Note from Deanie Richards: the file below was written by Dale Myers and
refers to the following site on JFK Place:
     Series by Don Willis on the book "With Malice" by Dale Myers 



                             January 1999
 
       Dale Myers Comments on the Donald Willis "With Malice" Series 
                
                  Dale Myers dmyers@rust.net


To All Persons Interested in the Facts Surrounding the Murder of J.D.
Tippit:

I wrote the book "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer
J.D. Tippit," in an effort to make clear the facts and the myths
surrounding this pivotal part of the JFK assassination story. The book was
the culmination of nearly twenty years of study and original work relating
to this horrific crime.

The book took nearly three years to organize, write and footnote and was
finally published in November, 1998. It has since received considerable
praise from scholars, newsmen, historians, book reviewers and - most
important of all - from the men who were *there*, that day in Dallas.

[See:  http://www.jfkfiles.com/book/html/reviews.htm ]

There has also been a minor spattering of critical reviews (as one would
expect on this subject) which have come from the so-called "research
community."

It is mystifying - although understandable - that some people can read an
extended work, like "With Malice," and reach a conclusion that is the
opposite of the author. Particularly when the subject is the JFK
assassination, which many people have already formed opinions about.

What is truly alarming, however, is when people use a book like "With
Malice" to give wholesale credence to a lot of unsubstantiated theories. I
suspect that educated people are smart enough to separate the wheat from
the chaff, and to cast their own eyes upon "With Malice" before swallowing
a lot of internet banter.

On the other hand, I feel compelled to speak out on a subject that I have
spent a good deal of my life exploring - especially when my good name and
work is being used to perpetuate the kind of misinformation Ive seen in
the so-called "series" by Mr. Donald Willis (dcwlls).

I usually refrain from buff-bashing, since it only tends to elevate the
kooky claims of the bashee. On the other hand, such lengthy distortions
can grow legs if left unchecked. Particularly when they are presented - as
Mr. Willis does - as if they are supported by a book that I researched and
documented with great care and considerable thought. Please consider this
posting as my way of nudging Mr. Willis careless and manipulative
writings a little closer to the chasm where they belong. If you detest
such rebuttals, feel free to bow out here, with my sincere apology for
having bothered you.

                        *       *       *       *       *

Mr. Donald Willis musings have appeared under a number of banners, most
recently, the "Myers With Malice series, which numbers 36
"installments."

Mr. Willis calls his writings a "study." If you can call reading a book a
"study," then I suppose that is accurate. However, youll see that Mr.
Willis fails to comprehend a great deal of what he claims to have read.
You should note that Mr. Willis began his writings on the Tippit shooting
without having read "With Malice" - despite its availability. When asked
by other newsgroup posters (who *had* read the book) to curtail his
remarks until he had read the book, Mr. Willis simply shrugged it off with
an, "Ill get to it," comment. Okay. But then, how can anyone take such a
person seriously? Especially, when that person passes himself off as an
"expert" on the subject? Eventually, Mr. Willis acquired a copy of my book
and immediately dismissed it:

>...I must disagree with its 2 basic premises, that Oswald was the
>10th St. shooter & that Tippit was killed with malice. I think that the
>Tippit shooting was a cold-blooded, planned execution...

As youll see, Mr. Willis does not presented a single, substantiated fact
that supports that belief. He continues:

>...In fact, I believe that With Malice may prove to be the Rosetta Stone
>of 11/22/63, in ways that Myers certainly never intended...

I suppose Mr. Willis must think himself clever enough to have figured out
what I "never intended," or that writing a book involves jotting down
random thoughts as the subconscious mind spits them out. Neither is true,
of course. In fact, I can assure you my dear reader that everything in
"With Malice" *was included intentionally,* with the exclusion of
typographical errors and errors in fact, which are both duly noted on the
title page. Mr. Willis continues his dismissal:

>...Myers (for instance) does not notice the various absurdities
>which his...chronology generates by calculating the time of the shooting
>as 1:14:30, & thus cramming so much activity into the space of
>4-1/2 minutes...

Mr. Willis apparently is unable to grasp one simple fact that the book
clearly lays out -

There are multiple events occurring concurrently throughout "With Malice."
The book presents a nearly second-by-second account of the shooting
events. In some case it requires several pages to describe the events that
take place in the blink of an eye. The chronology was carefully written
based on substantiated facts. Where are Mr. Willis facts that disprove
this timeline? Where are the facts that show the calculated 1:14:30
shooting time to be inaccurate?

>...Specificallyfor one thingMyers fails to acknowledge that Bowley pin-
>pointed the time of his arrival at the scene as 1:10, *not* 1:16 (p383)...

Mr. Willis is wrong. If he had read endnote #236 (which is referred to in
the index) he would have seen that this issue *is* "specifically"
addressed. Has Mr. Willis actually read "With Malice" and studied it as he
claims? This, and many other examples, make me wonder. But wait, theres
more:

>...Quite by accident, again, Myers exposes the official story of  Oak Cliff
>as one grand deception, involving manipulation of witnesses & evidence...

Heres that "unintentional" issue again. Apparently, Im supposed to be
bright enough to write down all of this "evidence of deception," but too
stupid to realize what Ive done. As youll soon see, the *only*
manipulation of witnesses & evidence is by Mr. Willis himself. We begin:

Installment (2) focuses on Jimmy Burt and William A. Smiths testimony.
Mr. Willis writes that:

>...Myers grants witnesses Jimmy Burt & William Smith full shooting
>witnesses status...

(Huh?) Burt and Smiths statements and testimony are a matter of record -
both are discussed at length in "Malice," and several actual affidavits
are reproduced. I grant them nothing. I do, however, give the reader the
opportunity to make up their own mind about the discrepancies in their
accounts - something Mr. Willis doesnt allow.

Installment (3) asks whether the passenger window was rolled up or down.
Mr. Willis writes:

>...Mrs. Markham..testified that it was down (3H315) at the time of
>the shooting. And when DPD Det. Paul Bentley was interviewed by the
>HSCA (6/15/78), he said the "right front window was rolled down."
>Myers chronology of events does not recognize these dissenting voices...
>perhaps its an unimportant detail, perhaps not...

This is apparently Mr. Willis way of saying that I didnt consider all of
the questions surrounding Tippits death. Nonsense. This particular issue
is not new. It was first raised by some of the earliest conspiracy
writers. This question is addressed - as are many others - by presenting
the evidence that demonstratively shows whether the window was up or down.
On the page that discusses Markhams account, a photograph is presented
(and in case youre wondering, this is *no* layout accident) which
illustrates Markhams view of the shooting. The photograph clearly shows
that she *could not have known whether the window was up or down.*
Bentleys HSCA testimony has numerous errors that are borne out by other
facts and testimony, including interviews with Bentley himself.

Some of these facts are discussed, others are not. It was never my
intention to attempt to refute every single claim - bogus or not - that
has been proposed in the 35 years since Tippits death. Such a book would
be impossible to write and would fill many volumes, much larger than "With
Malice." The intent of the book - since Mr. Willis fails to grasp it - is
to present the *true* facts surrounding the Tippit murder. In the case of
the passenger window on Tippits car - all substantiated facts support the
Crime Lab photographs taken that afternoon, which show the passenger
window rolled up and the vent window cracked open. Mr. Willis would like
his readers to believe that there is something more "mysterious" (exactly
*what* is never explained) going on here. No one, including Mr. Willis,
has ever presented a single shred of substantiated information which shows
that the window was originally down, subsequently rolled up, and this fact
then hidden from the public. Nor has anyone even suggested *why* this
might have been done. To what end? For what purpose? This is nothing more
than minutiae, that cannot be answered any better than it was in "With
Malice."

One of Mr. Willis most humorous assertions (although Im sure *he* didnt
intend it that way) appears in Installment (4). Here, Mr. Willis provides
a perfect example of his own "manipulation" of the facts:

>...The cop turned slightly toward his assailant as the bullets
>found their target" [Malice, p.69] A seemingly innocuous sentence.
>But it implies that, until that moment, Tippit was turned *away* from
>the suspect! This is perhaps the key moment in the shooting sequence as
>described by Myers, & it undermines the whole account of same. A police
>officer all but turns his back on someone whom he believes might be a
>suspect in the assassination of the President!? Is Myers implying that
>Tippit had a death wish? Nothis is just a very awkward moment in a
>universally accepted, but next-to-impossible scenario...back to the
>drawing board...

Tippit "turns his back" on Oswald? Sheez. Mr. Willis can certainly milk a
lot of "implications" from a single sentence. Why then cant he grasp the
obvious when it is spelled right out?

The fact of the matter is that Tippit had just emerged from the drivers
side door and was walking toward the front hood. Oswald pulled a gun and
fired several shots as Tippit reached the left front tire. In effect,
Tippit was in profile to Oswald when the shooting began. The autopsy
report shows one bullet wound was superficial - no doubt caused by one of
the first rounds hitting the target. The autopsy report also shows that
the angle and direction of the remaining bullets shows that Tippit turned
toward the gunman as he continued to be hit. A diagram on p.242
illustrates this point. "With Malice" goes to considerable lengths to
explain *why* Tippit stopped Oswald, and how Tippit got caught off guard,
which resulted in his death.

Mr. Willis reiterates all of this, asking whether Tippit would have
"intentionally handicapped himself?" Well, of course not. However, these
are the facts of a rather sudden and tragic police shooting. Mr. Willis
claim that Tippit turned his back on someone he believed "might be a
suspect in the assassination of the President," is based on the *false*
assumption that Tippit considered Oswald a presidential assassin, and
"With Malice" says so. Tippits stop on Tenth Street has all the earmarks
of a *routine* stop based on suspicious actions by Oswald. Nothing more.
Mr. Willis isnt adding anything here, just restating what hes reading -
along with his own brand of conjecture and twisted logic.

Mr. Willis adds a curious question - apparently in an attempt to raise
more suspicion about the information in "With Malice":

>...Myers states that Tippit exited the squad car, "leaving the
>drivers door partially open." In all photos of the car that I've seen,
>the drivers-side door is closed. Who, supposedly, closed it?--
>Benavides, Bowley, Callaway?...

What is being questioned here? Whether the door was partially open when
Tippit left the car? (This was mentioned by more than one witness.)
Whether someone closed it before photos were taken? (We know of three
people who were in and out of Tippits car before police got there.
Presumably, investigating officers were also in and out of Tippits car.)
So what? This is another case of focusing on minutiae, rather than on the
facts that will help unravel the question of Oswalds guilt or innocence.
Isnt that really the point?

Installment (5) raises a question surrounding the angle at which Tippits
car was parked. This is an issue only because Mr. Willis imagines it so:

>...It was parked angled head *out* from the curb/alley,
>not parked *parallel* or *head in*, as I always imagined it
>must have been, if the story re Tippit pulling up alongside the
>suspect were accurate. This does not necessarily change the story,
>but it adds one more oddity unexplained...


From Mr. Willis fertile imagination comes an "oddity" that is so, simply
because Mr. Willis never thought of it before. (Huh?) This "head-out"
parking then becomes a reason to doubt the account of Tippit stopping a
man walking on the sidewalk. This "doubt" is apparently based on little
more than the fact that Mr. Willis finds the position of Tippits car
"odd." And some people wonder how these kind of silly allegations get
started. Next, Mr. Willis attempts to spin this "insight" into something
"meaningful":

>...the angling out of the car would seem to have made Tippit
>even *more* vulnerable to someone on the other side of the car...
>made him have to walk away from the suspect at an even greater angle...

