JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on July 25, 2026, 01:46:24 PM
-
Jack Tatum was driving north on Denver toward the intersection with Tenth. Author Dale Myers interviewed Tatum in 1983 and again in 1984. Tatum told Myers that when he got to the stop sign at the intersection, he looked to his right and saw a pickup truck approaching (the truck driven by Domingo Benavides). He (Tatum) then looked to his left and noticed Tippit's patrol car pulling over to the curb. Tatum also told Myers that he saw a man walking east (towards Tatum) along the sidewalk. Tatum turned left onto Tenth. Benavides was directly behind Tatum in his truck.
Tatum told Myers that as he was beside the stopped patrol car, the man who had been walking on the sidewalk was over at the patrol car on the passenger side. The man was looking in the passenger-side window and Tippit was facing toward the window to talk to the man. Tatum said the man had his hands inside the pockets of the jacket. Tatum continued on Tenth toward the intersection with Patton.
As Tatum was going through the intersection, he heard the gunshots coming from behind him. Tatum told Myers that when he looked back, he saw that the man had a gun in his hands and Tippit was on the ground. Tatum stated that the man started to leave the scene but then hesitated and then went around the back of the patrol car toward Tippit, who was on the ground out in the street toward the front of the patrol car.
According to Tatum, the man hurried to Tippit, approached cautiously and then shot him in the head. The killer then started to leave the scene (trotting toward Tatum's position). Tatum put his car in gear and took off. Tatum, after watching the killer turn south onto Patton, stopped his car, backed up, got out and went over to Tippit.
Helen Markham was already there with Tippit by the time Tatum got there. Tatum noticed the blood and that Tippit was lying "kind of on his side" with his revolver underneath him. Once the police arrived and were asking for witnesses, Tatum walked Markham over to one of the police officers.
Tatum's story never came out until 1978 when HSCA investigators interviewed him. Tatum's version (of a final shot separated from the original outburst of shots) is at direct odds with the other eye and ear witnesses. Benavides was sitting in his truck very close to Tippit's body. If Oswald began to flee the scene before turning back and going around the back of the patrol car and over to Tippit's body, he (Oswald) would have been heading directly toward Benavides, who made no mention of such an action by the killer:
"Then [after firing the shots from across the hood of the patrol car] I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner." - Domingo Benavides (Warren Commission testimony)
Ted Callaway, on the front porch his office about three-quarters of a block south of the scene, heard the shots. He stated that he went off the porch of his office and ran over to the sidewalk on Patton and looked up the street toward Tenth. Callaway got to the sidewalk in time to see Oswald cutting across Patton:
Mr. CALLAWAY. I heard what sounded to me like five pistol shots.
Mr. BALL. Five pistol shots?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Five shots, yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. From the sound, could you tell the source of the sound?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir, I could tell it was back of the lot over toward 10th Street.
Mr. BALL. And what did you do?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I ran out to the sidewalk on Patton.
Mr. BALL. And what did you see?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Well, I could see I was still--before I got to the sidewalk, I could see this taxicab parked down on Patton. I saw the cabdriver beside his cab, and saw a man cutting from one side of the street to the other. That would be the east side of Patton and over to the west side of Patton. And he was running. And he had a gun in his hand, his right hand.
Callaway's office was almost exactly as far from the sidewalk on Patton as was Tippit's stopped patrol car. Therefore, Callaway (from the porch of his office) and Oswald (from his position at the patrol car) would have almost the exact same distance to cover to get to the sidewalk on Patton. Point being, if Oswald would have double-backed to fire a final shot into Tippit, then he would have eventually made it to the sidewalk on Patton much later than Callaway, i.e. Callaway would have made it over to the sidewalk much quicker than Oswald since Callaway had no reason to "double-back" after he left his office and ran to the sidewalk.
Also, Callaway described hearing five shots and although gave many interviews, never once described the last shot separated by the original outburst of shots. This is the same with all of the witnesses who heard shots. None of them describe one shot happening after the initial volley of shots.
It should be noted here that Tatum, unlike other so-called witnesses who we don't hear from until decades later, did not seek out investigators to tell his story and wasn't seeking "fifteen minutes of fame", so to speak. HSCA investigators Jack Moriarty and Joe Basteri interviewed Tatum in February of 1978 at his place of employment (Director of Photography, Baylor University Medical Center). Tatum told investigators that the reason he didn't hang around and give his name to police at the scene was because "there were more than enough people there and I did not see what I could contribute". HSCA investigators interviewed over three hundred local residents and business owners around Oak Cliff in a search for any new witnesses. Investigator Moriarty was told of Tatum by a local Oak Cliff business owner who was aware that Tatum had seen the Tippit killing.
