Unsung Heroes

[Joe Elliott]

This is so much self-serving mumbo jumbo that I don't even know where to begin.

So why don't I start with inconsistancy;

When this message comes over the radio;

At 1:26
75 (Ptm. E. G. Sabastian)     Go ahead.
Dispatcher                             400 East Jefferson.
75                                            We’re almost there.

the transcript somehow likely isn't correct, because the dispatcher, when he said "400 East Jefferson" could have been talking to anybody except Sabastian, right?

Yet only a few lines later this comes over the radio;

75                    75.
Dispatcher     400 East Jefferson. Report in that vicinity.
75                    Code 2.
Dispatcher      Yes.

and now you claim the dispatcher is telling Sabastian (75) to go to..... wait for it.... the same location he said previously! Go figure!

What is really happening here of course is that the dispatcher told Sabastian the first time to go to 400 Jefferson and in the second call reminded him to report when he's in the vicinity. To argue that the first call isn't correct and the second one is, is simply disingenuous. Sabastian was probably racing down the Central Expressway with sirens blazing. "We're almost there" isn't precise and simply could have been his way of saying "we're en route", but whatever it's meaning, he responded to the dispatcher telling him where to go and that was 400 Jefferson!

No. My interpretation is correct. Let’s ignore the 13-mile distance, and “We are almost there” meaning the same as “I’m still 13 miles away”. Let me re-word these two conversations between the Dispatcher and Officer Sabastian, or the two conversations, first with an unknown officer and the second with Officer Sabastian. I’ll reword it your way, with both conversations with Officer Sabastian, And I am rewording it with standard English, without the special codes, like “Code 2”, or “75” being code for Officer Sabastian, to make the meaning clearer:

Officer Sabastian:    Reporting in for instructions.
Dispatcher:               Proceed to 400 East Jefferson. Report when in that vicinity.
Officer Sabastian:    We are almost there.

[ 30 seconds later ]

Officer Sabastian:    Officer Sabastian here, reporting in for instructions.
Dispatcher:               Proceed to 400 East Jefferson. Report when in that vicinity.
Officer Sabastian:    I will head out there immediately without my sirens.
Dispatcher:               Yes, please do that.

In your version, Officer Sabastian seems to be a pretty befuddled fellow. He has to be reminded every minute or so on what his instructions are and where he is to proceed. Thirty seconds after receiving his clear instructions he calls in again asking for instructions. Clearly this is a conversation with two different officers, both being asked to drive to 400 East Jefferson.

So, let's talk some more about inconsistancy; in the other thread (about Brewer) you agreed with me that it was unlikely that Sabastian would have a commercial radio station on while in his patrol car racing down to 400 Jefferson. Yet here you argue that he did not get to 400 East Jefferson until well after 1.25, which means he still must have been in his patrol car at 1.25. So, are you now going back to saying that he did have a radio playing in the car after all? If not, you have self-defeated your own argument, because there is no other way for Sabastian that he could have heard a radio report at 1.25 while driving at high speed on the motorway. The problem is of course still the same; there is no evidence of such a broadcast actually having been aired.

When you are right, you are right! After giving this further consideration I withdraw the argument, simply because when Sabastian arrived at 400 Jefferson he had already asked the dispatcher about the DOA, which means that he must have made that call to the dispatcher while en route from Forest Lane to 400 Jefferson. Which, of course, brings us right back to square one; Sabastian could only have heard it in his car, while on the Expressway, yet you have already argreed that it is unlikely he would have a commercial station on, racing down the highway with his sirens on.

Officer Sabastian indicated he was heading to 400 East Jefferson with his sirens on and his lights flashing? Let’s see what “Code 2” means:

http://qcode.us/codes/stockton/view.php?topic=5-5_96-ii-5_96_060#:~:text=%E2%80%9CCode%201%E2%80%9D%20means%20routine%20or,(non%2Demergency)%20treatment.&text=%E2%80%9CCode%203%E2%80%9D%20means%20an%20emergency,with%20red%20light%20and%20siren

These are the standard radio codes, used both for ambulance drivers and by the police, by any vehicle authorized to be equipped with sirens and flashing lights.

