Forums

I've been trying to understand how the time of death of J.D. Tippit was noted on his death certificate as 1.15 p.m.when the radio call according to the DPD records show that Bowley radioed that a cop had been shot at 1.16 p.m

How could the hospital pronounce the death of Tippit a minute before the Police were even informed of the shooting?

Bowley arrived on scene at 1.10. (Bowley's statement)
After a checking that Tippet was dead he helped to radio the DPD.(Bowley's statement)
This was at 1.16 (DPD tapes) meaning that Bowley waited six minutes before the radio transmission.
A few minutes after, the ambulance arrived. (Bowley's statement)
That would make 1.18.(approx)
A couple of minutes to get Tippitt to the hospital and into the trauma room
That would make it 1.20 (approx)

How could the hospital show Tippit to be dead at 1.15 when he hadn't even arrived there. according to DPD tape timing?

excellent questions Ray, nice to see you here, btw.
David

Thanks for the welcome, David. Let's hope it continues to be a civilised site.

It is an error guys.

I spent a LOT of time with Tippit expert Larry Harris in Dallas....he had done some work on this and interviewed hospital staff.....and he was very Pro C......

Tippit was NOT brought to the hospital and declared dead by 115.......forget it. It is an error.

And yeah ...Holmes is going to say cite for this....well I can't, but I did spent a lot of time in Dallas with Larry who lived and breathed the Tippit case. Take or leave it....he said it was a mistake.

Patrick C Wrote:It is an error guys.

I spent a LOT of time with Tippit expert Larry Harris in Dallas....he had done some work on this and interviewed hospital staff.....and he was very Pro C......

Tippit was NOT brought to the hospital and declared dead by 115.......forget it. It is an error.

And yeah ...Holmes is going to say cite for this....well I can't, but I did spent a lot of time in Dallas with Larry who lived and breathed the Tippit case. Take or leave it....he said it was a mistake.

For the record:
[attachment=29][attachment=30]

I find it amusing that Patrick believes Larry Harris about the time of death - if indeed Harris believed this I would think a cite would be available - but does not believe Harris in his assessment of the murder as a whole.

From Larry Harris:

"...Oswald's landlady told the Secret Service that she looked out the window "several minutes later" and observed Oswald standing motionless at the curb in front of the house. Therefore, "several minutes" after 1:04 p.m. Oswald was still lingering in the immediate vicinity of his rooming house. (Perhaps he was waiting on the mysterious police car which, according to the landlady's testimony, paused directly in front of 1026 N. Beckley while Oswald was in his room, honked its horn twice. and drove away.)

"AND, contrary to the Warren Report's assertion that he "rushed' to Tippit's car and "promptly" notified police on Tippit's radio, eyewitness Domingo Benavides testified that when the shooting began, he crouched down in the seat of his pick-up truck and laid low for "a few minutes" because he was afraid the gunman would reappear and start shooting again. Thus, 'a few minutes' elapsed between the shooting and the time police were notified at 1:16 p.m. (Benavides first tried to aid the mortally wounded officer before climbing into Tippit's squad car and fumbling with the radio microphone, trying to figure out how it worked. Contrary to the Report, which wrongly credited Benavides, it was a bystander named F. Bowley who took the microphone from him and called the dispatcher. Bowley's Nov. 22 affidavit said he came upon the scene in his car, got out and intentionally looked at his watch to note the time: 1:10 p.m. - another indication that "a few minutes" - perhaps 5 or 6 - elapsed before Bowley called the radio dispatcher).

"If Oswald was still in front of his apartment house "several minutes" after 1:04, and if the Tippit shooting occurred "a few minutes" prior to the 1:16 p.m. emergency transmission by Benavides, he could not possibly 'have been in a position to shoot the policeman. This was demonstrated by Commission staff attorney David Belin (the most passionate advocate of Oswald's sole guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders), who retraced the accused assassin's 'presumed' route with a stopwatch. It took him 17 minutes and 45 seconds."
...

