Interview With Ted Callaway Who Witnessed Aftermath Of The Shooting J D Tippit

[Charles Collins]

Yes, and Gerald Ford admitted to French President Valérie Giscard d'Estaing in a private conversation:

The ex-French President speaking in 2013:

To Le Parisien newspaper: "Naïvely, I asked him - 'Do you know who assassinated Kennedy.' and without blinking he replied 'Yes. It wasn't an isolated mad gunman that killed the President of the United States."

To RTL radio: "It wasn't satisfying. We came to a first conclusion: it wasn't an isolated crime, it was something organised. We were sure that it was organised. By who, we didn't discover.
Therefore, there was an organisation that feared President Kennedy and decided to get rid of him."

I don’t know much about VGE. But I would suggest that he fantasized that Ford told him that. And that perhaps he also had a “thing” for Diana…


Giscard d'Estaing wrote his second romantic novel, published on 1 October 2009 in France, titled The Princess and the President.[62] It tells the story of a French leader having a romantic affair with a character called Patricia, Princess of Cardiff.[62] This caused many rumours that the book was based on a real-life affair between Giscard d'Estaing and Diana, Princess of Wales.[62] He later said that such an affair never happened and that the book was fictional.[63]


https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val%C3%A9ry_Giscard_d%27Estaing

[Martin Weidmann]

I don’t know much about VGE. But I would suggest that he fantasized that Ford told him that. And that perhaps he also had a “thing” for Diana…


Giscard d'Estaing wrote his second romantic novel, published on 1 October 2009 in France, titled The Princess and the President.[62] It tells the story of a French leader having a romantic affair with a character called Patricia, Princess of Cardiff.[62] This caused many rumours that the book was based on a real-life affair between Giscard d'Estaing and Diana, Princess of Wales.[62] He later said that such an affair never happened and that the book was fictional.[63]


https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val%C3%A9ry_Giscard_d%27Estaing

But I would suggest that he fantasized that Ford told him that.

And that suggestion would be based on what, exactly?

Wishful thinking, perhaps?

[Bill Brown]

Differences in witness’ accounts are normal and typical and should be expected. Human memories and perceptions are imperfect and are not like instant replay with several different camera angles available (like we have become accustomed to in televised sports). If all the witness accounts totally agreed with each other, I personally would suspect that something was amiss. The fact that there are inconsistencies is indicative of normal imperfect human memories and perceptions. Therefore I think this should give us reason to believe that the investigation was not a coverup. The fact that the WC chose to publish the testimonies and exhibits is the reason for the number of inconsistencies. If LHO had lived, and there had been a trial, I think that there would have been fewer testimonies and exhibits and that there would have been many of them that never would have been introduced in the trial.

Charles, you're absolutely right.

Also, keep in kind, both Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis were standing at the front door watching a man with a gun cut across their front yard just moments after the shooting.  They were both watching the same man as they stood practically shoulder to shoulder with each other.  One said the man was wearing a light-tan jacket and the other said the man was wearing a black coat.  Only a fool would believe that these two women saw two different men.  Once you accept that, then it is obvious that an eyewitness can describe a jacket differently than another eyewitness even though both were looking at the same jacket.  Therefore, their point is entirely moot.

It happens all the time.  But our conspiracy advocate friends around here would have everyone believe that every single eyewitness should give the exact same description as each other or else something is amiss.  It's pure foolishness.

[Martin Weidmann]

Charles, you're absolutely right.

Also, keep in kind, both Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis were standing at the front door watching a man with a gun cut across their front yard just moments after the shooting.  They were both watching the same man as they stood practically shoulder to shoulder with each other.  One said the man was wearing a light-tan jacket and the other said the man was wearing a black coat.  Only a fool would believe that these two women saw two different men.  Once you accept that, then it is obvious that an eyewitness can describe a jacket differently than another eyewitness even though both were looking at the same jacket.  Therefore, their point is entirely moot.

It happens all the time.  But our conspiracy advocate friends around here would have everyone believe that every single eyewitness should give the exact same description as each other or else something is amiss.  It's pure foolishness.

When five people watch a car crash, you'll get five different stories about what happened. That's to be expected as not everybody pays attention to the same details.