“Code 1” means routine or scheduled transportation of patients between facilities or to a facility for normal (non-emergency) treatment.

“Code 2” means an emergency where time is critical, requiring immediate response by the ambulance provider, without red light and siren.

“Code 3” means an emergency where time is critical, requiring immediate response with red light and siren.

Code 1 is the lowest priority, where safe speeds can be used. Code 3 is the highest priority, where all means must be used to get somewhere as soon as possible. Speeding, using the siren, using the flashing lights. And, I believe, going through red lights, if that can be done safely.

Code 2 means the responder will hurry to the destination, but without flashing lights and sirens.

So, at 1:28 Officer Sabastian was on his way to 400 East Jefferson, but without sirens. And we don’t know if he was speeding down the expressway yet. Perhaps he was, or perhaps he was still on Forest Lane, having to do a U-Turn and waiting at traffic lights, before getting on the expressway. So, he could have heard such a commercial radio broadcast, either from his radio or another vehicle, while waiting at a light. Somehow, he did hear such a broadcast. Hence, his report:

“NBC News is reporting DOA. . . . That the officer?”

Wanting confirmation from the Dispatcher of the bad news he just heard over the commercial radio.

[Martin Weidmann]

No. My interpretation is correct. Let’s ignore the 13-mile distance, and “We are almost there” meaning the same as “I’m still 13 miles away”. Let me re-word these two conversations between the Dispatcher and Officer Sabastian, or the two conversations, first with an unknown officer and the second with Officer Sabastian. I’ll reword it your way, with both conversations with Officer Sabastian, And I am rewording it with standard English, without the special codes, like “Code 2”, or “75” being code for Officer Sabastian, to make the meaning clearer:

Officer Sabastian:    Reporting in for instructions.
Dispatcher:               Proceed to 400 East Jefferson. Report when in that vicinity.
Officer Sabastian:    We are almost there.

[ 30 seconds later ]

Officer Sabastian:    Officer Sabastian here, reporting in for instructions.
Dispatcher:               Proceed to 400 East Jefferson. Report when in that vicinity.
Officer Sabastian:    I will head out there immediately without my sirens.
Dispatcher:               Yes, please do that.

No. My interpretation is correct.

Of course... What else would you be able to say when you let your opinion be immune to any kind of reasonable push back.

All you're doing is twisting and turning some more... attaching meaning to a few spoken words without actually having a clue what was meant by those words to begin with.

In your version, Officer Sabastian seems to be a pretty befuddled fellow. He has to be reminded every minute or so on what his instructions are and where he is to proceed. Thirty seconds after receiving his clear instructions he calls in again asking for instructions. Clearly this is a conversation with two different officers, both being asked to drive to 400 East Jefferson.

He has to be reminded every minute or so on what his instructions are and where he is to proceed. Thirty seconds after receiving his clear instructions he calls in again asking for instructions.

There you go again.... making stuff up to fit your narrative. First of all, where you do get the notion that he had clear instructions. Have you even heard the sound clip of the second conversation, made available on McAdams site? The sound quality is very poor indeed. And secondly, Sabastian didn't call in again to ask for instructions. All he said was "Go ahead". The dispatcher who had just spoken to Owens (19), Arglin (79) and CID (412) then simply repeated "400 East Jefferson". He may not even have said that to Sabastian, who nevertheless responded with "We're almost there"

This is the entire sequence;

19 (Sgt. C.B. Owens)   19.       
Dispatcher   19.       
19   One of the men here at the service station that saw him seems to think he's in this block, the 400 block of East Jefferson behind this service station. Would you give me some more squads over here?       
79 (Ptm. B.N. Arglin)   79 en route.       
        . . . 19/90/car 2.       
412 (CID)   412 en route.       
        . . . 400 East Jefferson.       
Dispatcher   10-4, 412.       
75 (Ptm. E.G. Sabastian)   Go ahead.       
Dispatcher   400 East Jefferson.       
75   We're almost there.

