In this article, I explain the reasons why the witness identifications of Oswald as Tippit’s murderer should be considered unreliable. It’s important to keep in mind that by the time these witnesses testified before the Warren Commission, Oswald was dead. Therefore, any “positive” identification of him as the murderer would not have put an otherwise innocent man in prison. Also, there was no cross examination of the witnesses by a defence attorney on Oswald’s behalf!
Also keep in mind that six of the witnesses; Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Ted Callaway, Sam Guinyard, and the Davis sister-in-laws identified Oswald as the killer after viewing line-ups of him by the DPD. As many competent researchers have demonstrated, the line-ups were conducted unfairly against Oswald, and it is not my intention to discuss the conduct of the line-ups in this article.
The final (and perhaps most important) point which should be considered is that Tippit’s killer by all likelihood bore a good resemblance to Oswald. Think about it. If you’re going to frame a man for murder, then naturally you would use a gunman who resembles the man you intended to frame (See here for evidence that Oswald was framed for Tippit’s murder).
Before discussing the credibility of these witnesses, let’s first examine the statements by Domingo Benavides. As stated in my previous article, Benavides was driving his yellow pick-up truck west along 10th Street when he spotted Tippit exiting his patrol car. Startled by the sound of the shots, Benavides pulled his pick-up truck to the curb, almost directly across the Street from Tippit’s car. Benavides was the closet witness to the murder, but never viewed a line-up of Oswald.
Despite being the closet witness to the shooting, Benavides failed to positively identify Oswald as the killer. The best Benavides could state is that the killer resembled Oswald. From Benavides Warren Commission testimony:
Mr. Belin
You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. Benavides
From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Many lone gunman kooks have argued that the reason Benavides failed to positively identify Oswald as the killer, was because he didn’t get a good view of him. However, contrary to this completely absurd and dishonest claim, Benavides informed the Warren Commission that he did get a good view of the killer. See below.
Mr. Belin
Let me ask you now, I would like to have you relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides
As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just tuned. He was just turning away. In other words, he was pointing toward the officer, and he had just turned away to his left, and then he started. There was a big tree, and it seemed like he started back going to the curb of the street and into the sidewalk, and then he turned and went down the sidewalk to, well, until he got in front of the corner house, and then he turned to the left there and went on down Patton Street.
Not only did Benavides fail to identify Oswald as the killer – despite claiming he had “got a good of view of the man”, but he also described the killer as having a complexion “Ruddier than mine”, and also a complexion “a little bit darker than average”. Photos and film footage of Benavides show that his complexion was light brown, whereas Oswald’s complexion was pale white. He also described the jacket which the killer was wearing as being “a light beige jacket”. See below.
Mr. Belin
Anything else you can think of about the man after you saw him? What was he wearing? What did he look like?
Mr. Benavides
Well, he was kind of, well, just about your size.
Mr. Belin
About my size? I am standing up.
Mr. Benavides
You are about 5' 10"?
Mr. Belin
I am between 5' 10" and 5' 11". Closer to 5' 11", I believe.
Mr. Benavides
I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Further on during his testimony:
Mr. Belin
What about his skin? Was he fair complexioned or dark complexioned?
Mr. Benavides
He wasn't dark.
Mr. Belin
Average complexion?
Mr. Benavides
No; a little bit darker than average.
Mr. Belin
My complexion?
Mr. Benavides
I wouldn't say that any more. I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine.
As both the closet witness to the murder of Tippit - and one who claimed he got a good view of the killer, the inconsistencies between Benavides’s description of the killer and the description of Oswald, is a very good reason to believe that Oswald wasn’t Tippit’s killer!
Apparently, Benavides did eventually identify Oswald as the killer. However, if Benavides did really believe Oswald was the killer, then why on Earth did he hesitate to identify him during his Warren Commission testimony? More to the point, why should anybody accept his later identification as being trustworthy? The truth is we shouldn’t.
There is also the mysterious shooting of Benavides brother, Edward, in January 1964. Edward was shot in the back of the head in a club in Dallas. Many researchers have claimed that the intended target was Domingo - due to the fact that he didn’t positively identify Oswald as the killer. Quite curiously, on January 23 1964, Warren Reynolds, who followed Tippit’s murderer into Roger Ballew’s Texaco Service station, was shot in the head by a rifle at point blank range, but had miraculously survived.