Holy cow. The crime lab photo Mr. Willis refers to on page 162-63 of "With
Malice" shows Tippits car cantered at an angle of about 10-degrees
relative to the curb. This is the "great" angle that Mr. Willis sees as
forcing Tippit to walk "away" from the suspect. More minutiae.

Installment (6) questions the autopsy report on Tippits body,
specifically the wound to the head. Mr. Willis writes:

>...The Parkland autopsy report on Tippit states that wound #1 was
>traced from the right temple to a point "approximately 1 inch from
>the top of the head"...

Lets stop here. Considering that the full autopsy report was published in
"With Malice," one would think that Mr. Willis would get this right. He
doesnt. Heres what the report actually says:

"Examination of the wound of the right temple is made. It is found to
enter in the right middle cranial fossa, pursues a course which is
slightly upward, backward and to the left. There is fracturing about the
entrance and extensive fractures as it strikes the left occipito- parietal
bone. It is in this region, 3 inches to the left of the midline and
approximately 1 inch from the top of the head." ["With Malice" p420-21]

This is important, because after claiming that the bullet was recovered "1
inch from the top of the head," Mr. Willis goes on to say:

>...It then states that the missile "coursed through the brain transecting
>the brain stem"... which is impossible since the brain stem is nowhere
>near the right temple, & certainly not in between the right temple and
>a point 1 inch from the top rear left side of the head... The description
>of the entrance exit (sic)(?) from the brain totally precludes the
>severing of the brainstem...Why would someone doctor an autopsy report...?

The "someone" is presumably Dr. Earl F. Rose, who performed the autopsy.
Besides being a self-appointed Tippit "scholar," Mr. Willis now presents
himself as a medical expert. Yet, the facts presented in the autopsy
report (including an accompanying diagram) clearly show that the brainstem
*does* lie along the path described. Three dimensional diagrams presented
on pages 236-37 and 241 also show this relationship. Mr. Willis is also
apparently unaware of the kind of damage that a bullet (and its
accompanying pressure cavity) can cause in soft brain tissue. Consultation
with any medical text book or competent pathologist would have cleared up
any such confusion. Instead, Mr. Willis concocts a tale of a"doctored"
autopsy report (that is easily decoded by a person with no medical
training - Mr. Willis himself). This is the kind of evidence Mr. Willis
plans to rewrite history with. But, wait. The silliness continues:

>...the sentence in the autopsy report pertaining to the severing
>of the brain stem is written in the past tense"coursed." Its the
> only sentence so writtenthe rest is all in present tense...

Gee. Thats interesting (?) The meaning behind this sinister-sounding
wording is never explained by Mr. Willis. I suppose its simply another
"oddity" we should be concerned with.

Installment (7) concerns eyewitness Domingo Benavides, who is one of Mr.
Willis favorite whipping boys. Mr. Willis writes:

>...Myers accepts Domingo Benavides testimony that he was at
>the scene when Tippit was shot. The original officer reports of
>Dets. Leavelle & Graves, resp., suggest that Benavides came to
>the scene only after the shooting...

Actually the precise language in Leavelles report (Dhority is the other
officer, *not* Graves) is:

"Another witness who saw the officer lying in the street, but did not see
the suspect, was a Domingo Benavides..." ["With Malice" p449]

In the book, I relate how Benavides was driving up on the scene just as
the shooting took place, how he ducked down until the gunman had fled, how
he emerged from his truck and tried to use Tippits police radio, and how
he ultimately was involved in the recovery of 2 spent .38 hulls. These
facts, are supported by the testimony of *many* corroborating witnesses -
including Benavides. But, unlike Mr. Willis statement, the acceptance of
these facts does not rely on Benavides alone. In fact, there are many
problems with statements made by Benavides, but there is little doubt that
he *was* present at the time of the shooting.

Installment (8) centers on the observations of Dr. Liguori, who attended
Tippit when he was first brought to Methodist Hospital:

>...Myers notes that Dr. Liguori of Methodist Hospital "felt the shot in
>[Tippit's] temple could have caused instant death." Liguori, however,
>could not even find one of Tippits four (rather obvious/pp426, 428)
>wounds! Did Liguori even see the body??? And why does it seem that
>he did not...?

The fact that Liguori didnt mention one of Tippits four wounds in a
report dated November 29th, a week after the assassination, seems sinister
to Mr. Willis. The full account detailed in "With Malice" shows that
doctors pronounced Tippit DOA (dead on arrival). There was no medical
procedure performed on Tippit, and no reason for Liguori to examine the
body in detail. Yet, Mr. Willis twists a belated statement by Liguori into
an image of the good doctor unable to find - after careful examination -
all four wounds that were later described and photographed during the
autopsy. In Willisland, anything is possible, including the absurd.

Installment (9) centers on eyewitness Barbara J. Davis who stated that
Oswald was shaking shells out of the revolver as he passed her front door.
Virginia Davis gave similar testimony. "With Malice" points out that this
observation matches the situation that a gunman using a revolver like the
one Oswald was arrested with (i.e. firing undersized cartridges which
became snug in the cylinder) would have found himself in. This fact,
coupled with a considerable amount of other evidence showing the gunman
was firing a *revolver* rather than an automatic, points a damning finger
at Oswald. Mr. Willis dismisses Davis testimony because her observations
werent recorded until her appearance before the Warren Commission:

>...Plenty of time, then, to have her coached, after testing Oswalds
>revolver peculiarities...

This is not the first (or last) time that Mr. Willis claims that witnesses
were "coached" into giving false testimony. But, where is the evidence
that such coaching actually took place? By whom? When? Mr. Willis presents
this excerpt from the WC as an example of "coaching":

>...Ms. Davis forgot to mention the "shaking" until Rep. Gerald Ford prompted
>her: "You saw him take the shells out of the gun?" "No, sir. He was shaking
>them." [3H347]

Where is the "prompting" that Mr. Willis claims occurred? Ford asked for
clarification, and Davis explained what she saw. Mr. Willis "coaching"
charge is typical of assassination buffs who attempt to explain away
testimony and evidence by making an accusation that has no basis in fact.

I interviewed both Barbara and Virginia Davis extensively for "With
Malice." I was the first to contact them since their 1964 testimony. I do
not state this to be congratulated, but to point out that in the 35 years
during which both Davis girls have been attacked by assassination buffs,
not a single effort was made to talk with them directly. Am I the only one
that finds this odd? Buffs like Mr. Willis pretend to offer an alternative
view of the facts of the case, and insist it be given equal consideration.
Yet, upon examination, their "scholarly" studies amount to nothing more
than nit-picking the minutiae in the available record. Has Mr. Willis done
*any* original investigative work on the Tippit murder case? Or is his
"study" nothing more than armchair detective work, coated with a liberal
dose of twisted logic and factual manipulation? Lets examine another
chapter:

Installment (10) deals with cabdriver William Whaleys description of the
clothes Oswald was wearing during the ride to Oak Cliff. This is a classic
example of focusing on the smallest of details, while failing to
comprehend context.

In a section of "With Malice" dealing with physical evidence, I examined
the blue jacket found in the Book Depository two weeks after the
assassination. This jacket was later determined to be Oswalds, possibly
worn to work the morning of the assassination, and left behind during
Oswalds hasty flight. In the course of this examination, I briefly
recapped the testimony of all eyewitnesses who described Oswalds clothing
from the time he left Irving until his arrival at his room in Oak Cliff.
Whaley was among them. Some described Oswald after the assassination as
being only in shirtsleeves, others claimed he was wearing a jacket (the
color varies). I concluded:

"Like most of the testimony surrounding the assassination, the eyewitness
accounts of Oswalds clothing the day of the murder are rife with
inconsistencies. Thats not unusual considering that most of these
accounts were elicited many months after the assassination. The fact that
Oswalds blue jacket was found in the Depository after the assassination
strengthens the likelihood that - despite eyewitness recollections to the
contrary - it was the *blue* jacket that Oswald wore to the Depository the
morning of the shooting and that he returned to his room in shirt sleeves.
On the other hand, the somewhat convoluted eyewitness suggestion that
Oswald wore the *light gray jacket* to Irving on Thursday night, to work
the following morning, and to his Oak Cliff room after the assassination
remains a possibility. It may be that the blue jacket, later found in the
Depository, had been left behind on a previous occasion." ["With Malice"
p281]

Heres what Mr. Willis says about this:

>...On p281, Myers deals with cab driver William Whaleys WC
>testimony re the jacket Oswald was wearing. It seems a little odd
>that Myers would cite only his (admittedly confusing) *testimony*,
>but not his original, quite clear 11/23 statement made much closer
>to the time of the eventin it, he simply says that the "boy... had on a
>dark shirt with white spots of something on it." No jacket, blue, gray
>or polka-dotted...I have no idea why Whaley changed his mind later. His
>original shirt-no-jacket statement seques perfectly with the reports
>of other witnesses.
..

Mr. Willis last sentence is not quite true. Of five eyewitnesses who
claimed to have seen Oswald after he left the Depository, three said he
was wearing a jacket (including Whaley - albeit belatedly), the rest said
he was in shirt sleeves. Regardless, my concluding paragraph pointed out
the contradictory statements and the two possibilities that could be
gleaned from the evidence, depending on who you believe.

Mr. Willis focuses instead on what Whaley said initially, adding that "it
seems a little odd that Myers would cite only" his later testimony. This
is apparently meant to convey to Mr. Willis readers that I am being less
than truthful. Horse-hockey. Accepting Mr. Williss claim that Whaley said
that Oswald *wasnt* wearing a jacket in his initial statement (which is
*NOT* true) doesnt change anything - the collective eyewitness accounts
remain inconclusive. In fact, Whaleys statement says:

"..This boy was small, five feet eight inches, slender had on a dark shirt
with white spots of something on it. He had a bracelet on his left wrist.
He looked like he was 25 or 26 years old... [Whaley Affidavit, 11-23-63]

As you can see, Whaley doesnt mention *any* jacket. Mr. Willis *assumes*
that Whaley meant he had no jacket on, and then concludes Whaley "changed
his mind later." This kind of illogical reasoning is seen throughout Mr.
Willis writings. Using the same irrational logic, one could "conclude"
that Oswald wasnt wearing any trousers either - since Whaley also failed
to mention them in the 11/23 statement. But thats not likely, is it?

Installment (11) focuses on a truly *new* piece of evidence - a fiber link
found between Oswalds arrest shirt and the gray zipper jacket discarded
near the Tippit shooting scene. A 12/3/63 FBI lab report noted cotton
fibers were found among debris removed from the inside areas of the
sleeves of the discarded jacket and that these fibers matched in micro-
scopic characteristics the cotton fibers that made up Oswalds arrest
shirt. Mr. Willis mentions the fiber link then attempts to dismiss it:

>...But as with the *rifle/fiber* evidence, it can't be determined
>more closely than "the recent past" (WR/p125) exactly *when*
>the jacket and shirt last came into contact...

This is an assumption by Mr. Willis, and not based on anything in the
12/3/63 lab report. In fact, Mr. Willis analogy is incorrect - as shown
by the WR passage he cites. An FBI fiber expert told the WC that the
fibers caught in the crevice of the rifles butt plate "were clean, they
had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not
fragmented. They looked like they had just been picked up." (WR125) The
phrase, "in the recent past," relates to the fact that fibers might retain
the fresh appearance if the rifle had been put aside after catching the
fibers. Since the rifle had been stored in a blanket for about 8 weeks
prior to the assassination, and since the relative freshness of the fibers
might be explained by this storage, the WC was "unable to reach any firm
conclusion as to when the fibers were caught in the rifle." (WR125) The
WC did note that on the day of the shooting Oswald was wearing the shirt
that the fibers probably originated from. In the case of the gray zipper
jacket, there was no storage issue. The jacket was recovered within
30-minutes of the shooting, less than two blocks away, along the path the
gunman was known to have taken.