So much for your "suggestion" that Sabastian called in for a second time to ask for instructions.

Officer Sabastian indicated he was heading to 400 East Jefferson with his sirens on and his lights flashing? Let’s see what “Code 2” means:

http://qcode.us/codes/stockton/view.php?topic=5-5_96-ii-5_96_060#:~:text=%E2%80%9CCode%201%E2%80%9D%20means%20routine%20or,(non%2Demergency)%20treatment.&text=%E2%80%9CCode%203%E2%80%9D%20means%20an%20emergency,with%20red%20light%20and%20siren

These are the standard radio codes, used both for ambulance drivers and by the police, by any vehicle authorized to be equipped with sirens and flashing lights.

“Code 1” means routine or scheduled transportation of patients between facilities or to a facility for normal (non-emergency) treatment.

“Code 2” means an emergency where time is critical, requiring immediate response by the ambulance provider, without red light and siren.

“Code 3” means an emergency where time is critical, requiring immediate response with red light and siren.

Code 1 is the lowest priority, where safe speeds can be used. Code 3 is the highest priority, where all means must be used to get somewhere as soon as possible. Speeding, using the siren, using the flashing lights. And, I believe, going through red lights, if that can be done safely.

Code 2 means the responder will hurry to the destination, but without flashing lights and sirens.

Officer Sabastian indicated he was heading to 400 East Jefferson with his sirens on and his lights flashing?

No Sabastian did not indicate that at all. It was a reasonable assumption on my part that when multiple officers are rushing to a crime scene to catch the bad guy, they do so with sirens and lights to enable them to move as fast as they can.

The second part of this quote is completely hilarious. You find a website for ambulance codes in Stockton and you conveniently say that the same codes apply throughout the country and all the different services. Are you freakin' kidding me?

In Dallas the communication code 2 means: Urgent Response

https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Dallas_County_(TX)#Communication_Codes

Code 1 is: Normal Response (no lights or sirens)
Code 3 is: Emergency Lights & Sirens

under code 2 there is no indication of an obligation to use lights and sirens, nor does it not premit it. In other words; it's left to the officer's discretion.

By responding to the dispatcher with "code 2" Sabastian is communicating that he is urgently responding. Does that sound to you that he was driving to 400 Jefferson with haste of just leisurely driving there?

So, at 1:28 Officer Sabastian was on his way to 400 East Jefferson, but without sirens. And we don’t know if he was speeding down the expressway yet. Perhaps he was, or perhaps he was still on Forest Lane, having to do a U-Turn and waiting at traffic lights, before getting on the expressway.

Yeah sure... and perhaps he even stopped for coffee at a local diner, went to visit his wife and did some shopping.

He had just told his dispatcher that he was heading to 400 Jefferson on a code 2 (Urgent Response) and you have him stopping for a traffic light.... 

One more comment; at 1.32 on the transcripts the dispatcher says that the suspect is running in an alley between Jefferson and 10th and one of the officers that acknowledges receipt of the call is Sabastian (75). Why would he do that if he, as you suggest, was no way near that location at that time?

So, he could have heard such a commercial radio broadcast, either from his radio or another vehicle, while waiting at a light. Somehow, he did hear such a broadcast. Hence, his report:

“NBC News is reporting DOA. . . . That the officer?”

Wanting confirmation from the Dispatcher of the bad news he just heard over the commercial radio.

Except there still is not a shred of evidence that such a broadcast ever took place.

Actually, when you listen to the sound clip for this conversation, it's not even clear that it was Sabastian who said "That the officer?" and on the transcript itself there is a question mark behind 75 for this comment. No such question mark appears behind 75 for the later question "...... on the President".

So the actual question that Sabastian could well have been asking is "NBC News is reporting DOA..... on the President?"
As Kennedy was declared dead at 1 pm, nearly a half hour earlier, that could have been what Sabastian heard on the radio, but I am all but sure you will of course disagree...

