When reconstructing a crime, it’s useful to put forth the most coherent theory without insisting it is 100% correct – that way, others can analyze it and improve on it.
We may never know the names of the shooter or shooters, but I would suggest to Gene that the Tippit matter is not an enigma.
Consider this: Tippit had to die to make sure that the Dallas police were of one mind in trying to tip the evidence towards Oswald as a shooter.
Even the Warren Commission admitted that it is impossible to match the bullets fired at Tippit with the revolver.
All of us, on some level, should show some humility and take responsibility for not taking this evidence more seriously: Hill’s radio call on how the casings indicate “the suspect is armed with an automatic” at 1:40 pm – and then lying about being the radio caller while under oath in 1964 – and then admitting his lie to Dale Myers in 1986 – tells us all we need to know.
Both 38 special and 38 automatic casings are clearly identified at their base as “38 SP” and “38 AUTO”. The Dallas police all used 38 specials. Hill’s misidentification cannot be passed off as a simple mistake.
No shooter throws spent cartridge casings on the scene after killing a police officer unless the casings are meant to be found.
The official story was that four bullets were fired at Tippit.
Eyewitness Domingo Benavides reported seeing the shooter manually discard two casings on the ground.
From his Warren Commission testimony:
Mr. BELIN. Did you see the Policeman as he fell?
Mr. BENAVIDES. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What else did you see?
Mr. BENAVIDES. Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He didn’t exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.
Within moments, after examining Tippit and reporting his shooting over the officer’s radio, Benavides had no problem finding the two discarded casings he had seen thrown by the shooter.
Whatever casings were discarded – whether from the murder weapon or not – were casings that the shooter wanted to be part of the official record.
The weapon used was not an automatic.
The two casings provided by the Davis sisters to the police were not found at the crime scene, but down the street and later in the day – like the casings found earlier, these two casings could have been planted. Furthermore, the Davis sisters said that the marked casings were not the casings that they originally provided to the police.
A second point that illustrates Hill’s involvement in a cover-up on the scene:
Not only do the two casings found by the Davis sisters have no reliable chain of custody, but the dramatic story of the other two casings show a complete lack of trustworthiness as evidence.
Benavides was a key eyewitness. He was close enough to see Tippit and “Oswald, or the man who shot him” talking before the shooting began.
Benavides was consistent – he said that he heard three shots. When he found the discarded two casings, he picked them up with a stick, put them in an empty cigarette package, and handed them to “an officer” as he told him his story.
The officer was Joe Poe – who claimed he marked the casings. Hill testified that Poe showed him three casings, not two.
Hill knew there were only two casings. Hill said so on TV a few days after the assassination.
Hill had a successful pattern of lying about the JFK/Tippit/Oswald evidence. His technique was to plant red herrings throughout the investigation, knowing that law enforcement investigators would give up rather than chase these anomalies in the face of a seemingly bigger set of problems and dismiss Hill’s actions as minor mistakes.
Poe told the FBI that he marked his two casings with his initials “JMP“. When he testified before the Commission, Poe stated under oath that he could not swear that he initialed these casings. Hence, there was no chain of custody.
Detective Jim Leavelle, a veteran of the force, told researcher Joe McBride that the casings were useless as evidence. (See McBride’s Into the Nightmare). The question should be asked, however – did Poe initially lie, or were the casings switched?
See how Hill lies in 1986 in an attempt to hopelessly blur the entire story:
“We found all these shells on the ground. I don’t recall if Poe picked up some and I picked up the others, but we were both there at the same time.
“Benavides pointed them out to us, but he didn’t handle the shells.”
I believe the Tippit killing was an integral part of the operation to kill JFK – not a blown event, nor an unrelated event.
The Tippit killing should be analyzed in that light.
Jerry Hill should have been indicted in 1964 for obstruction of justice.
* * *
I might add that Google AI had to admit it was dead wrong on this Tippit evidence. Robert Morrow has been teaching Grok its errors. We should do the same with Google AI. As Patti Smith says – People have the power!
At first, Google AI insisted:
“…The information that the J.D. Tippit murder cartridge cases were found in a “Winston cigarette package” does not appear in official Warren Commission reports or testimonies…The detail about a “Winston cigarette package” appears to be a persistent but unfounded claim within conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination.”
After ten minutes of showing Google AI the evidentiary chain, it was forced to admit:
“Yes, based on the provided source page from the Warren Commission Hearings, Volume VII, page 58 [1], my earlier characterization that the claim was a conspiracy theory was incorrect.
“The official testimony is a primary source that directly supports the claim that Poe showed Hill the casings…
“This explicitly confirms that this claim originates directly from official, sworn testimony and is not a conspiracy theory. It also specifies the use of a Winston cigarette package and notes three (initially) spent casings were in it.
“My previous analysis incorrectly relied on conflicting summaries and a different section of Hill’s testimony where he denied receiving the evidence formally, rather than visually observing it at the scene.”
Copyright ©2025 AARC. All rights reserved.