>...As Myers notes, the jacket "had been worn" by Oswald, but *when*...?...

The fibers found in the sleeves matched fibers that made up Oswalds
arrest shirt. I pointed out in "With Malice," that a microscopic
comparison cannot match fibers to a particular shirt to the exclusion of
other shirts made of the same material. But the implication is clear,
isnt it? Mr. Willis, and other buffs, would like conspiracy-thinkers to
believe there is an Oswald double running around wearing an identical
shirt made of the same material. But that idea really stretches credulity,
doesnt it? Especially in light of all of the other evidence which places
Oswald at the scene with the gun in his hand. Mr. Willis seems to
recognize this, and adds one final conspiratorial aside:

>..Moreover, that arrest shirt was quickly taken from Oswald,
>but, no, I dont want to suggest that the DPD or SS might have
>fabricated a little jacket contact *after* Oswald last wore the shirt...

Of course, Mr. Willis wouldnt want to suggest *that* (he did though,
didnt he?), because there is not a shred of evidence to support the
allegation, and Mr. Willis knows it. But, that doesnt keep Mr. Willis
from making the allegation and then run for cover. In the world of
assassination buffs, its okay to make an unsupported allegation and then
charge others with the responsibility of *proving* them wrong.

Frankly, I found the fiber evidence document disturbing for another
reason. The document, and other references to its contents, were found
among several very common Commission Documents (CD) which have been
available (and referred to by critics) since 1964. Curious, eh? Why
havent critics ever mentioned *this* document before?


Installment (12) focuses on another Willis-created "discrepancy," this
time surrounding eyewitness T. F. Bowley:

>...Supposedly, T F Bowleys 1st statement or affidavit came
>on 12/2/63...

"Supposedly," is a word youll frequently find in buff writings. Nothing
is factual according to the Willises of the world. (Makes you wonder
whether they believe Tippit was murdered at all, doesnt it? And if so,
what is the basis for their belief? Where does their acceptance of facts
begin?) Mr. Willis continues:

>...But a DPD Case Report in Myers (pp443+) states that Bowley "Gave
>affidavit," & the report would seem to have been composed *before*
>12/2, though the exact date is uncertain, & some entries were added
>later than others...

The only date on this case report appears on page one and refers to the
date that the murder charge was filed (11/22/63). The other pages
have no date. Mr. Willis first *assumes* that the page containing the
Bowley entry was written prior to his affidavit (12/2) and then infers
that Bowley may have given an earlier affidavit (Installment 12 titled:
Early Bowley Affidavit?). Here we are again, focusing on some detail
that in the broad scheme of things is irrelevant. Mr. Willis offers nothing
here, except a string of assumptions and conjectures that are designed
to conjure up images of document manipulation. But where are these
documents that have been fudged? Who altered them? Where is Bowleys
"missing" affidavit? Were never told. All of this conjecture is based on
an undated page from a case report that lists Bowley giving an affidavit
(which he did on 12/2/63).

Had Mr. Willis read page 85, he would have noted that on 11/22/63
Bowley was headed for a rendezvous with his family in order to go on
*vacation.* His trip was slightly delayed because of his stop at the
Tippit shooting scene. Now, you know *why* he didnt give a recorded
statement until 12/2/63. Thats something Mr. Willis should have known
if he had "studied" the book as he claims.

Installment (13) attempts to perpetuate one of the best known myths
about the Tippit shooting - the allegation that police found .38 caliber
*automatic* hulls at the shooting scene. This myth is largely based on
Sgt. Gerald Hills 1:41 p.m. radio transmission which stated:

"The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an
automatic 38, rather than a pistol." ["With Malice" p149]

The circumstances surrounding this issue are discussed in considerable
detail in "With Malice," and I dont propose to restate the facts here.
But, let me say that the evidence is quite clear that Hills statement
was based on an assumption he made *without* carefully examining
the evidence. Mr. Willis writes:

>...Dale Myers has been working on this project for some 20 years (as
>per the dust jacket), so I assume that if even *he* cannot explain away
>DPD Gerald Hills 1:41 radio message, then *no one else* can either...

Mr. Willis assumes quite a bit here, including that I am attempting to
"explain away" something sinister. I dont need to "explain away"
anything. The facts speak for themselves, loud and clear. He also assumes
that you my dear reader are too lazy to read "With Malice" for yourself,
and will simply take his word for it. Will you?

Frankly, its amazing to me that people like Mr. Willis can read the facts
I presented in "With Malice" on this issue, and still miss the point -
Hill is *not* credible on this issue. In the end, Hill has conceded that
his radio broadcast was an assumption. That may be the only part of
his story that has any credence, and I say that, because the evidence
surrounding this issue shows thats *exactly* what happened. Take Hills
answers over the years out of the equation, and *all* of the other
evidence shows Hills radio statement to be an assumption. This assump-
tion was apparently based on the fact that Officer Poe briefly showed him
shells that had been given to Poe by Benavides. Thats it folks. That
simple. Hill was shown the shells while they were inside a cigarette
package, and he assumed (without questioning witnesses) that they had
been kicked out of an automatic weapon. He walked over to a police radio
and reported his observation. The original meaning has been twisted over
the years to mean something completely different from what Hill intended.
Read that transmission again, and see if you can recognize Hills original
meaning.

Oh sure, Mr. Willis and others claim that other witnesses were
"coached," and some "lied," all to protect the "truth" of Hills radio
transmission. But where is the evidence of all this coaching and lying?
The only person caught with his pants down on this score was Hill. And
lets face it, its tough to eat a lot of crow when you make a boneheaded
statement like Hill did, based on an assumption. Tougher still when youre
a cop who should know better (a view shared by many DPD officers I
spoke with, who were not nearly as kind). Even tougher when the mistake
is magnified by buffs who just wont let this go - or come to their senses
- over the course of 35 years. But, Ill tell you - youll find plenty of
mistakes made in this case that ultimately boil down to personality
(surprise?), and this is one of them - maybe the granddaddy of them all.
If Mr. Willis had read this section carefully, and examined *all* of Hills
statements throughout (I created an index for this purpose), and scrut-
inized *all* of the facts surrounding these shells, he would see that it
*really couldnt have happened any other way.* The evidence simply
cannot be assembled into a believable scenario in which automatic hulls
are found, then replaced with revolver ammunition. This idea only exists
as a poorly conceived allegation that dissolves in the face of the facts.
I spent a good deal of time on this allegation and have assembled all of
the facts required for you dear reader to make a decision. I would have
been tickled pink to uncover solid evidence of police collusion. (What
journalist wouldnt?) But, its not there. And no one with a command of
the facts and an ounce of integrity can honestly support such an idea.
Read "With Malice," and see for yourself.

Installments (14) & (15) continue with an assault on other ballistic evi-
dence - the shells recovered by the Davis women. Here,Mr. Willis is at
his most manipulative. In (14) Mr. Willis quotes 11/22/63 and 12/1/63
statements by both Barbara and Virginia in which each claims to have
turned over the 4th shell recovered to DPD officers. Mr. Willis claims the
12/1/63 Secret Service statements are evidence of Secret Service
tampering, and cites both Virginia...

>...I later turned this shell over to the DPD... (CD87)

....and Barbara...

>...another spent cartridge case, which I later turned over to
>police... (CD87)

In installment (15) Mr. Willis writes:

>...No one noticed that there was an "I" for the same incident
>in *both* Davis SS affidavits
>---its easy to missjust as no one noticed the same discrepancy
>in their earlier statements...

Really? Did no one notice, or is it that *Mr. Willis* just missed
the boat? Lets see:

>...Although Dhoritys partner, Det. C.W. Brown, says that it was
>*Jeanette* who "handed my partner this spent shell" ("With
>Malice" p.223), Myers takes *Virginias* word ("With Malice"
>pp269, 370)  but theres no reason to believe either Davis, &
>every reason to believe that those involved in the conspiracy
>& cover-up had to backtrack a bit
...

Uh-oh. Theres that anonymous conspiracy rearing its ugly head again. But
before we jump off the diving board into the Willis drowning pool, lets
back up.

Virginia Davis found a 4th shell near the walk leading to her side door
("With Malice"  p266). The shell was wrapped in a Kleenex and placed on
the mantleboard (p266) in Jeanettes apartment. Jeanette phoned police at
about 6:50 p.m. and told them of the shell. She was asked if they could
come down to view a lineup. It was further requested that Virginia
accompany her. She agreed. On page 223 of "With Malice," I quoted the
testimony and report of one of the detectives dispatched to the Davis
home, C.W. Brown:

"Lieutenant Wells ordered my partner, C.N. Dhority and I to go to the
Davis residence where Mrs. Barbara Davis handed my partner this spent
hull at approximately 7 p.m., that evening. The shell was brought to the
Homicide and Robbery Bureau, along with the Davis women, by myself and
Detective Dhority. We turned the shell over to the crime lab and took
affidavits from the women while waiting for a lineup." ["Malice" p223]

On page 269, I quoted an FBI report which notes that Detective Dhority
correctly identified Q75 as the shell given him by Virginia Davis. The
source was Dhority, *not* Virginia Davis as Mr. Willis claims above. This
is easily determined by checking the endnotes, which provides the source.
Or didnt Mr. Willis read the book? In the end, why all this hub-bub?

Mr. Willis is trying to make something out of nothing. Barbara and
Virginia both claim to have given the shell to police. In a sense, they
are correct. The shell was retrieved by Virginia and placed on the
mantleboard in Jeanettes apartment for safe keeping. Jeanette informed
police via telephone. When they arrived both Jeanette and Virginia were
present, since they were returning to HQ with the detectives and the
shell. Does it really matter who handed the shell to the officer? It is
clear from all accounts that the shell was *found* by Virginia. It is also
clear that Dhority (who handled the shell) was able to identify it later
when questioned by the FBI. A second detective on the scene verifies the
account. Where is the mystery?

Mr. Willis attaches undo importance to the wording of these statements
and then spins a web of deceit and deception that would humble the leading
fiction writer. According to the conclusions of Mr. Willis:

>... neither Davis found a shell, that both were enlisted to promote
>the idea that hulls had been scattered all about 10th & Patton...In
>fact, the Davises seem to have been afterthoughts, as both wit-
>nesses *and* shell-seekers...

In typical fashion, Mr. Willis offers nothing of substance to support
these allegations. How were the Davis women enlisted? When were their
stories coordinated? Who coached them? Where is the evidence to support
these claims? Mr. Willis doesnt seem to know.

Installment (16) suggests that officials played hanky-panky with the slugs
removed from Tippits body during the autopsy. The permit for the autopsy
instructs the Medical Examiner (Dr. Earl F. Rose) to turn any missiles
over to the Dallas Crime Lab. Mr. Willis writes:

>..The judges order was not obeyed...

Really? The missiles *were* removed by Dr. Rose and given to DPD Det-
ective Frank Corkey, who signed a receipt for them on 11/22/63 ("With
Malice" p432). The slugs were later located in the Tippit murder files in
Homicide & Robbery. Mr. Willis claims that Corkey took them there...

>..in direct disregard of the judges orders...

But, where is the evidence that Corkey ever saw the autopsy permit?
More important, the permit was directed at Dr. Rose, *not* Detective
Corkey. Isnt Dr. Roses obligation fulfilled once he turns over the slugs to
a DPD detective, who will take them to the DPD? Once again, Mr. Willis
prefers to focus on minutiae that doesnt amount to much. Mr. Willis also
claims that:

>...Rose apparently knew that Corkey was taking the slugs to Homicide
>rather than the Crime Lab...

