Tippit Shooting, 1:15

[Richard Smith]

Well at least you recognize that the shooting of Tippit was an EXECUTION.......  I believe it was premeditated.   It does not appear to be the act of a fleeing fugitive.

There can be no doubt that the bullet in the brain was intended to ensure that Tippit was dead.....  A fleeing fugitive probably wouldn't have wasted time in clearing out of the area as soon as Tippit was down.   The FACT is the killer did NOT hastily dash away from the scene, indicates that he intended to execute Tippit.

Again, what you choose to "believe" is not evidence of anything.  Oswald certainly did momentarily pause to execute Tippit.  Only he knows why but your speculation to the contrary there is a plausible reason for this action.  Maybe he didn't want to risk getting shot by a wounded police officer.  It is possible to be shot multiple times and still be alive and functional.  There are numerous examples.  Oswald is making split second decisions under enormous stress.   Whether it is deemed unnecessary or not to finish Tippit off casts no doubt whatsoever on the killer being Oswald as you have claimed.

[Walt Cakebread]

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, if a person using the gun and having it fully loaded with six bullets fired less than six bullets, can he use this ejector-extraction mechanism without losing his unfired bullets as well as the empty cartridge cases?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir--by merely tipping the weapon. The unfired cartridge is heavier, and will fall out of the cylinder into his hand. Then he can extract the cartridge cases and lead in more.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you demonstrate that?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If I may have a cartridge, please.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any fired cartridges in the cylinder?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; I do. Prior to my appearance here today, this morning, I fired five cartridges in this weapon, and they are still in the cylinder.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are now placing an unfired--
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. An unfired cartridge in the sixth chamber of the cylinder. Now, in a normal way, you would hit the cylinder release, push in your hand like this, and tip it up. The unfired cartridge will fall right out into your hand, due to the fact that the chambers of the cylinder are naturally larger than the
cartridge you are loading in there for ease of putting them in. When you fire a cartridge in a revolver, the case expands as wide as the cylinder. In other words, when the firing pin hits the primer, there is an explosion in the primer, the powder is ignited in the cartridge, and the terrific pressure will expand the cartridge case to tightly fit the chamber.
Mr. EISENBERG. I would like the record to show that when Mr. Cunningham tipped the revolver, the unfired bullet tipped out, but the five expended shells remained in.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, would you show how you would eject the five expended shells?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. yes. These are very difficult, by the way, to extract, due to the fact that the chamber has been rechambered. And as you can see, you get on your cartridge cases a little ballooning with these smaller diameter cases in the .38 Special.
Mr. EISENBERG. I would like the record to show that Mr. Cunningham extracted the five expended cartridge eases merely by one push of the ejector rod.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yon won't be able to see it again, but when you eject a cartridge ease later on for the powder pattern test, I will show that you can have residues of unburned powder. That is what would happen if you ejected
457
731-219 O--64--vol.III---30


these cartridge cases in your hand. You would pick up unburned powder, residues, and partially burned powder.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham had ejected five cartridge cases from the revolver into his hand, and his right hand is now filled with small black particles, whose composition I am unable to determine.
Representative FORD. That would happen any time that you did it?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; every time you eject them, these particles will come out from the cylinder into your hand--unburned powder, partially burned powder, and gunpowder residues.
Representative FORD. Had you fired this morning these particular bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; at 8:15.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, these cartridge cases which you ejected were .38 Special cartridge cases?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were.
Mr. EISENBERG. What time did you fire those bullets, those .38 Special bullets in this revolver?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. At approximately 8:15 this morning.

Mr "Smith" I posted FBI agent Cortland Cunningham's testimony in which he testified that the spent shells are "VERY DIFFICULT TO EXTRACT"  from the S&W revolver that was allegedly used to kill Tippit.   Since I did this favor for you, perhaps you can return the favor by posting the testimony of the witnesses who watched Tippit's killer as he removed one shell at a time as he walked away from the scene.     Maybe I've misread their statements and in which they said the killer easily removed the spent shells  ONE SHELL AT A TIME.    It should be apparent to you that if the witnesses are correct ( that the killer had no trouble removing the spent shells ONE AT A TIME ) then he must NOT have been using the same revolver that FBI agent Cunningham used to demonstrate that all of the spent shells are removed at once from the S&W revolver and they are VERY DIFFICULT TO EXTRACT.

