Post by Rob Caprio on Oct 28, 2018 17:23:34 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.kennedysandking.com/images/2018/tippit-dieugenio/tippit-heikes.jpg
We have looked at the witnesses in the J.D. Tippit (JDT) shooting before, but I want to finish this area with the four men—Warren Reynolds, L.J. Lewis, B.M. Patterson and Harold Russell—who saw the shooter fleeing the scene.
Three of the four would say the man was NOT Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) initially, but one would change his testimony after being shot and terrorized for months. Another would play the “waffle game” with affidavits. You will have to decide for yourself if you think LHO was the man they saw or not.
All of this is covered in Rush to Judgment by Mark Lane on pages 276-278.
***********************************************
L.J. Lewis was NOT called by the Warren Commission (WC) as a witness. He was interviewed by the FBI though on 1/22/64 about what he saw. Here are the relevant portions:
Quote on
…LEWIS advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was on the used car lot of Johnny Reynolds Used Cars together with HAROLD RUSSELL and PAT PATTERSON, during which time they heard approximately three or four gun shots coming from the vicinity of Tenth and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. Approximately one minute later he observed a white male, approximately thirty years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying either an automatic pistol or a revolver in his hands, and while running was either attempting to reload same or conceal the weapon in his belt line.
LEWIS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD No. 112723, dated August 9, 1963, at which time Mr. LEWIS advised due to the distance from which he observed the individual he would hesitate to state whether the individual was identical with OSWALD.
Quote off
So we see here he was NOT willing to state that the individual was LHO. Also, notice a few other things. Firstly, the individual he saw was “approximately thirty years of age” and that is the SAME AGE we got for the shooter of JFK. LHO had just turned TWENTY-FOUR in October 1963. He was a good bit younger than this.
Secondly, notice where he said the man was “carrying an AUTOMATIC pistol or revolver in his hands”. TWO police dispatches went out describing the murder weapon as an AUTOMATIC (one said .32 and one said .38), but NONE went out saying a revolver was used. Since he could see this from a distance, why was he NOT asked about things like height, weight and clothing for the man he saw by the FBI? Also, he would have an affidavit done as he said the FBI was incorrect in what he said as he swore in the affidavit that the true order of events were: 1) he heard the shots; 2) called the DPD at once; 3) spent SOME TIME on the phone with the DPD; and 4) concluded his call and then a “few minutes later” observed the man running with the pistol. Here is the relevant portion from his affidavit:
Quote on
"Upon hearing the shots and recognizing them as gunshot sounds, I immediately called the Dallas Police Department to report a shooting. There was so much confusion at the Police Department end of the telephone conversation, they were having trouble making out what I was telling them. A few minutes later, I observed a white male, approximately thirty years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying either an automatic pistol or a revolver in his hand, and while running was either attempting to reload same or attempting to conceal the weapon in his belt.
Quote off
This means quite a bit of time went by between hearing the shots and seeing the man, who he could NOT ID as LHO, run by. What was the shooter doing during that time?
B.M. Patterson was also NOT called by the WC. It makes you wonder why two KEY witnesses would NOT be called by the WC, doesn’t it? He was also interviewed by the FBI on 1/23/64 though, and the following are the key parts to his statement:
Quote on
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JOHNNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A minute or so later they observed a white male approximately 30 years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying what appeared to be a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload same while running. When the individual reached the intersection of Patton Avenue and Jefferson Street, he placed the weapon inside his waistband and began walking west on the north side of Jefferson Street.
PATTERSON was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD at which time he identified said photograph as being identical with the individual he had observed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, running south on Patton Avenue with a weapon in his hand.
Quote off
After reading the second paragraph you really have to wonder why the WC did NOT call him, huh? Well, there is a reason. Just like Lewis, Patterson also would do an affidavit (two really) to correct errors he said the FBI made regarding his statement. The first one was done on August, 26, 1964. Here again, are the relevant portions.
Quote on
I have been shown the written report of the results of this interview by Special Agents John T. Kesler and Vernon Mitchem of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, on January 22, 1964.* While this transcription is basically and materially correct, I desire to make the following clarifications in regard to the contents of this report. This modification pertains to the second sentence of paragraph two. I choose to have the second referenced sentence changed to read as follows:
"A minute or so later, they observed a white male, approximately thirty years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload it. He stopped still and then reloaded the gun."