All because Rose later suggested that perhaps the slugs (which had been
misplaced) were in Captain Fritzs office. Is this collusion, as Mr.
Willis states? Or is this a medical examiner trying to be helpful?

The three missiles given to Detective Corkey were placed in the files in
Homicide. There they remained until March, 1964, when - during the
Warren Commission investigation - the FBI was asked to run ballistic
tests on the three remaining slugs. This was due to the fact that tests
run on the initial slug removed at Methodist Hospital proved inconclusive.
Nothing sinister here. Just the WC tying up loose ends as part of their
mandate to investigate the circumstances surrounding the assassination.
Remember, the DPD investigation into the Tippit murder effectively ended
when their prime suspect - Lee Harvey Oswald - was killed by Jack Ruby.

The FBI contacted Dr. Rose and found that he had turned the missiles over
to the DPD. The FBI called the DPD Crime Lab and found they had no record
of receiving the slugs. The Crime Lab suggested that perhaps Captain
Fritzs office had them. The FBI contacted Fritz who had his men search
for a record of the slugs - Fritz did not recall receiving them. Later
that afternoon, Fritz contacted the FBI and notified them that the three
missiles had been located in his files and were being released
immediately. All of this information is in "With Malice" (p495-96). The
evidence clearly shows the slugs were filed in Homicide - without a paper
record - rather than turned over to the DPD Crime Lab. This fact was
uncovered when FBI officials wanted to run ballistic tests on the
remaining slugs - the *first* such request since the shooting. What does
Mr. Willis conclude?

>..The 3 Tippit slugs  so important that they had to be diverted from the
>lab...so unimportant that Homicide misfiled them. Put the two halves of
>this seriocomic tale together, & they suggest that Homicide *wanted*
>the 3 slugs to be lost...

Diverted? Misfiled? Hardly. If anything,the record shows a DPD detective
taking the slugs to Homicide and placing them in the file without making a
record of his action. How does *that* show that the DPD *wanted* the 3
slugs "lost," as Mr. Willis charges? Mr. Willis is suggesting that the
evidence was tampered with, but was it?

The 3 slugs - when tested by the FBI - *also* turned out to be in-
conclusive. They may or may not have been fired in Oswalds revolver to
the exclusion of all other weapons. But, wait a minute. If the cops were
going to frame Oswald by tampering with the evidence (as Mr. Willis
implies), then why didnt they turn over slugs that could be matched to
Oswalds revolver to the *exclusion of all other weapons*? Mr. Willis
doesnt explain this, does he? Instead he charges:

>...In effect, then, they [the slugs] disappeared [from 11/22/63]
>until 3/13/64.
..

Isnt this plenty of time to "create" more definitive proof of Oswalds
guilt? That *is* what Mr. Willis is implying, isnt it? But, where is the
evidence of such a "creative process?"  Who was involved? What exactly
was done that could be considered "tampering?" Once again, Mr. Willis is
silent. Plenty of unsubstantiated charges, yet nothing but vapor when it
comes to answers.

Installment (17) calls into question the handling of the body at Methodist
Hospital. Mr.  Willis claims that Dr. Moellenhoff had compromised the
autopsy (later performed at Parkland) by:

>...rooting around in Tippits body for a bullet for the lab...

What nonsense. Mr. Willis knows (he did read my book, right?) that the
bullet removed by Moellenhoff was the one that had struck one of Tippits
uniform buttons (it was still wrapped around the bullet) and had created a
superficial wound in the abdomen. In fact, the bullet hadnt even
penetrated the ribcage, and was easily plucked out with a pair of
hemostats. ("With Malice" p198) Mr. Willis continues with another silly
accusation:

>...Despite the extensive documentation for the Tippit killing which
>Myers provides, there is no paperwork at all from Methodist, although
>at least 2 medical procedures were done there...

What two medical procedures? Tippit was wheeled in and declared DOA
immediately. Extensive examination wasnt even required. Both doctors
could see - and reported - that Tippit had been shot in the head. After
being asked, Dr. Moellenhoff removed an easily accessible slug from
Tippits abdomen for ballistic tests. All of this was reported by Dr.
Liguori to the FBI and appears in "With Malice."(p485)

Mr. Willis points out discrepancies in the number of wounds Tippit
received (as reported by the Methodist doctors in various documents)
then concludes:

>...What to make of all this? Not to put too fine a point on it, but either
>Liguori & Moellenhoff did not see Tippits body...or the latter would seem
>to have picked up an additional wound between Methodist & Parkland.
>Radical notion...?

Oh, sure. Tippit was shot *again* during transport to Parkland for the
autopsy. Radical notion, Mr. Willis asks? Ill leave that one to you dear
reader.

Installments (18) & (19) continue with Mr. Willis farcical look at the
Methodist Hospital events. This time, Mr. Willis keys on the movements
of DPD Captain C.E. Talbert. Mr. Willis writes:

>..."at 1:30 p.m. by request of Capt. Talbert, Dr. Paul Moellenhoff removed
>a bullet from Officer Tippits stomach so identification could be made as to
>the caliber of the gun used in the shooting ("With Malice" p486). As Myers
>chronology of the events that afternoon in Oak Cliff demonstrates, such a
>scenario  or timing of same  is impossible: About 1:30 p.m., Talbert is
>only enroute to the shooting scene in Oak Cliff...and only after 2:03 p.m.
>does *Myers* have Talbert finally arriving at Methodist ("With Malice"
>p198... In other words, Myers provides a fine corrective to the impos-
>sible time given in the supplementary report. However, he misses the
>dismaying implications of this suggested *later* time...

Mr. Willis goes on to claim that removing the slug after 2:00 p.m. to
determine the caliber of weapon was not necessary because Sgt. Hills
1:41p.m. radio transmission had already determined that. We have
already dealt with Hills radio broadcast above (see: Installment 13).
Mr. Willis concludes:

>But of course, Davenport & Bardin *must* put a time of about
>1:30 p.m...because any time *later* than 1:40 p.m. exposes the
>[removal of a slug from Tippit at Methodist] as...fiction. Myers
>exposes the fiction, & does not even realize it, apparently...

Uh-oh. Ive unwittingly exposed another conspiracy factoid. The only
"fiction" being exposed here is Mr. Willis account of what happened in
Oak Cliff. Mr. Willis writes that:

>...Long before 2 oclock, the caliber of the weapon had been determined,
>and Talbert was right there. There was no reason to dig a bullet out of
>Tippit...

Mr. Willis is referring to Hills 1:41 p.m. radio transmission from the
scene and film footage taken at the scene (beginning at about 1:42 p.m.)
which shows Talbert present. Yet, we know Hills transmission was based
on an assumption. We also know Hill left the scene immediately and walked
west on Tenth to the Abundant Life Temple. We dont know precisely when
Talbert arrived at the scene (the timing of the footage cannot be more
precise than "about 1:42 p.m."). Its certainly possible that Talbert and
Hill didnt cross paths at the scene. We know that Talbert did question
witnesses (unlike Hill) and knew that the accounts suggested a person
armed with a revolver. Still, none of this information is definitive. A
definitive determination about the caliber of the weapon could *only* be
determined by extracting a slug from Tippits body. This is elementary
police work.

Mr. Willis, however, favors unamed "conspirators" at work:

>...The FBI was breathing down the necks of the conspirators. Even before
>the autopsy, *some* procedure  not necessarily medical  had to be per-
>formed on Tippits body to ensure that the FBI got its pistol/slug match:
>The conspirators --rather than the generally well-meaning FBIhad to
>maintain complete control of the investigation. They had to controlthru
>the DPDwhat was delivered to the FBI...

Huh?  Are the conspirators FBI? DPD? Doctors? All of the above? Mr.
Willis doesnt make it very clear, does he? But then, you really cant be
very clear when you have no evidence, can you?

Installment (20) shifts focus to eyewitness Ted Callaway. I consider
Callaway one the best eyewitnesses, and had this case gone to trial,
Callaways testimony alone would have convicted Oswald. Mr. Willis,
on the other hand, prefers to dismiss Callaways observations - indeed,
Mr. Willis *needs* to dismiss Callaways well supported account if he is
to convince his readers that Oswald is innocent. Curiously, Mr. Willis
cant seem to make up his mind whether Callaway is at the scene or not.

I mentioned in an endnote in "With Malice," that Callaway claimed that he
contacted the DPD dispatcher because he didnt think anybody had reported
it. In fact, Callaways use of the radio occurred *after* T.F. Bowley had
called in. Further, Callaway was at the scene when this call was made. Mr.
Willis writes:

>..Myers analysis here appears only in endnotes, & he leaves it at that...

This is Mr. Willis way of dickering with the layout of the book. But, so
what? The discrepancy *is* in the book, isnt it? Mr. Willis continues:

>...Callaway could *not* have made the call at the time which he testi-
> fied that he did...

Wait a minute. Not only *could* he have made the call, the radio tapes
*prove* he did. Mr. Willis adds:

>...and there was *no reason to make the call*...by 1:20 p.m.the time of
> Callaways
>supposed callthe ambulance had been there and was going!...Why call for
> help which had already arrived?...

Mr. Willis doesnt seem to understand that Callaway was using Tippits
police radio to notify the *Dallas Police* of the shooting, not to call
for an "ambulance." I pointed out that DPD Officer Kenneth Croy had
arrived at the scene at about the time of this transmission in an unmarked
car. Mr. Willis questioned whether it was reasonable that Callaway didnt
see Croy. Considering the chaotic circumstances, I think that is *exactly*
what happened, and said so in "With Malice." Mr. Willis doesnt convey any
of this to his readers. In fact, Callaway left the scene with Tippits gun
while Croy was present. I wrote:

"The fact that Callaway was able to leave with Tippits gun while Officer
Croy was present is a testament to the chaos that pervaded the crime
scene during these initial moments. Its easy to see how it could have hap-
pened, considering that Officer Croy had driven to the scene in his own
car and had immersed himself in the gathering crowd immediately upon
his arrival. Callaway, who was apparently unaware of the officers pre-
sence, took it upon himself to take charge of the scene. In fact, his bold
attitude and actions caused some to believe he was a lawman."
["With Malice" pp111-12]

Other information presented in "With Malice" paints a very clear
personality profile of Callaway, which explains why Callaway did a lot of
things that day. Mr. Willis wont tell you, but you can read it yourself,
and make up your own mind.

Installment (21) focuses on a detail of Callaways story in an effort to
discredit him further. Mr. Willis claims here that eyewitnesses T.F.
Bowley & Ted Callaway, and ambulance attendants Eddie Kinsley &
J.C. Butler *all* claim to have "rolled [Tippit] onto his back." Mr.
Willis asks:

>..Did anyone or everyone roll Tippit over on his back?...