[Tom Scully]

Scully complaining about posters who fill this forum up with unreadable nonsense is like Willie Wonka lecturing on childhood tooth decay.

Your criticism of my posts is inaccurate. Stop misleading readers or actually support your criticism of my posts.
Are you actually claiming the details I regularly post on this forum are not among the most original, accurate, and informative of any others that have been posted in these threads?

I am accustomed to and have learned to expect attempts to discredit my presentations and the substance of them, but I draw the line in reaction to others deliberately deceiving readers about the quality and informative nature of the research details I regularly post.

Could your criticism of my posts have anything to do with my proving that witness Ms. Davis lied to the DPD and to the WC about her age and my pointing out witness Whaley changed his own age sometime between the age on his 1942 WWII military draft registration (coinciding with the birth date recorded in his family's bible, among numerous other government and family genealogy records) vs. his age at the time of his late 1965 death, (moving his age to three years earlier and prior to the date of the marriage of his parents) and that there is no known record of the Navy Cross award he told the press he earned in combat associated with the Iwo Jima invasion? Or further, is your criticism at all in reaction to my posting definitive proof I posted on this forum that Mr. Whaley's own oldest child, son and namesake, William W. Whaley, Jr. s not included in Mr. Whaley's own obit, but is listed in the obit of a man other than Whaley as his son, and in Whaley Jr.'s own obit as the son of the widow of that other man?

Richard, I offer posted, original research details of the kind that are exactly what a forum like this is in dire need of, if it exists to inform readers. What do you actually contribute in your posts on this forum that you expect informs readers of verifiable details they are reading here for the first time, anywhere?

This thread is now 53 pages. Anyone with any background knowledge of the shooting of Tippit vs the timing of Oswald's movements in the 40 minutes before that shooting, presumably dependent on the testimony of just two witnesses, Mr. Whaley and Mrs. Roberts, would have the sense not to expect to resolve the issue of whether Oswald could actually arrive in time to shoot Tippit while he still had the ability to stand.

IOW, it is obvious to a reasonable person with knowledge of the circumstances of the Tippit shooting not to initiate a thread such as this one because of the dubious quality of the backgrounds of witnesses Whaley, Roberts, and Virginia Davis for reasons my original research about Whaley and Davis, as well as both the WC testimony of Mrs. Roberts's employer Gladys Johnson and that of Mrs. Roberts' sister, Bertha Bogle make obvious, and due to the inability of Mrs. Roberts to accurately fix the time police first arrived at 1026 N. Beckley (inaccurate by at least 45 minutes).

Even more obvious justification not to initiate a thread such as this one with the expectation of resolving anything is the problem displayed on the Tippit death certificate, time of injury @ 1:18 pm, time of death, 3 minutes before that, and the handling by investigators of the alleged murder weapon and both live shells and empty shell husks allegedly associated with it, but here we are, again.



Richard, you are attempting to marginalize my posts on this forum, and by extension, me personally. I am results oriented, and I have many, related to this case, to point to. Please inform readers of some of your informative research results.
Can you point to any example of a book author crediting you or your research with your name (whatever it actually is...)?
In just one example, of several, my original research directly caused two revised editions of a recent book as well as  compelling a sworn deposition, in 2014, of the most important and controversial witness testifying in the 1965  murder trial
(the murder of Mary Meyer) of Ray Crump.

Additionally, I presented the fact Priscilla MacMillan's first cousin, David C Davenport was a CIA asset who directed his friend who, at the time was married to the aunt of senior POTUS advisor, Clark M. Clifford, to be driver and escort of Priscilla and Marina in late 1964. This discovery was later supported by the publication of this photo in 2013, a photo provided to the press by Priscilla, herself! I also discovered that Clark M. Clifford's first cousin and step daughter of the man pictured below filed a lawsuit against both the man in this picture and his friend, Davenport, in response to their commitment of her against her will, to a State of New Mexico mental hospital, just months after those two men "protected" Priscilla and Marina from press availability and inquiry immediately after the publication of the Warren Report.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/author-85-knew-jfk-killer-oswald-article-1.1525293
....

