How is it that in 10 months of investigating, not a single Warren Commissioner wanted to know what Oswald's alibi was for the Tippit murder? They knew that he denied doing it. So, why didn't they want to know where he said he was at the time? Why didn't they ask police and FBI agents to account for that? And by some point, they must have realized that it was missing from the police record.
So, why didn't they get damn mad about it?
For goodness sake, he was charged with killing Tippit. It was the first thing he was charged with. And he denied it. So, how do you not collect his story, his account of where he was and what he was doing at the time?
I realize that the Warren Commission was not a criminal trial, but that to me is a very moot point. Oswald WAS on trial. The only difference is that the punishment was already dealt out; it didn't remain to be enforced. But, he was still on trial: for his name; his reputation; his historical burden. There was also the impact it would have on his children's lives. So, even though he was dead, he deserved and was entitled to his day in court.
His response to being accused of killing Tippit- not just denying it but saying where he was and what he was doing at the time- should have been included in the police record. It was not.
And in 10 months of discussion, nobody at the Warren Commission cared. They never once hounded Fritz or Hosty or Bookhout or Kelley or anyone else about not having obtained Oswald's Tippit alibi.
But, the HSCA went on for 3 years: from 1976 to 1979. Three freaking years! And in those three freaking years, Oswald's Tippit alibi never came up? They had all the Dallas PD records. They had all the FBI records. They had all 26 volumes of the Warren Report, which they presumably combed through studiously. And they took hundreds of testimonies. THEY NEVER EVEN ONCE MENTIONED THE IDEA OF OSWALD HAVING AN ALIBI FOR THE TIPPIT MURDER. Nobody did. Not Brooten. Not Blakey. Not anybody.
These were lawyers. Lawyers know that defendants who deny committing criminal acts provide alibis. Whether they are true alibis or false alibis, they always provide an alibi.
WHAT WAS OSWALD'S ALIBI FOR THE TIPPIT MURDER?
I demand to know. I am appalled that this important matter was left out of the police reports, left out of the government investigations, again and again, and also overlooked by so many researchers.
I'm not saying this to brag, but has anybody before me ever complained about the fact that we don't know what Oswald's alibi for the Tippit murder was? I know what we think; that he was in the theater at the time of the murder; and that's fine. BUT, WHAT DID HE SAY? I still want to know what he said about it. Is that too much to ask?
The failure of Dallas Police and FBI and Secret Service to solicit Oswald's Tippit alibi is evidence of blood: the blood on them; all of them. The failure of the government investigators that followed to delve into that matter is evidence of blood on them; all of them. And the failure of JFK researchers to make a stink about it is part of the problem. It is part of what I call the "other worldliness" of the JFK assassination- that something so basic should be overlooked, which it wouldn't be in other cases.