Mr. Willis states that Bowley told the HSCA in 1977 - 15 years after
the fact - that he rolled Tippit onto his back immediately after arriving
at the scene. Yet when ambulance attendants Kinsley and Butler arrived,
they said Tippit was lying on his left side, face down, his right arm under
his body in such a way that his right shoulder was raised off the pavement
of the street. Eyewitnesses Tatum & Callaway both described Tippit in
this same position when they arrived at the scene. Originally (12/2/63),
Bowley simply told authorities that "the first thing I did was try to help
the officer. He appeared beyond help to me." ("With Malice" p521) Was
this a reference to Bowley "rolling Tippit onto his back?" Not according
to three other witnesses. Yet, Bowley *was* present when it is known
(by three other accounts) that Tippit *was* rolled onto his back (in the
moment immediately before Tippit was placed on a stretcher). Is *this*
what Bowley is describing to the HSCA 15-years later? Mr. Willis doesnt
explain this, yet the facts are all presented in "With Malice. Mr. Willis
goes on to quote Callaway, as if his testimony to the WC contradicts
Bowleys:

>...Meanwhile Callaway testifies, "I kind of rolled
> [Tippit] over..." (3H354)

Yet, the *complete* passage from Callaways testimony makes clear
that Callaway is referring to the moment he helped Kinsley and Butler
load Tippits body into the ambulance:

        "...By this time an ambulance was coming. The officer was
        laying on his left side, his pistol was underneath him. I kind
        of rolled him over and took his gun out from under him...I
        picked the gun up and laid it on the hood of the squad car,
        and then someone put it in the front seat of the squad car.
        Then, after I helped load Officer Tippit in the ambulance,
        I got the gun out of the car..." [3H354]

The "someone" who moved the gun from the hood to the car seat was
Bowley:

        "...Someone picked the pistol up and laid it on the hood of
        the squad car. When the ambulance left, I took the gun and
        put it inside the squad car..." ["With Malice" p521]

Bowley told the HSCA in 1977 that he saw the gun laying under the
officer and:

 "...picked the weapon up and placed it *on the front seat of the scout
car...*"
                         [HSCA RIF 180-10113-10400, p.2 Emphasis added]

Mr. Willis prefers to "interpret" Bowleys 1977 remarks to mean that
Bowley removed the gun from *underneath Tippits body* - although he
never quite says that. In fact, to convince the reader that this is so, Mr.
Willis *rewrites* what Bowley said to include this detail:

>...Bowley completely ellipses Callaway; He says that he himself "picked
>the weapon up," off the ground, & "placed it on the front seat of the
>scout car..."

Is *that* what Bowley said? Compare Mr. Willis rewrite with the quote
above and judge for yourself.

The fact of the matter is that by Bowleys *own* earlier account - which
is corroborated by Callaway - the gun was moved to the hood by "someone
else" (Callaway), and *then* put inside the squad car by himself (Bowley).
Mr. Willis believes Bowleys 1977 testimony impeaches Callaway, when -
if anything - it undermines Bowleys own latter recollection. Even Mr.
Willis rewrite cant hide the truth.

Next, Mr. Willis states that the autopsy report indicates Tippit "fell on
his back," and that "no one had to turn him over.." The fact that this bit
of conjecture conflicts with his earlier accusations seems to escape Mr.
Willis. No matter. All accounts say Tippit fell *forward* and landed face
down, lying somewhat on his left side - his feet near the left front tire,
his head angled out toward the center of the road. Crime scene photographs
of the blood splotch confirm this posture. So much for this chapter of Mr.
Willis double-talk.


Installment (22) continues the assault on eyewitness Ted Callaway by
challenging Callaways statements regarding his actions after returning to
the crime scene with Tippits pistol:

>...In the text, Myers states (based on a 64 FBI interview with Callaway)
>that Callaway "turned Tippits service revolver over to Officer Kenneth
>Croy..."

Actually, the text is based on Callaways affidavit *and* Croys WC
testimony, as the endnotes to this section clearly point out. Inaccuracies
aside, Mr. Willis notes that on page 303 of "With Malice," a 1996
interview quotes Callaway stating:

>..."When I got out of the cab, I didnt hesitate a bit, like a lot of
>guys would. I walked straight to this plainclothes officer [wearing
>hat & glasses] and I said, Heres the officers pistol. He said, Okay,
>thank you very much. In an endnote (p653), Myers (who did half his
>homework here) states, "The officer Callaway described [in a 1996
>interview] fits crimelab Sgt. W.E. Barnes." A very forcefully sketched
>scene, this however, Myers says that Callaway returned to 10th at
>about 1:23 (p385), & Barnes did not get to the scene until 1:42
>(pp150-51)! (The half of the homework left undone...) Unwittingly,
>Myers neatly eliminates *Barnes* as the recipient of the pistol...

Unwittingly? Yet, that *is* how I wrote it, right? Callaway returns to
the scene at about 1:24 p.m. (p385), and turns the gun over to Croy -
*not* Barnes, as Callaway remembered 33 years later. What part of this
doesnt Mr. Willis understand?

Mr. Willis then shifts gears and claims that I "unwittingly" show that
Callaway couldnt have been the source of Howell Summers radio trans-
mission describing an "eyeball witness" who saw the gunman carrying
a ".32 dark finish automatic pistol." As "With Malice" shows, Summers
transmission occurred at 1:37:28 p.m. Mr. Willis writes:

>...Callaway says that he returned to the scene at 1:23 p.m....

Lets stop here, a moment. Actually, Callaway says nothing of the sort.
The time reconstruction is based on *my* analysis - and the figure is
about 1:24 p.m. Not necessarily critical here, but I prefer accuracy. Mr.
Willis continues:

>...and promptly returned Tippits pistol: "After that I walked right
>back to the lot." As Myers adds, Callaway "didnt talk to police..." (p303)

Again, a little accuracy. On page 303, I wrote: "Scoggins later testified
that he didnt talk to police either, after returning to the scene."
Callaways 1996 claim that he returned immediately to the car lot *infers*
that he didnt talk to police, yet Scoggins is the only one who
*testified* so. Mr. Willis rewrite implies to the reader that either
Callaway made the statement, or that I believed Callaways statement to be
true. In fact, neither is correct. Ill address this in a moment. For now,
lets see what Mr. Willis concludes from all this:

>...The witness, then, who "didnt talk to police," at the scene, at
>1:23, & promptly departed same, is ---elsewhere in Myers---giving
>a policeman at the scene a "detailed description of the killer & his gun"
>at 1:36! Just as Callaway seemed to fade out of accounts of action
>involving Benavides, Bowley, Croy, Barnes, Butler, & Kinsley, so (with
>help from Myers) is he slowly fading out of the scene with Summers &
>his 2 witnesses..."

Mr. Willis entire argument *hinges* on his acceptance of Callaways 1996
statement - that Callaway returned to the scene, delivered the pistol, and
immediately returned to the used car lot. Ironic, isnt it? In order for
Mr. Willis to dismiss Callaways account, he must *believe* him. Anyone
with a copy of "With Malice" can easily see that it is Mr. Willis who has
failed to do his "homework."

The true chronology of events, as documented in "With Malice," looks
like this:

        1:24:00+   Callaway & Scoggins return to scene with
                    Tippits pistol.

The pistol is no doubt given to Kenneth Croy, who later turns it over
to other officers, as he testified.

        1:37:28    H.W. Summers radios about having two witnesses
                   to the shooting at 404 Tenth Street. One is an
                   "eyeball witness" who saw the gunman carrying
                   a ".32 dark finish automatic pistol."

An interview I conducted with Summers, determined *once and for all*
who these witnesses were: Helen Markham and Ted Callaway. Callaway
was the "eyeball witness" who gave Summers the detailed description of
the gun. *Why* Callaway mistakenly thought it was an automatic weapon
is described in considerable detail in "With Malice," (pp256-58) with
accompanying endnotes as to the sources. Instead of giving merit, Mr.
Willis writes:

>...Myers believes that Callaway was the "eyeball witness"---there are
>in fact only 3 possibilities here...3 men who positively IDd Oswald the
>weekend of 11/22/63 Callaway, Scoggins, & Guinyard...

It is not *my* belief, as Mr. Willis writes, but the primary sources
(Summers and Callaway) who clearly lay out the truth of this matter.
Mr. Willis then *assumes* there are only three people (one of which
*is* Callaway) who could possibly be the "eyeball witness." But, what
of other unknown witnesses, who never came forward? Can we really
assume we know the names of all those who might have interacted with
police? Look at the photos of the crime scene in "With Malice." Do we
know the names of all those depicted? Didnt eyewitness Jack Tatum
become known 15 years after the fact - and *only* after his boss not-
ified HSCA investigators? Why cant buffs, like Mr. Willis, accept the
facts, when they are clearly and demonstratively presented?

        1:42:00   Crime Lab Sergeant W.E. Barnes arrives
                  at Tenth and Patton.

This is the entry that has Mr. Willis confused. According to the way Mr.
Willis sees it, Callaway returns at 1:24 p.m. and gives Tippits pistol to
Barnes, who doesnt arrive until 1:42 p.m. (Yikes!) Mr. Willis supports
this contention by quoting and accepting Callaways 1996 remarks about
his return to the used car lot. Yet, Mr. Willis doesnt tell his readers the
*context* in which Callaways 1996 remarks appear in "With Malice."

In a section detailing the claim that Oswalds wallet was recovered at the
Tippit murder scene (evidence clearly shows the wallet *not* to be
Oswalds arrest wallet), a number of possible owners of the wallet are
explored. One of those was Callaway, who seemed a likely candidate,
because of his handling of Tippits gun. I wrote:

"...Moments after the shooting, used car manager, Ted Callaway took
Tippits service revolver and convinced cab driver William Scoggins to
pursue the gunman. Scoggins testified in 1964 that he was under the false
impression that Callaway was a plainclothes detective. The pair
encountered a Dallas scout car during their search and were ordered to
return to the scene. There, Callaway turned over Tippits pistol to an
investigating officer. Within minutes, WFAA-TV photographer Ron Reiland
was filming officers holding the pistol and the wallet. The suggestion is
that Callaways free use of Tippits revolver might have sparked police to
check his identification upon his return to the murder scene. Yet Callaway
says it never happened. "When I got out of the cab," Callaway recalled in
a 1996 interview, "I didnt hesitate a bit like a lot of guys would. I
walked straight to this plainclothes officer [wearing hat and glasses] and
I said, Heres the officers pistol. He said, Okay, thank you very
much. After that I walked right back to the lot." Scoggins later
testified that he didnt talk to police either, after returning to the
scene..." ["With Malice" p302-303]

There is no conclusion drawn as to whether the wallet seen in WFAA-TV
footage was Callaways or not. The possibility was raised, Callaways
comments were noted, and the rest is left to the reader. An important
endnote was added to aid the reader in determining Callaways reliability
on this matter and how his 1996 comment might fit into the chronology of
events:

"Note: The officer Callaway described fits crime lab Sergeant W.E.
Pete Barnes."  [Endnote #835, "With Malice" p653]

Rather than question Callaways remark, Mr. Willis accepts as fact that
Callaway "walked right back to the lot" and didnt interact with police.
Then, despite evidence to the contrary, Mr. Willis dismisses the fact that
Summers spoke to Callaway at 1:37:28 p.m., or that Callaway was at the
scene when Barnes and Leavelle arrived at 1:42 p.m. Does that seem
reasonable?

In his 2/26/64 statement to the FBI, Callaway said that he "turned
Tippits gun over to Dallas police officers who were at the scene and told
them what he knew about the shooting." [CD735 p.263] Doesnt that mean
that Callaway *did* remain at the scene?

Isnt this fact supported by Summers 1:37:28 p.m. radio transmission,
whose source was revealed - by Summers himself - to be Callaway?

Isnt it also supported by the fact that Jim Leavelles report of the invest-
igation ("With Malice" p449) mentions Leavelle speaking to Callaway
*at the scene* shortly after Leavelles arrival at 1:42 p.m.?

Isnt it further supported by the fact that Callaway - despite his belated
claim that he returned immediately to the used car lot - accurately
described Crime Lab Sergeant Pete Barnes, who also didnt arrive at the
scene until 1:42 p.m.?

