Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Walt Cakebread]

Oy That could mean so many things if applied to Oswald.

"his head look flat in back"

"his hairline sort of went square"

John Mytton proposed the jacket collar at the nape cropped off from view the hairline to make it appear trimmed.

Collar climbs to nape

Jacket superimposed on Oswald

Yer desperately grasping at flimsy nonsense,  Mr O.....

Or you have trouble understanding what Benevides said....  I believe it's the former, and you know full well that Benavides was NOT describing Lee Oswald's head or hair cut....

[John Iacoletti]

Of course it's pervasive with lazy ass authors like Griffith copying other lazy ass authors mistakes instead of doing a little research. That's exactly how incorrect pervasive crap gets spread all over the internet. But it sounds like that's perfectly acceptable in your book..it's not in mine.

Who said it was "perfectly acceptable"?  I guess you forgot that I'm the one who corrected it here.

What's your point in bringing Bugliosi into it..or you saying if Bugliosi made the same mistake that's OK then?

No, I'm saying exactly what I said:  that it's pervasive.  Bugliosi is just as "lazy ass" as you so eloquently put it.

[John Iacoletti]

It's a start. Plus 'or the man that shot him' ultimately meant Oswald.

Says you.

[John Iacoletti]

A friendly piece of advice Mr Griffith, if you're so averse to having your mistakes pointed out, then you're definitely on the wrong forum. Trying to bully and belittle members so no one else dares do the same wont work here.

Who said he was "averse" to it?  He was provided the correct evidence and he corrected himself.  That's how things should work around here.

[John Iacoletti]

Here is how the paragraph about Benavides in my book Hasty Judgment now reads:

* The witness who should have had the best view of the shooting, Domingo Benavides, at first said he could not identify the killer. This might be because, as even some lone-gunman theorists admit, Benavides told his boss the day after the shooting that he did not get a good look at the gunman. When Benavides testified before the Warren Commission, he would only say that a picture of Oswald "bore a resemblance" to Tippit's killer, and he seemed to identify a dark jacket as the one the assailant had worn, whereas the Commission claimed the killer wore a light gray jacket. About a year after Benavides’s Warren Commission testimony, his brother Edward was shot and killed. Domingo and his father-in-law both believed Edward was shot in mistake for Domingo, even though all the evidence indicated he was shot accidentally during a bar fight. Later, Benavides finally made a positive identification of Oswald as the gunman.

When did Domingo ever make a positive identification of Oswald as the gunman?

[Bill Chapman]

Says you.

The image of Oswald he saw later in the newspaper looked like the shooter. He had plenty of support @Tippit & nearby environs.

[Denis Pointing]

Who said he was "averse" to it?  He was provided the correct evidence and he corrected himself.  That's how things should work around here.

That, and a gracious admission of error is the way "things should work around here." Rather than sarcasm and rudeness as posted by Griffiths:

"Oh, huff, huff, huff. Yes, I get that you're gonna demagogue this. "Such a fundamental mistake"? Instead of dying in early 1964, the brother died in early 1965, and instead of Domingo giving hedged testimony after his brother's death, he markedly changed his story after his brother's death a year later. That's hardly an egregious, fundamental mistake."

Sounds pretty averse to me. He could have just wrote 'mistake corrected' and left it at that. Griffers is a rude, arrogant pig You don't agree..~sshrug~
..........................................................................................
"When did Domingo ever make a positive identification of Oswald as the gunman?" In 1967 in a C-SPAN interview.

[John Iacoletti]

That, and a gracious admission of error is the way "things should work around here." Rather than sarcasm and rudeness as posted by Griffiths:

Perhaps that was rude, but so was this.

Gosh,well it obviously didn't occur to you, did it. If it had you wouldn't have made such a fundamental mistake. Perhaps a little more research and a little less plagiarism is in order. It would have been "a relatively modest error" for an amateur forum member to make, yes. But as a writer you have a far greater responsibility..how many thousands of people have read that mistake in your book and then gone on to state it as fact to thousands upon thousands more on forums and websites? Who am I? Well, what I'm not is someone who writes books for a living and claims to be a JFK assassination expert as you do. Neither do I spread incorrect factoids in books and all over the internet, as you do. You recently made a posting entitled "Poor Scholarship on Display: Larry SPersonivan's Book "The JFK Myths" so perhaps you shouldn't whine so much when someone picks you up on your mistakes. Is it OK for you to criticise other authors work whilst your work is off limits?
Glad you joined the forum, perhaps we can help you improve your research skills and become a better writer.