The transcripts of radio traffic on Channel-I and an audio file
reportedly originating from the dictabelt show that the authorities
altered the sequence of recorded events surrounding the murder of
officer Tippit.

Part One - Activity on the Primary Police Channel-I

When police initially arrived at the scene of the Tippit shooting, the
dictabelt had recorded six addresses for the location of the crime
scene. This situation is particularly difficult to dismiss since a
citizen reported the shooting to the police over the two-way radio of
Tippit's patrol car.


They reported the location as Tenth Street, between Marsalis and
Beckley at 404 Tenth Street.


On December 2, 1963, T. F. Bowley filed an affidavit that asserts he
radioed the report of a shot officer to the police. However, he quoted
himself as having said, "A police officer has been shot here." These
words differed from the dictabelt that recorded the words, "We've had
a shooting out here." So I decline to identify Bowley as the citizen
who reported the first address of 404 Tenth Street.

Two dispatchers worked Channel-I. Murray James Jackson dispatched
calls that come over the radio while C. E. Hulse handled calls that
come through the police telephone lines. Each dispatcher had a speaker
and heard all activity recorded by the Dictaphone excepting their own
words. So a dispatcher could have missed a message broadcast
simultaneously with their own words. However, the other dispatcher
would have heard the simultaneous broadcasts and could have used the
conveyor belt to send a written message to their counterpart.

A dispatcher began speaking while the citizen said, "Hello police
operator did you get that?" After the citizen stopped speaking, he
heard "a police officer 510 East Jefferson."


The citizen waited for completion of the message then instead of
repeating his request for confirmation, he replied "thank you" as if
there were no communications gap.

At this point the police had two addresses for the shooting.


Nevertheless A. R. Brock of unit 69 announced "Vince and I are going
out there."


Shortly afterwards Ray Hawkins and E. R. Baggett of unit 211 informed
the dispatcher, "We're clear at Industrial and Stemmons. We'll go out
there." Neither unit asked whether they were going to 404 Tenth Street
or 510 East Jefferson.


The first mention of 501 East Tenth Street occurred when the
dispatcher responded to a station that asked "What's that address on
Jefferson?" The station had cause to ask because 510 East Jefferson
was mentioned earlier in relation to a police officer. By contrast,
the dispatcher who conversed with the citizen had no cause to send the
ambulance to the address of Frank and Mary Wright.


Sergeant Calvin Bud Owens gave the dispatcher another opportunity to
acknowledge the address of 404 Tenth Street. Owens said, "Give me the
correct address on the shooting." The dispatcher failed to
acknowledge the earlier addresses of 404 Tenth Street or 510 East
Jefferson and the dispatcher reaffirmed the third address of the
shooting as 501 East Tenth Street.

A dispatcher introduced a fourth address by stating, "We have two
locations 501 East Jefferson and 501 East Ten." This former address
belonged to the Harris Motor Company that employed Ted Callaway and
Sam Guinyard.


A second citizen used the police radio and reported that the shot
officer was on the 500 block of Tenth Street. Spectators who gave the
earlier citizen the number of the police car and the street address of
the shooting did not correct this error. In fact background voices
were not heard during this report. The dispatcher accepted this fifth
address and told the second citizen we have that information.


In his Warren Commission testimony, Ted Callaway reported using the
police radio and gave sufficient details to identify himself as the
second citizen.

A question by Captain Cecil E. Talbert confirmed that at least one
citizen radioed a report of the shooting. The dispatcher asked, "Did
you receive the information on the police officer shot?" Talbert said,
"But didn't that citizen say first he was on Jefferson, then on Tenth
and then Chesepeak?" The spelling of the last named location is
questionable. A locally prepared transcript of Sawyer Exhibit A
spelled the last named location as Chesepeak. CE-705, prepared by the
FBI, spelled the location as Chesapeak while the CE-1974 also prepared
by the FBI spelled the name as Chesapeake.

A dispatcher announced the indirect report of the shooting by Barbara
Jeanette Davis approximately three and a quarter minutes after
receiving the address as 404 Tenth Street. He said " . . . have a
signal 19 involving a police officer 400 East Ten."

Part Two - Activity on Channel-II

Although the primary police channel was clogged with six addresses
pertaining to the shooting, the transcripts of Channel-II reported two


Sawyer Exhibit B of December 5, 1963 described two messages pertaining
to a shot officer. The first message informed all squads of an officer
involved in a shooting in the 400 block of East Tenth. The second
message requested informing Chief Curry of an officer involved in a
shooting of unknown seriousness at Tenth and Patton.