"WHO SHOT J.D.?
After 30 years, that remains a valid question in the estimation of this writer. The information set forth above is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Virtually every aspect of the official case against Oswald in the Tippit murder is tainted or flawed or outright undermined by the known facts, evidence and testimony. Other anomalies surrounding the policeman's death are too numerous to outline here. They include the circumstances which brought Tippit to the quiet residential street where he died, miles from his own patrol district; his activities in the hour preceding his murder; and an aspect of Tippit's personal life which -- had it been known to investigators in 1964 -- might have cast the officer's demise in a different light altogether.

"Unfortunately, the truth about Tippit's death may never be known. Because of the unbelievably shoddy and dubious case concocted by the Dallas Police, and its endorsement by myopic government investigators, the record of J.D. Tippit's murder is inaccurate and incomplete. At least to those with open minds, the strange death of a policeman on Nov 22, 1963 seems destined to remain that date's other unsolved murder."

Patrick C Wrote:It is an error guys.

I spent a LOT of time with Tippit expert Larry Harris in Dallas....he had done some work on this and interviewed hospital staff.....and he was very Pro C......

Tippit was NOT brought to the hospital and declared dead by 115.......forget it. It is an error.

And yeah ...Holmes is going to say cite for this....well I can't, but I did spent a lot of time in Dallas with Larry who lived and breathed the Tippit case. Take or leave it....he said it was a mistake.

Yep... clearly you recognize by now the importance I place on ACTUAL CITATION... (Something I note you've still not done for your "due" to stay at Love Field lie)

I care nothing for hearsay, speculation, opinion...

I could just as easily mention the staff nurse I spoke to in 1974 who still worked there at Methodist Hospital, who told me that the doctor didn't actually sign anything until nearly 3 o'clock - and merely put the approximate time he mistakenly thought Tippit had been declared.

And since my reference wasn't hearsay through some other researcher, mine trumps yours.

See how easy that was?

Guest Wrote:Thanks for the welcome, David. Let's hope it continues to be a civilised site.

It will be...

The rules are quite simple - keep the ad hominem to an absolute minimum (and yes, so far I've actually deleted more critic posts that broke this rule than supporter's posts!)

Use a person's real name.

Labeling a person as a liar can only be done by QUOTING his words about the evidence, then citing the relevant evidence...

And cowardice can be a charge only when the topic has been raised by the coward, yet refuses to respond to the refutation...

In other words, I will not put up with dishonest posters - it has nothing to do with whether I agree with someone or not (despite that common charge). If a person posts something, and either state that it's a personal opinion, or stands ready to cite - then such a person can never have any problems here...

I'll be happy to help anyone who needs to post graphics, urls, videos, or anything else they need posted. That offer is to both sides, not merely critics (those who know me know I'm very firmly situated on that side of the tracks )

Careful viewers might note that I jump in and edit posts on both sides of the aisle, mainly with quoting, links, and photos... and sometimes will simply strip out an ad hominem rather than deleting an entire post.

Complaints have already come about deletions... but they are always posted back to the offending poster via PM to fix and repost if they desire.

Hope that makes clear a few of my policies here...

You put a load of work into this forum, Ben, and I'm in complete agreement with your policies.... But I'm still posting comments in my underwear - no matter what.

Lee Abbott Wrote:You put a load of work into this forum, Ben, and I'm in complete agreement with your policies.... But I'm still posting comments in my underwear - no matter what.

Then it's fortunate for the rest of us that the video portion of the forum is broke... isn't it? :lol:

And unlike John McAdam's forum - where he claimed not to have lone censorship powers - I'm more than happy to announce that I'm the sole arbiter in this forum.

And that the forum will fall or rise with my decisions, and what posters think of my decisions. But what I refuse to do is be deceptive or dishonest.

Fortunately, I'm on the side that doesn't have any need of dishonesty... and just a little reminder of what "dishonesty" looks like:

One...

Count 'em...

One.

One single solitary believer has admitted to seeing two weapons in this video frame.

Just one...

Out of dozens who've commented, or saw the video frame and refused to comment... only ONE person known to be a WCR Supporter deigned to tell the truth.

(Just in case anyone needed to understand the meaning of "dishonest"...)

I still think that image COULD be a folded carboard box - like a U Haul box.....

It could also be a cop's weapon.

Who cares, there was only one murder weapon found up on the 6th floor and that was Oswald's rife. I don't know what all the fuss is about.....