Like Benavides, Reynolds was initially reluctant to identify Oswald as the killer. But after he was shot, Reynolds positively identified Oswald during his Warren Commission testimony. Although I don’t have a firm opinion on this issue, is it really just a coincidence that within the same period of time, both Reynolds and Benavides brother (who could have been mistaken for him) were shot in the head?
It is of course possible, but what are the odds that it really was just a coincidence? (I return to Warren Reynolds further on in this article).
Helen Markham
Let’s now turn our attention to Helen Markham, whom Warren Commission counsel Joseph Ball once famously referred to as “An utter screwball”. As mentioned in my previous article, Markham was on her way to work at the Eat Well restaurant on Main Street, when she witnessed Tippit’s murder. After witnessing the shooting, Markham became hysterical and began screaming.
The Warren Commission relied heavily on Markham’s identification of Oswald as the killer. The following is from page 167 of the Warren report, Concerning Markham’s “positive” identification of Oswald as Tippit’s murderer.
“In testimony before the Commission, Mrs. Markham confirmed her positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man she saw kill Officer Tippit.”
Despite the Warren Commission’s bold assertion, Markham’s “positive” identification of Oswald was anything but reliable. It should be noted that Markham was the first Tippit murder witness to view a DPD line-up of Oswald, and that Oswald was the number two man in the four man line-up. The following is from Markham’s testimony concerning her identification of Oswald from the line-up.
Mr. Ball
Did you recognize anyone in the line-up?
Mrs. Markham
No, sir.
Mr. Ball
You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. Markham
From their face, no.
Mr. Ball
Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. Markham
I didn't know nobody.
Mr. Ball
I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that line-up look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. Markham
No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
As we can see, Markham claimed that she didn’t recognise anybody from the line-up as being Tippit’s killer! Realising that this was a huge problem for convicting Oswald, counsel Joseph Ball asked Markham what can only be considered one of the most disgraceful leading questions ever asked by a Warren Commission lawyer.
Mr. Ball
Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. Markham
Number two is the one I picked.
Mr. Ball
Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't—
Mrs. Markham
I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.
Mr. Ball
No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there—
Mrs. Markham
Number two.
Following Ball’s leading question, Markham now insists that the man she identified as Tippit’s killer was the number two man (Oswald), despite just moments ago having claimed that “I had never seen none of them, none of these men”! Ball also showed Markham the light gray coloured jacket which Oswald allegedly discarded, and asked her if she could identify it.
Mr. Ball
I have here an exhibit, Commission Exhibit 162, a jacket. Did you ever see this before?
Mrs. Markham
No; I did not.
Mr. Ball
Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. Markham
It is short, open down the front. But that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. Ball
You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. Markham
No, it was darker than that, I know it was. At that moment I was so excited--
Markham was fairly adamant that the jacket the Tippit killer was wearing was darker than the Ce162 jacket. What makes this claim incredibly bizarre is that Markham informed DPD Officer Joe M. Poe that the killer’s jacket was white! The following is from Poe’s testimony, concerning the description of the killer he obtained from Markham, after he had arrived at the murder scene.
Mr. Ball
What did you see?
Mr. Poe
Found the squad car parked toward the curb, and a pool of blood at the left-front wheel of the car. The ambulance had already picked him up and the officer had left the scene when we arrived. We had--I don't know how many people there were. Looked like 150 to 200 people around there, and Mrs. Markham, I talked to her first and we got a description of the man that shot Tippit.
Mr. Ball
Do you know what the description was?
Mr. Poe
Sir?
Mr. Ball
Do you know what the description was?
Mr. Poe
White male, about 25, about 5 feet 8, brown hair, medium, and I believe she said had on a white jacket at the time.
Mr. Ball
What did you do then?
Mr. Poe
We gave the description to several of the officers at the scene. You couldn't get on the radio at the time, there was so much traffic on the radio, and the last--the direction he was seen leaving, and then I talked to several more witnesses around there
There was indeed a description of the killer broadcast over the DPD radio, by an Officer named Roy Walker (whom Poe believed was actually Charles T. Walker). The significance of the description Markham gave to Poe is that this was not the description she gave to FBI agent Bardwell Odum, when he interviewed her on the same day!
The following exchange with Ball took place further on during Poe’s testimony.
Mr. Ball
At 1:22 p.m., on the transcript of the radio log, I note it says, "Have a description of suspect on Jefferson. Last seen about the 300 block of East Jefferson. White male, 30's; 5'8", black hair, slender built, wearing white shirt, black slacks." Do you know whether you gave Walker that description?
Mr. Poe
I remember giving [Roy] Walker a description. My partner got in the car with Walker.
Mr. Ball
Did you give Walker a description similar to that?
Mr. Poe
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball
Well, the only difference I see between the description you said you gave the other officer and this was that you said he was in his 20's or 25, and this says about 30. Otherwise it is about the same.
Mr. Poe
Yes, sir
One of the most truly bizarre aspects of Markham’s testimony was her claim that she had conversed with Tippit after he was shot. Yet, Tippit was also shot once in the right temple and killed instantly. Furthermore, there is absolutely no confirmation from any other witness that Tippit was alive when they went to his aid! The following is from Markham’s testimony.
Mr. Dulles
Mr. Tippit, Officer Tippit, didn't say anything to you?
Mrs. Markham
He tried to.
Mr. Dulles
He tried to?
Mrs. Markham
Yes, sir.
Mr. Dulles
But he didn't succeed?
Mrs. Markham
No, I couldn't understand. I was screaming and hollering and I was trying to help him all I could, and I would have. I was with him until they put him in the ambulance.
Further on during her testimony:
Mr. Ball
Just a few more questions, Mrs. Markham. You ran immediately over to where the police officer was lying in the street?
Mrs. Markham
I did.
Mr. Ball
Was he alive?
Mrs. Markham
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball
Did he say anything?
Mrs. Markham
He was trying to, but he just couldn't. I just couldn't make out what he was trying to say.
The final point to address concerning Markham’s credibility is the description of the killer which she gave to FBI agent, Bardwell Odum, on 22/11/63. See below.
Mr. Ball
On the 22d of November, 1963, that is the day of the shooting, did you talk to an FBI agent named Odum? Do you remember?
Mrs. Markham
I talked to some people, men, down at the police station.
Mr. Ball
That is right. He says that you described the man who shot Tippit as a white male, about 18, black hair, red complexion, wearing black shoes, tan jacket, and dark trousers. Do you remember that?
Following Joseph Ball’s question, Markham claimed that she didn’t mention the killer was wearing black shoes. She also claimed she didn’t tell Odum the killer looked 18 years old, and that she didn’t inform him that the killer had a red complexion. The significance of this is that the red complexion described to Odum by Markham, is consistent with Benavides claim that the killer’s complexion was “ruddier than mine [Benavides]” (with ruddy referring to a person with a reddish complexion).
Despite Markham’s latter claim that she didn’t tell Odum the killer had a red complexion, are we to honestly believe that Odum had mistakenly noted that Markham stated the killer had a red complexion? It simply defies belief that an FBI agent could make such a mistake. It is also inconceivable that Odum could have been mistaken that Markham told him the killer appeared to be 18 years old. (Incidentally, be sure to check out this video clip where Markham described the killer as having a ruddy complexion).
As we can also see, the description she gave to Odum was in stark contrast to the one she gave Officer Poe, which was broadcast over the DPD radio by Officer Roy Walker at 1:22 pm.
What’s particularly interesting is that Markham told Odum the killer had a tan coloured jacket – whereas the jacket which the killer allegedly discarded was a light gray coloured jacket! When Markham was shown the jacket during her testimony, she stated that the jacket the killer had was darker. It should be noted that Markham didn’t deny during her testimony that she told Odum the killer’s jacket was tan coloured.
To summarise, Helen Markham first claimed during her testimony that she didn’t recognise anyone from the line-up as the killer, but then following Joseph Ball’s disgraceful leading question, claimed that she identified Oswald as the killer. She also claimed that Tippit was alive after he was shot – this despite the fact that he was killed instantly! The description of the killer which she provided to FBI agent Bardwell Odum was inconsistent with the one she provided to Officer Poe at the murder scene. Finally, she told Officer Joe Poe that the killer had a white jacket – but then told Odum that the jacket was tan coloured!