CE 705 and CE 1974 included a disjointed message. The dispatcher,
Gerald Dalton Henslee, told Sergeant Owens, "It's in the 400 or 500
block of E. 10th, I believe." Owens responded but neither transcript
reported him asking for the correct address on Channel-II.

During the afternoon of November 22, 1963, Henslee played a dual role
in the dispatcher's office. He supervised incoming radio calls on
Channel-I and was the sole dispatcher for Channel-II. These duties
exposed him to the radioed messages from the two citizens who reported
the 400 block and the 500 block of East Tenth Street as the location
of the shot officer. So the sources of the information that Henslee
relayed to Owens were not necessarily the telephonic messages from 400
East Tenth or 501 East Tenth. The failure of Henslee to mention the
501 East Jefferson address of the Harris Motor Company or the 510 East
Jefferson address of the Reynolds Motor Company suggest that the
reports radioed by citizens were the sources of the information
relayed to Owens.

Part Three - Knowledge of the Callers


The affidavit of Barbara Jeanette Davis dated November 22, 1963 states
that she heard shots, went to the door, saw a man unloading a gun
while walking across her yard and heard a woman screaming that "he
shot him, he killed him." She ran into the house and reported this
information to the telephone operator.


Mrs. Charlie Virginia Davis corroborated this call to the authorities
in her affidavit of November 22, 1963. These documents justify the
dispatcher's broadcast, "signal 19 involving a police officer 400 East


According to the affidavits of Ted Callaway and Sam Guinyard dated
November 22, 1963 neither witness called the police before going to
the scene of the shooting. Although not mentioned in his affidavit, it
appears that Callaway radioed the police. This radio report shows
that police had not yet arrived at the crime scene. So an undocumented
conversion with the police could not have been source of the
dispatcher's knowledge of the 501 East Jefferson business address of
Callaway. Although these circumstances allow an unidentified person of
the Harris Motor Company to have telephoned the police, the expected
contents of a call that reported gun shots and a running man carrying
a weapon cannot justify the dispatcher placing as much weight upon the
501 East Jefferson address as the address of the shot officer reported
from Tippit's patrol car.

Frank and Mary Wright of 501 East Tenth Street were among the ghost
witnesses at the Tippit crime scene. The Dallas Municipal Archives
that inherited the voluminous holdings of the Dallas Police Department
contains no affidavits from these witnesses. A search of the FBI files
uncovered no interviews of Wrights. Apparently the authorities found
the knowledge of Frank or Mary Wright was unworthy of report.

The address of 510 East Jefferson belonged to the business office of
the Reynolds Motor Company. From this location and the adjacent used
car lot at 500 East Jefferson four troublesome witnesses raised a
timing problem that the authorities needed to conceal.


In particular the FBI interview of L. J. Lewis on January 21, 1964
discloses that he learned of the shot officer after calling the police
to report hearing gun shots and seeing a running man carrying an
automatic pistol or a revolver.


Harold Russell in his FBI interview of January 21, 1964 corroborated
Lewis on this timing issue. This interview stated, Russell advised
that he and Pat Patterson went to the vicinity of Tenth and Patton
while L. J. Lewis went into the business office and called the police.
Upon arriving at the scene of the shooting, Russell observed an
apparently dead police officer.


The FBI interview of B. M. Patterson on January 22, 1964 states that
he heard shots at approximately 1:30 PM. A minute or so later he
observed a running man carrying a revolver. Being unaware that the
observed man had shot a police officer, Warren Reynolds suggested that
they follow the individual and later notify the police.


Warren Reynolds in the FBI interview of January 21, 1964 stated that
he heard shots during the afternoon then observed a running individual
with a pistol or an automatic. He followed from a safe distance and
last observed the man by the Ballew Texaco Service Station. Reynolds
advised approximately five or ten minutes later someone told him that
the man he had been "tailing" had shot and apparently killed an
officer. Reynolds hesitated to definitely identify the person that he
followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963 as the same person in a
photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald. Although the FBI interviews of
January 1964 reported that B. M. Patterson and Harold Russell
positively identified the running man carrying a gun as Lee Harvey
Oswald the Dallas authorities produced no records of interviews or
affidavits from these pivotal witnesses. The Warren Commission
foregone corroborated testimonies that positively placed Lee Harvey
Oswald fleeing the scene of the Tippit shooting in favor of affidavits
that affirmed the FBI interviews of January 1964.


Warren Reynolds filed a belated affidavit on March 16, 1964. Reynolds
stated that shortly after noon he heard one shot followed by four or
five other shots. He looked out the window and saw a running man
waving a pistol who he now knows as Lee Harvey Oswald. Reynolds
followed Oswald until losing sight of him at the Texaco station.