[Joe Elliott]

No. My interpretation is correct.

Of course... What else would you be able to say when you let your opinion be immune to any kind of reasonable push back.

All you're doing is twisting and turning some more... attaching meaning to a few spoken words without actually having a clue what was meant by those words to begin with.

He has to be reminded every minute or so on what his instructions are and where he is to proceed. Thirty seconds after receiving his clear instructions he calls in again asking for instructions.

There you go again.... making stuff up to fit your narrative. First of all, where you do get the notion that he had clear instructions. Have you even heard the sound clip of the second conversation, made available on McAdams site? The sound quality is very poor indeed. And secondly, Sabastian didn't call in again to ask for instructions. All he said was "Go ahead". The dispatcher who had just spoken to Owens (19), Arglin (79) and CID (412) then simply repeated "400 East Jefferson". He may not even have said that to Sabastian, who nevertheless responded with "We're almost there"

This is the entire sequence;

19 (Sgt. C.B. Owens)   19.       
Dispatcher   19.       
19   One of the men here at the service station that saw him seems to think he's in this block, the 400 block of East Jefferson behind this service station. Would you give me some more squads over here?       
79 (Ptm. B.N. Arglin)   79 en route.       
        . . . 19/90/car 2.       
412 (CID)   412 en route.       
        . . . 400 East Jefferson.       
Dispatcher   10-4, 412.       
75 (Ptm. E.G. Sabastian)   Go ahead.       
Dispatcher   400 East Jefferson.       
75   We're almost there.

So much for your "suggestion" that Sabastian called in for a second time to ask for instructions.

No, let’s list the entire conversation that you claim that the Dispatcher had with Officer Sabastian:

Sabastian (?):   Go ahead.
Dispatcher:      400 East Jefferson.
Sabastian(?):   We’re almost there.

[30 second later]

Sabastian:       75.
Dispatcher:     400 East Jefferson. Report in that vicinity.
Sabastian(?):   Code 2

The only statement that positively identifies Officer Sabastian is “75”. But “Code 2: is almost certainly him as well because it occurs so soon after “75”.

Your assertion, that both conversations are with Officer Sabastian is unsupported. He is not going to report that he is “almost there” when he is actually more than 13 miles away. He is not going to ask for, receive, and acknowledge instructions from Dispatch twice in the same minute.

Clearly the Dispatcher knew who he was talking to, at least in most cases. It was the person who wrote this transcript he was confused and guessed that both brief conversations were with Officer Sabastian when only the second one was.

Officer Sabastian indicated he was heading to 400 East Jefferson with his sirens on and his lights flashing?

No Sabastian did not indicate that at all. It was a reasonable assumption on my part that when multiple officers are rushing to a crime scene to catch the bad guy, they do so with sirens and lights to enable them to move as fast as they can.

The second part of this quote is completely hilarious. You find a website for ambulance codes in Stockton and you conveniently say that the same codes apply throughout the country and all the different services. Are you freakin' kidding me?

In Dallas the communication code 2 means: Urgent Response

https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Dallas_County_(TX)#Communication_Codes

Code 1 is: Normal Response (no lights or sirens)
Code 3 is: Emergency Lights & Sirens

under code 2 there is no indication of an obligation to use lights and sirens, nor does it not premit it. In other words; it's left to the officer's discretion.

By responding to the dispatcher with "code 2" Sabastian is communicating that he is urgently responding. Does that sound to you that he was driving to 400 Jefferson with haste of just leisurely driving there?

The Dallas codes and the Stockton codes mean the same thing:

https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Dallas_County_(TX)#Communication_Codes

Code 2 is an urgent response. It does not mean an urgent response, using emergency lights and sirens. If Officer Sabastian had decided to use emergency lights and sirens, he would have said “Code 3”, not “Code 2”. By saying “Code 2” he was telling the Dispatcher that he was proceeding quickly but safely and not using his sirens. If the Dispatcher wanted to overrule this decision, he would have told him to proceed at Code 3. But these instructions were never made.

