnesses, be captured a short distance away after sneaking into a movie theatre and being reported as acting suspiciously, resist arrest, and have a gun and the same two brands of ammo on him when arrested, and that anyone could argue that there is a scintilla of doubt as to his guilt.  Imagine all the things that would have to have gone wrong for Oswald to not be shooter.  So much bad luck starting with leaving his place of employment without permission.  Going home to get a gun to take to the movies.  Crossing paths with the only location of a murder of Dallas PD officers in a periods of years on the way to the movies after leaving the scene of the assassination of the president, being ID'd as behaving suspiciously, deciding not to buy a movie ticket but sneak into the theatre, having the same ammo as the shooter and on and on....

[Michael T. Griffith]

Dear Mike,

Self-described Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald was a pretty streetwise guy.

Realizing that he'd probably have to kill Tippit, why in the world would he incriminate himself by putting his prints on the car?

-- Tom

You always answer fact with theory. Two witnesses said the killer touched the door, and one of them said the killer spoke with Tippit through the window below which the prints were found.

[Tom Graves]

You always answer fact with theory.

Dear Mike,

You always promulgate a nation-rending interpretation of the JFKA and the Tippit murder.

Why is that?

Have you always been anti-government and paranoiac, or did you start becoming that way only after you'd read Mark "KGB" Lane's books or watched Oliver Stone's self-described mythological ("to counter the myth of the Warren Report") movie "JFK" (which was based partly on Jim Garrison's book, "On the Trail of the Assassins," which in turn was motivated by an anti-Clay Shaw / anti-CIA article published in a Communist-owned Italian newspaper three days after overly ambitious, scandal-plagued and revengeful Garrison had arrested Shaw on the supposition that he had masterminded the homosexual "thrill kill" assassination of JFK) for the third time?

-- Tom