Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Bill Brown]

Did you ever address the question about why Jackson called out for 78 even before he was told it was car #10?

Citizen       Hello, police operator?       
Dispatcher   Go ahead. Go ahead, citizen using the police radio.       
Citizen       There's been a shooting out here.       
Dispatcher   Where's it at?       
Dispatcher   The citizen using the police radio . . .       
Citizen      Tenth Street.       
Dispatcher   What location on Tenth Street?       
Citizen       Between Marsalis and Beckley. It's a police officer. Somebody shot him. What -- what's . . . 404 Tenth Street.       
Dispatcher Can you hear me?       
(Man and woman's voices in background)       
Dispatcher 78.       
Citizen       It's in a police car, number 10.       
Dispatcher   78.       
Dispatcher (?)   78.

Between Marsalis and Beckley.

[Bill Brown]

Arguments for an earlier Tippit shooting:

- Markham's washateria clock
- Bowley's watch
- Higgins' clock
- Hospital DOA time on autopsy permit
- Time "pronounced dead" on Davenport's supplementary offense report
- Apparent alteration of "pronounced dead" time on Commission Document 5

Arguments for a later Tippit shooting:

- Dispatcher spoken timestamp from transcripts of spliced tape copies of Dictabelt/Audograph recordings, timestamping a civilian police radio transmission from a civilian who said he "set there for just a few minutes" before getting out of his truck.

- Hospital DOA time on autopsy permit

Cite.

[Bill Brown]

Murray received the telephoned alerts immediately prior to Bowley using the radio.  The Bowley call starts at 1:17.  Delvis Taylor's job was answering phones and scribbling down notes about disturbances.  Taylor did this for the disturbance in the 400 block of E. Tenth, and dropped it on a conveyor belt that led into the radio room. The entire process would take no more than one minute. There were multiple calls coming in. The calls coincide with Bowley's use of the radio. That places the shooting just before 1:16 pm.

[Martin Weidmann]

Murray received the telephoned alerts immediately prior to Bowley using the radio.  The Bowley call starts at 1:17.  Delvis Taylor's job was answering phones and scribbling down notes about disturbances.  Taylor did this for the disturbance in the 400 block of E. Tenth, and dropped it on a conveyor belt that led into the radio room. The entire process would take no more than one minute. There were multiple calls coming in. The calls coincide with Bowley's use of the radio. That places the shooting just before 1:16 pm.

Only if the times called on the transcripts are indeed correct. There is no evidence to support that they are.

So, under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time references by the belt because there were no time references on the belt; they were only spoken times, and those spoken times had no faithful validity... - James C. Bowles, Communications Supervisor of the Dallas Police Department.

[Bill Brown]

Only if the times called on the transcripts are indeed correct. There is no evidence to support that they are.

So, under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time references by the belt because there were no time references on the belt; they were only spoken times, and those spoken times had no faithful validity... - James C. Bowles, Communications Supervisor of the Dallas Police Department.

And you believe this is somehow supposed to move the time of the shooting from 1:15 back to 1:06?  That much of a time discrepancy?

[Charles Collins]

Really?

Seems to me that the conclusion came after the explanation about the clocks.... but, hey, perhaps I should have read the piece from the bottom to the top   

My mistake for relying on my memory. And for answering before thinking about whether or not you had a valid point. Here is what I was responding to:

Bowles gave an explanation and ended it with a definitive conclusion that; "under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time references"

What you are trying to do is to diminish the conclusion by cherry picking and spinning parts of the explanation.

You are the one cherry picking. You don’t even use a complete sentence from his statement. And I believe that you are doing that to suggest that he is saying something that he isn’t. THAT is called spinning! His statement and explanation go together and do not conflict with each other.

[Martin Weidmann]

And you believe this is somehow supposed to move the time of the shooting from 1:15 back to 1:06?  That much of a time discrepancy?

Who ever said 1:06 or 1:15 for that matter?

The combined timelines of Markham, Bowley, Davenport and the Methodist hospital make it obvious that Tippit was in fact killed prior to 1:10.

A voice activated recording system, clocks in the dispatcher room not running synchronized and the Communications Supervisor of the Dallas Police Department saying that times mentioned on the recordings/transcripts can under no circumstance be put any stock on explains the gap nicely.

[Martin Weidmann]

My mistake for relying on my memory. And for answering before thinking about whether or not you had a valid point. Here is what I was responding to:

quote author=Martin Weidmann link=topic=697.msg64764#msg64764 date=1571778275]
 

Bowles gave an explanation and ended it with a definitive conclusion that; "under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time references"

What you are trying to do is to diminish the conclusion by cherry picking and spinning parts of the explanation.

You are the one cherry picking. You don’t even use a complete sentence from his statement. And I believe that you are doing that to suggest that he is saying something that he isn’t. THAT is called spinning! His statement and explanation go together and do not conflict with each other.

So, now that you have been shown to be wrong, you attack the messenger?

Bowles did in fact give an explanation and ended it with a definitive conclusion that; "under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time references"

But prior to that, I have posted the same information that you did and high-lighted the relevant quote in previous posts. You were that one "paraphrasing" to spin the argument, not me. It's pathetic.