When two people see a man for merely seconds, it is IMO, although not completely impossible, highly unlikely they can both identify the same man, when they can't even agree on the color of a jacket. Benavides saw the killer much better and was still unsure he would be able to identify the man. I have been in his position, several years ago, when I saw a robbery happening right in front of me. Everything happened very fast and although I thought I had seen the man clearly enough, when police brought a man they had arrested back to the scene, I couldn't say for sure that it was the same man.

Yet, in this case we are to believe that all the witnesses who attended the line up were able to actually identify the same man? Talk about pure foolishness.

[Bill Brown]

When five people watch a car crash, you'll get five different stories about what happened. That's to be expected as not everybody pays attention to the same details.

When two people see a man for merely seconds, it is IMO, although not completely impossible, highly unlikely they can both identify the same man, when they can't even agree on the color of a jacket. Benavides saw the killer much better and was still unsure he would be able to identify the man. I have been in his position, several years ago, when I saw a robbery happening right in front of me. Everything happened very fast and although I thought I had seen the man clearly enough, when police brought a man they had arrested back to the scene, I couldn't say for sure that it was the same man.

Yet, in this case we are to believe that all the witnesses who attended the line up were able to actually identify the same man? Talk about pure foolishness.

Straw man,
Completely unrelated to the point Charles Collins made and which I replied to.

[Martin Weidmann]

Straw man,
Completely unrelated to the point Charles Collins made and which I replied to.

No. It's just a reality you don't like

[Bill Brown]

No. It's just a reality you don't like

Please explain how I "don't like" whatever point it was that you took off-topic to the post you were replying to.

As for the positive identifications of a fleeing suspect... It's one thing for one witness to be mistaken.  It's another thing entirely for nine witnesses to positively identify the same man while none of the other witnesses disagree with these nine witnesses.

Could nine people all be wrong?  Sure.  But, when arguing that nine people were all wrong, it seems more like arguing from a position of desperation than one based in reality.

[Martin Weidmann]

Please explain how I "don't like" whatever point it was that you took off-topic to the post you were replying to.

As for the positive identifications of a fleeing suspect... It's one thing for one witness to be mistaken.  It's another thing entirely for nine witnesses to positively identify the same man while none of the other witnesses disagree with these nine witnesses.

Could nine people all be wrong?  Sure.  But, when arguing that nine people were all wrong, it seems more like arguing from a position of desperation than one based in reality.

Please explain how I "don't like" whatever point it was that you took off-topic to the post you were replying to.

You were trying to explain how two witnesses could have seen a different jacket. I pointed out that witnesses often can't be relied upon, because if they get the color of a jacket wrong, they could just as easily get the identification of a man they only saw for seconds wrong. That'what you didn't like and you confirm it in your post.

As for the positive identifications of a fleeing suspect... It's one thing for one witness to be mistaken.  It's another thing entirely for nine witnesses to positively identify the same man while none of the other witnesses disagree with these nine witnesses.

Except in this case there were no other witnesses who disagreed. Perhaps you should conduct a little experiment where you have nine people watching the same event and then ask them what they saw. Nine witnesses agreeing on a positive identification is simply beyond belief. Even worse, Scoggings, who identified Oswald at the DPD line up, failed to identify the same man to the FBI. There is no credibility in all the witnesses identifying the same man.

Could nine people all be wrong?  Sure. 

No. Nine people collectively couldn't be wrong or right. That's the point. I don't believe for a second that the Davis sisters were really able to identify Oswald as the man they only saw for a few seconds. That's what makes this whole thing incredible.

But, when arguing that nine people were all wrong, it seems more like arguing from a position of desperation than one based in reality.

But I'm not arguing that all nine people were wrong. That's not an issue. I am in no position to determine if a witness was right or wrong. The point is that when, out of nine people. nine people identify the same person at a line up, and nobody says they're no sure, you need to question the line up and not the outcome. Witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence there is and over the years it has been proven, beyond any doubt, that incorrect or false witness testimony has put many people behind bars for many years who shouldn't have been there.

I have no confidence in the way the DPD conducted their line ups. That's the bottom line