The weight of the evidence shows - and Callaways own contemporary
statement agrees - that Callaway *did* remain at the scene of the shoot-
ing and conversed with police. In fact, Callaways claim that the wallet at
the scene could not be his because he left the scene, must be given some
doubt given these facts.

Particularly baffling to me is how anyone could read "With Malice" and
come away failing to grasp these simple facts. Mr. Willis charges that I
did "half my homework," regarding this matter, and once again have
"unwittingly" diminished the importance of Callaways role. Ill let you
dear reader decide who hasnt done his homework.

Installment (23) & (24) finds Mr. Willis conjuring up even more testi-
mony manipulations in order to convince the reader that it was actually
cabdriver *Scoggins* who took Tippits gun and pursued Oswald (not
Callaway), and that Scoggins returned and was grilled by police.
Eventually - according to Mr. Willis - it is *Scoggins* wallet that we
see being handled by police in the WFAA-TV footage. Mr. Willis sees
Callaway as being a stooge for the conspirators. His role is to take
credit for the actions of Scoggins so that official investigators wont
find out the "truth." (Huh?) Willis explains:

>...The Suborners took no chancesWC counsel might question
>... Callaway...till they were blue in the face, but they would
>get no where... with the "dark finish automatic" because...Callaway
>did not know the truth it could not come out accidentally, under
>pressure. As it happened, neither [Callaway or Officer Haygood -
>who is also portrayed as a stooge] were questioned or pressured
>re [this and other] key radio-log phrases. Probably, both had their
>prepared stories ready, but Haygood never told his...while Callaway
>eventually did get to use *his* handy-dandy "loading the automatic"
>explanation ("With Malice p78)...

This is the "story" Callaway is supposed to have pawned off on the HSCA
in 1978 and this author in 1986 - all for the "good" of his coverup buddies.
So, where is all the evidence to support this malarkey? Who forced
Callaway to play this role? How was it accomplished? Mr. Willis doesnt
say, does he? Yet, Mr. Willis claims to know why:

>...Summers suspect does not *sound* as if it were Oswald --
>*wavy* hair, *automatic* weapon. To divert attention from
>this unknown gunman, the words ".32..automatic" had to be
>neutralized, defused, & they were, thru subornation of perjury
>of several witnesses...

This speculative dissertation contains an equal lack of facts to support
it. No matter. Mr. Willis plunges forward with his version of how
Callaways role as coverup stooge is inadvertently exposed:

>...When Callaway and Scoggins (so the story goes) returned
>to 10th, Officer Croy testifies, "I took Tippits gun, & several
>officers came up & I turned the cabdriver over to them & they
>questioned him." ("With Malice" p119) Now, Myers holds that
>Croy confused Callaway with Scoggins (p119). But a man dressed
>like a Secret Service agent  in "blue suit & coat" (p112) i.e.,
>Callawayis not very likely to be confused with a cab driver...

My point was that Croys testimony to the WC in 1964 shows he is clearly
confused about the chain of events regarding Tippits pistol being taken
from the scene. [12H202] This was not a confusion about what Callaway
and Scoggins were wearing - as painted in Mr. Willis twisted version.
This was about Croy not fully understanding *who* took the gun, and why.
Croy simply turned the men over to other officers for questioning.

What Mr. Willis doesnt tell his readers is that "With Malice" documents -
*by all other accounts* - that *Callaway* was the one who took Tippits
gun and commandeered Scoggins cab. Not the other way around. And
certainly not Scoggins acting on his own. We know that they left the scene
together, and returned together. There is no evidence or testimony that
Callaway ever relinquished control of the gun to Scoggins, who was busy
operating the cabs manual transmission. Yet, Mr. Willis maintains that
Scoggins is the lone gun-toter.

In an odd twist, Mr. Willis then  adds *Officer Croy* (?) to the list of
conspirators:

>...Croy seems to have been carefully coached on the one point that
>*Callaway* gave him the gun; after all, Callaway-&-the-pistol is an
>essential part of the Tall Tales of Oak Cliff...

Wait a minute. Isnt Mr. Willis claiming that * Scoggins* is the one who
turned over the gun? And that this fact was revealed by Croys testimony?
In fact, Croy never says Callaway (or Scoggins) gave him the gun - only
that Croy "took Tippits gun," and turned the cabdriver over to officers
for questioning. A moment later - adding even more confusion - Mr. Willis
tell us that it is *Croys* testimony that finally exposes the truth:

>...However, Croy..on his own...goes one devastating step further
>and reverts to the apparent truth...

According to Mr. Willis own "tall tale," Croy is both covering up *and*
exposing the truth - all at the same time. Mr. Willis concludes from this
hodgepodge of twisted testimony that:

>...*Scoggins* returned the gun...

Despite *all* evidence to the contrary.

>...*Scoggins* was turned over to the officers...[and] questioned
>by same...

Despite Scoggins *own* testimony that he didnt give a statement to
officers at the scene. And finally, that:

>...*Scoggins* gave officers his wallet...

It is therefore, Scoggins wallet - according to Mr. Willis - that was
captured on WFAA-TV film. And how does, Mr. Willis arrive at this
brainstorm? First, he writes:

>...Myers comes closer [to establishing the owner of the wallet], but
>finally dismisses the intriguing idea that the wallet "belonged to one
>of the eye-witnesses [specifically Callaway] who chased after Tippit's
>killer in a cab...("With Malice" p302)

Anyone who reads "With Malice" (pp302-303) can see that the idea is
*not* "dismissed." As I explained earlier, the possibility was raised,
and the facts laid bare. The rest was left to the reader. Frankly, there is
not enough evidence to come to a firm conclusion one way or the other.
At this date, the wallet seen in the WFAA-TV footage could be *any-
bodys.* The only wallet that has been eliminated from among the pos-
sibilities is Oswalds arrest wallet.

Mr. Willis claims the wallet is Scoggins. But, how does he arrive at this
conclusion? First, Mr. Willis claims that a second officer confirms that
Tippits gun was taken by Scoggins:

>...But Croy was the not the *only* DPD officer to suggest
>that it was *Scoggins*, not Callaway, who took & returned
>the revolver: "Summers joined Croy & began questioning witnesses.
>The 2 officers were told that a cabdriver had picked up Tippits gun &
>had left the scene." ("With Malice" p112, authors interview of Howell
>W. Summers, 3-28-83)...

Mr. Willis cites a line from my book and claims Summers is the second
officer who supports Croy. Here is the entire passage I wrote:

"..1:21 p.m. - The second police officer to arrive at the crime scene
pulled up behind Tippits abandoned patrol car. Officer Howell W. Summers
had known J.D. Tippit very well and thought him to be an exceptionally
nice officer. Summers joined Croy and began questioning witnesses. The
two officers were told that a cabdriver had picked up Tippits gun and had
left the scene."

An endnote appeared at the end of this paragraph which cited an interview
I conducted with Summers in 1983, and a lengthy explanation about the
arrival of Summers at the scene. In fact, the endnote citation refers to
Summers description about his arrival at the scene. He never mentioned
a cabdriver once during our conversation.

The line: "The two officers were told that a cabdriver had picked up
Tippits gun and had left the scene" - comes from *Croys* testimony,
not Summers interview.

How do we know that Croy and Summers were together? Because Croy
says so:

"...just after I located a witness [Markham], the squad [Summers] did
get there..." [12H201]

How do we know that the "squad" was Summers? Croy testified that the
other officers who arrived on the scene worked in Oak Cliff. [12H202]
Summers was such an officer. (So was Officer Roy Walker - the third to
arrive on the scene). We know that Summers was the second officer to
arrive at the scene, and therefore the squad referred to by Croy.

We know that both officers immediately questioned Helen Markham which
puts them in close proximity to each other. Croy testified that during this
time he was told by witnesses at the scene that "a cabdriver had picked
up Tippits gun and had left, presumably. They [the witnesses] dont know
whether he [the cabdriver] was the one that had shot Tippit, or whether
the man [the cabdriver], I think it was he, brought someone [Callaway?]
out there, something..." [12H202] Croys convoluted testimony clearly
details eyewitnesses at the scene attempting to relate how Callaway
had left with Tippits gun in Scoggins cab. This early version was clearly
given to Croy before Callaway/Scoggins returned - at a time when
Summers was at the scene and in close proximity to Croy. Hence, the
passage as it appears in the book.

In the end, the excerpt that Mr. Willis cites from "With Malice" as
another officer supporting Croys suggestion is - in fact - *Croy,*
himself.

The "evidence" that Mr. Willis produces to support his assumptions
continually turns out to be distorted versions of my book, mixed with a
great deal of fanciful speculation. From this kind of "study," Mr. Willis
concludes:

>..Now it seems, Croy and Summers together---confirm that it was
>*Scoggins* who "picked up Tippits gun"...

We know from the facts presented above that neither claim is true.

>...& that Scoggins was indeed questioned 11/22/63 by "several
>officers...

We know that Scoggins own testimony refutes this claim.

>...And it is *not* Oswalds wallet which we see in film footage
>of the scene...

Shown to be true in "With Malice."

>...nor is it Tippit's wallet...

Shown to be false in "With Malice." In fact, Tippits wallet cannot be
ruled out as a possibility.

>...or even Callaway's...

This is equally false. Callaway cannot be ruled out either.

>...but [the wallet is in fact] *Scoggins*...It was Scoggins who
>produced the revolver & the wallet seen in Owens hands.

This - like much of the rest of Mr. Willis analysis - is poppycock, as
shown above. Mr. Willis does not offer a single shred of substantiated
information that supports this claim. But, that is *not* terribly
surprising, is it dear reader?

Installments (25) & (26) suggest that Scoggins was the true "hero" of
the day, but when pressed by unamed conspirators to go along with the
"cover-up," the cabdriver succumbs, and instead becomes another
"victim" of the conspiracy.

Mr. Willis begins by lifting one of the true myths of the Tippit shooting
to new heights:

>..in his WC testimony, Scoggins at one point offhandedly notes,
>re Tippit, "I wasnt paying too much attention to the man, you see
>just used to see him everyday..." (3H325)

This is often used to support the claim that Scoggins saw Tippit on a
routine basis. In "With Malice," I pointed out that "although Scoggins
provided statements to the Dallas police, FBI, Secret Service and
Warren Commission, he *never* once indicated that he knew J.D. Tippit
or had seen him before, except for this single cryptic remark. In discus-
sions with investigators, Scoggins always referred to Tippit as the
"officer" or the "policeman." [p309-10]

Mr. Willis doesnt mention any of this. Instead, heres where he takes it:

>...Just saw him on the street. Talked to him...every day. Apparently,
>that very day...

Huh? A cryptic remark - that is not supported in any other testimony,
including Scoggins himself - turns into a conversation between the cab
driver and Tippit on that "very day?" Wait, theres more:

>...Cop & cabbie comparing notes, like say "Its a Wonderful Life,"
>with Bert (Ward Bond) & Ernie (Frank Faylen)...

Well, at least we know how this stuff gets dreamed up. Of course,
the Frank Capra classic is fiction. And so is this.

>...Tippit, perhaps, cruised past the parked Scoggins & said hello,
>hear about Kennedy, damn shame...

None of this happened, and Mr. Willis knows it. A scenario? Not exactly.
A scenario would be based on the facts as related by testimony and
evidence. This nonsense is supported by neither. Its pure fiction.

Next, Mr. Willis, claims that this imaginary conversation is what Officer
Summers was referring to when he radioed that he had two witnesses -
"one who observed the man," and "one who talked with the officer." In
"With Malice," I confirmed that Ted Callaway was the witness who
"observed" the man, and Helen Markham was the one who reportedly
"talked" with the officer. In this twisted version of reality. Markham
becomes the one who "observed," and Scoggins the one who "talked."

