As the text of the autopsy report indicates, Tippit was hit only four
times: once in the head and three times in the chest. Discussion of
whether five shots were fired (one miss) or only four shots (all hits) is
on pp. 266-269 in the 1998 ed. of Myers' WM, but the 2013 edition
apparently differs, and may even reach different conclusions
The angle of the head wound is also in the online version of the autopsy
report, page 9 of 28: "Examination of the wound of the right temple is
made. It is found to enter in the right middle cranial fossa, pursues a
course which is slightly upward, backward, and to the left."
VB's endnote for page 79 of RH cites a footnote from the HSCA report, pg.
60: "The committee did verify from the Tippit autopsy report that there was
one wound to the body that slanted upward from front to back. Though previously
unexplained, it would be consistent with the observations of Jack Ray Tatum."
VB notes: "Conspiracy theorists have raised the issue of Jack
Tatum’s legitimacy as a witness because he never came forward to
the authorities at the time with his observations. That normally is a
valid position. But Tatum’s bona fides in this case overcome
this infirmity." He then discusses his reasons for accepting Tatum's
testimony. One reason he gives is the upward angle, apparently agreeing
with HSCA that it reflected Oswald standing over Tippit when he shot him.
DM is more dubious of Tatum than VB.
(http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2018/11/jack-ray-tatum.html). He also
rejects the claim that the angle of the headwound supports Tatum's story
(With Malice, p. 243), noting that the chest wounds were also "front to
back, slightly upward and to the left."
Neither VB nor DM neglected to consider the issue of Tatum's late
testimony. They weighed it before reaching their somewhat different
They neglected to deal with the fact that his testimony contradicted every
other witness testimony. That's what reveals Bugliosi and Myers to be
hacks. Scoggins, Markham and Benavedes all said, in effect, that Tippit
was shot while he was standing, not after he fell down. And Tatum says
"Oswald" was starting to leave, but came around the car out into the
street and shot him in the head after he was down. A serious researcher
cannot ignore the contradiction, but Myers and Bugliosi are just hack
propagandists. If Tatum is correct, then the original witnesses must be
lying. A mistake of this sort is not credible. Even Bugliosi describes the
shooting as "BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!" Tatum's version would be, BANG!
BANG! BANG! ...(Oswald strolls around the car) BANG! Bugliosi's account
also contradicts Tatum.
That doesn't mean Tatum is wrong, but it means that something is wrong
among these witnesses. Either 3 of them are lying, or 1 of them is lying,
or all of them are lying. The Lone Nutter, if he is to be diligent, is
forced to assume that Tatum is lying, because the 3 originals all lying
the same lie would imply a conspiracy. One liar, especially one who comes
forward 15 years later, can be easily dismissed. But three makes a
conspiracy. Yet Bugliosi and Myers throw caution to the wind and accept
Tatum as an apostle of Warren Commission truth. Why? Because it sounds
good. It helps them sell their propaganda. It won't fool the people who do
their own research, but who cares about them? Propagandists address the
masses, not the researchers.