|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Oct 17, 2020 13:03:02 GMT -5
I believe it is in an area behind that billboard. This early picture of the plaza shows a clearing. The billboard in the McIntyre picture is different than seen here and more forward But.....in the "On Trial" video (posted here) Tilson, @3:30, details where the car was parked which was not behind the bill board. The man came down the embankment behind the sign but the car sat in front of the sign. I even think it's the same sign as shown in McIntyre. To me there's no doubt the car would have been visible in the McIntyre picture. I agree Tilson sounds totally creditable when telling his story but I don't see how it can be reconciled with the triple underpass photo. Also, for this story to make sense the guy had to have crossed the railroad tracks where he would have been fully exposed to the officers "guarding" the overpass and Bowers in the yard tower.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Oct 17, 2020 13:24:28 GMT -5
I don't find it that unbelievable for reasons I explained in my first post.
It's the daughter added to it, and I see no reason for Tilson to lie, he has no book or money to make.
I don't know what the route could be along any kind of trail that could cover you until you get to a point you can cross the tracks If I'm ever in Dallas again, I will go there. There, to that exact place. But I can't dismiss this yet. Gun goes in; gun comes out.
I went back and reviewed the video - IMO NOT same sign as in McIntyre
McIntyre sign much farther down - hard to find a good pic of that side.
Pic I showed DP still being constructed - so bad for signs I found good modern one awhile back- cant find again.
I have no prob what he says in video, car was off the road, up on sidewalk in that clearing - tucked away
in front of that embankment sign - that distinct clearing would provide a more than sufficient coverage.
also, crossing the RR track with gun under coat possible in all the confusion of people running to the yard.
I don't put a lot of weight in Tom Tilson in the big picture - it's one of those f-up things that comes along in this case.
One could make the same case against Gordon Arnold (and I do) he doesn't appear in any pictures during or after.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arjan Hut on Oct 18, 2020 9:09:34 GMT -5
It's the daughter added to it, and I see no reason for Tilson to lie, he has no book or money to make.
It gives him an alibi for the time JFK is assassinated and his colleague & friend JD Tippit is murdered. The discussion is now about whether or not Tilson saw a car flee the scene, and not where Tilson was when JD Tippit was murdered. |
|
|
|
Post by Arjan Hut on Oct 18, 2020 9:53:54 GMT -5
On the day the President comes to town, this officer takes the day off.
The colleague who takes over his shift (according to Earl Golz), gets murdered.
Tilson is close to Tippit, as he even serves as one of the pallbearers.
Years later, Tilson tells a spectacular story that sounds interesting, but can not be verified and what little images we have of that place and moment do not verify his story at all. A streak of bad luck for witness Tilson? (car hidden from view on pics, note with license nr lost, the only corroborating witness a family member - who doesn't want to talk about it anymore.) That is theoretically possible, but not very likely.
Furthermore, it seems strange to me, that this officer that took the day off when all man power was needed badly, happens to drive into Dealey Plaza just as the President has come under fire there.
Same thing can be said about Powell, the military intelligence guy who took the day off and ended up in the middle of all the action, by doing exactly what he would have done if he had been on the job. Which he was.
I don't believe Tilson, but it is not the same as with Gordon Arnold. Arnold had nothing to do with anything, Tilson was a Dallas Police Officer who worked with JD Tippit. That makes him more interesting, even if his story wouldn't be true.
I think that knowing more about Tilson may tell you more about Tippit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Oct 18, 2020 10:17:01 GMT -5
All interesting thoughts Arjan,
I'm not sure he has to make up any spectacular story.
Regardless, I think we can agree to disagree, as I said yesterday I don't put much weight in the big picture.
It's one of those things, and it's a problem with the case. If it wasn't for the daughter I could easily dismiss him.
I don't see Gordon Arnold much different just because he didn't see a getaway, his camera and film were destroyed,
and just like the black car, there is no photographic evidence of him were he should be.
IMO Tilson has 3 things;
The daughter said she saw it.
The same spot someone went in earlier (Julia Mercer saw)
The black car.
On a scale of 1-10? I give all that a "6+"
What would you give it, 1-10?
Tom you too?