Clearly, Markham was by no means a reliable witness. Yet despite all the problems with her credibility, lone gunman zealots uphold her identification of Oswald as Tippit’s killer, as being reliable. Simply unbelievable!
There are many other problems with Markham’s credibility which I could have addressed. However, I will leave it up to you to read through her entire testimony to see for yourself.
On a final note, let me state that Markham’s claim that Tippit had calmly exited his patrol car was contradicted by Domingo Benavides, who claimed during his testimony that Tippit was “kind of in a hurry to get out”.
The Davis sister-in-laws
Let’s now examine the statements by the Davis sister-in-laws, Barbara and Virginia Davis. At the time of Tippit’s murder, the Davis sister-in-laws were lying down and taking a nap at Barbara’s apartment house, on the South east corner of the intersection of 10th and Patton streets. Upon hearing the shots, they went to the front door where they observed Tippit’s killer cut across the lawn, emptying the spent shells in his hand. Although both women identified Oswald as Tippit’s killer, there is very good reason to be suspicious of their identification.
First of all, although a total of four shots were fired at Tippit; they could only recall hearing two shots. As both of them described during their testimonies, they heard a shot followed a second shot. Now although they did only recall hearing two shots, this doesn’t necessarily mean their identification of Oswald as the killer lacks credibility. Furthermore, the “first” shot heard by both women could have actually been the first three shots fired rapidly at Tippit’s chest/abdomen, with the “second” shot being the execution style shot to Tippit’s head - as per the observation of Jack Ray Tatum.
Secondly, although both women observed the killer at the same time, there are many contradictions between their observations/recollections. However, let me first state some of the consistencies between their observations. Both women claimed the killer had the gun in his right hand, and was emptying the spent shells into his left. Both of them also agreed that it was Barbara Davis who called the Police to notify them of the shooting. Furthermore, both of them agreed that Barbara found the first of the two spent shell casings the killer left near the lawn of their apartment house, with Virginia finding the second one.
As far as the contradictions between their observations/recollections are concerned, consider the fact that Virginia Davis stated during her Warren Commission testimony that after they reached the front door and observed the gunman, they did not open the screen door to the front door - whereas Barbara Davis claimed they did.
From the testimony of Virginia Davis:
Mr. Belin
Were you looking through the screen door, or was the screen door partially open, if you remember.
Mrs. Davis
It was closed. We was looking through it.
Mr. Belin
You were looking through the screen door?
Mrs. Davis
Yes
From the testimony of Barbara Davis:
Mr. Ball
When you went to the door, did you open the door?
Mrs. Davis
I opened the door and held the screen opened.
In fact, not only did Barbara Davis claim she held the screen door open, she also claimed she was standing on the porch when they saw the killer.
Representative Ford
Could you tell us where you were standing when you saw him?
Mrs. Davis
I was standing on the porch.
Let’s also take into account the fact that Barbara Davis testified she called the Police after they had seen the killer pass their house. Virginia Davis on the other hand, testified that they called the Police before they saw the killer. In my opinion, Virginia’s claim is ridiculous, and does not speak well for her credibility. In fact, David Belin repeatedly questioned her on this point, and she provided contradictory responses.
Mr. Belin
You notified the police. Let me ask you this. Did you notify the police before or after you saw 'the boy with the gun?
Mrs. Davis
Let's see, I think it was before.
Mr. Belin
When you say before, what do you mean?
Mrs. Davis
Well, before we saw the boy.
From the testimony of Barbara Davis:
Mr. Ball
….After the man [killer] left, what did you do, after he went out of sight what did you do?
Mrs. Davis
I went back in and phoned the police.
The Davis sister-in-laws also contradicted each other on whether or not the killer had looked at them as he cut across their front lawn, with Barbara claiming that he did, and Virginia claiming that he didn’t.
From the testimony of Virginia Davis:
Mr. Belin
Did he look at you?
Mrs. Davis
No, sir; not that I remember. I don't think so.
From the testimony of Barbara Davis:
Mr. Ball
What did you do next?
Mrs. Davis
He looked at her first and looked at me and then smiled and went around the corner.