Eventually, Mr. Willis claims that neither Markham *or* Scoggins,
saw anything - their testimony is all part of the cover-up:

>...Why didnt Summers radio in something like, "I have one witness who
>saw the shooting..." - if Mrs. M or Scoggins actually did see it?

This is Mr. Williss idea of supporting evidence - Summers didnt
say what Mr. Willis thinks he should have said. (Huh?) But wait,
Mr. Willis is on a roll:

>..William Scoggins, then, who knew Officer Tippit, was at least an
>acquaintance, maybe even a friend, chats with him...

Mr. Willis fantasy has now become a "reality." Am I the only one who
wonders how anyone can believe this tripe? The fairy tale continues with
Scoggins hearing shots [despite the fact that two paragraphs earlier, Mr.
Willis insisted Scoggins was *not* a witness], rushing to the aid of his
"friend," instructing T.F. Bowley how to work the radio [in this version,
Mr. Willis has Bowley play the Benavides role], grabbing Tippits pistol,
and - in order to "honor his memory" - races off in his cab alone in
search of the gunman.

Where is the evidence to support all of this? According to Mr. Willis,
simply twist, manipulate, and bastardize what *is* documented into any
scenario you fancy, and pass it off as "truth." Balderdash.

Eventually - according to people in Willis hallucination - the
conspirators get ahold of Scoggins and put the pressure on:

>...Scoggins resists the blandishments of the Suborners, for a day,
>but they wear him down, threaten to shoot his cat, threaten to stick
>slivers of bamboo under his fingernails...

Oh, yea. Right.

>...For a day, then or an afternoon Scoggins is a hero; then, he's
>just another victim, & the blowhard, Callaway, gets the glory,
>becomes every suborners dream...Still later, Callaway even has
>the nerve to badmouth fellow witnesses Scoggins & Benavides,
>as wimps & worse...

Here, Mr. Willis inserts two facts from "With Malice":

>..."This guy [Scoggins] was so nervous he couldnt drive, so
>we lost him...("With Malice" p111)

Badmouth? Hardly. Callaway is simply describing the cabdrivers
reaction after having witnessed a cop killing.

>...Callaway claimed that Benavides ended up with a new Pontiac
>Firebird, half of which was paid for by CBS [for appearing on its
>"Warren Report" show]...("With Malice p221)

True. In fact, this was confirmed by the CBS producer that worked on the
show. And "With Malice" is full of plenty of other indications that
Benavides was less than honest in his "recollections."

In conclusion, Mr. Willis suggests:

>..Theres a spit in hell waiting for Mr. Callaway...

Truth be told, Ive got a suggestion for buffs like Mr. Willis too.


Installments (27) & (28) are spent focusing on a discrepancy between the
testimony of Warren Reynolds and Robert and Mary Brock - who observed
Oswald as he passed the Texaco service station. As I explained in
considerable detail in "With Malice" (p105-07), Reynolds claimed to have
followed Oswald to the service station, crossed the street, and questioned
the Brocks about their observations. Reynolds further claims that during
this period he learned from another unknown source that the shooting
involved a Dallas police officer.

Yet, the Brocks *both* stated that "five minutes" elapsed between the
time that Oswald passed the service station, and the time Reynolds and
another employee from his car lot (determined in "With Malice" to be Pat
Patterson) approached them to say that a police officer had been shot by
the man they had observed earlier.

Mr. Willis challenges these facts:

>...How did Reynolds & Patterson know that a "police officer had been
>shot"?  The WR ignores the issue; the more adventurous Myers proposes
>an answer: "After the gunman disappeared, both Reynolds & Patterson
>proceeded to 10th & Patton to learn who had been shot." ("Malice" p89)
>"The only way Reynolds & Patterson could have known that the victim
>was a Dallas police officer was for them to have gone to 10th & Patton
>during the 5 minute interval described by the Brocks." ("Malice" p106)
>However, as Myers graciously admits in an endnote (p606), "Reynolds &
>Patterson do not mention returning to the Tippit scene in their
>testimony"--nor (Myers neglects to admit) do they mention going to
>the scene in their respective FBI interviews (pp544, 548) !...

First of all, the endnote referred to [#256] says in full:

"Warren Reynolds and Pat Patterson do not mention returning to the Tippit
scene in their testimony, but it is believed to be true based on a com-
parison between the Dallas police tapes and statements from Robert and
Mary Brock, B.M. "Pat" Patterson, Harold Russell and Officer Roy W.
Walker."

Mr. Willis seems to assume that the word "testimony" refers to *Warren
Commission* testimony, when in fact it refers to *all* statements given
by both men to authorities. After all, Patterson didnt "testify" to the WC,
did he? So much for the minutiae. The real point here is that Mr. Willis
fails to note that the conclusion that Reynolds and Patterson went to the
crime scene was based on *other corroborating evidence.* Does Mr. Willis
investigate the sources that were provided in endnote #256?Of course not:

>...In fact, Reynolds explicitly states that it was not until
>"approximately 5 or 10 minutes" *after* he "made inquiry at Ballew's
>Texaco Service Station" that he "was informed by an unknown source
>that the individual whom he had been "trailing" had shot & apparently
>killed a uniform officer of the DPD" ( "With Malice"p544).  Reynolds
>was "informed"--he did not return to the scene...

Really? Mr. Willis simply accepts Reynolds explanation without checking
the veracity of it against those of the persons listed in endnote #256.
This is a no-brainer, folks. All of the information is contained in "With
Malice," and an index allows anyone to easily access it. Ill mention just
*one* of the corroborating facts:

Officer Roy W. Walker - the third officer to arrive at the scene -
provided the first description of the suspect. This description came from
Warren Reynolds, *who was at Tenth and Patton when Walker arrived.*
The description was broadcast at 1:22:36 p.m. ["With Malice" p.114]

Instead of acknowledging this and other facts that support the idea that
Reynolds returned to the crime scene - despite inferences to the contrary
- Mr. Willis pitches his own twisted "theory" to his unsuspecting readers:

>An extant fragment of a 1:18 DPD radio transmission suggests that
>the Brocks are right & Reynolds is wrong, tho, re the timing of his
>learning that a cop had been shot:
>"a police officer, 510 E. Jefferson" ("With Malice" p102/DPD tapes)
>The latter suggests, that is, that someone at 500 E. Jefferson (site
>of the Reynolds lot) already knew--before Reynolds & Patterson set
>out--that the shooting involved an officer...

Yet, Mr. Willis doesnt tell his readers that the citation, "..a police
officer, 510 E. Jefferson..." is a statement made by dispatcher C.E. Hulse
in response to T.F. Bowleys radio call. The fact that the shooting victim
was a "police officer" was given to Hulse by Bowley, *not* someone from
the Reynolds used car lot - and Mr. Willis knows it. Secondly, every
statement made by the persons present on the car lot at the time
corroborate the fact that no one knew *who* had been shot - including
Warren Reynolds.

Mr. Willis babbles on:

>...The "only way" that Myers can find to connect Reynolds & Patterson
>to the news re Tippit is to have them take *a detour which neither
>principal mentions*, & then (pp102, 105) have them *make a fuzzily
>motivated RETURN to the now-cold-trail thru the Texaco station*...

In both instances, the *facts* show that Reynolds *was* at the crime
scene, and *did* go to the Texaco station to confront the Brocks. How-
ever, Reynolds was not *returning* to the service station, since (by
the Brocks statements) he hadnt been there yet. Other facts support
the Brocks account.

Mr. Willis continues with his fairy-tale assertion:

>...And that does not even begin to explain how a 3rd party, the caller
>at 500 E. Jefferson L.J. Lewis, apparent source for the radio
>transmission knew that a policemen had been involved in the
>shooting....

Weve already shown that the source of this information is dispatcher
Hulse. Now, Mr. Willis claims *as fact* that L.J. Lewis was the source.
Yet, Lewis own statements show he had no knowledge of the victim.("With
Malice" p547) So much for truth. Mr. Willis could care less. The apparent
goal here is to ram another idiot-based theory down the throats of his
unsuspecting readers. And he does it with about as much thought as weve
seen up to this point:

>...There is another answer which would explain both the facts that
>Reynolds & Patterson knew than an officer had been shot *and* that
>the Brocks saw the 2 of them a full *5 minutes* after the gunman had
>passed: Reynolds & Patterson--and Lewis--were *told*--informed--
>that a policeman had been shot.  Told by someone fresh from the scene....

One problem: There is not a single shred of evidence to support any of
this. In fact, everything that *is* known, *proves* this concocted
fabrication to be nothing more than a pile of horse apples.

>...That would explain the radio message...the Brocks' assertion that
>Reynolds & Patterson knew that a cop had been shot...*and* the
>5-minute gap... Reynolds & Patterson did not follow the gunman *as*
>he went down Jefferson....

Despite *all* of the facts to the contrary...

>...a witness direct from 10th & Patton *told* them what
>had happened, told them to call the police...

Despite *all* of the facts to the contrary...

>...Lewis called the police; only then did Reynolds & Patterson take off
>on foot down Jefferson, either on their own initiative or at the man's
>request.
...

Despite *all* of the facts to the contrary...

Do you hear an echo, dear reader?

Installments (29) & (30) build on the theme that it was Scoggins - not
Callaway - who fled the scene with Tippits pistol. Mr. Willis claims his
idea has support in the statements of Officer Howell Summers and the Davis
women:

>...Myers repeats the false truism that *all* 10th St. witnesses
>testified that the ambulance got to the scene before any policeman did
>("With Malice" p611). First, he is dead wrong re this purported
>unanimity:  *Both* Davises testified. Not exactly. Sixteen year old
>Virginia Davis testified that after phoning police, she sister-in-law
>Barbara Davis went outside:

        Belin:  All right, after this, did police come out there?

        Davis:  Yes; they were already there.

        Belin:  By the time you got out there?

        Davis:  Yes, sir.

        Belin:  Then what did you do?

        Davis:  Well, we just stood out there and watched. You know, tried
                to see how it all happened. But we saw part of it.

        Belin:  Then what did you do?

        Davis:  We stood out there until after the ambulance had come
                and picked him up. [6H461]

According to Mr. Willis, this vague passage means that police arrived
*before* the ambulance. But, thats not what Virginia says, does she?
First, she says that by the time they got outside, police were at the
scene. Virginia then adds that both Barbara and her remained outside until
"after the ambulance had come" and taken Tippits body away. Unlike Mr.
Willis claim, Virginia does not note the relationship between the two
events. In fact, Virginias comments about the ambulance are only added as
a clarification to how long the Davis "stood out there and watched."
Later, Virginia clarifies the length of time further:

Davis:  When the police cars was circling all the blocks, about four or five
                blocks to see if they could find the boy, and we stayed out ther
e all
                that time to see if they could locate him. [6H461]

What does Barbara Davis say about the ambulance arriving first? Not a
thing. After telling the WC about phoning police:

        Davis:  I came back outside and walked down to where the policemans
                car was out.

        Ball:   Did you see the policeman?

        Davis:  Yes.

        Ball:   Where was he?

        Davis:  He was laying on the left-hand side of the car on the ground,
	by the left-hand fender...

        Ball:   How long did you stay there?

        Davis:  Not 5 minutes,I would imagine,because the police cars started
                coming, so I went back to my yard. [3H345]

Contrary to Mr. Willis claim, Barbara Davis doesnt even mention an
ambulance. How can she "testify" - as Mr. Willis writes - that the police
got there *before* the ambulance, without mentioning an ambulance? Mr.
Willis doesnt tell us. Perhaps he gleaned it from an exchange a moment
later:

        Ball:   Did you see a man coming and get the policemans gun?