Gordon Arnold = < 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arjan Hut on Oct 18, 2020 12:27:05 GMT -5
Julia Ann Mercer is a credible witness. But when you say she saw the gun come in at the same location, do you mean she saw the truck on the west side of the underpass? In my head I see it on the east side, which is the impression I get from her testimony. Also, this occurs several hours before the shooting and the fleeing black car. Tilson must have known about Mercer. What did Tilson look like in '63?   |
|
|
|
Post by Arjan Hut on Oct 18, 2020 12:33:35 GMT -5
On a scale of 1-10? I give all that a "6+" What would you give it, 1-10? Tom you too? Gordon Arnold = < 2. Let's say, if I wrote a book about the JFK assassination, I'd probably not use the testimony of Tilson, Oliver or Arnold, but I would try to find out more about Tilson and write about his day off. There are other witnesses, like Ed Hoffman, that are problematic in different ways, just trying to pin down what he saw exactly is difficult. JC Price, saw a guy running, why didn't Lee Bowers notice that? Or did Bowers notice, but thought it wise to shut up? I'm naming Hoffman and Price here, because what they saw also could substantiate what Tilson said he witnessed. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Oct 18, 2020 12:36:02 GMT -5
hmmm...yes two hours earlier..like 10:30a
but somewhere she said other side
dont forget she told Garrison her statement was changed and signed by another - let me look
thanx for pointing that out - I was sure somewhere she said other side
meanwhile I had found this graphic
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Oct 18, 2020 13:50:49 GMT -5
Julia Ann Mercer is a credible witness. But when you say she saw the gun come in at the same location, do you mean she saw the truck on the west side of the underpass? In my head I see it on the east side, which is the impression I get from her testimony. Also, this occurs several hours before the shooting and the fleeing black car. Tilson must have known about Mercer. What did Tilson look like in '63? You are correct Arjan, it was on the east side of the overpass, my mistake. So it is just the same general area. I will take down that graphic and adjust my narrative. thanx for the correction, somehow I missed that. I have no issue with the early time. I'd want the gun there well before me (shooter)The gun could easily be lightly buried or hidden in those woods. IMO, shooter doesn't move gun. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Oct 19, 2020 3:12:07 GMT -5
Going over Tom Tilson's 1986 mock trial testimony once more, the escape car was parked clear of the bill board, he says "on the other [north] side of the sidewalk" putting the pen to the aerial photo. I see no way that car does not appear in the McIntyre photo. What also worries me is that he does not mention the make and year of the car and whether it was a Texas plate or out-of-state plate. If his daughter wrote that down, and he called in that information, how could he not remember those details? Bowers, in the yard tower:
Mr. BALL - And, did you see another car?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes, some 15 minutes or so after this, at approximately 12 o'clock, 20 to 12--I guess 12:20 would be close to it, little time differential there--but there was another car which was a 1957 black Ford, with one male in it that seemed to have a mike or telephone or something that gave the appearance of that at least.
Mr. BALL - How could you tell that?
Mr. BOWERS - He was holding something up to his mouth with one hand and he was driving with the other, and gave that appearance. He was very close to the tower. I could see him as he proceeded around the area.
Mr. BALL - What kind of license did that have?
Mr. BOWERS - Had a Texas license.
Mr. BALL - What did it do as it came into the area, from what street?
Mr. BOWERS - Came in from the extension of Elm Street in front of the School Depository.
Mr. BALL - Did you see it leave?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; after 3 or 4 minutes cruising around the area it departed the same way. He did probe a little further into the area than the first car.
Also, especially after Ruby shot Oswald, if the guy fleeing the scene looked like Ruby how would that not further imprint the details in his mind? What troubles me most is that after being ignored by homicide why does he not simply run the plate himself to see who it belongs to and if it matches the car? The guy is a Dallas police officer so he should have no problem getting to that information. The daughter backing him up: what details do we actually have?
If the story is in fact fake what would be his motive for making it up?
I don't see any point in Tilson placing himself at a crime scene if he needs an alibi to prove he wasn't at another crime scene! IMO the only viable explanation is that he wants to implicate Ruby for whatever reason. A third option could be he's asked by someone to call in that information along with a fabricated story about the embankment since, initially, no one is aware of the McIntyre photos. Later on he has to stick to his story, kind of a Frazier/Randle situation.
But if the intention was to frame Ruby why keep bringing up the incident after both Oswald and Ruby are dead and gone? Even after Ruby is arrested two days later for murder, what's the point?
On the 1-10 scale I would rate him as low as 2 due to the lack of detail on the car and not running the plate, makes no sense to me.
EDIT>>>
According to an FBI report Ruby drove a white 1960 Oldsmobile, 1963 Texas license believed(!) to be PD 678.
|
|
