Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

How stupid does one have to be to put any stock at all in the claims of Tom Tilson? He was an off-duty Dallas policeman who claimed to see Jack Ruby fleeing the Grassy Knoll in a dark sedan after throwing an "object" in the car, presumably a rifle. As one researcher put it: to say that Tilson's story is flimsy is an insult to Mr. Flim. 

So, according to Tilson, Jack Ruby was a JFK shooter; he was the Grassy Knoll shooter- the one who took the fatal shot. So, we are supposed to believe that when Dulles and Johnson and company were out to kill JFK, that besides Oswald they picked Jack Ruby to do the shooting- thinking that he was the best sniper/assassin there was- and one they could really trust.

So, Jack Ruby goes running down the Grassy Knoll with a rifle, but only Tilson saw him. I realize there were others claiming to see Ruby, such as Jean Hill, but with a rifle? Keep in mind that we are talking about the immediate aftermath of the JFK shooting, a time at which Jack Ruby was at the Dallas Morning News tending to his ads, for which there were multiple witnesses, including the advertising editor, the entertainment editor, the secretary, and more. 

After supposedly giving chase to the guy in vain, Tilson claims he went to a pay phone and called the DPD to report it, giving the license plate number, but nothing came of it. Nothing came of it? He said they never got back to him. They never got back to him? If he had the license plate number, why didn't he look up the owner of the vehicle himself? He was a cop, right? So, what did Tilson do next? What he did next was wait until 1978 to report it to the HSCA, claiming to have thrown away the license plate number. You see, his wife died, and he decided to clean out the house, and that scrap of paper was taking up too much room.

Tilson testified at the 1984 mock trial of Oswald in England, but apparently, the jury gave him no credence at all because they voted unanimously to convict. That was 12 people in 1984, but here it is 2018, and there is a self-promoting "researcher" Gary Fannin who is still drooling over Tilson's claims, as if there is any substance to them.  

Do you understand that anyone can claim anything? That when it comes to lip-wagging, there are no limits on what can be said? There are so many holes, so many doubts, and so many incongruities about Tilson's story, including his own inexplicable behavior, that what you are left with is nothing. Absolutely nothing. You have absolutely nothing to take to the bank and deposit. After listening to the whole thing, the intelligent person is just going to cast it aside as useless. 

And keep in mind that Tilson did accept Oswald being on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, and he said so at the mock trial. He just thought that Ruby (or an extreme lookalike of Ruby) was also a shooter. 

Tilson's story is so incredulous that not even Oliver Stone went for it- and he went for a lot of bogus stuff, e.g., Carolyn Arnold's 1978 revised story, the New Orleans telex story, etc. 

A 12 year old could tell you that there is nothing to take home from this, that Tilson was just another opportunist seeking to have his own JFK cottage industry. That anyone in 2018 still gets excited about Tilson is amazing. What is wrong with people like Gary Fannin? I can tell you what's wrong with him: he's an idiot.