Marina Oswald (left), widow of Lee Harvey Oswald, with friend Jerre Hastings (center) and Priscilla Johnson McMillan. McMillan befriended Oswald after the assassination of JFK. (Josh Reynolds/JOSH REYNOLDS PHOTO)

I achieve extraordinary results because I have a track record of ability to predetermine what is a waste of time and what likely is not.
This forum is brimming with useless, very long threads that do not inform readers or resolve anything. Examples (just three of many) are this thread, and both the "prayer woman," and the thread titled, "Those Front Steps".

[Richard Smith]

Mr "Smith" I posted FBI agent Cortland Cunningham's testimony in which he testified that the spent shells are "VERY DIFFICULT TO EXTRACT"  from the S&W revolver that was allegedly used to kill Tippit.   Since I did this favor for you, perhaps you can return the favor by posting the testimony of the witnesses who watched Tippit's killer as he removed one shell at a time as he walked away from the scene.     Maybe I've misread their statements and in which they said the killer easily removed the spent shells  ONE SHELL AT A TIME.    It should be apparent to you that if the witnesses are correct ( that the killer had no trouble removing the spent shells ONE AT A TIME ) then he must NOT have been using the same revolver that FBI agent Cunningham used to demonstrate that all of the spent shells are removed at once from the S&W revolver and they are VERY DIFFICULT TO EXTRACT.

Look this is simple.  If a witness indicates that they saw OSWALD do something, that is not somehow evidence that it was not Oswald.  You appear to be using Alice-in-Wonderland logic again.  Whether it is "difficult" or not to extract the shells is meaningless in that context.  But to play along did a witness indicate that Oswald "easily" or "with no trouble" removed the shells as you have claimed?  If so, how did they make that assessment?  From what you have posted here you seem to be conflating the fact that Oswald removed the shells one at a time with that somehow being easy.   

[Jerry Organ]

There must have been a crapload of prints on those shell casings when Oswald loaded the gun, right? So where are they?

He might have held the shells by the rim. Even if he didn't, shells don't have much surface area for a print. Neither does a trigger. Police dust such small areas in the off-chance there might be a print. It's possible but unlikely.

Also fingers aren't always casting off prints; the pores could be clean is they touch something absorbent and it will be awhile before sweat is present again.

[Walt Cakebread]

Look this is simple.  If a witness indicates that they saw OSWALD do something, that is not somehow evidence that it was not Oswald.  You appear to be using Alice-in-Wonderland logic again.  Whether it is "difficult" or not to extract the shells is meaningless in that context.  But to play along did a witness indicate that Oswald "easily" or "with no trouble" removed the shells as you have claimed?  If so, how did they make that assessment?  From what you have posted here you seem to be conflating the fact that Oswald removed the shells one at a time with that somehow being easy.

If you had returned the favor by posting the witnesses testimony....Then you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.....Because the witnesses, Starting with Dom Benavides DESCRIBE the ease with which the killer removes the spent shells ONE AT A TIME     ONE - AT- A- TIME  as he walks away from the scene.

Cortland Cunningham testified that the spent shells from the S&W revolver at removed ALL AT THE SAME TIME   and they are VERY DIFFICULT TO REMOVE.

[Walt Cakebread]

He might have held the shells by the rim. Even if he didn't, shells don't have much surface area for a print. Neither does a trigger. Police dust such small areas in the off-chance there might be a print. It's possible but unlikely.

Also fingers aren't always casting off prints; the pores could be clean is they touch something absorbent and it will be awhile before sweat is present again.

Thanks for posting the picture of a revolver with a swing out cylinder ( like a S&W ) ..... It will give those who are unfamiliar with the S&W some idea about how the shells are loaded and unloaded.     ( Although the extractor mechanism isn't illustrated)

[Jerry Freeman]

Are you actually claiming the details I regularly post on this forum are not among the most original, accurate, and informative of any others that have been posted in these threads?

Tommy...don't break your arm patting yourself on the back there
Yeah...Tippit was dead 3 minutes before he was shot.