So far, I have outlined three contradictions between their recollections of what occurred after they heard the shots. Bear in mind that the Davis sister-in-laws viewed a line-up of Oswald at approximately 7:55 pm on the day of the assassination. As was the case with the Markham line-up, Oswald was in the number two position. When Counsel David Belin asked Virginia Davis what the time was when they viewed the line-up, she replied with: “it was probably around 5:30 pm” (she also claimed there were five men in the line-up, when there were only four!). On the other hand, Barbara Davis claimed it was after 8 o’clock when they viewed the line-up.
From the testimony of Virginia Davis:
Mr. Belin
About what time of the day was it?
Mrs. Davis
It was probably about 5:30.
From the testimony of Barbara Davis:
Mr. Ball
That was about what time of day that you were at the lineup?
Mrs. Davis
It was after 8, I am sure.
Mr. Ball
After when?
Mrs. Davis
After 8 o'clock.
Now, although Barbara Davis’s recollection of the time they viewed the line-up was certainly much more accurate than Virginia’s, it should be noted that both women took credit for being the first to identify Oswald as Tippit’s killer! This of course is simply ridiculous.
From the testimony of Virginia Davis:
Mr. Belin
Did you hear your sister-in-law identify him first, or not?
Mrs. Davis
No, sir; I identified him first.
From the testimony of Barbara Davis:
Mr. Dulles
Well, let me start over again. Did you identify the man in the line-up before your sister-in-law?
Mrs. Davis
Yes, sir.
Mr. Dulles
Before your sister-in-law?
Mrs. Davis
Yes, sir; I was the first one.
To summarise so far, the Davis sister-in-laws contradicted each other on a). Whether the screen door was open when they viewed the killer, b). When Barbara called the Police, c). Whether or not the killer had looked at them, d). The time at which they viewed the line-up e). Who was the first to identify to Oswald as the killer from the line-up.
Whilst there is very little doubt that Virginia Davis was mistaken about Barbara Davis calling the police before they observed the gunman cutting across their lawn, it’s difficult to imagine how she could be mistaken about not seeing the gunman look towards them then and smile, as per Barbara Davis’s claim.
Now, should one not be satisfied that the Davis sister-in-laws were unreliable witnesses from the aforementioned contradictions, their identification of Ce162 as the jacket they saw killer was wearing was a complete disaster. See below.
From the testimony of Virginia Davis:
Mr. Belin
Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. Davis
He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.
From the testimony of Barbara Davis:
Mr. Ball
Was he dressed the same in the line-up as he was when you saw him running across the lawn?
Mrs. Davis
All except he didn't have a black coat on when I saw him in the lineup.
Further on during her testimony:
Mr. Ball
I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. Davis
No, sir.
Mr. Ball
How is it different?
Mrs. Davis
Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.
As we can see, Virginia Davis claimed the jacket the Tippit killer was wearing was a light brown tan coloured jacket - whereas Barbara Davis claimed that the jacket she saw the killer wearing was black/dark, and also claimed that it might have been a wool fabric jacket. However, Ce162 was a light gray coloured jacket, and was not made of wool fabric! It should also be noted that according to the testimony of DPD Officer Joe M. Poe, he thought that one of the Davis sister-in-laws informed him the killer’s jacket was white.
In conclusion, are we honestly to believe the Davis sister-in-laws were able to recognise Oswald’s face in the line-up - when they weren’t even able identify Ce162 as the jacket the killer was wearing? I doubt that very much. As a matter of fact, after apparently realising what a problem Barbara Davis’s misidentification of the jacket created for them, Warren Commission member, Gerald Ford, asked her if she had her eyes examined recently!
As I hope you have come to realise, the Davis sister-in-laws, like Helen Markham, should not be considered reliable witnesses! However, despite all the problems with their credibility, lone gunman kooks such as David Von Pein uphold their identification of Oswald as being reliable. It only goes to show their desperation to convict Oswald at all costs.
As I hope you have come to realise, the Davis sister-in-laws, like Helen Markham, should not be considered reliable witnesses! However, despite all the problems with their credibility, lone gunman kooks such as David Von Pein uphold their identification of Oswald as being reliable. It only goes to show their desperation to convict Oswald at all costs.
(More to come late).