-
Apart from whether Tatum's recollection of Oswald administering a coup de grace is correct, I wonder if Oswald having his hands in the pockets of his jacket might be one of those little clues that goes a long way toward explaining the Tippit murder? I certainly wouldn't talk to a police officer with both hands in the pockets of my jacket. I wonder if that's what could have triggered suspicion and caused Tippit to get out of his car?
-
Apart from whether Tatum's recollection of Oswald administering a coup de grace is correct, I wonder if Oswald having his hands in the pockets of his jacket might be one of those little clues that goes a long way toward explaining the Tippit murder? I certainly wouldn't talk to a police officer with both hands in the pockets of my jacket. I wonder if that's what could have triggered suspicion and caused Tippit to get out of his car?
Markham said that the shooter walked over to the police car and placed his elbows/arms on the window and talked with Tippit.
From her WC testimony below. Note that the window was actually rolled up and not down. They talked through that little vent/triangle window that cars used to have. It's interesting to me then that Tippit didn't roll the window down to get a good look at the man.
Mr. BALL. What about the man? Was he still walking?
Mrs. MARKHAM. The man stopped.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you see the man do?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I saw the man come over to the car very slow, leaned and put his arms just like this, he leaned over in this window and looked in this window.
Mr. BALL. He put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. MARKHAM. The window was down.
Mr. BALL. It was?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. MARKHAM. On the ledge of the window.
Still frame from Markham's interview with CBS. Here she indicates how the shooter's arms were on the window.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12504874058/Keyvbcpcuop73t7/markham hands.JPG)
Tippit car:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12502613771/Keymiac7d9tph8f/tippit car 2.JPG)
-
To quote Dale Myers...
"While there are several good reasons to dismiss Tatum’s account of the final moments of the Tippit shooting as a false recollection or a misperception of the true event, there is nothing that disproves it with absolute certainty. Conversely, there is nothing that supports it.
Like many things associated with the JFK assassination saga, Jack Ray Tatum’s account lies in that nebulous gray area. It could be true. Of course, accepting the fact that it might be true, doesn’t prove that it is."
-
Jack Tatum (Frontline special: "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?", PBS-TV, 1993):
-
To quote Dale Myers...
"While there are several good reasons to dismiss Tatum’s account of the final moments of the Tippit shooting as a false recollection or a misperception of the true event, there is nothing that disproves it with absolute certainty. Conversely, there is nothing that supports it.
Like many things associated with the JFK assassination saga, Jack Ray Tatum’s account lies in that nebulous gray area. It could be true. Of course, accepting the fact that it might be true, doesn’t prove that it is."
Wow, the "real researcher" is back......... To quote Dale Myers :D
All you can do is make assumptions and babble about "real research", when in reality you have shown time after time that the only "research" you actually do is read Dale Myers book.
You want to criticize me over "With Malice",
Hilarious :D
-
From Tatum's perspective, could Oswald going around the back of the car actually mean the front of Tippit's car? Observing the scene in his rear-view mirror could have lead to confusion.
Still wouldn't explain the shot sequence discrepancy though.
-
Oh, Jack Tatum's tale again?
Leaving side the other problems with Tatum's story, Tatum is also Dale Myers' last change-in-direction witness. Tatum said the killer was walking east. This claim is strongly contradicted by the available evidence. Moreover, Tatum did not say the man suddenly turned around. He simply said he thought the man was walking east. The initial police and Secret Service reports on the shooting said the killer was walking west, toward the patrol car, not away from it. Scoggins said the same thing in his first sworn statement. It would appear that Mrs. Markham said the same thing when she spoke with police right after the shooting. Two other witnesses likewise said the killer was walking west, not east, and thus toward the patrol car, not away from it. If the police or the Secret Service found a single witness who said the killer was walking away from the patrol car, they failed to say a word about it in any of their reports. Additionally, not one of the initial sworn statements from any of the eyewitnesses says the killer was walking east or that he suddenly changed direction as the patrol car approached.
But Myers needs this change in direction in order to try to explain why Tippit would have stopped the assailant, especially if the assailant was in fact Oswald. By all accounts, the man was walking along normally. And Myers admits it is unlikely Tippit would have stopped the man on the basis of the vague description that went out over the police radio.
"Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_j_022lJYli3B5Xyw8wLs-0nl6mDLo2t/view
-
Oh, Jack Tatum's tale again?
Leaving side the other problems with Tatum's story, Tatum is also Dale Myers' last change-in-direction witness. Tatum said the killer was walking east. This claim is strongly contradicted by the available evidence. Moreover, Tatum did not say the man suddenly turned around. He simply said he thought the man was walking east. The initial police and Secret Service reports on the shooting said the killer was walking west, toward the patrol car, not away from it. Scoggins said the same thing in his first sworn statement. It would appear that Mrs. Markham said the same thing when she spoke with police right after the shooting. Two other witnesses likewise said the killer was walking west, not east, and thus toward the patrol car, not away from it. If the police or the Secret Service found a single witness who said the killer was walking away from the patrol car, they failed to say a word about it in any of their reports. Additionally, not one of the initial sworn statements from any of the eyewitnesses says the killer was walking east or that he suddenly changed direction as the patrol car approached.
But Myers needs this change in direction in order to try to explain why Tippit would have stopped the assailant, especially if the assailant was in fact Oswald. By all accounts, the man was walking along normally. And Myers admits it is unlikely Tippit would have stopped the man on the basis of the vague description that went out over the police radio.
"Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_j_022lJYli3B5Xyw8wLs-0nl6mDLo2t/view
Just one more case in which witnesses observing the same event describe it differently. BFD. It doesn't change the fact Oswald gunned down Tippit and there is no way to explain the available evidence without reaching that conclusion.
-
Just one more case in which witnesses observing the same event describe it differently. BFD. It doesn't change the fact Oswald gunned down Tippit and there is no way to explain the available evidence without reaching that conclusion.
there is no way to explain the available evidence without reaching that conclusion.
Of course there is. You just don't want to know about it.
-
there is no way to explain the available evidence without reaching that conclusion.
Of course there is. You just don't want to know about it.
I notice you didn't even try.
-
I notice you didn't even try.
You didn't ask me to try and now I am bored with you and your limited capacity to weigh evidence.
-
You didn't ask me to try and now I am bored with you and your limited capacity to weigh evidence.
This is what is known as a tactical retreat.
-
This is what is known as a tactical retreat.
No, it's a statement of fact
-
No, it's a statement of fact
Face. You're a coward who hasn't got the guts to take a stand on anything for fear you would have to defend your position, so all you do is troll. It's impossible to respect a man who hasn't got the courage to tell people what he believes.
-
Face. You're a coward who hasn't got the guts to take a stand on anything for fear you would have to defend your position, so all you do is troll. It's impossible to respect a man who hasn't got the courage to tell people what he believes.
What fools like you don't understand is that I don't have to take a stand as I am defending nobody. I couldn't care less if Oswald was the lone gunman or if there was some sort of a conspiracy.
You wanting me to say what I "believe" is just a pathetic way of trying to get me to say something you can attack, dismiss or ridicule.
You just can't deal with somebody who is only interested in finding out if the WC case against Oswald has merit or not.
Time after time you have shown that you can't or don't want to answer questions (probably because you don't like what the honest answer would be), you consider self serving assumptions as "fact" and you have demonstrated several times that you don't even know about critical details of this case.
So, you calling me a troll, is nothing less than a pathetic admission of defeat.
Now let me tell you what I actually do believe! I believe that you are a narrow minded, superificial fanatical zealot who is not capable to weigh evidence in a reasonable, fact-based, manner.
-
What fools like you don't understand is that I don't have to take a stand as I am defending nobody. I couldn't care less if Oswald was the lone gunman or if there was some sort of a conspiracy.
You wanting me to say what I "believe" is just a pathetic way of trying to get me to say something you can attack, dismiss or ridicule.
You just can't deal with somebody who is only interested in finding out if the WC case against Oswald has merit or not.
Time after time you have shown that you can't or don't want to answer questions (probably because you don't like what the honest answer would be), you consider self serving assumptions as "fact" and you have demonstrated several times that you don't even know about critical details of this case.
So, you calling me a troll, is nothing less than a pathetic admission of defeat.
Now let me tell you what I actually do believe! I believe that you are a narrow minded, superificial fanatical zealot who is not capable to weigh evidence in a reasonable, fact-based, manner.
Go away troll.
-
Go away troll.
Nah.. It's way too much fun to see you huff and puff and make a fool of yourself.
Perhaps you should get back to me when you have some actual knowledge about the case instead of your daily propaganda