        Davis:  No, I didnt. [3H345]

This a reference to Ted Callaway. Although this event happened immediate-
ly after the ambulance departed, Barbara Davis was not a witness to it.
Nor,does she ever mention an ambulance being at the scene. Should we take
this to mean *no* ambulance ever showed up? Of course, not. Nor should
we assume - as Mr. Willis does - that any of this testimony alone provides
enough information to sort out the sequence of police/ambulance arrivals.
There is, however, plenty of evidence presented in "With Malice" that
*does* help sort out the arrivals.

Next, Mr. Willis claims that "With Malice" holds additional corroboration
for his own twisted version of the Davis testimonies:

>..In an endnote, Myers reveals that there is a DPD officer who
>for some reason did not testify before the WC who confirms the
>Davises assertion: Officer Summers told Myers that *he* arrived
>at the scene *before* the ambulance...("With Malice" p611)

In fact, "With Malice" shows that Summers is the *second* officer to
arrive at the crime scene,and the endnote Mr. Willis refers to shows why:

        "Summers stated that when he arrived at the shooting scene Tippit
        was still in the street, and the ambulance pulled up about a minute
        and a half later. Although Summers believed he was the first officer
        to arrive,it's doubtful his recollection (a 1983 interview) is accurate.
        All of the witnesses agree that the ambulance arrived *before* the
        first officer. Ambulance attendants Butler and Kinsley confirm this
        fact. Butlers use of the radio to notify Dallas police that the victim
        was an officer supports their account. Further, Butler told the HSCA
        that if there had been any officers at the scene, I would have asked
        one of them to ride with me. Apparently, Summers was the first
        officer to arrive at the scene in an *unmarked car.* Reserve Ser-
        geant Kenneth Croy arrived about a minute before Summers, driving
        his own vehicle. Officer Roy W. Walker, who arrived on the scene at
        1:22 p.m. confirmed that two other officers were there when he got
        there." ["With Malice" endnote 326, p611]

To believe Summers account, as related in 1983, one must dismiss all of
the other evidence that shows him to be in error - including radio logs,
eyewitness accounts, and other police officers. But, for Mr. Willis this
is par for the course.

Installments (31) & (32) attempt to shroud eyewitness T.F. Bowley with
an equal amount of "mystery." According to Mr. Willis, eyewitness Bowley
is mysterious because:

>...on 12/2/63, he suddenly makes a statement claiming (proper) credit
>for the 1:17-18 "citizen call..."

Huh? We *know* Bowley gave his statement after his return from
vacation ("With Malice" p65), which explains the date of the statement.
No mystery there. In that statement (as Mr. Willis notes) Bowley took
proper credit for making the call to the dispatcher using Tippits police
radio. So, where is all the mystery Mr. Willis claims? Mr. Willis asks:

>...Why did Comet Bowley appear so vividly & briefly in the Dallas
>sky, only to fade? Why did the Suborners in bad form, for once,
>thank goodness seem to panic, briefly, when the WC was announced,
>& very reluctantly obtain a belated statement from Bowley...

Reluctantly? Belatedly? We know the real reason, dont we?

>...the man who made the "citizen call" then keep him out of the
>hearing room? What dreaded contagion did he carry? I think
>Bowleys 11/12/77 HSCA interview contains the answer: "Bowley
>stated that he knew Jack Ruby & had been associated with him since
>the 1950s...."

Uh-oh! Has Mr. Willis uncovered the horrible, awful truth? Mr. Willis
tells his readers:

>...Our thanks to Jack White, who was the first on the newsgroups
>to alert us to this interview, which, for some reason, Myers neglects
>to mention in 700+ pages...

Really? Bowleys HSCA interview is mentioned twice in the endnotes of
"With Malice." Once again, I must ask if Mr. Willis has *actually* read my
book? Perhaps he is too busy spinning tales of conspiracy:

>...To the conspirators, the next worst thing to Ruby himself
>being spotted at the Tippit shooting site would have been to
>have an *associate* of Rubys being spotted there....

Yet, according to Mr. Willis, the conspirators plan to do *exactly* that:

>...Bowley was supposed to stay in the background, it was - it
>becomes apparent now only the commanding presence of *Scoggins*
>that shoved him into the foreground.
..

According to Mr. Willis, cabdriver Scoggins presses Bowley ( a member
of the conspiracy) into using Tippits police radio to notify police. Bowley
supposedly does this because of the presence of "other witnesses." Then,
the conspirators successfully get Benavides to take on the role of Bowley
and pretend he made the call when it comes time for the WC hearings.
Once again, Mr. Willis presents nothing to support this fabrication of evil
intent.

Installments (33), (34) & (35) claim to present evidence that the DPD
*dispatcher* directed other officers to a prearranged spot where they
would find the jacket discarded by Tippits killer. Nevermind that Mr.
Willis doesnt explain *why* Tippits killer (Mr. Willis says it was the
gunman, himself who dumped the jacket) would arrange for police to find
evidence linking him to the crime before the fact. In this three part
episode, Mr. Willis attempts to create mystery where none exists.

First, Mr. Willis notes that "With Malice" shows the dispatcher telling
officers that the suspect "just passed 401 East Jefferson." This is the
address for Ballews Texaco Service Station. Mr.  Willis writes:

>...[Unit]85 radios in to update him: The suspect has now been
> seen a block *further* west, "about 300 E. Jefferson." But
>for some reason, the dispatcher temporarily ignores this new
>information & still insists, "Last seen 401 W. Jefferson." 85 has,
>however, definitely rattled him, & he must correct himself, "East..."
>Why is the dispatcher clinging to outdated data? Why does he want
>officers to go to 400 E. Jefferson rather than 300?...

The answer, Mr. Willis later claims,is because the dispatcher "wants" the
jacket to be found. But, wait a minute. As "With Malice" documents, Unit
85 - Roy Walker - is transmitting from Tenth and Patton, and his source is
Warren Reynolds. Walker calls in:

        "We have a description on this suspect over
        here on Jefferson, last seen about 300 block
        of East Jefferson..." [p114]

"Here on Jefferson" is *not* where Walker (85) is standing - but rather,
the place where the shooting was thought to have taken place. Remember,
the dispatcher was uncertain of the location of the shooting. Walker was
the first to arrive and give a broadcast description. The reference to
"last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson" makes sense when one
realizes that the source was Reynolds - who had trailed the gunman to
the Texaco gas station (where the 400 block began).

Mr. Willis claims that Unit 85 had told the dispatcher that the suspect
had been seen "about 300 E. Jefferson." But, thats not true. Unit 85 said
he was "last seen about [the] 300 block of East Jefferson," *not* a
specific address. Further, the dispatcher *did not* continue to send
officers to 401 East Jefferson, as Mr. Willis claims. When asked the
suspects direction of travel, the dispatcher replied:

        "Traveling west on Jefferson, 400 block. Last seen
        401 West Jefferson - correction - east." [DPD C-1, 1:23:38 p.m.]

Therefore, according to the dispatcher,the suspect was heading west from
400 East Jefferson. That would put the suspect in the 300 block or a
location further west. Isnt that precisely the same information given by
Unit 85 (Walker)? Mr. Willis adds nothing but confusion with his
"analysis." Next. Mr. Willis asks:

>..Okay, now the ball is in Myers court. Can he demonstrate for
>us that the DPD dispatcher was *not* in fact the source for the
>"Suspect just passed 401 E. Jefferson" transmissions?...

Everyone spot the loaded question? This is typical buff nonsense: present
a scenario, then challenge someone else to prove it true or false. First
of all, no one can prove a negative, and Mr. Willis knows it. (You cant
*prove* something *didnt* happen.) Second - and more to the point here -
the transmission in question *was* made by the dispatcher, as evidenced
by the Dallas police recordings. I suppose, what Mr. Willis means to imply
is that the dispatcher tossed out the address on his own, and that he had
no source. In "With Malice," I wrote that the Brocks phone police and cited
the DPD Channel One recordings as evidence of such a call. Mr. Willis
writes:

>...Now lets check Myers handy dandy endnotes for the source of this
>information: the Dallas Police tapes, 1:21....Uh oh. The latter is not a
>*source* for information it *is* the information!...Myers, then, it
>seems, actually does *not* have a source for  his assertion that the
>Brocks called the police, though he for some reason does not want to
>admit it. He does not want to admit that this is speculation. That he
>simply *assumes* that they called...

Wait a second. The DPD dispatcher broadcasts that the "suspect just passed
401 E. Jefferson." We know this to be the address of the Texaco Service
station where the Brocks were employed. We know they were alerted to the
man they saw pass the station during the same period this transmission was
broadcast. The phrase "just passed" fits their own account of what they
saw. We know the DPD dispatcher received a similar call from L.J. Lewis
(501 E. Jefferson). These calls are fielded by the DPD telephone operator,
reduced to a "call sheet," and sent to the dispatcher via a conveyor belt.
All of the evidence surrounding this transmission - and all of the
information known about the inner workings of the DPD radio dispatch room
- points back to the Brocks as being the source of the "401 E. Jefferson"
address. Furthermore, there is not a shred of evidence that this address
originated from anywhere else. Can Mr. Willis prove it did?

But, thats what Mr. Willis wants you to believe, isnt it? As he has done
continually throughout this self described "study," Mr. Willis prefers to
ignore all of the *available* evidence, and instead concentrate on the
unknown or unknowable. Mr. Willis solution? The *dispatcher* provided
the address in order to steer officers toward the discarded jacket. In
fact, Mr. Willis concludes:

>..The jacket was left, it seems - probably by the suspect himself
>at a prearranged spot behind the gas station prearranged with the
>individuals who were feeding "401 E. Jefferson" to the dispatchers.

Prearranged? How? When? Individuals "feeding" the dispatchers? Who? For
what purpose? And most important, where is all the evidence to support all
this intrique? It doesnt really make sense, does it?

As you can see, Mr. Donald Williss "study" of the Tippit shooting amounts
to nothing more than manipulating eyewitness testimony and physical
evidence using twisted logic, irrational thought, and a generous helping
of nincompoopery. Mr. Willis method of handling *facts* doesnt exactly
instill confidence in his conclusions, does it?

I have no doubt that Mr. Willis and others will continue with their
attacks on my book, "With Malice," and the facts surrounding the murder
of J.D. Tippit. For nearly 35 years, assassination buffs have been able to
get away with the kind of distortions that Mr. Willis serves up.

But now, you dear reader have a sourcebook - "With Malice: Lee Harvey
Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit" - to get the *real* facts.
Thats why I wrote it. Its time to reclaim history from those
irresponsible few who seek to rewrite it with lies.

A personal note to Mr. Willis: I dont intend to make a habit of
responding to your internet writings, nor should you - or anyone else
eager to challenge my work - expect me to rewrite, restate, or otherwise
"defend" what I wrote in "With Malice." Its clear that Ive given this
case far more thought - and contributed more original investigative work -
than you have. The results of my work were written down in a carefully
worded and entirely documented book that, quite frankly, covers every-
thing anyone needs to know about this case.

In the future, please refrain from using skewed excerpts from my book to
prop-up your idiotic theories. If you think youve got a case for
conspiracy, then provide a few substantiated facts - document them - and
leave me out of it. Better still, write a book, and stand by it.

Dale K. Myers
author of, "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder
of Officer J.D. Tippit"  704 pp. Oak Cliff Press, Inc. 1998  $35.00
For online ordering, info, & reviews: http://www.jfkfiles.com