Why would Officer Sabastian decide to proceed without sirens, on an urgent mission? Because he was 13 miles away. Even with sirens, he will get there late. There are other units who are much closer and can get there sooner. Going with sirens is not a decision to be taken lightly. It is dangerous. Driving with sirens for 2 minutes is dangerous. It may cause an accident. But may be done in an emergency and if there is a fair chance it may make a difference. But driving for 10 minutes with sirens is 5 times as dangerous, and not likely to make a difference. It is a judgement call. It is evident that Officer Sabastian elected to go without sirens, informed the Dispatcher of this, and was not overruled by the Dispatcher. Officer Sabastian has no reason to deceive the Dispatcher into thinking he is responding without sirens when he is actually using them. Your speculation that Officer Sabastian decided to use sirens and misinformed the Dispatcher about this is unsupported.

Yes, I use speculation as well. But my speculation is reasonable. Like Officer Sabastian won’t ask for instructions, and acknowledge he has received those instructions, twice in the same minute. He is not going to report that he is “almost there” when he is actually 13 miles away. And is not going to indicate that he is going without sirens when he actually is.

Getting there a few minutes later than he could have done so dangerously might still be useful, if more reports come in 20 minutes later. At least he will now be in the general area, not 13 miles away.

[Joe Elliott]

A final point I should make, could “Code 2” mean Officer Sabastian was using sirens? Yes, it could. Either he could be using sirens or he wasn’t. Although I think he would have made himself clearer by saying “Code 3”. But we know he couldn’t have been. If he was using sirens, he probably could not have gotten a message from “NBC News”, either by a reporter in person, the theory you seem to favor, or over commercial radio, the theory that I favor, if he had elected to use sirens.

And even if he was speeding down the expressway, with sirens on, it is still more likely he got this message “Officer DOA” over his squad car’s commercial radio than from an NBC reporter pulling up besides him while both are travelling at high speed with sirens and shout with a megaphone “A Dallas police officer is DOA”. Speculation? Yes, but reasonable speculation.

[John Tonkovich]

A final point I should make, could “Code 2” mean Officer Sabastian was using sirens? Yes, it could. Either he could be using sirens or he wasn’t. Although I think he would have made himself clearer by saying “Code 3”. But we know he couldn’t have been. If he was using sirens, he probably could not have gotten a message from “NBC News”, either by a reporter in person, the theory you seem to favor, or over commercial radio, the theory that I favor, if he had elected to use sirens.

And even if he was speeding down the expressway, with sirens on, it is still more likely he got this message “Officer DOA” over his squad car’s commercial radio than from an NBC reporter pulling up besides him while both are travelling at high speed with sirens and shout with a megaphone “A Dallas police officer is DOA”. Speculation? Yes, but reasonable speculation.

Reasonable speculation.

" Just the facts, ma'am", as Joe Friday said.

[Martin Weidmann]

No, let’s list the entire conversation that you claim that the Dispatcher had with Officer Sabastian:

Sabastian (?):   Go ahead.
Dispatcher:      400 East Jefferson.
Sabastian(?):   We’re almost there.

[30 second later]

Sabastian:       75.
Dispatcher:     400 East Jefferson. Report in that vicinity.
Sabastian(?):   Code 2

The only statement that positively identifies Officer Sabastian is “75”. But “Code 2: is almost certainly him as well because it occurs so soon after “75”.

Your assertion, that both conversations are with Officer Sabastian is unsupported. He is not going to report that he is “almost there” when he is actually more than 13 miles away. He is not going to ask for, receive, and acknowledge instructions from Dispatch twice in the same minute.

Your assertion, that both conversations are with Officer Sabastian is unsupported.

What's wrong with you? Of course both calls were with Sabastian. The transcripts shows us they are and his voice can be heard on both sound clips. What is unsupported is your blatant assumption that Sabastian was actually more than 13 miles away. And Sabastian didn't ask for instructions twice. He merely said "Go ahead" thus giving the dispatcher the possibility to speak. He then said " 400 East Jefferson. Report in that vicinity" to which Sabastian replied with code 2.