In regard to the last paragraph of this report, I do not at this late date specifically recall having been exhibited a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald, at the time of the interview of January 22, 1964, and desire that this paragraph be deleted as an official reporting of that interview.
Quote off
The first part is no big deal as they forgot to say the man stopped to reload his weapon, but the second part is a very BIG DEAL. Patterson said he was NOT shown any photograph to the best of his memory so how could he say it was LHO he was shown by the FBI as they stated in their report? He obviously could NOT, thus, we have NO identification as claimed. On September 7, 1964 Patterson would swear to another affidavit and this time revert back to the original claim by the FBI that they had shown him photos of LHO and he did say they matched the man he saw. What made him change his mind? We won’t ever know, but can you imagine this having any weight in a court of law? I doubt it since he said he was NOT shown any photos just a eleven days before.
Harold Russell, like Lewis and Patterson before him, was NOT called by the WC as a witness, but again, the FBI interviewed him on 1/22/64. Here are the relevant portions from that interview:
Quote on
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line. Upon reaching the intersection of Patton Avenue and Jefferson Street, the individual stopped running and began walking at a fast pace, heading west on Jefferson.
RUSSELL advised upon arriving at the intersection of Tenth and Patton he observed a Dallas uniform police officer lying on the ground in front of a Dallas police car, and from all indication the Dallas police officer was apparently dead. RUSSELL advised the police officer's weapon was lying on the front seat of the Dallas police officer's car. At this point an unknown individual stated to RUSSELL, "Let's take the police officer's gun end go get the S.O.B. who is responsible for this."
RUSSELL advised he had furnished the foregoing information to the Dallas Police Department on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. RUSSELL advised he was not a witness to the actual shooting of the Dallas police officer and could only testify to the fact that he had observed an individual whom he now knows as LEE HARVEY OSWALD leaving the scene.
RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
Quote off
We again see basically the same description of events which means there was corroboration for the claims of Lewis, Patterson and Russell, but the WC was NOT interested in calling them as witnesses. Why NOT? The one main difference is that Russell describes the man he sees as a “young white man” and NOT thirty years old as Lewis and Patterson did. The statement of him seeing a "pistol or revolver" would lead one to believe that he too was NOT sure if it was an AUTOMATIC or a revolver. Russell was also the ONLY one that said JDT’s revolver was in the car and not near his body. If the weapon on the front seat of the car was NOT JDT’s, then who did it belong to? Has this ever been determined?
The FBI report states categorically that he ID’d LHO as the man he saw, but again the FBI seemed to need corroboration on this matter as in August 1964 they had Russell sign an affidavit saying what was written in their report was accurate. Why would they need this IF they wrote ONLY what he told them? He did verify what they wrote was what he said, but why the need to confirm this? Could it have been the many times witnesses said the FBI wrote WHAT THEY HAD NOT SAID? Again, this whole issue would be cloudy at a trial.
IF the man he saw was LHO why did Lewis and Patterson describe an older man (thirty)?
Finally, we get to Warren Reynolds. He was called by the WC as a witness, but he too would do a FBI interview on 1/22/64. Here are the relevant portions:
Quote on
WARREN REYNOLDS, part owner, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, advised on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, while sitting in his office, he had observed an individual running south on Patton Avenue toward Jefferson Street and then walking at a fast rate of speed west on Jefferson. As the individual was running down Patton Avenue, he had a pistol or an automatic in his possession and was apparently attempting to conceal same in his belt while he was running. REYNOLDS advised he had previously heard shots coming from the area of Tenth and Patton Streets and, thinking that possibly a marital argument had occurred and a shooting had taken place, he attempted to follow the individual in order that he could inform the Dallas Police Department of the individual's location.
REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.
Quote off
He too, like Lewis and Russell, thought the weapon could be an AUTOMATIC. He gave no opinion of age either. As we have seen in all these FBI reports there are NO mentions of height, weight or clothing and that is usually standard stuff for these kinds of reports. Why did the FBI continually ignore these things?
Notice he says he was of the “opinion it was Oswald” that he saw, but he would “hesitate to DEFINITELY identify Oswald as the individual” in January 1964. By the time of his testimony (July 1964) he would change his mind about this. Is it normal for your memory of an event to get BETTER with time? I didn’t think so, but let’s look at his relevant WC testimony on this issue.
Mr. LIEBELER. Subsequent to that time, you were questioned by the Dallas Police Department, were you not?
Mr.REYNOLDS. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. The Dallas Police Department never talked to you about the man that you saw going down the street?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Now, they talked to me much later, you mean?
Mr. LIEBELER. OK; let me put it this way: When is the first time that anybody from any law-enforcement agency, and I mean by that, the FBI, Secret Service, Dallas Police Department, Dallas County sheriff's office; you pick it. When is the first time that they ever talked to you?
Mr.REYNOLDS. January 21.
Mr. LIEBELER. That is the first time they ever talked to you about what you saw on that day?
Mr.REYNOLDS. That's right.
We start off with a bang. The FIRST TIME any law enforcement agency ever spoke with Warren Reynolds about what he saw was JANUARY 21, 1964! And we are to believe the DPD wrapped up TWO MURDERS in two hours? What?
Mr. LIEBELER. So you never in any way identified this man in the police department or any other authority, either in November or in December of 1963; is that correct?
Mr.REYNOLDS. No; I sure didn't.
Mr. LIEBELER. So it can be in no way said that you "fingered" the man who was running down the street, and identified him as the man who was going around and putting the gun in his pocket?
Mr.REYNOLDS. It can be said I didn't talk to the authorities.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you say anything about it to anybody else?
Mr.REYNOLDS. I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. Were you able to identify this man in your own mind?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You did identify him as Lee Harvey Oswald in your own mind?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You had no question about it?
Mr.REYNOLDS. No.
And yet, we saw in his 1/22/64 FBI interview he did HAVE DOUBTS about saying it was LHO! Also, if he was so dead sure about this why did the DPD, FBI and SS NOT bring him to ID LHO formally? Doesn’t that make you wonder all by itself?
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
As I have stated many times before, the IMPROPER way to ID someone is by pictures in the MEDIA! IF Reynolds was so sure, why was he NOT brought in to ID LHO in a PROPER way? Also, we saw in his FBI interview he did have “doubts” so what changed from January to July of that year to make him so sure?
Mr. LIEBELER. I show you an exhibit that has been marked Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C and ask you if that is the same man, in your opinion?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You were in no way, if I understand it correctly then, properly identified as anyone who had told the authorities that this man that was going down the street was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald, is that correct?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Well, yes and no….When the police got there, and they took my name. While they were taking my name, some television camera got me, and I was on television, I am sure nationwide. Then some man that I worked with wanted to be big time, I guess, so he called some radio station and told them what I had done, and they recorded that and ran it over and over and over again over the radio station. And other than that, no.
So this is a NO. He never formally ID’d LHO as the man he saw, and in January of 1964 he had severe doubts about being able to say it was LHO to the exclusion of anyone else. What happened to change his mind? Well, for starters, someone might say the FACT he was shot did this.
Mr. LIEBELER. Then according to the information that I have, on January 23, 1964, you were shot in the head by a bullet from a 22 caliber rifle, is that correct?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; right there [pointing to right temple].
Mr. LIEBELER. On the right side of your head?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; and it went to here [pointing to left ear].
This was just a day after he gave the FBI his statement! Was it just another coincidence? General Walker would discuss this shooting in his WC testimony too.
Mr. LIEBELER. No activity of this Commission has ever foreclosed any other law enforcement agency from doing anything that they saw fit to do. The FBI conducts its investigation in any way it sees fit, and the Dallas Police Department does the same thing.
General WALKER. I think we should have a round robin discussion with the city police, FBI, and yourself, if you all have what you have stated, so that we will understand this too, and place this case and the Warren Reynolds case back where they should be. I would think that we should get together to establish who is responsible for the open cases in the city of Dallas.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, the President's Commission on the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy is certainly not responsible for open cases in the city of Dallas. That your counsel will tell you. That is perfectly obvious.
General WALKER. Then I want to go on the record that the city police has misused the Commission and also the FBI.
Mr. LIEBELER. I have no knowledge of that.
General WALKER. I think it is--I can't straighten it out and neither can my counsel. I think it is perfectly obvious that somebody is misusing somebody, the fact that we have no starting point and this is an open case, and this is true with Warren Reynolds as well as myself.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Warren Reynolds?
General WALKER. I do know Warren Reynolds.
Mr. LIEBELER. When did you meet him?
General WALKER. My first contact with Warren Reynolds was by telephone, I would say sometime in the area of 8 or 10 days after he was shot through the temple. I thought I had the date of that. or the press release, but I didn't seem to bring it with me. But you probably have that date.
It doesn't make much difference. I would say sometime I saw a notice in the paper when it came out to the effect that Warren Reynolds had been shot in the head and a Latin type was seen running away…
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have the date of that?
General WALKER. That was approximately January 23 or January 24, 1964, and within a day or two I had a telephone conversation over there.
I talked to Warren Reynolds finally and he said he wanted to talk to me or said he would talk to me, and asked him the circumstances of what had happened to him.
Within a day or two I would say--I said, "If you want to see me, you can." And he came to the house and discussed what had happened to him with regard to being shot through the head, how it all happened, and I have been quite interested in his case.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, am I correct in understanding that you initiated the contact with Mr. Reynolds?
General WALKER. I did.
It would seem the shooting had the desired effect on Reynolds as both Walker and the WC began to plainly state LHO was the shooter with NO evidence to support it.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did he indicate to you the first time that he talked to you that he thought there was some connection between the attack on him and his observation of Oswald?
General WALKER. Pardon?
Mr. LIEBELER. Following the time that Oswald shot Officer Tippit?
General WALKER. Will you repeat the question?
Mr. LIEBELER. Did Reynolds tell you that he thought there was some connection between the attack on him and Oswald killing Tippit?
General WALKER. We discussed that.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you that he thought there was a connection between the two?
General WALKER. He seemed to think there might be.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think there is?
General WALKER. Yes; I do.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any evidence to indicate that there is?
General WALKER. I think there is a definite I don't know that you could call it evidence but you can anticipate that people would like to shut up anybody that knows anything about this case. People right here in Dallas. And I don't think anybody knows or would have known at the time after November 22 how much or how little Warren Reynolds knew.
Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, he doesn't know very much, does he?
General WALKER. He would become a very good example, regardless of what he knew, to let everybody know that they better keep their mouths shut.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, wouldn't it be fair to say that that is pure speculation on your part?
General WALKER. Yes, but everything is speculation until you prove it or disprove it.
We see Gen. Walker basically saying that the attack on Reynolds, in his opinion, was the desire to “shut him up” and that no one would really know how much he knew. I guess NOT since the first time the legal authorities talked with him was January 21, 1964, huh?
Support for this line of thought was given by Reynolds himself when he gave an interview to the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram on November 15, 1964. In the article he would say the following things.
1) He had ringed his house with floodlights.
2) He now owns a watchdog.
3) He has stopped walking at night.
4) Someone was always with him at the car lot after dark.
5) He worried a great deal about himself and his family.
He would also tell the WC about these events.
Mr. LIEBELER. If you can't think of anything else that you think we ought to know and I haven't already asked you about, we can terminate the deposition at this point.
Mr.REYNOLDS. I would like to say something that might be important. About 3 weeks after I got out of the hospital, which would be around the 20th of February, my little 10-year-old daughter--somebody tried to pick her up, tried to get her in a car.
Now, again, whether that has any connection or not, I don't know, but it did happen, and it never had happened before nor after. But they even offered her money. She was smart enough to run and get away.
Mr. LIEBELER. Have you seen any other indication that anybody has been following you or that anybody is watching you or anything like that?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Someone unscrewed my light globe one night on the front porch of my house, and someone definitely did it.
Whether it was a jokester or kid, but I have a lamp over the light. They had to take three screws loose to get to my light globe. They took those off unscrewed my light, and that is for sure. Now, that was around the 20th of February, too.
Mr. LIEBELER. That was after you had gotten out of the hospital?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
In any normal police investigation these events would be seen for what they were – intimidation of a witness. The WC failed to show LHO was the man who was fleeing the scene of the JDT murder as they had two witnesses say it was NOT him, one saying it was, and one who initially said it was NOT him, but after being shot and intimidated he said it was. Can you imagine how that would have played in a court of law? Also, two of the witness said the weapon they saw could have been an AUTOMATIC and this is corroborated by two dispatches by the DPD that mentions an automatic as the murder weapon.
Also, the total failure of the FBI and WC to get any details regarding the height, weight, and clothing for the man these witnesses saw is unforgivable as this is a big part of the ID process.
Again, the claim that LHO shot JDT is just not supported with any evidence that can stand up to the slightest scrutiny, thus, the WC'sconclusion is sunk again.
www.kennedysandking.com/images/2018/tippit-dieugenio/tippit-heikes.jpg
We have looked at the witnesses in the J.D. Tippit (JDT) shooting before, but I want to finish this area with the four men—Warren Reynolds, L.J. Lewis, B.M. Patterson and Harold Russell—who saw the shooter fleeing the scene.
Three of the four would say the man was NOT Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) initially, but one would change his testimony after being shot and terrorized for months. Another would play the “waffle game” with affidavits. You will have to decide for yourself if you think LHO was the man they saw or not.
All of this is covered in Rush to Judgment by Mark Lane on pages 276-278.
***********************************************
L.J. Lewis was NOT called by the Warren Commission (WC) as a witness. He was interviewed by the FBI though on 1/22/64 about what he saw. Here are the relevant portions:
Quote on
…LEWIS advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was on the used car lot of Johnny Reynolds Used Cars together with HAROLD RUSSELL and PAT PATTERSON, during which time they heard approximately three or four gun shots coming from the vicinity of Tenth and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. Approximately one minute later he observed a white male, approximately thirty years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying either an automatic pistol or a revolver in his hands, and while running was either attempting to reload same or conceal the weapon in his belt line.
LEWIS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD No. 112723, dated August 9, 1963, at which time Mr. LEWIS advised due to the distance from which he observed the individual he would hesitate to state whether the individual was identical with OSWALD.
Quote off
So we see here he was NOT willing to state that the individual was LHO. Also, notice a few other things. Firstly, the individual he saw was “approximately thirty years of age” and that is the SAME AGE we got for the shooter of JFK. LHO had just turned TWENTY-FOUR in October 1963. He was a good bit younger than this.
Secondly, notice where he said the man was “carrying an AUTOMATIC pistol or revolver in his hands”. TWO police dispatches went out describing the murder weapon as an AUTOMATIC (one said .32 and one said .38), but NONE went out saying a revolver was used. Since he could see this from a distance, why was he NOT asked about things like height, weight and clothing for the man he saw by the FBI? Also, he would have an affidavit done as he said the FBI was incorrect in what he said as he swore in the affidavit that the true order of events were: 1) he heard the shots; 2) called the DPD at once; 3) spent SOME TIME on the phone with the DPD; and 4) concluded his call and then a “few minutes later” observed the man running with the pistol. Here is the relevant portion from his affidavit:
Quote on
"Upon hearing the shots and recognizing them as gunshot sounds, I immediately called the Dallas Police Department to report a shooting. There was so much confusion at the Police Department end of the telephone conversation, they were having trouble making out what I was telling them. A few minutes later, I observed a white male, approximately thirty years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying either an automatic pistol or a revolver in his hand, and while running was either attempting to reload same or attempting to conceal the weapon in his belt.
Quote off
This means quite a bit of time went by between hearing the shots and seeing the man, who he could NOT ID as LHO, run by. What was the shooter doing during that time?
B.M. Patterson was also NOT called by the WC. It makes you wonder why two KEY witnesses would NOT be called by the WC, doesn’t it? He was also interviewed by the FBI on 1/23/64 though, and the following are the key parts to his statement:
Quote on
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JOHNNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A minute or so later they observed a white male approximately 30 years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying what appeared to be a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload same while running. When the individual reached the intersection of Patton Avenue and Jefferson Street, he placed the weapon inside his waistband and began walking west on the north side of Jefferson Street.
PATTERSON was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD at which time he identified said photograph as being identical with the individual he had observed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, running south on Patton Avenue with a weapon in his hand.
Quote off
After reading the second paragraph you really have to wonder why the WC did NOT call him, huh? Well, there is a reason. Just like Lewis, Patterson also would do an affidavit (two really) to correct errors he said the FBI made regarding his statement. The first one was done on August, 26, 1964. Here again, are the relevant portions.
Quote on
I have been shown the written report of the results of this interview by Special Agents John T. Kesler and Vernon Mitchem of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, on January 22, 1964.* While this transcription is basically and materially correct, I desire to make the following clarifications in regard to the contents of this report. This modification pertains to the second sentence of paragraph two. I choose to have the second referenced sentence changed to read as follows:
"A minute or so later, they observed a white male, approximately thirty years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload it. He stopped still and then reloaded the gun."
In regard to the last paragraph of this report, I do not at this late date specifically recall having been exhibited a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald, at the time of the interview of January 22, 1964, and desire that this paragraph be deleted as an official reporting of that interview.
Quote off
The first part is no big deal as they forgot to say the man stopped to reload his weapon, but the second part is a very BIG DEAL. Patterson said he was NOT shown any photograph to the best of his memory so how could he say it was LHO he was shown by the FBI as they stated in their report? He obviously could NOT, thus, we have NO identification as claimed. On September 7, 1964 Patterson would swear to another affidavit and this time revert back to the original claim by the FBI that they had shown him photos of LHO and he did say they matched the man he saw. What made him change his mind? We won’t ever know, but can you imagine this having any weight in a court of law? I doubt it since he said he was NOT shown any photos just a eleven days before.
Harold Russell, like Lewis and Patterson before him, was NOT called by the WC as a witness, but again, the FBI interviewed him on 1/22/64. Here are the relevant portions from that interview:
Quote on
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line. Upon reaching the intersection of Patton Avenue and Jefferson Street, the individual stopped running and began walking at a fast pace, heading west on Jefferson.
RUSSELL advised upon arriving at the intersection of Tenth and Patton he observed a Dallas uniform police officer lying on the ground in front of a Dallas police car, and from all indication the Dallas police officer was apparently dead. RUSSELL advised the police officer's weapon was lying on the front seat of the Dallas police officer's car. At this point an unknown individual stated to RUSSELL, "Let's take the police officer's gun end go get the S.O.B. who is responsible for this."
RUSSELL advised he had furnished the foregoing information to the Dallas Police Department on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. RUSSELL advised he was not a witness to the actual shooting of the Dallas police officer and could only testify to the fact that he had observed an individual whom he now knows as LEE HARVEY OSWALD leaving the scene.
RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
Quote off
We again see basically the same description of events which means there was corroboration for the claims of Lewis, Patterson and Russell, but the WC was NOT interested in calling them as witnesses. Why NOT? The one main difference is that Russell describes the man he sees as a “young white man” and NOT thirty years old as Lewis and Patterson did. The statement of him seeing a "pistol or revolver" would lead one to believe that he too was NOT sure if it was an AUTOMATIC or a revolver. Russell was also the ONLY one that said JDT’s revolver was in the car and not near his body. If the weapon on the front seat of the car was NOT JDT’s, then who did it belong to? Has this ever been determined?
The FBI report states categorically that he ID’d LHO as the man he saw, but again the FBI seemed to need corroboration on this matter as in August 1964 they had Russell sign an affidavit saying what was written in their report was accurate. Why would they need this IF they wrote ONLY what he told them? He did verify what they wrote was what he said, but why the need to confirm this? Could it have been the many times witnesses said the FBI wrote WHAT THEY HAD NOT SAID? Again, this whole issue would be cloudy at a trial.
IF the man he saw was LHO why did Lewis and Patterson describe an older man (thirty)?
Finally, we get to Warren Reynolds. He was called by the WC as a witness, but he too would do a FBI interview on 1/22/64. Here are the relevant portions:
Quote on
WARREN REYNOLDS, part owner, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, advised on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, while sitting in his office, he had observed an individual running south on Patton Avenue toward Jefferson Street and then walking at a fast rate of speed west on Jefferson. As the individual was running down Patton Avenue, he had a pistol or an automatic in his possession and was apparently attempting to conceal same in his belt while he was running. REYNOLDS advised he had previously heard shots coming from the area of Tenth and Patton Streets and, thinking that possibly a marital argument had occurred and a shooting had taken place, he attempted to follow the individual in order that he could inform the Dallas Police Department of the individual's location.
REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.
Quote off
He too, like Lewis and Russell, thought the weapon could be an AUTOMATIC. He gave no opinion of age either. As we have seen in all these FBI reports there are NO mentions of height, weight or clothing and that is usually standard stuff for these kinds of reports. Why did the FBI continually ignore these things?
Notice he says he was of the “opinion it was Oswald” that he saw, but he would “hesitate to DEFINITELY identify Oswald as the individual” in January 1964. By the time of his testimony (July 1964) he would change his mind about this. Is it normal for your memory of an event to get BETTER with time? I didn’t think so, but let’s look at his relevant WC testimony on this issue.
Mr. LIEBELER. Subsequent to that time, you were questioned by the Dallas Police Department, were you not?
Mr.REYNOLDS. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. The Dallas Police Department never talked to you about the man that you saw going down the street?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Now, they talked to me much later, you mean?
Mr. LIEBELER. OK; let me put it this way: When is the first time that anybody from any law-enforcement agency, and I mean by that, the FBI, Secret Service, Dallas Police Department, Dallas County sheriff's office; you pick it. When is the first time that they ever talked to you?
Mr.REYNOLDS. January 21.
Mr. LIEBELER. That is the first time they ever talked to you about what you saw on that day?
Mr.REYNOLDS. That's right.
We start off with a bang. The FIRST TIME any law enforcement agency ever spoke with Warren Reynolds about what he saw was JANUARY 21, 1964! And we are to believe the DPD wrapped up TWO MURDERS in two hours? What?
Mr. LIEBELER. So you never in any way identified this man in the police department or any other authority, either in November or in December of 1963; is that correct?
Mr.REYNOLDS. No; I sure didn't.
Mr. LIEBELER. So it can be in no way said that you "fingered" the man who was running down the street, and identified him as the man who was going around and putting the gun in his pocket?
Mr.REYNOLDS. It can be said I didn't talk to the authorities.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you say anything about it to anybody else?
Mr.REYNOLDS. I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. Were you able to identify this man in your own mind?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You did identify him as Lee Harvey Oswald in your own mind?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You had no question about it?
Mr.REYNOLDS. No.
And yet, we saw in his 1/22/64 FBI interview he did HAVE DOUBTS about saying it was LHO! Also, if he was so dead sure about this why did the DPD, FBI and SS NOT bring him to ID LHO formally? Doesn’t that make you wonder all by itself?
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
As I have stated many times before, the IMPROPER way to ID someone is by pictures in the MEDIA! IF Reynolds was so sure, why was he NOT brought in to ID LHO in a PROPER way? Also, we saw in his FBI interview he did have “doubts” so what changed from January to July of that year to make him so sure?
Mr. LIEBELER. I show you an exhibit that has been marked Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C and ask you if that is the same man, in your opinion?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You were in no way, if I understand it correctly then, properly identified as anyone who had told the authorities that this man that was going down the street was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald, is that correct?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Well, yes and no….When the police got there, and they took my name. While they were taking my name, some television camera got me, and I was on television, I am sure nationwide. Then some man that I worked with wanted to be big time, I guess, so he called some radio station and told them what I had done, and they recorded that and ran it over and over and over again over the radio station. And other than that, no.
So this is a NO. He never formally ID’d LHO as the man he saw, and in January of 1964 he had severe doubts about being able to say it was LHO to the exclusion of anyone else. What happened to change his mind? Well, for starters, someone might say the FACT he was shot did this.
Mr. LIEBELER. Then according to the information that I have, on January 23, 1964, you were shot in the head by a bullet from a 22 caliber rifle, is that correct?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; right there [pointing to right temple].
Mr. LIEBELER. On the right side of your head?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; and it went to here [pointing to left ear].
This was just a day after he gave the FBI his statement! Was it just another coincidence? General Walker would discuss this shooting in his WC testimony too.
Mr. LIEBELER. No activity of this Commission has ever foreclosed any other law enforcement agency from doing anything that they saw fit to do. The FBI conducts its investigation in any way it sees fit, and the Dallas Police Department does the same thing.
General WALKER. I think we should have a round robin discussion with the city police, FBI, and yourself, if you all have what you have stated, so that we will understand this too, and place this case and the Warren Reynolds case back where they should be. I would think that we should get together to establish who is responsible for the open cases in the city of Dallas.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, the President's Commission on the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy is certainly not responsible for open cases in the city of Dallas. That your counsel will tell you. That is perfectly obvious.
General WALKER. Then I want to go on the record that the city police has misused the Commission and also the FBI.
Mr. LIEBELER. I have no knowledge of that.
General WALKER. I think it is--I can't straighten it out and neither can my counsel. I think it is perfectly obvious that somebody is misusing somebody, the fact that we have no starting point and this is an open case, and this is true with Warren Reynolds as well as myself.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Warren Reynolds?
General WALKER. I do know Warren Reynolds.
Mr. LIEBELER. When did you meet him?
