From: CONEGA@APPSTATE.EDU (Greg Cone)
Subject: Re: Tippett murder and Oswald revolver
Organization: APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:40:24 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <156vadINNggr@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> david@cats.ucsc.edu writes:

> 
> In article <schuck.712359126@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
> |CONEGA@APPSTATE.EDU (Greg Cone) writes:
> |
> |>I have read a lot about the analysis done to associate the bullet(s)
> |>found in the presidential limo to Oswald's M-C rifle, but what, if any,
> |>analysis was done to link bullets found in or around Tippett's body to
> |>Oswald's revolver (the one he was in possesion of when arrested in the
> |>movie theater)?
> |
> |The bullets in Tippits body could not be linked to Oswalds revolver.
> 
> I think the best place for this, the best perspective, is given by Mark Lane's
> new book, Plausible denial. I think Crossfire has all the witnesses too.
> 
> The info sums up to this. The bullets in Tippett's body cannot match to
> Oswald's revolver, since the slugs were a bit to small and thus could not be
> positively identified.
> 
> The shells had a firing pin mark that appears to only have come from Oswald's
> revolver, although I have heard a poster disagree with such identification
> proceedures. 
> 
> There are some interesting anomolies. First, the slugs in the body do not match
> the type of shells found, although there could be missing shells or misfired
> shots. The shells were found scatterd about, which is uncharcteristic of
> reloading a revolver. Further, the first police reports did indicate that the
> shells were from an automatic.
> 
> The phyisical testimony is of course suspect, like all the phyisical evidence
> in this case. The shells, the crucial piece of evidence, could not be
> identified by the person who supposedly marked them. There were discrepencies
> in the number of shells found at the time, and it took, I think a week or so
> for the Dallas police to suddenly find another shell. At any rate, you can read
> the particulars, but the fact is that the chain of possesion is lost, so we
> have to rely on eyewitness testimony.
> 
> For that, there are a number of witnesses. The one the Warren Report relies on
> was led into identifying Oswald, at first saying that in fact she did not
> recognize him. Her story is also incredible on other grounds. Two reliable
> witnesses, i.e., whose stories are not conflicting, found by Lane tell of two
> men firing at Tippett, and neither having Oswald's I.D. Interestingly, When
> Lane told the WC of these witnesses, the FBI promptly told it's agents 
> *not* to interview them. 
> -- 
>    |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
>    |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
>    |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
>    | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
>    @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
>     |  ____\ o o
>     |     /   
>    /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 

If we make the assumption that Oswald did NOT murder Officer Tippit then
it begs the question: who did and why?  Setting aside the question of who
did it, let us consider why they did it.  In accordance with the theory
that Oswald was framed for the assassination, one may speculate that the
Tippitt murder was done to implicate Oswald as a desparate assassin on the
run.  I offer another speculation (maybe not new) that Tippitt may have
been the first causalty in a long list of murders to cover-up the
conspiracy.  There exists evidence that there were co-conspirators within
the Dallas PD.  Might it be possible that Tippitt knew too much?  If Oswald
was to be made the patsy for the assassination, why not make him patsy for
the Tippitt murder as well.

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic