Youtube Interview I Did, Tippit Case

[Bill Chapman]

Get a clue that this is not a court of law, Sluggo.

Tell it to Bill Brown, the next time he gets on my case, because - according to him - I located Callaway 50 feet away from where he was.

And 'what this is all about' is you Oswald arse-kissers attempting to dump on Earlene's competency as an eyewitness.

Like you and other LNs are constantly doing with Buell Frazier?

But, actually, that's not at all what this is about. It's about Brown putting words in Earlene Roberts mouth she never actually said, but, clueless as you are, you of course did not understand that. My bad. I'll try to dumb it down further for you, next time.

And btw what competency did Earlene Roberts have?

But, actually, that's not at all what this is about. It's about Brown putting words in Earlene Roberts mouth she never actually said
RE "back there long enough to grab a jacket"
Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it.

Same difference.

[Colin Crow]

I don’t know what Bill views are on witness statements. I suspect that his views are probably pretty reasonable. I have not read through all his posts on all the threads nor all his posts on this thread.

'Irrelevant'
>>> No it isn't when my point—which I've made several times in this thread— is that affidavits are not meant to be full testimonies given that they are not Q&A. And how was she to know—at the time of her affidavit—that the shirt would eventually become so important?

'You are not making sense. If you mean by "shorthand version" her affidavit, she had indeed not mentioned it. So, what reason did they have to assume that the shirt, and nothing else, could refresh her recollection?'
>>> I cannot vouch for any of that, since I wasn't in on The Plot.

And yes, materials used to refresh recollection are admissible at trial, in some cases, but witness manipulation or influencing prior to testimony is a criminal offence.
>>> I'll take being influenced & manipulated over being fitted for a cement overcoat (in a swimming-with-the-fishes sense) any day 

'So, let's try it again, but in a perhaps easier way for you to understand; if I don't tell you about seeing a shirt, what reason would you have to come to my house to show me a shirt and ask me if I recognize it?'
>>> There was a shirt on the loose? If I were you, I wouldn't talk to some stranger who comes to the door with a shirt that has a hole in it

Never mind that Marina testified that she doesn't know one rifle from another in the first place. Never mind that an affidavit is not a Q&A. Never mind that Marina confirmed that the rifle in the blanket she knew to be theirs was missing on 11.22.63

Was that statement Q&A

Affidavits are not Q&A and thefefore cannot be totally relied upon to tweak one's full recollection, as can a full testimony.

Re seemingly conflicting affidavits involving the 3 amigos, don't forget that affidavits are not Q&A and each person will spout off about whatever comes to mind in those moments when giving said affidavit.

I assume that just because it didn’t appear in an early affidavit or statements her recollection can not be simply dismissed.

[Tom Scully]

Get a clue that this is not a court of law, Sluggo. And 'what this is all about' is you Oswald arse-kissers attempting to dump on Earlene's competency as an eyewitness.

Cry me a river!

Taxi driver, William Wayne Whaley, born June 19, 1908... or, 1905 !... WHATEVER...

http://jfkforum.com/images/WhaleyDOB1940DraftCard.jpg

http://jfkforum.com/images/WhaleyBook1908.jpg

...or, William Weldon Whaley, born 1908,
http://jfkforum.com/images/WhaleySon1931.jpg

....or, William Wayne Whaley, born 1905,
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/13730776/william-wayne-whaley

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/whaley1.htm

...Mr. BALL. Did you notice how he was dressed?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. I didn't pay much attention to it right then. But it all came back when I really found out who I had. He was dressed in just ordinary work clothes. It wasn't khaki pants but they were khaki material, blue faded blue color, like a blue uniform made in khaki. Then he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn't notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants.
He, his shirt was open three buttons down here. He had on a T-shirt. You know, the shirt was open three buttons down there....

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/robertse.htm
.....
Mr. BALL. When he came in he was in a shirt?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He was in his shirt sleeves.
Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember. I didn't pay that much attention for I was interested in the television trying to get it fixed.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen that shirt before or seen him wear it---the shirt, or do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember---I don't know.
Mr. BALL. You say he put on a separate jacket?
Mrs. ROBERTS. A jacket....

Roberts affidavit :
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Roberts_aff.pdf
"About thirty minutes later, three Dallas policemen came to the house looking for Lee Harvey Oswald..."

Detective Potts testified he and other officers arrived about 3:00 pm, two hours after Ms. Roberts claimed she
encountered, "O.H. Lee".

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/potts.htm
...Mr. BALL. Did you check their registration books?
Mr. POTTS. Yes, sir; we looked at the registration book--Senkel, I think, or Cunningham--well, we all looked through the registration book and there wasn't anyone by that name, and the television was on in the living room. There's an area there where the roomers sit, I guess it's the living quarters--it flashed Oswald's picture on there and one of the women, either Mrs. Roberts or Mrs. Johnson said, "That's the man that lives here. That's Mr. Lee---O.H. Lee." She said, "His room is right here right off of the living room."
Senkel or Cunningham, one of them, called the office and they said that Turner was en route with a search warrant and we waited there until 4:30 or 5 that afternoon. We got out there about 3...

Earline Roberts' employer, landlady of O.H. Lee, Gladys Johnson:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/johnso_g.htm
...Mr. BALL. Miss Earlene Roberts was your housekeeper at this time?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, she was.
Mr. BALL. How long have you known her?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I have known Mrs. Roberts, oh, I guess it was 6 years, something like that, 6 years.
Mr. BALL. Where did you first meet her?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I hired her as a housekeeper.
Mr. BALL. At 1026 North Beckley?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Has she been working for you for that period of time?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir; I let Mrs. Roberts go a time or two, then I would hire her back.
Mr. BALL. there some reason why you let her go?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, she would just get to being disagreeable with renters and I don't know, she has a lot of handicaps. She has an overweight problem and she has some habits that some people have to understand to tolerate.

298

Mr. BALL. What are they?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Talking just sitting down and making up tales, you know, have you ever seen people like that? Just have a creative mind, there's nothing to it, and just make up and keep talking until she just makes a lie out of it. Listen, I'm telling you the truth and this isn't to go any further, understand that? You have to know these things because you are going to question this lady. I will tell you, she's just as intelligent--I think she is a person that doesn't mean to do that but she just does it automatically. It seems as though that she, oh, I don't know, wants to be attractive or something at times. I just don't know; I don't understand it myself. I only wish I did.
Mr. BALL. She was working for you in October and November while Oswald was a renter with you?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, she was. This Saturday night will be 3 weeks she left.
...
Mr. BALL. On the day of the 22d of November, were you home around 1 o'clock?
Mrs. JOHNSON. It must have been 1:30 or 2, something like that.
Mr. BALL. When you came home?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes; after serving lunch.
Mr. BALL. Did Earlene Roberts say anything to you whether or not this man had returned?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No; after these officers came in, well, then she began to tell them that he did come rushing in and she had gotten a phone call or had made one, anyway, she was on the phone--no, there was someone called her, that's what she said, said someone called her and she says, "Did you know that the President had been assassinated" and she says, "Why, no" and she says, "Well, it's on the television now" and she says, "I will run and turn it on" and she run in and turned this television on to get this information and this Oswald walked in hurriedly and she said, she said to him, "You seem to be in a hurry." She was the only one in that place. She said he didn't say a word but went on in his room and she said he changed his little zip-up coat, way I understand it, and just went right back out. He evidently got the gun; now, we don't know.
Mr. BALL. Did she tell the officers that?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yeah, she told the officers that....

[Bill Brown]

Pretty sure he was accurate about Oswald being back there long enough to grab a jacket, given Earlene's time frame.