General WALKER. My first contact with Warren Reynolds was by telephone, I would say sometime in the area of 8 or 10 days after he was shot through the temple. I thought I had the date of that. or the press release, but I didn't seem to bring it with me. But you probably have that date.
It doesn't make much difference. I would say sometime I saw a notice in the paper when it came out to the effect that Warren Reynolds had been shot in the head and a Latin type was seen running away…
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have the date of that?
General WALKER. That was approximately January 23 or January 24, 1964, and within a day or two I had a telephone conversation over there.
I talked to Warren Reynolds finally and he said he wanted to talk to me or said he would talk to me, and asked him the circumstances of what had happened to him.
Within a day or two I would say--I said, "If you want to see me, you can." And he came to the house and discussed what had happened to him with regard to being shot through the head, how it all happened, and I have been quite interested in his case.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, am I correct in understanding that you initiated the contact with Mr. Reynolds?
General WALKER. I did.
It would seem the shooting had the desired effect on Reynolds as both Walker and the WC began to plainly state LHO was the shooter with NO evidence to support it.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did he indicate to you the first time that he talked to you that he thought there was some connection between the attack on him and his observation of Oswald?
General WALKER. Pardon?
Mr. LIEBELER. Following the time that Oswald shot Officer Tippit?
General WALKER. Will you repeat the question?
Mr. LIEBELER. Did Reynolds tell you that he thought there was some connection between the attack on him and Oswald killing Tippit?
General WALKER. We discussed that.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you that he thought there was a connection between the two?
General WALKER. He seemed to think there might be.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think there is?
General WALKER. Yes; I do.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any evidence to indicate that there is?
General WALKER. I think there is a definite I don't know that you could call it evidence but you can anticipate that people would like to shut up anybody that knows anything about this case. People right here in Dallas. And I don't think anybody knows or would have known at the time after November 22 how much or how little Warren Reynolds knew.
Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, he doesn't know very much, does he?
General WALKER. He would become a very good example, regardless of what he knew, to let everybody know that they better keep their mouths shut.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, wouldn't it be fair to say that that is pure speculation on your part?
General WALKER. Yes, but everything is speculation until you prove it or disprove it.
We see Gen. Walker basically saying that the attack on Reynolds, in his opinion, was the desire to “shut him up” and that no one would really know how much he knew. I guess NOT since the first time the legal authorities talked with him was January 21, 1964, huh?
Support for this line of thought was given by Reynolds himself when he gave an interview to the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram on November 15, 1964. In the article he would say the following things.
1) He had ringed his house with floodlights.
2) He now owns a watchdog.
3) He has stopped walking at night.
4) Someone was always with him at the car lot after dark.
5) He worried a great deal about himself and his family.
He would also tell the WC about these events.
Mr. LIEBELER. If you can't think of anything else that you think we ought to know and I haven't already asked you about, we can terminate the deposition at this point.
Mr.REYNOLDS. I would like to say something that might be important. About 3 weeks after I got out of the hospital, which would be around the 20th of February, my little 10-year-old daughter--somebody tried to pick her up, tried to get her in a car.
Now, again, whether that has any connection or not, I don't know, but it did happen, and it never had happened before nor after. But they even offered her money. She was smart enough to run and get away.
Mr. LIEBELER. Have you seen any other indication that anybody has been following you or that anybody is watching you or anything like that?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Someone unscrewed my light globe one night on the front porch of my house, and someone definitely did it.
Whether it was a jokester or kid, but I have a lamp over the light. They had to take three screws loose to get to my light globe. They took those off unscrewed my light, and that is for sure. Now, that was around the 20th of February, too.
Mr. LIEBELER. That was after you had gotten out of the hospital?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
In any normal police investigation these events would be seen for what they were – intimidation of a witness. The WC failed to show LHO was the man who was fleeing the scene of the JDT murder as they had two witnesses say it was NOT him, one saying it was, and one who initially said it was NOT him, but after being shot and intimidated he said it was. Can you imagine how that would have played in a court of law? Also, two of the witness said the weapon they saw could have been an AUTOMATIC and this is corroborated by two dispatches by the DPD that mentions an automatic as the murder weapon.
Also, the total failure of the FBI and WC to get any details regarding the height, weight, and clothing for the man these witnesses saw is unforgivable as this is a big part of the ID process.
Again, the claim that LHO shot JDT is just not supported with any evidence that can stand up to the slightest scrutiny, thus, the WC'sconclusion is sunk again.