Clearly the Dispatcher knew who he was talking to, at least in most cases. It was the person who wrote this transcript he was confused and guessed that both brief conversations were with Officer Sabastian when only the second one was.

Says the guy who has been guessing and making assumptions all the time..... How convenient it must be to just pick and choose the parts of the transcripts you like and disregard the rest as the result of some sort of confusion.

The Dallas codes and the Stockton codes mean the same thing:

https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Dallas_County_(TX)#Communication_Codes

Code 2 is an urgent response. It does not mean an urgent response, using emergency lights and sirens. If Officer Sabastian had decided to use emergency lights and sirens, he would have said “Code 3”, not “Code 2”. By saying “Code 2” he was telling the Dispatcher that he was proceeding quickly but safely and not using his sirens. If the Dispatcher wanted to overrule this decision, he would have told him to proceed at Code 3. But these instructions were never made.

It does not mean an urgent response, using emergency lights and sirens.

Nobody said it did... but as code 1 is no sirens and lights and code 3 is sirens and lights, it's pretty obvious that code 2 leaves it to the officers discretion,

If Officer Sabastian had decided to use emergency lights and sirens, he would have said “Code 3”, not “Code 2”.

I'm sorry but this is simply getting beyond pathetic. None of the officers who responded to the call for units to be sent 400 East Jefferson gave any code. Are we to believe that they would respond to the killing of a fellow officer by taking a leisurely drive to Oak Cliff. Really?

Why would Officer Sabastian decide to proceed without sirens, on an urgent mission? Because he was 13 miles away. Even with sirens, he will get there late. There are other units who are much closer and can get there sooner. Going with sirens is not a decision to be taken lightly. It is dangerous. Driving with sirens for 2 minutes is dangerous. It may cause an accident. But may be done in an emergency and if there is a fair chance it may make a difference. But driving for 10 minutes with sirens is 5 times as dangerous, and not likely to make a difference. It is a judgement call. It is evident that Officer Sabastian elected to go without sirens, informed the Dispatcher of this, and was not overruled by the Dispatcher. Officer Sabastian has no reason to deceive the Dispatcher into thinking he is responding without sirens when he is actually using them. Your speculation that Officer Sabastian decided to use sirens and misinformed the Dispatcher about this is unsupported.

Why would Officer Sabastian decide to proceed without sirens, on an urgent mission? Because he was 13 miles away.

Don't you understand just how stupid this sounds? The further the officer is away from the scene of a crime the more urgent it becomes he gets there as quick as he can. You keep saying that he was 13 miles away, as if that is a fact, but you have nothing but speculation to support that claim.

Going with sirens is not a decision to be taken lightly. It is dangerous. Driving with sirens for 2 minutes is dangerous. It may cause an accident. But may be done in an emergency and if there is a fair chance it may make a difference. But driving for 10 minutes with sirens is 5 times as dangerous, and not likely to make a difference.

How in the world do you come up with this kind of stuff? Where is the research to back that up? And driving on a highway isn't nearly as dangerous and would only require use of sirens and lights to communicate to cars in front to get out of the way.

It is evident that Officer Sabastian elected to go without sirens, informed the Dispatcher of this, and was not overruled by the Dispatcher.

It's only evident to you, because you want it to be

Yes, I use speculation as well. But my speculation is reasonable. Like Officer Sabastian won’t ask for instructions, and acknowledge he has received those instructions, twice in the same minute. He is not going to report that he is “almost there” when he is actually 13 miles away. And is not going to indicate that he is going without sirens when he actually is.

Getting there a few minutes later than he could have done so dangerously might still be useful, if more reports come in 20 minutes later. At least he will now be in the general area, not 13 miles away.

Yes, I use speculation as well. But my speculation is reasonable.

Hilarious! Have you ever met anybody who speculated about something saying that his speculation is unreasonable? The mere fact that you call your speculation reasonable is evidence of the fact that it isn't reasonable at all. If it were, it would speak for itself and require no such comment from you.