As per usual you are clueless. It's not about how long Oswald actually was in his room. Bill Brown claimed Earlene Roberts said that he [Oswald] was "back there long enough to grab a jacket". She never said those words.

"Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it."  --  Earlene Roberts, Warren Commission testimony

[Tom Scully]

"Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it."  --  Earlene Roberts, Warren Commission testimony

Bill, if Oswald had lived to be tried in criminal court, what do you suppose would have happened, "on cross" by a competent defense attorney, to witnesses Barbara "I saw nothing" Davis, her sister-in-law Virginia who lied about her age to DPD on 11/22 and again in April, 1964 in her WC testimony, or to witness Whaley who corrected Earl Warren about the number of years he drove a taxi but didn't seem to know his own age or what had happened to his son, William, Jr., or even what Oswald was wearing (Whaley described a jacket, over a shirt and tee, right down to a "silverlike stripe" in the shirt fabric) during the key-to-the-timeline, taxi ride, or provide an uncontradictory account of his passenger log timing documentation/precision, or to Earline Roberts who was off by 90 minutes in her affidavit about the time of arrival of Dallas police and who was fired, "a time or two" in reaction to her compulsive lying?

Where is "Chief" Whaley's Navy Cross award, Bill? BTW, a "TDI" was a Tradevman (repair tech) Instructor. Census record/city directory indicates Whaley repaired taxis before he drove them.

[Martin Weidmann]

Bill Chapman paraphrased what Earlene Roberts said. He never claimed he was quoting her exactly. But his paraphrasing is totally accurate. Earlene Roberts remembered Oswald was in his room long enough to get and put on a jacket.

How else can one interpret her statement?

That she was saying he was not in there long enough to put on a jacket?

If all this is not "Straining at Gnats" then I don’t know what is.


P. S.

Excuse me. I previous said “Bill Brown”. I meant to say “Bill Chapman”.

I don’t know why I do that. I have often cross connect the wrong name. On occasion I have found myself talking about “Mel Brooks” but saying “Mel Gibson”. Like those two are so easy to confuse. 😊 In any case, my apologies to Bill Chapman.

Bill Chapman paraphrased what Earlene Roberts said. He never claimed he was quoting her exactly. But his paraphrasing is totally accurate.

I know what Bill Chapman (and Steve Galbraith, for that matter) did, but that wasn't the point I was making.

How else can one interpret her statement?

I agree, but I am not taking issue with that. Obviously they were paraphrasing, but in the interview (and that's what this is all about) Bill Brown claimed that Earlene Roberts said that he [Oswald] was "back there long enough to grab a jacket", when she never actually said that. Her testimony clearly shows she was guessing!

Bill Brown also claimed in the interview that "McWatters testified that Oswald got on the bus" which was not true either.

I would have said nothing if it was clear to the uninformed listener from what Bill Brown said in the interview that he was paraphrasing, but it wasn't. He, being called an "expert", said it as if it was factual, which is a misrepresentation of the facts. If Bill Brown can get on my case about a lack of accuracy, as he has done time after time in a rather petty and trivial manner, I can do the same when he displays a lack of accuracy by misrepresenting the facts twice and additionally making a claim for which there is no evidence in the first three minutes of the interview.

That's the point I was making.

[Bill Chapman]

I assume that just because it didn’t appear in an early affidavit or statements her recollection can not be simply dismissed.

I don't know exactly what your point is, but in my view you lot are the ones bellyaching about affidavits that often don't contain points that appear later in full testimony.

[Martin Weidmann]

"Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it."  --  Earlene Roberts, Warren Commission testimony

Roberts saying that Oswald was in his room "not over 3 or 4 minutes" and guessing that was long enough to get a jacket, put it on and he went out zipping it is not the same as claiming (as you did) that;

Earlene Roberts said that he [Oswald] was "back there long enough to grab a jacket".

It seems that accuracy only matters to you when you feel somebody else is not accurate enough.

Btw where exactly did McWatters testify that "Oswald got on the bus", as you claimed he did?