Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Bill Brown]

I knew I had seen you mention 3 minutes before

Right.  I said three minutes.  But that's not what you erroneously claimed that I said.

Since when does saying that Callaway reached the scene three minutes after the shots mean that Callaway was at the police radio in LESS THAN three minutes?

You really don't understand the difference?

[Bill Brown]

I'm not sure what the purpose of this post is, but it has nothing to do with the question I asked Bill Brown, who claimed in the interview that "McWatters testified that Oswald got on the bus"

I've already explained this.  Go back and look.

[Ray Mitcham]

Jack tatum confirms it was Oswald who fired the shots

Where can I find his testimony?

\
This is the Tatum testimony to the HSCA, Martin.

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

[Martin Weidmann]

Right.  I said three minutes.  But that's not what you erroneously claimed that I said.

Since when does saying that Callaway reached the scene three minutes after the shots mean that Callaway was at the police radio in LESS THAN three minutes?

You really don't understand the difference?

`

Right.  I said three minutes.

Indeed, so when you disagreed with my statement you were wrong. No biggie, why not simply admit it?


But that's not what you erroneously claimed that I said.

Since when does saying that Callaway reached the scene three minutes after the shots mean that Callaway was at the police radio in LESS THAN three minutes?

Changing the goal posts? Really?

I claimed you had said that Callaway reached the scene less than three minutes after shots.
You disagreed and wanted me to show you where you said it. Which is exactly what I did.

Now you show where I "erroneously" claimed that Callaway was at the police radio in less than three minutes?


You really don't understand the difference?

What difference? The difference between what I actually said and what you falsely claim I have said. Sure I understand that difference.


Here it is;

Ted Callaway is at the patrol car reporting the shooting at 1:19 and his description of his actions tells us that he's at that patrol car probably three minutes after the shots rang out.

to which I replied;

If Callaway is at the patrol car three minutes after the shots, he must have arrived at the scene in less than 3 minutes as he did not go straight away to the patrol car but checked on Tippit first. In December 2020 you actually agree with this.

Although you will likely not admit it - after all the great Bill Brown can't be wrong (that's sarcasm, btw) - you are wrong again.


One more thing. If you have Callaway at the patrol car reporting the shooting within 3 minutes after the shots, at 1:19 you have the shooting taking place at 1:16 PM.

But the DPD radio tapes has Bowley making his 46 seconds call at 1:17 PM
And before that you have Benavides waiting 40 seconds in his car until the killer had gone and needing one minute to try and operate the radio.

It doesn't add up. Can you explain the descrepancy?

[Martin Weidmann]

I've already explained this.  Go back and look.

No, no need to go back. You gave me an explanation about how you reached a conclusion.

That's not the same as the claim you made in the interview, that "McWatters testified that Oswald got on the bus"

McWatters never testified to any such thing and did not even get to the point where he was willing to positively identify Oswald.

So when you falsely claim that "McWatters testified that Oswald got on the bus" you are misrepresenting the facts and are in fact creating the impression by people listening that McWatters actually did identfiy Oswald which he never did.

Now, why not simply admit you were wrong when you made your claim that "McWatters testified that Oswald got on the bus"?

[Martin Weidmann]

\
This is the Tatum testimony to the HSCA, Martin.

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

Thanks, Ray... I had forgotten that HSCA interview report.

I was actually asking for his testimony under oath.

[Bill Brown]

`

Right.  I said three minutes.

Indeed, so when you disagreed with my statement you were wrong. No biggie, why not simply admit it?


But that's not what you erroneously claimed that I said.

Since when does saying that Callaway reached the scene three minutes after the shots mean that Callaway was at the police radio in LESS THAN three minutes?

Changing the goal posts? Really?

I claimed you had said that Callaway reached the scene less than three minutes after shots.
You disagreed and wanted me to show you where you said it. Which is exactly what I did.

Now you show where I "erroneously" claimed that Callaway was at the police radio in less than three minutes?


You really don't understand the difference?

What difference? The difference between what I actually said and what you falsely claim I have said. Sure I understand that difference.


Here it is;

to which I relipied;

Although you will likely not admit it - after all the great Bill Brown can't be wrong (that's sarcasm, btw) - you are wrong again.


One more thing. If you have Callaway at the patrol car reporting the shooting within 3 minutes after the shots, at 1:19 you have the shooting taking place at 1:16 PM.

But the DPD radio tapes has Bowley making his 46 seconds call at 1:17 PM
And before that you have Benavides waiting 40 seconds in his car until the killer had gone and needing one minute to try and operate the radio.

It doesn't add up. Can you explain the descrepancy?

Right.  I said three minutes.

Indeed, so when you disagreed with my statement you were wrong. No biggie, why not simply admit it?

No.  YOU said that I said that Callaway reached the scene in less than three minutes.

Now you show where I "erroneously" claimed that Callaway was at the police radio in less than three minutes?

I did not say that you claimed such a thing.

It doesn't add up. Can you explain the descrepancy?

There is no discrepancy in what I said.

[Martin Weidmann]

No.  YOU said that I said that Callaway reached the scene in less than three minutes.

Where exactly did I say that? Show me...

As far as I know, all I did was put two of your statements together;

Ted Callaway is at the patrol car reporting the shooting at 1:19 and his description of his actions tells us that he's at that patrol car probably three minutes after the shots rang out.

Callaway was at the scene sooner than five minutes after the shots; he just did not get on the police radio to report it immediately upon arriving at the scene.

At the patrol car at probably 3 minutes after the shots + he just did not get on the police radio to report it immediately upon arriving at the scene = he arrived at the scene less than 3 minutes after the shots (it's the only logical conclusion!)

No.  YOU said that I said that Callaway reached the scene in less than three minutes.

I did not say that you claimed such a thing.

So why ask me an irrelevant question like this ;

But that's not what you erroneously claimed that I said.

Since when does saying that Callaway reached the scene three minutes after the shots mean that Callaway was at the police radio in LESS THAN three minutes?

You really don't understand the difference?

Why ask me if I don't understand the difference, when I never said it in the first place?

There is no discrepancy in what I said.

Of course there is, but I never expected you to honestly admit it.

If you have Callaway making his radio call at 1:19, which by your own words is three minutes after the shots were fired, it means that Tippit was shot at 1:16.

But if Tippit was shot at 1:16, and you have Benavides waiting in his car for 40 seconds for the killer to leave and than one minute trying to get the radio to work, and to have Bowles making a 46 seconds radio call at 1:17, it simply doesn't add up. Even a teenager can do this math. It's easy!

To deny there is a descrepancy is just plain dishonest.