During August the Warren Commission renewed their interest in the
witnesses associated with the Reynolds Motor Company.


On August 10, 1964, an affidavit of Harold Russell affirmed the FBI
report of his interview during the previous January.


By request of the Warren Commission, the FBI contacted L. J. Lewis and
B. M. Patterson to determine the accuracy of their interviews of last


On August 26, 1964, L. J. Lewis executed an affidavit that placed his
call to the police after hearing the shots and a few minutes before
seeing the running man. He stated that there was so much confusion at
the Police Department that they having trouble making out what I was
telling them.


The affidavit of B. M. Patterson on August 26, 1964 revised the FBI
report of his interview during January of the same year. Patterson
doubted having been shown a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald in


On September 7, 1964, B. M. Patterson executed an affidavit that
affirmed the written reports on his interviews of August 25 and 26,
1964 by Special Agent Richard J. Burnett of the FBI.

The testimonies and interviews of Patterson, Reynolds and Russell
corroborated Lewis on his claimed ignorance of a shot officer when he
phoned the police from 510 East Jefferson.

Part Four Mutations of the Channel-I Radio Transcripts

The Warren Commission published three versions of the words that
followed the citizen's question, "Did you get that?"


Sawyer Exhibit A of December 3, 1963, reported that the dispatcher who
conversed with the citizen broadcast the words, "Signal 19 involving a
police officer, 510 E. Jefferson."


A transcript produced three months later and became CE 705 attributed
the evolving message to an unknown voice who said "a police officer,
510 E. Jefferson." During August of 1964 the third version attempted
to reconcile the contradictory reports of the previous two
transcripts. They attributed the statement, "a police officer, 510
East Jefferson" to the citizen that was repeated by the Dispatcher as
"Signal 19, involving a police officer, 510 East Jefferson."


The Warren Commission published this transcript within CE 1974

The citizen said seven words, "Hello police operator did you get
that?" during the interval that CE 1974 claimed the dispatcher said
the three words, "Signal 19, involving." However, both messages began
simultaneously so the claim of CE 1974 strongly suggests that they
transcribed a mutated record of the dictabelt.

Part Five - Signal Analyzes of the Radioed Reports of the Shooting

Each dispatcher had a telephone link that bypassed the main police
radio receiver and feed directly into the main transmitter. These
links impressed distinguishing characteristics upon all broadcasts by
the dispatches. The main radio receiver added a noise burst at the end
of a non simultaneous reception. Broadcasts from the each dispatcher
lacked these bursts of noise.

Three radio events surrounding the report by the citizen merit special
attention. The citizen made a brief broadcast and gave the location as
tenth street.


A second burst of noise followed the expected burst of the receiver.
An innocent explanation of this reception required that a mobile
station interrupted a report of shooting by keying in at end of the
citizen's cryptic reply, said nothing, keyed out and produced the
second noise burst. Since these circumstances, not matter how
improbable, are physically possible the double burst of noise is
evidence, not proof, of an altered tape of a dictabelt.


The presence of a noise burst following the simultaneous recording of
two messages proves that the citizen asked, "Police operator did you
get that?" and the dispatcher said, "a police officer, 510 East
Jefferson." Without doubt, this noise burst discredits the attempts of
CE 705 and CE 1974 to attribute this second address to an unknown
person or the citizen.


About 0.5 second after the dispatcher said, "a police officer, 510
East Jefferson" a mobile station keyed in, broadcasted background
voices for 0.7 second, keyed out and produced a noise burst. So the
audio record of the citizen's report of the shooting of Tippit
contained another highly improbable event. In this case a mobile
station interrupted a report of a shot officer and said nothing.


Ted Callaway began his report by saying "Hello, hello, hello" and then
paused to listen. The noise burst that followed Callaway's words shows
that he was the only transmitting unit on the channel.


Almost immediately an ambulance announced its 602 call number. An
analysis of the signal revealed excessive frequency deviation of the
transmitter and a heterodyne impaired intelligibility of the message.
Shortly after their last number, the operator released the transmit


A radio receiver responded to the absence of a signal by producing a
quarter second noise burst. During this burst the operator's
transmitter was off so the excessive deviation had no degrading
effects upon the noise burst. However, my audio file recorded a noise
burst distorted by a heterodyne. Since generation of the heterodyne
required reception of two radio signals and production of the noise
burst demanded absence of any radio signal, the distorted noise burst
is proof of an unprofessional alteration of my audio record of the