Like Officer Sabastian won’t ask for instructions, and acknowledge he has received those instructions, twice in the same minute.

Except it has already been explained to you that he never asked for instructions twice. You just pretend that he did. So much for being reasonable!

He is not going to report that he is “almost there” when he is actually 13 miles away.

True, and yet he said it, which justifies the conclusion that he wasn't "actually 13 miles away". So much for being reasonable.

And is not going to indicate that he is going without sirens when he actually is.

He didn't indicate anything of the kind. He just said "code 2" and it is you who claims this means without sirens, when there is no proof for that on the Dallas DPD codes website. So much for being reasonable.

Your so-called "reasonable" speculations are getting tiresome.

[Martin Weidmann]

A final point I should make, could “Code 2” mean Officer Sabastian was using sirens? Yes, it could. Either he could be using sirens or he wasn’t. Although I think he would have made himself clearer by saying “Code 3”. But we know he couldn’t have been. If he was using sirens, he probably could not have gotten a message from “NBC News”, either by a reporter in person, the theory you seem to favor, or over commercial radio, the theory that I favor, if he had elected to use sirens.

And even if he was speeding down the expressway, with sirens on, it is still more likely he got this message “Officer DOA” over his squad car’s commercial radio than from an NBC reporter pulling up besides him while both are travelling at high speed with sirens and shout with a megaphone “A Dallas police officer is DOA”. Speculation? Yes, but reasonable speculation.

A final point I should make, could “Code 2” mean Officer Sabastian was using sirens? Yes, it could. Either he could be using sirens or he wasn’t.

Beginning to see the light?

If he was using sirens, he probably could not have gotten a message from “NBC News”, either by a reporter in person, the theory you seem to favor, or over commercial radio, the theory that I favor, if he had elected to use sirens.

I think you need to go back to my previous post. After hearing the sound clips, I have changed my mind in as much as that I have discarded completely the possibility that Sabastian was talking about Tippit when he said to the dispatcher "NBC News is reporting DOA". I now firmly believe he was asking about Kennedy. Here is the relevant part of my previous post;

Actually, when you listen to the sound clip for this conversation, it's not even clear that it was Sabastian who said "That the officer?" and on the transcript itself there is a question mark behind 75 for this comment. No such question mark appears behind 75 for the later question "...... on the President".

So the actual question that Sabastian could well have been asking is "NBC News is reporting DOA..... on the President?"
As Kennedy was declared dead at 1 pm, nearly a half hour earlier, that could have been what Sabastian heard on the radio, but I am all but sure you will of course disagree...

And even if he was speeding down the expressway, with sirens on, it is still more likely he got this message “Officer DOA” over his squad car’s commercial radio than from an NBC reporter pulling up besides him while both are travelling at high speed with sirens and shout with a megaphone “A Dallas police officer is DOA”. Speculation? Yes, but reasonable speculation.

There is that word "reasonable" again..... Do you think it's reasonable to assume that a police officer racing down a highway, likely with sirens and lights on (where necessary), en route to the scene where a fellow officer was shot and killed would have a commercial radio on in his squad car?

I'll say this again. There is no trace of a NBC News radio broadcast about Tippit at 1.25. The time line (according to the official narrative) makes such a broadcast just about impossible for lack of sufficient time. No reporter has ever come forward and confirmed he was the one who was at Methodist Hospital when Tippit was declared DOA at 1.22.

On the other hand, reports about Kennedy being declared dead at Parkland were already on the air for some 20 minutes. Given the fact that Sabastian adds "...... on the President" clearly indicates he was talking about Kennedy. Why else would he have asked that?

[Joe Elliott]

I'll say this again. There is no trace of a NBC News radio broadcast about Tippit at 1.25. The time line (according to the official narrative) makes such a broadcast just about impossible for lack of sufficient time. No reporter has ever come forward and confirmed he was the one who was at Methodist Hospital when Tippit was declared DOA at 1.22.

We do have a trace of a news broadcast on the death of an officer. The Dictabelt recording.

On the other hand, reports about Kennedy being declared dead at Parkland were already on the air for some 20 minutes. Given the fact that Sabastian adds "...... on the President" clearly indicates he was talking about Kennedy. Why else would he have asked that?

Sabastian adds ". . . on the President?” Let take another look at the transcript of the Dictabelt tape:

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm


19 is the code for Officer C. B. Owens
75 is the code for Officer E. G. Sabastian
87 is the code for Officer R. C. Nelson


Below is the transcript that portion of the DIctabelt recording:


Dispatcher:         19
[19] Owens         19
Dispatcher:         Do you have the information?
[19] Owens         No. What?
Dispatcher:         On 2.

[75] Sabastian:   75
Dispatcher:         75
[75] Sabastian:   NBC News is reporting DOA.
Dispatcher:         That’s correct.
[75] Sabastian:   That the officer?
Dispatcher:         Yes.
[87] Nelson:        87.
[75] Sabastian:   . . . on the President?
Dispatcher:         No, that’s not correct, 19.

[?] unknown:     What officer was it?
Dispatcher:         J. D. Tippit.


This seems ambiguous. Is Officer Sabastian reporting that NBC said that Officer Tippit is DOA or the President?



However, I have learned not to trust the judgement of the person who typed out this transcript about who was broadcasting what. You, however, seem to be slow of learning.

Let me give you my version of what was said and by who:


Dispatcher:         19
[19] Owens         19
Dispatcher:         Do you have the information?
[19] Owens         No. What?
Dispatcher:         On 2.

[75] Sabastian:   75
Dispatcher:         75
[75] Sabastian:   NBC News is reporting DOA.
Dispatcher:         That’s correct.
[75] Sabastian:   That the officer?
Dispatcher:         Yes.

[87] Nelson:        87.

[19] Owens:        . . . on the President?
Dispatcher:         No, that’s not correct, 19.

[?] unknown:     What officer was it?
Dispatcher:         J. D. Tippit.


Why do I believe that it is Officer Owens who is asking “. . . on the President?” and not Officer Sabastian? Because the Dispatcher responded with “No, that’s not correct, 19”. 19. That is Officer Owens, not Officer Sabastian. If it had been Officer Sabastian, he would have said “No, that’s not correct, 75.”

The Dispatcher could recognize everyone’s voice. He evidently had been working at this for a while and had developed a knack for it. Officer Sabastian was good at following protocol, and always, or at least usually, identified himself as “75”. But a lot of other officers didn’t. Because they had learned that the Dispatcher could recognize their voice. So, for instance, we find:

Someone speaks and says:   Did someone find a jacket?
Dispatcher responds:            No 85.

But the person never identified himself. So how did the Dispatcher know it was 85? Because he recognized his voice. I haven’t noticed the Dispatcher mistaken someone’s voice and being corrected. And yes, this is an example where the Dispatcher had not gotten the information yet, or understand it yet, that a jacket had been found. But he knew who he was talking to.

So, it was not Officer Sabastian who was confused about whether NBC News was reporting an officer or the President being DOA. It was a different officer, Officer Owens, who I assume had not heard the news report.

Clearly Officer Sabastian heard a report over the radio saying that an officer was DOA. He checked with the Dispatcher to confirm whether this is true or not. The police are always concerned about their fellow officers.

Officer Owens, not hearing the news report, was hoping the Dispatcher was confused. It was he, “19” who basically asked “You mean the President, don’t you?”



Could the media have gotten the news that he was DOA? Perhaps. Reporters were sent out there very quickly. One of them might have been instructed to confirm that the officer was dead. And in route spotted an ambulance and followed it, thinking that would be the fastest way to find out. Or, since people on the police radio reported that the officer was dead at the scene, it was assumed that he would be DOA. Or maybe an erroneous report, which happen all the time. Like the reporting of the death of a Secret Service agent in Dealey Plaza. In any case, it is clear that the death of a police officer was reported over the radio pretty early, early enough for Mr. Brewer to hear it.